Public Accounts Committee on March 22nd, 2016

[Michael Ferguson]

In terms of the funding, what we've heard today is that the agency has done what it can do within the constraints. If the department is committing to provide the agency with more certainty about the capital funding they will get, I think that's an important step so that the agency can spend the money better on the priorities.

One thing that was mentioned a couple of times, though, was this idea of trying to put together that overall long-term plan. We mentioned in the report that the agency had come forward with a 25-year plan that would cost $1.9 billion to bring the whole portfolio up to a certain level. I think there needs to be some consideration in this plan that the department is going to put together about looking at that portfolio from a long-term perspective, so that it's not just how much capital funding there will be next year or over the next couple of years. It's tying back to the operational plan, tying back to the day-to-day property management plan, and asking what's the end state of that whole portfolio? How do you manage that portfolio? From a budget point of view, what type of budget do you need over, say, that 25-year cycle?

I think all of that needs to be part of this plan.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Very good. Thank you, sir.

Thank you, Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you.

We will now move back to Ms. Mendès.

[Alexandra Mendes, Liberal, Brossard—Saint-Lambert, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

My question is for Ms. Francoeur.

The 2013 report of the ombudsman, Mr. Daigle, described the extremely stressful conditions in military housing and the impact this had on families. He talked about humidity, mold, frozen pipes and all sorts of defects and flaws in the homes. You are telling us that the current state of the housing portfolio is somewhere between average and good. Is that because you took the ombudsman's complaints into account? Is it because you did what needed to be done to make the homes habitable?

[Dominique Francoeur]

Indeed, thanks to the investments made over the last few years, the condition of military housing units has improved greatly. In fact, 87% of the portfolio is now deemed to be average or above average. This is the direct result of the investments.

[Alexandra Mendes, Liberal, Brossard—Saint-Lambert, QC]

Is this due to the ombudsman's report?

[Dominique Francoeur]

It is not necessarily due to the ombudsman's report, because we already had plans to invest in order to improve the portfolio. It had begun...

[Alexandra Mendes, Liberal, Brossard—Saint-Lambert, QC]

Why did it have to reach that point?

[Dominique Francoeur]

Pardon?

[Alexandra Mendes, Liberal, Brossard—Saint-Lambert, QC]

Why did things have to reach that stage?

[Dominique Francoeur]

Before the creation of the agency, that portfolio had been seriously neglected. As I explained earlier, the units were managed individually by each base and each squadron.

[Alexandra Mendes, Liberal, Brossard—Saint-Lambert, QC]

I understand that, Ms. Francoeur, but your agency was created in 1996 and we are talking about 2013.

[Dominique Francoeur]

That's true, but we started investing and improving the portfolio in 2004. It takes a long time to reach an acceptable level. We can't change everything overnight.

There is also the fact that we can't do major interior renovations when the houses are occupied. That is difficult. However, we can work on the outside. That is what we did and that work is ongoing. We are continuing to invest in order to ensure that we no longer have these problems, as you pointed out, whether we are talking about mold or other things. Things are not perfect yet. We are not finished. We are continuing to work on this.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Monsieur Lefebvre.

[Paul Lefebvre, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

On a go-forward basis, you are coming up with your operational requirement policy review. That's what's going on right now, correct? By 2017 we should be getting a report from you.

Could you give us the pillars? You said it's well under way, that things are coming along well. Could you give us a sense of what we should be expecting? I believe this committee will be asking for that plan once it is issued to make sure you are held to account. Could you give us an idea of what that plan looks like?

[Bill Jones]

Chair, and member, thank you for the question.

There are two areas to look at. One is the policy framework. That will describe the number of military housing units we'll need, the types of units, the location, and that type of thing, in order to meet military operations, and so forth. That should be completed by next winter, 2017. Second, once we have the requirements for the program, the property management plan, if I can call it that, should be completed within the following year. Hopefully, we'll be able to do some of the property management stuff in tandem with the policy review.

[Paul Lefebvre, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

We have Madame Francoeur telling us that you have a good control of inventory, that you know what you have, that you know the state of houses down the road; the roofing, the internal plumbing, everything's under control. But you're telling me now that you're also coming up with another plan. I'm not sure I understand correctly.

[Bill Jones]

Again, it's the policy. We need to know from the military how many houses they need, what types, what location.

[Paul Lefebvre, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

On a go-forward basis.

[Bill Jones]

On a go-forward basis. That is being put together.

[Paul Lefebvre, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

So we know what we have now. We have complete control.... Again, I'll turn to the Auditor General for that.

[Bill Jones]

Right.

[Paul Lefebvre, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

In your report you touch upon inventory controls. Maybe Mr. Stock or Mr. Ferguson wants to talk about whether the inventory controls are adequate.

Would you both agree with that?

[Michael Ferguson]

At the time we did the audit, as mentioned in paragraph 5.51, we essentially could not get access to the information in the system about the condition of the housing units. We've been told that since we did that work, the system and the information have been updated and they have captured that type of information. That's not something we audited. At the time we did the audit, we weren't able to get access to sufficient information.

If the agency has now got in place a system that will keep track of the condition of the units, that's a good thing. One thing I would like to mention, though, is we've seen—and this isn't a criticism per se of the agency or the department, but this is something that we've seen in a lot of audits—that many times when new systems are put in place and we come along later and we do an audit, we find that the data that are put in aren't very good.

I would encourage the agency to make sure that not only do they have this new system and not only have they populated the data in the system at the beginning of the system, but also that they have a good quality management process in place to make sure the information they are maintaining in that system is of sufficient quality and can be used to manage the program adequately.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you very much. We're way over our time.

Mr. Godin.