[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Wednesday, March 5, 1997
.1604 
[English]
The Chair: I call the meeting to order and welcome Mr. Michael Nelson, chief executive officer of the Canadian Forces Housing Agency; Mrs. Louise Breton, director of finance and comptrollership for the agency; and Mr. Morrie Evans, director of operations for the agency.
Thank you very much, lady and gentlemen.
Mr. Nelson, would you like to begin?
Mr. Michael Nelson (Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Forces Housing Agency, Department of National Defence): Thank you, Madam Chair and members.
.1605
Before I start my remarks, let me point out that Madam Breton is a chartered accountant and is my director of finance.
I'm very fortunate to have Morrie Evans with me as director of operations. Morrie is from Australia and is on an exchange assignment here from the Defence Housing Authority in Australia, which has been remarkably successful in improving the housing conditions there.
First, I'll be covering the importance of housing in the quality of life of our members and the operational requirements for military housing that the Canadian forces has identified. Second, I'll move to the availability of suitable, affordable housing at Canadian forces locations. Lastly, I'll describe the mandate, activities, and future challenges of my organization, the Canadian Forces Housing Agency.
[Translation]
Housing is a basic need for all Canadians, but is particularly of concern to the 71 per cent of Canadian Forces members who are married and posted to bases and wings with their families. These members need the assurance of being able to find safe and suitable housing, at a price they can afford, wherever they are sent to serve.
Each posting that involves a move creates stresses for families. Suitable accommodation has to be found quickly in places that are far from their home towns; extended families and other social supports may be left behind, and the family has to settle at a new location.
Those whose jobs deploy them far away from their home base or into dangerous situations need the further reassurance that their families will continue to be well housed, without their day-to-day involvement.
You have received as part of your background material a note on the military community from a Canadian Forces perspective. Both senior and local commanders have made it clear to me that at operational locations in particular, housing can be a key element of the local military community. They feel that the availability of rental accommodation in and around such locations provides a significant level of support and stabilization during missions and long training exercises. It can help to avoid the accumulation of stress and administrative problems that invariably occur and can become major problems.
[English]
The Canadian Forces regards housing as an important factor in the quality of life of its members, a factor that is closely linked to operational issues such as retention of highly trained personnel, ability to deploy for extended periods, and confidence in the effectiveness of troops under pressure. Problems with housing can jeopardize any of these. The army in particular believes that housing in close proximity to the base, in coordination with support organizations and a caring community, can help to guarantee a more operationally effective force.
Our allies in the U.S., U.K., and Australia have the same concerns about the importance of housing for the well-being of their service personnel. They have made housing an integral part of armed forces benefits through providing quarters to members as an entitlement.
In Canada, Canadian Forces members are responsible for finding and paying for their own accommodation wherever they are posted. The department's role is to ensure that there is suitable housing available, either in the private market or owned or leased by the Crown.
I'd like to move on now to the question of the availability throughout Canada of suitable and affordable housing for Canadian Forces members. I'll be concentrating on family housing, since this is where the focus of your interest lies and is the portfolio for which I am responsible.
As you would expect, the housing situation is unique at each Canadian Forces location. Demand for housing depends on the size of the military establishment. This is changing as the forces are restructured. Some locations, such as the garrison in Edmonton, Alberta, are growing as soldiers are moved in from the bases that are closing at Chilliwack and Calgary. Other locations, such as Toronto, are downsizing in response to rationalization.
Housing is supplied at most locations by both the private sector and the department. The demand by service families for each of these types of housing will depend on the relative quality and cost and on the family's need or desire to live in the military community.
The amount of private accommodation at a location varies with whether the establishment is in an urban area or is more isolated. Even for bases located in a built-up area, however, there is not always suitable or affordable housing for Canadian Forces members. For example, our members currently posted to Esquimalt have difficulty finding housing that suits their needs within commuting distance of the naval base and at a price they can afford.
Housing markets also vary over time. Urban areas that are growing today may shrink in the next economic downturn. For example, Edmonton, which had an economic boom and a housing shortage in the 1980s, now has affordable housing available for both the short term and the medium term. Because the private housing market is so dynamic, the department cannot rely on it to meet military needs in a timely way. Strategies for sustainable housing solutions must be developed for each Canadian Forces location.
.1610
[Translation]
I would now like to turn to the supply of military housing, which we also call Crown housing or departmental housing.
A stock of housing for military families was built in the period following the Second World War. The building program stopped at the end of the 1950s in response to changing military demands, private housing availability and Treasury Board policy. The latter states that the acquisition or construction of housing should only be authorized where there exists a lack of private sector housing, or where there are operational requirements.
My organization, the Canadian Forces Housing Agency, is responsible for about 24,000 married quarters, located at over 35 sites across the country. Of these units, 22,000 are Crown owned and some 2,000 are leased. The majority are now in need of considerable renovation to bring them up to today's standards.
Supply of our married quarters is out of step with demand. There are surplus units at bases which have been downsized or are closing.
On the other hand, there are waiting lists to get married quarters on bases such as Esquimalt.
[English]
Following Treasury Board policy, rents for married quarters are set at market levels. Most rents are relatively low today, reflecting the age, small size, and poor condition of most married quarters.
The Treasury Board rent policy also means Canadian Forces members pay different rents for the same housing unit, depending on where they live in the country. For example, a certain married quarter rents for $333 per month at CFB Greenwood, Nova Scotia. The same size and model rents for $671 per month at CFB Esquimalt. This is a cause for dissatisfaction amongst members in married quarters. It also reflects the experience of the majority of Canadian Forces members who rent or buy in the private market where they're posted.
The Department of National Defence has an allowance for renters to partially cover the gap between average rents and rents in the highest housing cost areas of the country. The accommodation assistance allowance, AAA, is available for those renting married quarters or housing on the economy at locations where rents are 12.5% or more above the national average. This allowance and other housing-related programs and benefits are managed by the director general of compensation and benefits, Colonel Pierre Lemay, who will be appearing before you tomorrow, I believe.
The third area I want to cover today is the Canadian Forces Housing Agency, the CFHA. It is a new organization the department has created to deliver on its housing responsibilities. After almost a year of operation, we have progress to report and have identified new challenges to overcome.
[Translation]
CFHA was approved by Treasury Board in October 1995 as a provisional special operating agency within the Department of National Defence to manage family housing. The provisional status meant that no special authorities or flexibility were granted to the agency to carry out its business. The Department is to return to Treasury Board shortly with proposals for the final structure and management framework of the organization.
