Public Accounts Committee on March 22nd, 2016

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to go back to what the witnesses said earlier.

Mr. Jones, you spoke to me about the Valcartier military base barracks which were upgraded to welcome Syrian refugees. You said that that was not a bad thing because military personnel will be able to use them. Is that proper management of the public purse?

Since the refugees did not settle in Valcartier, the objective of that expense was not met, but you are saying that that is all right because the money was simply used to improve the barracks, and this will allow military personnel to have better infrastructure.

As I see it, money was spent, and whether the expenditure was judicious or not, the goal was not met. You are saying that that is okay because military personnel will be able to benefit from it, but is that sound public management?

[Bill Jones]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and to the member, thank you for the question.

As indicated previously, we did not know that Syrian refugees would not be temporarily located at bases and wings. That only transpired after the fact, when the government was able to find lodging in the private sector, and so forth. We didn't know before the fact. We put in place a program to provide it as a backstop, and we appropriately renovated as best we could. We think that much of those funds will be used for the benefit of troops and cadets, and so forth going forward. In that sense, the money is not lost.

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Today, everyone's objective is to optimize the use of public funds so as to increase effectiveness in the housing portfolio. We want to see the best possible use of the money that is invested.

If you were in front of a genie who had a magic wand, what tools would you ask for in order to be more effective?

[Bill Jones]

Mr. Chair, the member's question is a great one.

The number one issue, which I would like to make clear, is as the Auditor General specified in his report exactly what the military requirements are for the military housing program. Once we have that clear, then we can prepare and manage the portfolio appropriately.

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Since we have been housing military personnel for many years, I am wondering why the decision to keep a housing registry was only made now. Why wait for an auditor general's report to react and implement a plan to improve effectiveness?

I think that you have a daily responsibility for maximizing the effectiveness of your operations. And consequently I wonder why a plan and measures were not put in place earlier.

[Bill Jones]

Chair, responding to the member again, thank you. That's a great question.

As I've indicated, we did not have a clear plan. We need to have that clear plan. We need to set forth what the exact requirements are, the location for military housing, and so forth. Things have changed over the years. The issue of defence is much different from what it was five, ten, or fifteen years ago. There is a policy review ongoing, or certainly the consultation will soon be launched. There are many things that have changed. We need to have that clear policy and know the military requirements for this program to be appropriately managed.

I agree, then, with the member, Chair.

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

A lot of things have changed, but the housing and rhythm of military lives have not changed much over the past years. You say that you are starting consultations, but the fact is that the agency was created in 1996. I find this an extremely long reaction time, and that is why we are wondering about public expenditures. Canadian citizens want to see professional government agencies manage the money that is sent to Ottawa properly.

I wonder why that was not done sooner. That is the question I am asking you.

[Bill Jones]

Again, Chair, I think it was done previously. It wasn't done as well as it could have been done. It wasn't clear. There was not clear direction as to how many units we need at Valcartier, how many at Petawawa, and so forth, and what types of units, or as to how the military has changed.

That's what we're working on. Again, I can only reiterate that I agree with the Auditor General and I agree with the member. We need to do a better and clearer job of knowing exactly what are the policy and military requirements.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Mr. Christopherson, we're going to give you five minutes.

We've gone back to the order of the first round. Then following Mr. Christopherson, we'll go to Mr. Harvey and Ms. Arya.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thank you.

I'd like to follow up on the questioning of my colleague Monsieur Godin.

To me, that's still the heart of the accountability piece. Obviously, at the end of the day, going forward is the priority, but in order to do that, you have to understand where you've been.

I share Monsieur Godin's concerns. If this were brand new, I would hear your argument: we need to have a master plan, we need to know what we need, and then we'll decide what components of the various housing provisions will meet that need. That all makes a lot of sense. But we've been doing this for—what?—more than 100 years. You said that the last time you didn't quite get it right.... I'm sorry, I didn't write down your exact words, but they were to the effect that you didn't quite get it right, or it wasn't acted on. How was that? How could that be?

Again, you said that things have changed. I agree with my colleague. You still go to sleep in a bed at night; you still get up; you have a washroom; you have a kitchen. There are basic needs. How did that change? I'm still not satisfied that there has been proper accountability as to how we got here on a subject like this, when the answer you're giving is one that a committee such as this should have heard 100 years ago. Then, as things go on, you revise it, you tweak it, and you improve it. But to come in and say you're going to look at a master plan doesn't explain why the last one failed.... All you have said is that it wasn't sufficient.

Why did it fail? Where did it fail?

[Bill Jones]

Chair, and to the member, again thank you for the question.

I would remind the committee that 85% of members of the military live off base, if I can put it like that, not in military housing. The military housing program represents approximately 15% of military personnel. Many of them, as I—

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Sir, excuse me. Isn't it fair to say that you have an obligation to make sure there is adequate housing, whether it's provided by you directly or whether it's out in the market? It just doesn't cut it to tell me that for 85% of them...you make it sound as though you're not responsible for them.

[Bill Jones]

Absolutely, Chair. Again to the member, thank you.

