National Defence Committee on Dec. 7th, 2023

[Lieutenant-General Frances J. Allen, Vice Chief of the Defence Staff, Canadian Armed Forces, Department of National Defence]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, for the question.

Let me say before I respond to your question directly that the results of the survey are of great concern to us. We take it very, very seriously. It's really important to us that we actually get these results from the StatsCan survey, because it helps to shape and inform our way forward. It's a way in which we can continue the transparency that we need in order to move forward in this particular area and to create the change in culture going forward.

When it comes to reporting, it's a complex and, I would say, quite a personal issue for the many different members who are involved. While we have been working to create many different ways for people to report—through the Canadian Human Rights Commission to their chain of command, through the elimination of the requirement for them to report on themselves from the duty to report perspective, or to go to the police—we still have more work to do in creating ways and opportunities for people to feel safe coming forward.

The part of the report that spoke about reprisals and the concern about reprisals was of great concern to us. That is completely unacceptable and it will counter the work we're doing to make avenues of reporting available to members if they feel that there will be consequences. This is something that we're taking very seriously and that we have to work on. We need to actually go through the stats and the details of what we're seeing in that report. It has a lot of detail for us to really get at, identifying what those next steps are and the next things that we need to do.

This is a long-term process, but we are committed to that process. We'll continue to be as transparent as we can. Publishing this report publicly is very important to us.

[Emmanuella Lambropoulos, Liberal, Saint-Laurent, QC]

Thank you.

In that same report, one-third of the victims said they believed the perpetrator's use of alcohol played a significant role in the assault. Many people use alcohol as a coping mechanism, which brings us to [Technical difficulty—Editor].

I'm wondering about the issue of people not feeling safe going to see a therapist and about the stigma around mental health. Having them need to go see a therapist is one thing, but are there things being implemented in the culture, in the routines they go through, that are actually addressing a better and safer culture that also addresses mental health? This may be a way of coming around to not necessarily having people raise their hand to say that they need help but integrating it into their daily activities. Is there any thought on a way to include that kind of strategy?

[LGen Frances J. Allen]

Mr. Chair, I think I may have missed a part in the middle of the question. I apologize if I'm not exactly hitting the mark on your question. We had a bit of a delay in transmission there.

When it comes to mental health and to removing the stigma associated with mental health, it is something that we have to focus on and concentrate on. The deputy minister and I are both co-chairs for mental wellness and mental health within the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces. We know about and we hear from the members about the issues and the challenges that are associated with feeling like they can readily access mental health services without stigma attached to it.

I understand, Mr. Chair, that there was a question around alcohol that started as a question. I'm not quite sure how it connected to the back end of the question. I would be happy to address the first part if the member would like to respond.

[Emmanuella Lambropoulos, Liberal, Saint-Laurent, QC]

I just said that there is probably a relationship between alcohol use and mental health issues, possibly as a coping mechanism.

Are there any ways of integrating mental health supports without necessarily singling out members and having them go and get that kind of help themselves? Are there activities in the armed forces or is there something that you can integrate within the daily routines that would also address this mental health issue or improve people's mental health within the forces?

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Answer very briefly, please.

[LGen Frances J. Allen]

Certainly we have health promotion programs within the Canadian Armed Forces. We have programs—the road to mental wellness, the road to mental health—that are all about seeing and recognizing and that everybody should know about. It's not just about somebody who just may feel like they have challenges. We try to incorporate that.

As we move into holiday periods, for example, we have more promotions around it because we recognize that the loneliness and the sense of loss that some people may feel in those holiday periods can be quite challenging, so we try to increase promotional discussions around that at certain times of the year. We do try to incorporate it into our programs.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

We're going to have to leave the answer there.

Madame Normandin, you have six minutes, please.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Once again, I'd like to thank all the witnesses for being with us today.

My question is for all the witnesses.

The Standing Committee on National Defence recommended in a report that military personnel transfers be limited. Just last week, Brigadier-General Tattersall told us that transfers were also a financial issue because of the legal costs associated with them.

In addition, there are costs related to Brookfield Global Relocation Services, or BGRS, the subcontractor that handles the moves.