The creation of the agency was in response to departmental, Treasury Board and Auditor General concerns about the traditionally high cost of operating married quarters, lack of management accountability, and the often low level of maintenance service provided to Canadian Forces members and their families.
The Agency is funded from revenues, primarily the rent, rather than from tax dollars. I am pleased to say that we will break even on the cost of operating the housing portfolio in fiscal year 1997- 98, ending years of significant losses.
[English]
CFHA opened housing management offices at 9 locations in 1996 and will open a further 18 at the remaining major bases and wings in April 1997. There's been a measurable impact on the quality of service at our initial sites. Our staff is focused only on the housing needs of service members. Feedback from the occupants of married quarters tells us that repairs are being carried out more quickly. They are also pleased with having pleasant, approachable housing staff at their bases and wings.
.1615
As we successfully complete the implementation process of the operational arm of the agency, we're getting a better understanding of the other challenges facing us, and their priority. We will need to dispose of surplus housing. However, the military housing the department wishes to keep must be brought up to standard. This means comprehensive maintenance programs to keep units up to scratch, improvements for old units, where cost effective, and in many cases replacement. This is a big undertaking. As an order of magnitude estimate, the cost of this task could range from $500 million to $1 billion. Not all of it would need to be spent immediately, but a housing renewal program over the next five to ten years could, in total, require an estimate of this magnitude.
As presently structured, CFHA cannot raise money for such purposes, and I would expect the department would find it difficult to invest in this type of enterprise. Further, as Admiral Murray has indicated to you, there are ways, other than building ourselves, that may satisfy military needs. The challenge will be to find innovative strategies in partnership with the private sector to meet the department's housing needs.
We've also found that the day-to-day operation of a property management business does not fit well within the framework of a large federal department. With fewer administrative constraints, I believe we could direct more of the rent we collect back into housing services.
As a result of these challenges, we're reviewing the need for a new framework that will allow us to manage housing in a business-like way, deliver housing solutions for the Canadian Forces where they're required, and retain an appropriate level of government oversight.
In conclusion, housing is important to CF members and to the Canadian Forces. I believe the department is on the right track in setting policy that acknowledges a greater role for the private sector in meeting the housing needs for military families and in establishing the Canadian Forces Housing Agency to deliver on its solutions.
[Translation]
As you travel to Canadian forces installations, I would encourage you to look at the housing situation of those in married quarters and those in surrounding communities. I hope that the families will tell you about their housing needs and experiences as they have been moved throughout Canada.
I look forward to your thoughts on how my agency might best carry out the important role that we have been given in supporting military families and the Defence mission.
[English]
Thank you, Madam Chair.
The Chair: Mr. Nelson, I'm wondering if either Ms Breton or Mr. Evans would like to add anything.
Mr. Morrie Evans (Director, Operations, Canadian Forces Housing Agency, Department of National Defence): Not at this point.
The Chair: You're here for back-up.
M. Leroux.
[Translation]
Mr. Leroux (Shefford): We didn't receive the background material until today. Therefore, it is rather difficult for us to get an overview of the situation. I would like you to begin by telling us a little more how housing work. There may be differences from one base to another, particularly with regard to the age of the housing stock that you manage. You mentioned that housing is in short supply at one base in particular. Which base is that?
Mr. Nelson: Esquimalt.
Mr. Leroux: So there are problems at Esquimalt. I personally have not visited every base, but are they located far from urban centres? Perhaps we could take ten minutes to talk about this.
Mr. Nelson: Generally, there are two types of bases. There are bases like Gagetown, Cold Lake, Alberta and Borden, Ontario. I don't know if Valcartier is in this category. I don't believe it is.
Other bases are located some distance away from an urban centre. And then there are bases like CFB Toronto which is located in the heart of North York. Bases like Halifax and Esquimalt have a significant stock of private sector housing available. But basically, there are two categories of bases: those that are far from urban centres, and those that are located in close proximity to them.
Mr. Leroux: I would assume that when a base is located near an urban centre, it is much easier to do business with the private sector in order to have housing units built a few streets away from the base. When the base is located in a more remote area, you have to build these units yourself. Is that correct?
You spoke of a partnership. Are you talking about a partnership with the private sector on the bases themselves?
.1620
Mr. Nelson: Such a partnership would be quite feasible. We now have a major municipal structure in place, as you will see when you visit the bases. In most cases, it is managed by base staff. On some bases, certain services are provided by the municipality.
Mr. Leroux: Regarding the housing units that you build, are they permanent or can they be easily dismantled?
Mr. Nelson: Normally, housing units are constructed for the longer term.
Mr. Leroux: Aren't there suitable units on the market today that can be easily dismantled? It seems to me that this would be a solution. Governments down the line are restructuring and bases are being closed. We may invest in housing stock today, but a decision could be made to close the base a year or two down the road. A long-term plan is therefore required. I wonder if the best solution may just well be solidly constructed units that can be dismantled?
Mr. Nelson: I agree with you completely that the private sector could supply housing at some bases, not necessarily in Cold Lake, but in Montreal and Toronto. It would not be necessary for us to purchase or rent units, but rather to safeguard our housing stock.
Mr. Leroux: In your presentation, you referred to a housing unit that rented for $333 a month in Greenwood, whereas a similar unit rents for $671 at Esquimalt. What do you do in such cases? CF members pay $333 to rent one unit and $671 to rent another.
Mr. Nelson: That's right.
Mr. Leroux: Consequently, those who pay a higher rent have less money for their family.
Mr. Nelson: That's precisely the problem. According to Treasury Board policy, Crown housing should not generate any profits. This means that the rent on a unit in Greenwood must be the same as the rent on a private sector unit. If you are transferred to Greenwood, you adjust to your lifestyle to pay $300 in rent, but if you are transferred to Toronto or to Victoria, you will have to pay considerably more. That's one of the problems.
Mr. Leroux: Wouldn't it be interesting to devise a policy to calculate housing costs at different locations, average it out and compensate CF members accordingly? At certain locations like Esquimalt, housing is very expensive; therefore, CF members could pay a little less and rents would still be comparable. CF members who are transferred from one location to another would become accustomed to living on a certain budget and they could manage regardless of where they were based.
Mr. Nelson: First of all, I don't have the power to protect or adjust the rents of those who live in private sector housing units. That's one of the problems. Tomorrow, Colonel Pierre Lemay will talk about... You have certainly pinpointed one of the problems.
