National Defence committee  Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Mr. McKay. It relates to how we're managing some of the maintenance and repair on the north warning system. It relates to a couple of the other financial obligations we have with NORAD and how we're phasing them. It's part of the strategic review divestment.

National Defence committee  If I may, the way the numbers are allocated here is against activities. A lot of it is captured under those broad activities of readiness.

National Defence committee  No. It doesn't represent a significant change in—

National Defence committee  That is $22 million in cost of maintenance operations by changing the maintenance schedule and maintenance techniques. Particularly in the north, it's actually very expensive to do that work, and we're trying to be smarter about doing that.

National Defence committee  I would say, sir, first of all, that the Chief of the Defence staff doesn't have exactly the same scope as Treasury Board. Treasury Board has considerable scope. Treasury Board can revisit policies and applications, etc., but once Treasury Board has set those parameters, they apply to everybody.

National Defence committee  I can't comment about the policy decision by Treasury Board or whether that policy decision has actually been made, but what I can say, sir, is that the scope of financial remediation of grievances is broader than home equity assistance. In many instances of men and women in uniform having grievances that have caused financial effects on them as well, the chief does have the authority, and Treasury Board has given him the exact instrument he needs to remediate.

National Defence committee  Sir, in terms of declining markets, you're talking about the housing market.

National Defence committee  I don't think there would be any on his desk. I think he would have resolved them. I think some of them are still working through the system. Until we have had the chance to work through some of them, I think we need to get a sense of how the conditions, to which the chief and the grievance authority are subject, play out.

National Defence committee  I don't think the Government of Canada can give retroactive effect to—

National Defence committee  I don't think so, Mr. McKay.

National Defence committee  In applying it, no.

National Defence committee  No, but the authority is really the authority to make ex gratia payments within the conditions that are normally laid down by the Government of Canada for exercising that authority, and the—

National Defence committee  I think it's important to accept that the Government of Canada actually frames the policies that benefit our men and women in uniform during things like moves and that type of thing. The policy has a certain scope and a certain intent. I'm sure that the intent of the government was not to delegate to the Chief of the Defence Staff the ability to make different scopes or intents of the policy that the government put in place, but rather to get at the interpretation of that policy to make sure the unique circumstances of men and women in uniform are not creating circumstances that actually fall within the policy but that we're not smart enough to figure out.

National Defence committee  I don't believe the CDS has resolved the financial grievance yet, Mr. McKay.

National Defence committee  Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Harris, thank you for that. Let me very quickly try to address both your questions. First, regarding the grievance backlog, we have been working on that. One of the most challenging areas of grievance is compensation and benefits. It turns out that no one's upset if they come away with a little more money than they were expecting, but everyone's upset if they come away with a little less.