The point I was going to make is that over the last 50 years or more, we have moved.... More members were originally housed on base. That has changed over the years for a number of reasons. It has changed because of the preference of some members; it has changed because of a government policy, and so forth. Many things have changed over the last number of years. Those are some of the issues we need to look at going forward.

Currently we are looking at revising what the defence of Canada will look like. That is the new policy review currently taking place. It will have implications for bases and wings across this country. In turn, it will have implications for whether we house more or fewer members on bases and wings.

We are in the process of a dramatic change here in terms of how we defend Canada, if I can put it that way. That's my opinion. These things have to be sorted out so that we can put in place an effective property management plan.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Fair enough. I asked for change, and I understand that, so we're getting somewhere.

I don't have a lot of time. Let me just ask you this. Do you have a number that reflects any personnel and/or their families who are in crisis, meaning that they're in inadequate housing right now and it is recognized that they need to be moved? Do we have anything acute like that?

[Bill Jones]

I'm not aware of that statistic, and so forth.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Now that this has been made public, if there are cases, you're going to hear about them now, and I hope we would too.

[MGen Derek Joyce]

On that note, sir, we do have a very robust family support program within the Canadian Armed Forces. We have a family resource centre on each and every base and wing. We have hotlines and emergency lines. We have a very robust chain of command as well that takes care of our people and our families. So if there are cases out there, the expectation is that they would be quickly identified and then resources would be put towards supporting that family and that member.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

That's what I was hoping to hear, and I appreciate that.

I have one last thing. With the time I have left, Chair, I would ask the Auditor General a question.

Is there anything else, sir, that you want to bring before us that you haven't had a chance to enunciate or to respond to on any of the questions we've been asking?

[Michael Ferguson]

Mr. Chair, I would simply reiterate the things that we identified in the report that need to be rectified. I think we have heard a serious undertaking on the part of the department to deal with this. Of course, as we've heard, there are some fairly long-term time frames here: 2018, 2019, and moving forward.

What's important is to make sure that the commitment and the engagement that we've heard today from the department are at the institutional level rather than just being commitments and feelings of the individuals here. As we get into 2019 and then actually into implementation, before we can see what this plan is and how it's going to be implemented, that will be beyond my term as Auditor General. It may be beyond the term of some of the people sitting at the table today. Really, what's important is to make sure the organizations have institutionalized this, to make sure that the commitment is a commitment that exists, not because some people in the bureaucracy right now are committed to it, but because the organization is committed to it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, sir.

We will now move to Mr. Harvey.

[TJ Harvey, Liberal, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My question piggybacks on the comments that Mr. Ferguson just made regarding the accountability of the process going forward, and specifically in terms of information being updated.

You talked about updating the information around the inventory and the upgrades that are being done to the inventory on an ongoing basis and how the system has been refreshed and updated. But as Mr. Ferguson said, a lot of times every pillar within government moves at such a pace, and audits...that it's hard to get continuance because people are always changing by the time things come around again.

With regard to the inventory and that ever-changing flow, how does that process look on a go-forward basis? How are you ensuring that the information is being updated, or how are you planning to ensure that the information is being updated? Is that on a quarterly basis? Is it twice a year or yearly? How does that process look? That's what I would like to know.

[Dominique Francoeur]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

One point I'd like to clarify is that prior to the system upgrade, it's not that we didn't have condition assessment data, but it was done locally through a database, so the information existed. Some of the observations, though, were that at different sites, the information was not necessarily put into the system in a timely way during posting, and that kind of thing. Now, by having it done centrally with the right training for everybody, we're sure that the information will be input properly and will be consistent everywhere across the 25 sites. On top of that, we are also monitoring it. There is an oversight that will be done on a semi-annual basis, I think.

Also, every time a project is done—for instance, we just changed 25 furnaces—the information will be input into the system right away so we have a clear picture of all the conditions of every single house. There will be oversight on a more regular basis, which was not necessarily the case before. It was done every three years but now it will be done more regularly.

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Mr. Chair, I would like to refer to paragraphs 5.32 and 5.33 regarding the private housing market. The Auditor General noted that when National Defence approved military housing requirements of about 12,000 units, he had not considered how the private housing market could have met the needs of Canadian Armed Forces members. He also showed that the private housing market analyses performed in Halifax and Valcartier could have generally met the members' needs.

I would like to have a comment on that please.

[Dominique Francoeur]

Our agency, in part of our planning, conducts some market analysis. This is part of our regular business. At the time of these particular two studies, we were in the middle of assessing whether there would be other options to deliver the program itself, just the overall program.

At that time, we didn't consult per se in terms of.... You cannot just transfer some 600 families, let's say in Valcartier, by suddenly saying that we are closing the site, and then send these 600 families into the economy. We cannot do that without really consulting the private sector. That's part of the next phase. We will do that. We will use the market studies that are recent for doing that which is part of various scenarios to meet the operational requirements at each base.

Over the years, we've divested several sites. When I said we went from 22,000 to 12,000 houses, we've closed Vancouver, Moncton, Pleasantville, Shannon Park, Ste-Foy—we're in the process of doing that—Calgary, Griesbach in Edmonton—

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Do you foresee any further reduction in the number of units you manage?