In that context, has the Department of National Defence done an analysis of the savings that could be achieved if transfers were limited?

[LGen Frances J. Allen]

I think we've been examining the impacts of the many transfers that can happen in a person's career as they move from position to position, first to gain the experiences they need to be able to do their jobs, but also to help them gain new experiences to advance as they move up in rank and responsibility in the Canadian Armed Forces.

Certainly I would agree 100% that in the past we often transferred people on a clock, as opposed to based upon a requirement to do so. We've certainly taken the opportunity to not only question ourselves on that, but we've also seen that it's an element of dissatisfaction for members of the Canadian Armed Forces as well. As we take a look at retention as an important part of our program, not moving people unnecessarily and disrupting their families is something that we have to do.

I've not seen any specific data that looks at the financial savings associated with a reduction in the moves of x number of the percentage.... I mean, we certainly know the number of moves every year, and if we were to decrease by a certain percentage.... It's been much more focused on limiting the moves and the transfers that are needed for the purposes that are required, and not just because a clock has ticked past and said, “You've been somewhere for two years and it's time to move on.”

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Thank you very much.

I would certainly encourage you to conduct a financial analysis of what is generally considered to be an irritant, as $900 million in budget cuts have been announced.

Mr. Matthews, do you want to add a comment?

[Bill Matthews]

Yes, thank you.

I have not yet seen an assessment of a possible reduction in expenses related to military transfers. However, as the Lieutenant-General mentioned, we have to strike a balance between the development of military members and the impact of the transfers on their families. For example, when families move, they have to find new specialists, such as doctors. That has real consequences for people. If we could mitigate those negative effects on families, we could improve our retention numbers.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Thank you very much.

A little earlier, there was talk of budget cuts in terms of contracting out.

I'm well aware that the total number of subcontracts awarded is not $900 million, although you didn't want to answer the question directly. However, if these cuts are needed, other people will still have to ensure that certain contracts are implemented. It's likely that the work will come back to the public service and the military.

To what extent will the public service and the military be able to take on the work currently being contracted out?

Does that mean that the work done by subcontractors was completely useless? So in some cases, the work would not have to be done by military personnel or public servants?

[Bill Matthews]

It depends. If we look at the different types of contracts, we see that the tasks involved vary greatly.

Excuse me; I'm going to switch to English.

We're looking right now at how we can consolidate contracts in some of the types of contracting we have. Multiple parts of the organization have contracts for similar things. There are absolute savings to be had by consolidating those. There is other work that is truly optional, and maybe we can eliminate it.

There is, indeed, the work on which the member posed her question, which must be done. Is there a better way to do it without contractors? In some cases, we think there is potential for civilians to undertake that work, but I would also stress that we are in an environment where we are down in numbers on the military side. We're already asking civilians, where possible, to pick up some of that slack, so I wouldn't hold out a lot of potential there.

The one thing I should share that our unions have raised with us is that on some occasions, effectively, we have contractors who are in the workplace five days a week for jobs that the unions think a public servant could do. There is a question about whether that work could be done more efficiently if it were effectively turned back into a public service job. That's a really interesting question we are going to look at.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Thank you.

If I understand correctly, the potential for financial gain is quite limited if we eliminate subcontracting.

With regard to the retention and recruitment targets, has there been an update on what's been done over the past year? I imagine that this must be reflected in the votes, since there are increases or decreases in salary benefits.

What's the status of that? Can you give us a general idea?

[LGen Frances J. Allen]

Our current projections are that we are not yet at the point where we're going to break even this year, if I can make that statement—the point where we are recruiting as many people as would be leaving through attrition.

As you're aware, our efforts in this area have to go across all three areas: We need to attract people; we need to recruit them into the military; we need to retain them for the period of time that they are interested in being in the military as well as for the period of time that is effective and allows them to flourish as individuals.

Attrition is a normal thing—

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Unfortunately, we have to leave the answer there.

Ms. Mathyssen, you have six minutes.

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Thank you.

I'd actually like to pick up from where Ms. Lambropoulos was going in terms of mental health conversations and the discussions there.