Mr. Leroux: Have you any solutions to propose? Since you administer the agency, you must have many more ideas than we have.
.1625
We have only just been apprised of this situation. We did not receive the background material until half an hour before the meeting. You'll have to understand that we didn't have a great deal of time to review it. What do you think should be done? We are certainly going to prepare a report and make recommendations to the minister. That is the mandate of the Committee.
Mr. Nelson: In accordance with Treasury Board policy, rents must be set at a certain level. As far as I'm concerned, we have to look to the benefits, not to the rent level, for solutions. As you will see, our hands are tied in many ways.
Mr. Leroux: When you talk about benefits, you're referring to the salary of CF members, isn't that right?
Mr. Nelson: This is not my area of expertise.
Mr. Leroux: That's what you meant when you referred to benefits. Perhaps the rent could be included in the benefits package.
Mr. Nelson: I would prefer to let Colonel Lemay answer...
Mr. Leroux: Thank you.
[English]
The Chair: Mr. Hart.
Mr. Hart (Okanagan - Similkameen - Merritt): Thank you very much, Madam Chairman, and let me congratulate you on being nominated in your riding last week.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Hart. I presume you were rushing down to campaign for me.
Mr. Hart: I hope that sets the tone for the rest of the meeting.
The Chair: Now, now, Mr. Hart. You've never yet been badly treated in this committee.
Mr. Hart: Oh, not yet. That's something to look forward to.
Welcome to our committee. Actually, I lived in a PMQ, so I have a bit of experience. Back in the 1970s I was based at Esquimalt and I lived in PMQs there. The rent has gone up a bit. I think I was paying $130 or $133 a month at the time. Now I see it's about $671.
Mr. Nelson: For those particular married quarters. There are higher rents than that for some of the others.
Mr. Hart: Right. I would think, though, that even $671... I was in a three-bedroom accommodation, in a duplex. I would think even today that's pretty good rent as far as the Victoria market is concerned. Would I be correct?
Mr. Evans: I think the fundamental problem with the houses is they are 800 square foot houses in but fair condition, and ``fair'' would probably be a little generous. But for an 800 square foot dwelling with very little in the way of any socio-economic attractiveness to it I guess it is a fair rent. I guess the question is whether that is the appropriate accommodation for the professional men and women of the Canadian Forces.
Mr. Hart: I'm just trying to recall... It seemed to me the PMQs in Esquimalt were well maintained at the time. Now, we're talking some years ago. Has the standard in Esquimalt dropped to that level?
Also, the community support at...I can't remember the name of the actual PMQs, but it was the navy PMQs out in the western communities. It was a very nice area and it was well maintained. Has that changed over the years?
Mr. Evans: I believe we would rate the standard of maintenance in Esquimalt as ``fair'' only. It's certainly not in the ``good'' bracket. It's certainly not as bad as at some sites. It's not of the appropriate standard at which a landlord would be expected to maintain a rental property in the marketplace.
Mr. Hart: You had talked about the relationship between the housing authority and military personnel as being very good. If we're at a point where the maintenance is only fair, is it really that good?
Mr. Nelson: We're fortunate in that we just got here. The comparison people will make is with the past, and Esquimalt was one of the bases where we started on April 1. We're very fortunate...and I wore the uniform myself. I know the military demand for military engineers at a base is between the operational and the married quarters side of the base. So we're fortunate in that I don't have the same challenge my colleagues in the military have. I focus only on the housing.
.1630
What we have to offer is a sole focus, plus I guess a friendly face. When people are coming in with their problems we have to be careful not to promise them the moon, because the money just isn't there to give them the moon. But even that ability to focus just on their needs so they know we're not going to have to worry about whether the money is going to go to the jetties or to the operational parts of the base - all of the rent comes back to the houses. It gives us a big advantage.
Mr. Hart: I was in Edmonton a couple of weeks ago and actually went door to door to some of the PMQs and talked to some of the folks living there. I was surprised at the number of empty units. There were a lot of empty units in Edmonton.
As well, there seemed to be a lot of repairs going on, and I did notice that there was a vast array of different levels of repair for PMQs. Why is that happening? Why wasn't a standard of preventative maintenance carried out as the problems arose? It seemed as if some of the units couldn't be moved into. They look that bad.
Mr. Nelson: I'll be careful about speaking for the past, because I was only there for parts of it and I was not at Edmonton. Generally, the pressures have been for housing or for operational needs. Again, we're fortunate in that the rent comes to us. Before CFHA, the rent went into the greater defence budget and might have been spent on helmets or on housing. The base commanders had a very difficult challenge. Sometimes the operational challenges just went in that direction: you're either going to redo all the roofs this year or you're going to spend money on jet fuel or something of that nature.
We're very fortunate to have the focus we do. You know from your own experiences in going from base to base that the differences can be remarkable from base to base, let alone on one base.
Mr. Hart: I was just going to mention that I think the worst I have seen is in Mr. MacDonald's area in Dartmouth, with places like Lakeview Heights and apartment buildings like that. When I was in the military I always hoped I would never be posted to Halifax because I didn't want to live in those places. I imagine they're still there and they're still accommodating our personnel, which I think is terrible.
Mr. Nelson: How many vacancies do we currently have in those, Morrie?
Mr. Evans: In the Halifax region we're currently carrying 700 vacant units. The difficulty is that a large number of them are leased. There are leases that were put in place in 1963, which incur a contractual obligation until 1999 in the case of about 400 of them and until 2003 for the balance. In a very slow market like Halifax it's very difficult to find a solution to pursue a means of offloading or of extricating ourselves from what is a very unpleasant financial situation, particularly with our lack of authority at this point.
Mr. Hart: That means military personnel are choosing not to live in PMQs. Are they buying or renting when they make that decision? Do you have any stats on that? Do you know if military personnel in Halifax are buying homes?
Mr. Nelson: I don't have any stats on that.
Mr. Evans: Anecdotally, from what we're gleaning from people as they vacate, there is a very large percentage purchasing. I think that's probably significant. It may even be greater than 50% at present. It's quite a significant proportion.
Mr. Hart: If this is a trend, is housing a dinosaur that we should maybe look at getting out of altogether? If people are choosing to buy homes at the bases they're posted to, maybe military housing is something from the past.
Mr. Nelson: It will vary by site. In Esquimalt you're probably not going to see that kind of proportion, particularly with the prices the way they are right now. Perhaps you'll see more people buying in Edmonton because it's a softer market now. As Admiral Murray mentioned the other day, we really have to look at housing on a site-specific basis. It just doesn't make sense to have a ``one size fits all'' approach to housing, because the reality is that real estate and the markets are different at every base.
Mr. Hart: Let me go back to when I moved into PMQs for a short period of time. I moved in to save money so I could have a down payment. I was able to move out of a PMQ because I was purchasing a home at 21 years of age, so I was pretty happy about that at the time.
.1635
I think if military housing is used as a stepping stone, maybe we should look at it in that manner. That's just a thought, but it might be valuable.
That's all, Madam Chair. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Mr. Wood.
Mr. Wood (Nipissing): Thank you, Madam Chair. The majority of my questions will be based on personal experiences I had last week with my constituents when I held an open forum at the Canadian Forces base in North Bay. There were about 300 people there.
Perhaps for the benefit of the committee you could explain the difference between the homeowners assistance program and the home equity assistance program, which are known as HOPE and HEAP.
My understanding - and correct me if I'm wrong - is that the HEAP program protects military personnel from market changes and will pay 90% of the equity that is lost when a home is sold, as long as the market has dropped at least 10%. This obviously allows service personnel to buy a home in a community with the confidence that if the market drops locally their investment is going to be protected. This has really caused problems in North Bay. People are dumping their houses at below market rates because they know DND will pay them 90% of their losses.
On the other hand, the HOPE program is available only to communities where bases have closed and there is a glut of homes on the market. With the HOPE program, DND picks up 100% of the loss.
If that is an accurate description, is there any chance of HOPE being extended to downsized areas like North Bay? Doing so would certainly encourage personnel to buy more private homes, because right now I think they're being discouraged from investing in the local housing market, and this is of course putting an additional burden on military housing at larger military bases.
Mr. Nelson: I'll have to beg your indulgence in saving that question for Colonel Lemay tomorrow. It's perhaps one of the vagaries in housing. I don't own all of the pieces of the housing puzzle. One of the pieces that I don't own is the benefit side, the HOPE and the HEAP. If I may, I will pass that on to Colonel Lemay, who will be here tomorrow. I know that may sound odd. You may want to say ``You're the housing guy, so why don't you have the housing stuff?'' I don't have the benefits side of the housing, so I can't answer that one.
Mr. Wood: Okay.
I have another question. Mr. Hart talked about the PMQs in this country being 30 or 40 years old and not in the greatest shape, probably in very poor shape. The water supply may be in disrepair at the bases and the hydro is not the greatest. I recognize that DND is probably unwilling to spend large amounts of money on upgrading infrastructure. I'm just curious, however, about how other bases compare to North Bay, because ours is in pretty bad shape. Is there any effort being made on your part or on the part of your department to systematically address this problem?
Mr. Nelson: Perhaps I could ask Morrie to address that.
Mr. Evans: As far as conditions go, North Bay again falls into the fair category. It's not our worst and it's certainly not our best.
In this first year we're determining what a reasonable standard of maintenance is for houses. Once we are fully operational on April 1, we will be deciding on a full business planning strategy whereby we'll be comparing and assessing, if you like, all of our stock against a standard that is a reasonable standard, which we will peg to what is reasonable in the marketplace, in the general community. We will identify all the deficiencies for all of our stock and we will identify the cost estimate of what it's going to take to fix it.
The fundamental problem is that there are two issues. There is the condition issue, which we can address progressively over time, but there is also the amenity issue, which means that when you are looking at houses of 600 or 800 square feet, you run the risk of spending vast sums of money raising the standard of maintenance and at the end of the day you still have a house of only 600 or 800 square feet.
In terms of the Edmonton circumstances, where we have some of our worst housing, we'd be looking at having to invest in the order of $40,000 to $50,000 just to raise a house in the Griesbach area to a reasonable stand of maintenance. Technically that would be a gross waste of money. That is why we are now moving to dispose of Griesbach as a site and to find an alternative solution in that area.
It would be silly to spend large sums of money on houses when at the end of the day we've really not done much to improve the quality of life for families. We need to do that assessment right across the country for all sites, and from there we can make some prudent decisions on what's ahead in terms of spending money to the best effect in the longer term.
.1640
Mr. Wood: One of the international examples cited in our notes is the Defence Housing Executive of the United Kingdom. This agency has apparently sold off a large number of surplus housing units. This may be a good idea in recovering costs for the defence department, but this can also have a pretty damaging effect on the local community.
In the case of North Bay, military personnel have sold their homes as they are transferred out, but because of the military kickback and the HEAP program these individuals are willing to sell at below-market prices because they know they will be reimbursed. This has driven housing prices down in my area and created a glut on the market. If the surplus PMQs were added, the market would greatly increase.
Does your agency take into account what effect its housing policies will have on the local real estate market, particularly when selling off PMQs, or are you just interested in balancing your economic situation?
Mr. Nelson: There's absolutely no doubt in our minds that we are not just an island there. We want to involve the communities, particularly in terms of obtaining service for gilt that's paid, but also because we're neighbours, in the sense that we have a community and we would like to have more housing in the community around us.
There is no doubt it would be very unwise of us to dump military housing on the local economy. If we dumped the housing, because some of the housing may not be of much value, we might be dumping just the land. We would not do anything like that without consulting with the community. It just wouldn't be smart, because we have to stay there in the longer term. We just wouldn't do it.
There are places like Goose Bay, for example, where we have a great deal of housing and the community is very concerned about what will happen if there is a reduction in the number of houses we need.
Mr. Wood: You thought North Bay was in the fair category. Tell me where the top category is and where the lowest category is. If we're fair, who's the worst and who's the best in housing for CFB military personnel?
Mr. Evans: In terms of the condition of the houses, the worst housing would be in Edmonton, notably in Griesbach, and in Shearwater in the Nova Scotia area. The better houses would be in Chilliwack, Vancouver, and those general areas. But again, across the country the bases all have varying degrees of shades of grey. The majority would fall in that fair category. They all need insulation upgrading, modernized kitchens, modernized bathrooms, decent floor coverings -
The Chair: Dry basements.
Mr. Evans: Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair.
The Chair: Sorry, I didn't mean to interfere.
We're now going to five-minute rounds.
Mr. Bertrand.