One of my concerns is that I had filed an Order Paper question, and it started to break down psychiatrists, psychologists, medical professionals, doctors, social workers, mental health nurses and addiction counsellors. In fact, those services are being provided by Calian, which is a for-profit corporation. It is filling 91% of psychiatrist positions on the base and 34% of total health care providers.

These bases don't have a single in-house public servant or medical professional dedicated to those mental health services. When you talk about those programs being offered, it's from that for-profit company. It's not by specific individuals who are consistently there and are seeing patients regularly. It's through these online services or what have you. Ultimately, those for-profit companies will do it for profit as their sole first purpose.

Mr. Matthews, you talked about looking at the interesting idea of bringing back those services in-house. It's been pushed a great deal by the unions involved, and certainly it's of key concern to what's going on in the mental health status of CAF and DND.

Could you comment further on what is preventing you from actually moving forward?

[Bill Matthews]

I think there are a few things. The health services that were summarized by the member are a shining example of one of the areas where we should look. There is absolutely a place for these types of contracted health services where there is a need for a surge capacity or a temporary capacity or when there is a shortage of availability of people who are willing to be public servants.

Where I think the question gets interesting is if you have the same service day in and day out being offered by a contractor. Is it a more efficient model to bring that service in-house? We will look at it. We don't have data right now, so we're trying to gather some data. We have asked the unions if they have examples to share with us, and I'm sure they will.

On online services, I am very good with that. That's a very useful way to deliver things efficiently.

I think it's a matter of questioning where we have the contracted resources. Is it truly the right model? If it's surge capacity, that's great. If there are people who only want to work part time and don't want to become public servants under our compensation regime, we'll accept that. There may be savings there and a way to effectively deliver services more efficiently.

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

What's your timeline for those studies and getting that data?

[Bill Matthews]

We haven't got a timeline per se right now.

It's really interesting timing because of the reductions exercise we were talking about earlier. Those reductions ramp up over a four-year period. I think that work will be really interesting, both from an efficiency and quality of service perspective as well as in terms of a potential—“potential” is a key word here—for savings.

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

I'll move on, but it's in the same vein.

I've repeatedly tried to bring up the issue of the non-public funds workers. Military family members are 40% of those workers, and they're really quite essential to the defence community, I would argue.

Non-public funds workers in Quebec have just adopted a very strong strike mandate. Petawawa's non-public funds workers have received their report from the public interest commission. They're feeling very undervalued. They are being paid below the federal minimum wage. There's a huge regional imbalance because there is a refusal to adopt a national pay grid. When will your department finally commit to providing that national living wage for all of those NPF workers?

[Bill Matthews]

General Allen may have things to add on this one.

There are a couple of things here. Non-public funds workers absolutely provide a critical role on base in the services they offer. There are some agreements that have been recently reached. There are others that are in various stages in the negotiation process, including strike votes. We will let those run their course. They are not federal public servants, so they're not part of the same compensation and benefit regime that federal public servants are.

I think the only thing I should share, Mr. Chair, is that after our last meeting, I did go back to check, and I asked whether any of the individuals in Canada are being paid below the minimum wage. The answer I got back was no, that's not the case. You and I have different information on that front. If you have more information, then I'm happy to take that back.

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

One thing that we learned from committee last week was from Mr. Chambers. We were talking about the outsourcing of maintenance facilities and, again, that contracting out of public service jobs. Given the Treasury Board's directive to cut management consulting services, as has been put out there by the minister, can you provide an update for this committee on whether you've signed any follow-up contracts with Deloitte on the real property operations portfolio? How much was given to Deloitte through these contracts?

[Bill Matthews]

I do not have that information with me, Mr. Chair. I'm happy to take that back and see if there's an update there. I have nothing for you today. I'm sorry.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Thank you, Ms. Mathyssen.

Colleagues, we have 25 minutes' worth of questions and less than 20 minutes' worth of time, assuming that bells start ringing at 5:15. I'm going to do four minutes for everyone and then one and a half minutes and one and a half minutes.

With that, Mr. Lloyd, welcome to the committee. You have four minutes.