[Translation]
Mr. Bertrand (Pontiac - Gatineau - Labelle): You indicated in your presentation that your agency will break even in fiscal year 1997-98. What exactly do you mean by this?
Mr. Nelson: I mean that our overall expenditures will equal our revenues. Louise Breton could explain this to you in further detail.
Ms Louise Breton (Director of Finance and Comptroller, Canadian Forces Housing Agency, Department of National Defence): What Mr. Nelson said is correct. Our revenues will cover our operating expenses. However, this does not include major capital projects for which no decisions have yet been made.
With respect to our operating expenses, some major renovations have been undertaken, and these projects have been included in the financial statements to cover operating expenses for the housing portfolio.
Mr. Bertrand: Are you legally authorized to borrow funds to carry out repairs to housing units?
Mr. Nelson: No, and that's one of the problems we encounter.
Mr. Bertrand: One of the problems?
.1645
Mr. Nelson: Yes. We are part of the Department of National Defence. As an official, I am required to comply with departmental regulations.
Mr. Bertrand: What would you think if we suggested to the Department that it allow you to borrow on the market in order to make the necessary repairs to the units?
Mr. Nelson: We can't always repair the units. In some cases, it would be more logical to replace the units altogether. For example, it would be better if we could carry out some repairs more quickly, but since we must balance our budget, this isn't possible. Therefore, how quickly I can get around to doing the repairs is determined in advance.
Mr. Bertrand: In the briefing notes that we received from the Library of Parliament, we read that your agency manages only one third of all departmental housing units. Is that correct?
Mr. Nelson: That's correct for the current fiscal year. Initially, we were given responsibility for 7,000 units at 13 sites, but in three weeks' time, we will be managing the entire housing portfolio.
Mr. Bertrand: I was about to ask you who manages the remaining two-thirds, but you say that in two or three weeks' time, you will be taking over the entire portfolio.
Mr. Nelson: The units were managed according to the system in place in previous years. At CFB Shearwater, the construction engineering unit presently manages the housing units.
[English]
Mr. Bertrand: I just have one very small question for Mr. Evans. When you were introduced they said you came from Australia.
Mr. Evans: That's correct.
Mr. Bertrand: Did you do the same kind of work there as you're doing now?
Mr. Evans: Yes. My role there was as senior manager of business systems for the Defence Housing Authority. I worked in head office. The Defence Housing Authority is a government business enterprise established in 1987 to manage military housing as a business.
Mr. Bertrand: How does Australia compare to Canada in terms of housing problems? Is it the same or worse?
Mr. Evans: It would be fair to say the Australian housing stock in 1987 is comparable to the Canadian housing stock today. It was all generally small; it was all generally undersized, lacking in amenities, and in poor socioeconomic areas.
The government established DHA there largely because the wastage rate from the military was in the order of 13% per annum, and it was assessed that it was actually costing the country a substantial amount of money. DHA, along with a number of other initiatives, was put in place with a view to redressing the wastage and improving the quality of life of military families.
The organization was set up as a government business enterprise, so it had to operate completely within the portfolio it had and with borrowings, without the infusion of taxpayers' funds. It was set up as a GBE and given ownership of the housing stock. It was then given all the authority to enable it to trade in that housing stock and maximize profits from redeveloping, disposals, construction of new dwellings, leasing of new dwellings, and a whole range of provisioning techniques, with a view to replacing the portfolio with community standard housing. That job is virtually complete, and we are switching from a development-type operation to more of a maintenance-type now that our stock is pretty much to community standard.
.1650
The Chair: Mr. Collins.
Mr. Collins (Souris - Moose Mountain): Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
With regard to Australia, I notice that members pay 45% of their rent. Is that still in place? Is that the situation today?
Mr. Evans: They would be very close to the 50% mark. The objective is that members will pay 50% of market rent.
Mr. Collins: Is it the feeling of the government, now that they've made this turnaround, that they would like to rethink the whole process?
Mr. Evans: In Australia?
Mr. Collins: Yes.
Mr. Evans: I think there's a whole range of issues. First, housing is no longer an issue. It's not a political issue. It's not an operational issue any more because essentially the housing portfolio is now up to standard.
The government now sees an organization where its capital value has increased from $700 million, when it started in 1987, to well in excess of $2 billion today, and it obviously would like a good bit of that equity back.
At the same time, the department is reviewing whether there are other ways of maintaining the general conditions of service for the military but in more economical ways. One of the options being considered is the payment of a cash subsidy to military families and then enabling them to pursue their own accommodation as they see fit.
Clearly, in the more remote localities, rather like Canada, there are not a lot of options for families to use that cash subsidy, so we expect there will still be a continuing role.
It's not a popular perception in some quarters; it is in others. I'm not yet clear what the housing review will bring. It's still under way.
Mr. Collins: The 3.3% is a fairly large part of your defence budget, as indicated here. They say the target is 90% by the year 2000. Do you think they're going to reach that in your housing arrangement of personnel covered by the year 2000? They say 90% of your personnel will be in this process.
Mr. Evans: In Australia?
Mr. Collins: Yes.
Mr. Evans: The current objective is that we provide 85% of the stock, and for the balance, the other 15%, families are paid an allowance. The rationale behind that is that housing is an entitlement; however, it doesn't make good business sense to try to stock at 100%, because military strengths fluctuate from year to year. The number of military families fluctuates from year to year.
Mr. Collins: If I can go back, having had the opportunity to be in subsidized housing at one point in time, it seems to me that one of the criteria I had as a private citizen was that there was some call on me to indicate, through putting up a bond or some form of security, that when I left the house I could get a certain amount of money back, depending on the condition of the house.
If there is no requirement - you people may know that, and I don't know whether you have it there - people get a little careless. I'm not pointing fingers at anybody, but I think there's a tendency that people forget, that if somebody else is putting up the money, all they have to do is be there. I can see this in the situation you have across Canada.
What I would like to ask is, when you sell off these, if you take a look at private housing where they've had that subsidized arrangement, what kind of a difference was there in the sales? I'm thinking particularly of the city of Regina, where I know they sold some pretty large units that have the same kind of framework and design as you might have on a military base.
Mr. Nelson: We don't have the capability in our agency to sell off housing. It's not one of the authorities we've been given. However, I think the question is still very pertinent.
I wouldn't want to give the impression that the military folks are just running rampant, because we do have access to what's called ``recoveries'' - there's a technical term for it.
.1655
When people leave married quarters there is a process where we actually go in - and this has been in place in the military for years - and take a look at what they have managed to accomplish in the house, for good or for bad, over the period. In that case if there are damages then we do have the capability to recover damages.
Mr. Collins: About Minot, because I'm aware of that airbase there and the features of that airbase, have you anything you've looked at about Minot or some of those other bases and how they're functioning and where they are going? There's some talk about moving away on that base.
Mr. Nelson: I'm sorry - Minot?
Mr. Collins: Minot, North Dakota. It's an airbase... I don't know whether you people have taken a look at any of the bases in...
Mr. Nelson: No, I have to say we haven't had a chance to take a look at that one.
Mr. Collins: It's a very large complex, just outside the city of Minot. I think they house 15,000 to 20,000 people on that base.
Mr. Nelson: The size of the American housing problem...I wouldn't say it's worse than ours, but I have spoken with the Americans myself, and they have a lot of housing, but they also have a lot of housing problems, because to speak globally, they have the same age of housing and the same maintenance problems, only theirs are in the billions of dollars.
Mr. Collins: Coming from a fairly large family...when you're talking about 800 and 900 square feet, you're not talking about any huge arrangement there. Those are pretty small quarters. It's not only the house, it's the family who are going to have to live there. I hope that's all being addressed in this whole process, so you meet the needs of the family who are going to be locating themselves in those quarters.
Mr. Nelson: The family of the 1990s has a lot more accumulated ``stuff'' with them than a family of the 1950s.
The Chair: Well said.
Mr. Nelson: It's a technical term, Madam Chair.
The Chair: I know - one I'm very familiar with.
I'm going to use my prerogative and ask a few questions myself.
I just met on Friday...I spoke to over 200 people at Shearwater, including spouses and military personnel. I have a number of things. One concern I had was about military personnel buying off base. Several people told me that in the Dartmouth area, basically in suburban Halifax, it's possible to buy a three- or four-bedroom house in the general area of $80,000 or $85,000. At that point I was in the machine shops, talking to the people working there, and they were in housing of that nature and quite satisfied. Each one of them said to me, if we got transferred to Esquimalt I would retire; I would get out, because I can't afford to move to Esquimalt. I heard that. I also heard it on board the Athabasca. I heard it on board Provider. I think that shows a certain obvious problem we have here. I would like your comments.
Mr. Nelson: The base commander at Shearwater has told me he has problems, because he has responsibilities out west to send helicopter pilots, I believe.
The Chair: That's right.
Mr. Nelson: You've probably heard the same thing. They are having people saying ``I just can't do it''.
The Chair: They won't go.
Mr. Nelson: ``I can't do it.'' It's at that point where housing becomes an operational issue, I would say. When you have someone you have put all that money into and they are saying ``I'm going to walk'', I would say you have a serious operational problem.
The Chair: Are you looking at that?
Mr. Nelson: It's one of the key problems that need to be addressed in the affordability area. This is where between myself and Colonel Lemay, who you will be talking to tomorrow...it's the issue of affordability, because it goes into allowances.
As I was saying earlier, in terms of Treasury Board policy, I'm in the hands of the policy that says, for good reason, I suppose, housing will be at market rents, because if it isn't, then the one-third of the people who are lucky enough to get in there are getting a deal and we're forgetting all about the 70% of the folks who are down in Eastern Passage or out in Lawrencetown because they can't find a place that is closer to work.
The Chair: On that note, I'm going to move to my second point. I want to say I couldn't agree more with Mr. Hart about some of the PMQs. I haven't been in any of the ones in Shearwater. The ones I have been in I think have been sold off. I'm referring to Windsor Park in Halifax.
Mr. Nelson: No.
The Chair: Somebody should.
.1700
Mr. Nelson: There is some housing just outside Windsor Park that looks like married quarters. That was sold off years ago.
The Chair: No, I'm talking about PMQs inside Windsor Park and election of 1988 campaigning. All I could think of was, it was bad enough for me but I can imagine what it must have been like, in February, to be a mother with six bags of groceries, an infant, a two-year-old in a stroller, and the three-bedroom apartments were on the top floor and there was no elevator in the building. Do we have a lot of those across the country? Keep in mind I'm going to be visiting some of these bases, so you can't fool me.
Mr. Evans: Essentially, apartments are in three places: Halifax has the largest volume; Petawawa has a significant number; and we have a small number in Kingston. They are the three sites with this particular problem, but more notably Halifax and Petawawa.
The Chair: Petawawa has the same, those awful things where you have to drag everything up?
Mr. Evans: The same design.
The Chair: There was a family living in one apartment - this was in 1988 and they're probably gone by now, and I don't know who put them there - with a child with a disability that required a wheelchair. So the family had all of that to contend with.
I have one more question, and then we'll go to Mr. Hart.
Mr. Nelson, you said that if there were fewer administrative constraints, there would be more money for housing. Could you explain that a little more? What sorts of constraints?
Mr. Nelson: Being within a department that is a large instrument meant to manage a $10-billion-or-so program and trying to use the contracting authorities - we used to have to go through Public Works or through Defence Construction - the hiring practices we have, the duplicate systems, we have to run our own...
The Chair: What do you mean by hiring practices?
Mr. Nelson: We're part of the public service, so all of the hiring practices of the public service are the same hiring practices that... If I want to hire someone part time for a couple of weeks, I have to go through whatever the current practices are within the public service. That's not in terms of pay - that's a difference. There's an amount you pay for the energy that is spent on satisfying the constraints in order to obtain someone.
I guess the worst problems are in terms of duplication of systems. Some of the systems that Louise is putting together for Finance are running parallel to systems that are in the Department of National Defence. We use Public Works, through DND, to cut all of our cheques. All of that accumulation means that you could put a dollar value on it, I suppose, if we went back and put our pens to it. It accumulates in energy, as well as resources. If I were Minto or someone else, I would just go do it.
The Chair: Yes.
Mr. Nelson: It's that sort of thing - and I'm not trying to be flippant.
The Chair: No, I understand.
Mr. Nelson: It's just focus, as opposed to the larger processes that are there, again. We're doing, in a sense, what everyone of us here does when we go home at night. We're running houses; it's just that we're doing it for 22,000.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Mr. Hart.
Mr. Hart: Thank you very much.
Does the housing authority have a mission statement, or a goal? What exactly is the mission?
Mr. Nelson: As to the mission statement that was crafted when the agency was put together - a special operating agency is required to have a mission statement - the mission statement is to provide suitable and affordable housing for military families. I could get you the exact wording of that. It has changed somewhat, but it's words to that effect.
Mr. Hart: I can completely understand people in remote areas living in military housing when there may not be other facilities available to them, but I'm really starting to wonder if we shouldn't be looking towards our military personnel as hoping that they would pursue the dream that every Canadian has of owning their own home and pursuing that. That's why I was asking that particular question, because I'm not sure how this folds into the big picture of housing.
I know you don't want to speak about previous...before you came on the scene, but it seems odd to me that if we've closed some housing and we've closed bases, so I assume there's housing that is not under military control any more, why wouldn't we sell off that property and put it back into the system for upgrading homes?
.1705
Mr. Nelson: The original idea of the housing agency was precisely that. If you go back to the mission statement of about 1994 and the framework document, the idea was that we would, in a sense, engage in triage. In places such as Gagetown and Cold Lake, we will probably be involved in housing for a long time just because there is no private market. But there are other places in Canada where we could make more use of the private sector. That means we will have land we can realize.
I'm not certain it will be quite that simple, because disposing of federal land is quite a process. But certainly one of the ideas of the agency to begin with, and something we would certainly appreciate your advice on, is the use of some of that land to enable us to get the capital to improve what we have to stay with.
Mr. Hart: I imagine some of that property would be tremendously valuable. In Chilliwack, the property values are very high. Of course, I don't think we should be closing that base, but that's another subject. Anyway, that's good.
You mentioned in your brief you'd like to streamline things and have fewer administrative constraints. What are those constraints you're facing now?
Mr. Nelson: I mentioned some of them to Madam Chair just a moment ago. Certainly one is the requirement to use all of the government's contracting regulations. In a sense, I have an $80-million budget and I can spend only about $5,000 at a time because of one of those constraints. There are requirements that have to do with information systems and security that if I were outside of the system I might not have to adhere to quite as much.
In terms of the ability to raise capital, we don't want to start an enormous construction program across Canada, but after this triage exercise where we decide where we really need to be in the housing business, the rent is not enough to do anything other than keep the rain out.
If we are going to raise capital, it's more difficult to do that. I'm not a financial expert in this domain, but I understand that within a departmental form it is much more difficult, for example, to mortgage homes, borrow money from the private sector, or get into partnerships where, for example, you give them the land, they build some homes, and there's a lease-back type of arrangement.
As I was saying earlier, it's the inability to go directly to the problem. You have to go into the process before you get to the problem.
Mr. Hart: My last question might be more directed toward the military staff, but I'll ask you anyway. Are people in the military who live in PMQs allowed to speak freely about the conditions in which they live?
Mr. Nelson: That probably is a question better put to the military side of the house, but they speak rather freely to us. We are there, we're not in uniform, and we're the Canadian Forces Housing Agency. We're not someone on the base who is at the end of a phone. You can come into our office...and people tell us quite frankly, as I'm sure they told...
The Chair: They do.
Mr. Nelson: I'm confident we're hearing about it, because we're in a position where, hopefully, we'll be able to do something about it. The nice thing about being the single focus is also the bad thing. The nice thing is they know you can solve the problem; the bad thing is they're waiting for you to solve the problem. But they're telling us.
Mr. Hart: I'm just trying to understand the relationship between the civilian side, your side, and the military. Do you have any disciplinary recourse you can take against renters through the chain of command?
Mr. Nelson: Do you mean if they don't pay rent?
Mr. Hart: I mean any disciplinary recourse in the chain of command if you found something wrong with the housing, if they had done something, if there was a loud and noisy party, or whatever. Could you charge them or go through the chain of command to discipline those people?
Mr. Nelson: We wouldn't do the disciplining. The fact we're there doesn't mean we've severed our connections with the base. In fact, our housing managers work really closely with the base administration people and the base personnel services people. If there were something like that, we would report it to them and the military process would kick in.
.1510
Mr. Hart: I think it's important that they look to you as friends, as opposed to people in the chain of command they're trying to hide things from and to whom they don't feel free to speak.
Mr. Nelson: That's critical to us as well.
Mr. Hart: Good. Thanks.
The Chair: If I could make a comment on that, the base commander and all the senior officers were there, and they were not in the least constrained about what was wrong, particularly on issues of housing, but also on a lot of the issues we'll be dealing with.
I have one more question. Windsor Park still bothers me a lot. Approximately what would somebody pay for a three-bedroom flat in Windsor Park?
Mr. Nelson: We could probably tell you exactly if you can wait a second.
The Chair: I don't know about the Dartmouth side, but on the Halifax side the occupancy rate is pretty good.
Mr. Nelson: It's right next to the Halifax shopping centre.
The Chair: But in general, apartments are very available in Halifax. It's a very competitive market right now.
Mr. Nelson: It's about $355.
The Chair: That's for a three-bedroom apartment. No wonder they don't want to move. I'd haul people upstairs for that, too.
Mr. Nelson: They have 26-inch stove openings, though. They're low priced because they're just not great places.
The Chair: I know they're not great places, but a three-bedroom apartment in a comparable area in Halifax would cost over $1,000. That's interesting. Thank you very much.
Mr. Richardson you had a question.
Mr. Richardson (Perth - Wellington - Waterloo): First, I'd like to ask you about your mandate. I got a global picture, but I was really fuzzy. You are now the manager of the Canadian Forces Housing Agency and you keep the repairs up. Do you collect the rent?
Mr. Nelson: Yes, we do.
Mr. Richardson: I want to do this in bullet form because I don't want to keep the committee too long.
Mr. Nelson: Okay.
Mr. Richardson: What's your estimated total income?
Mr. Nelson: It's $80 million per year.
Mr. Richardson: How many units are there?
Mr. Nelson: There are 22,000, ballpark, and the estimated total income for next year is $85 million.
Mr. Richardson: Does that $85 million go back into your account as your operating money?
Mr. Nelson: Yes, it does.
Mr. Richardson: Halifax is bad, but there was a hell of a pile-up of deadbeat PMQs boarded up for years in Gagetown. I imagine that's still the situation. Some of them could have been put on trailers, towed away, and sold for their value, but the cost of the infrastructure to put in those houses is about the same as the value of the houses. Do you have the authority to take away those surplus, non-usable, or condemned PMQs for sale?
Mr. Nelson: No, and I'll make the distinction as part of the first question you had. As currently created by Treasury Board, we are the operator-maintainers. We don't own the married quarters, so we can't sell them or dispose of them; the department can. I can say that I don't think we need these any more, but -
Mr. Richardson: But to sell them through Supply and Services would be a fire sale. It never gets back to you. Generally, if it goes through Supply and Services it goes into the general coffers. You have to look at some way of legally setting this up so it's a real value to you and gives you a challenge to see whether you can make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.
I know some of the PMQs are in bad shape. Some bases are much better off than others, but that's the nature of the way things grew and the way they were managed. Listening to what you say, I'm glad to hear that people are speaking up and you do have recourse through barrack damages for damages to buildings at present.
I don't think you will really be successful unless there is some way for you to have control of management and the right to sell surplus so you can maintain what is necessary, because a lot of this was built when there were around 70,000 to 80,000 in the forces. Maybe you can keep the infrastructure or block it off for further growth. I don't know.
We in this committee have strong concerns about this as a morale factor in the forces. I think all parties are concerned that we get to the bottom of it and see some foundation that will give the people the hope that there will be reasonable or adequate... Adequate is not reasonable, to my mind. It's what they are living in now, and they look down the street and they see some nice bungalows with gardens and lots a little bigger, maybe for people working on the same jobs or at the same pay levels as themselves.
.1715
The other thing I think is discriminating is the fact that once you evaluate the quality of the home - and you are going to have to come up with A, B, and C levels, or D - why the hell does a person have to pay more because we told them they are working in Esquimalt? Is there a housing allowance that evens out the Halifax-Esquimalt situation?
Mr. Nelson: Tomorrow Colonel Lemay can address that.
The accommodation assistance allowance kicks in in certain parts of the country where... Again, because it's Colonel Lemay's territory... In places such as Victoria and Toronto it kicks in; in places such as Edmonton it does not. But as you go around the bases you will probably find people saying it does not cover what they -
Mr. Richardson: Those rental facilities we leased from those Toronto landlords: that was slum landlord stuff. I've never seen anything as bad as it was on...was it Keele?
Mr. Nelson: Just across from the base, at Keele and Sheppard? Yes.
Mr. Richardson: Yes. I was through that a number of times. Then across the way where we owned our own in that small park, that was quite a nice park, as good as anything you would find in the private sector. So there are two levels of service, one for the officers and one for the non-commissioned members.
I don't know how you could do it, but certainly we will take our hats off to you if you could move it ahead a few stakes in the ground as you are going. But you can't do it with your hands cuffed, without control over the right to dispose of surplus properties and that money turned back into capital or operating capital or capital moneys, so you can build where it's needed. Things have shifted over 30 or 40 years. Some of that stuff at Borden is pretty close to 45 years old.
Mr. Nelson: The housing is not in the right places right now.
Mr. Richardson: That's right.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Nelson, and Mrs. Breton and Mr. Evans. Come on down to Halifax and we'll see what we can do with Windsor Park.
I wonder if the members of the committee would stay for a moment. We have some housekeeping matters I would like us to deal with.
.1717
.1725
The Chair: We have some housekeeping amendments. I think you all have a draft copy of a news release. We would like this to get out ASAP. Along with that, we have the proposed itinerary, just for the east, because obviously we are still working on the west, and a budget for the whole shebang, east and west.
There may be some changes to some of this at a later date. This is a sort of general overview.
I would entertain a motion if someone would like to move one.
Mr. Wood: I will.
The Chair: Okay. Would you like me to read the motion and you can move it?
It's moved by Bob Wood that the committee request the authorization of the House of Commons to travel to various Canadian Forces bases across Canada from April 7 to 18, 1997, from April 28 to 29, 1997, and from May 5 to 16, 1997, to hold hearings in relation to its study of the social and economic challenges facing members of the Canadian Forces.
It's available en français as well.
Mr. Bertrand: About the staff who will be travelling with us, it says ``others, 8''. Could I have an explanation for that, please?
The Chair: Who are they?
The Clerk of the Committee: The final page is DND personnel who will travel with the committee. They will be travelling at no cost to the committee. Their costs will be covered by the Department of National Defence. However, the arrangement we have made with the department is that we would cover the costs initially and they would reimburse the House of Commons, rather than our going everywhere with two or three accounts.
An hon. member: What is their purpose?
The Clerk: Support. I don't know the entire eight personnel. I know Colonel Arp, who is in the room with us and who is our principal liaison officer with the department; the young lady there, Monique Beauregard, from parliamentary relations in the department; Major Robertson, who is the logistical officer from DND to help us. I'm afraid I don't know the rest. Perhaps Colonel Arp could let us know who the other five may be.
Colonel J. Arp (Assistant Deputy Minister (Personnel), Department of National Defence): They would be public affairs officers as required, so there would be a link to announce they are coming and liaise with the various media on behalf of the department; and escort officers. When we go out east, we will make sure the navy looks after you during the Halifax portion, hands you over to an air force officer, who then looks after the visit to Greenwood, for instance.
.1730
Not all eight people would necessarily be there all the time. It would probably be in the neighbourhood of three or four. They will be there, as will be my role, to answer questions of an impromptu nature, seek the answers out for you, and get you an answer back as soon as we can.
Mr. Hart: I imagine everybody is concerned about the same thing. We're looking at almost $200,000 in the budget. We're all fairly certain - we feel fairly certain, don't we, Madam Chairman - there's going to be an election this year.
The Chair: You were away, Mr. Hart, and you may have missed one of the things we did. Because of our concern that this committee be able to do its work and survive any possible dissolution, I have spoken with Mr. Gray, the government House leader, and his executive assistant, Jerry Yanover, and asked that... It is not unprecedented to have a committee cross over. Barring the unforeseen, I can't imagine... First of all, I can't imagine a change of government, but even if there were a change of government it would be unlikely, I would think, given the level of interest in this committee by the military themselves...
We expect to get the House order when they feel an election is imminent. Mr. Gray has assured me the House order ensuring this committee's survival into the next Parliament will be passed. I understand he has discussed it with the House leadership of the other parties.
Mr. Hart: I just want your assurance there isn't some kind of plan to keep opposition members busy across the country while everyone else is off getting ready for an election.
The Chair: Let me say something to you, Mr. Hart. The only person in this room with a national leader running against her and a former provincial leader running against her, the person who would be least likely to want to be traipsing about the countryside, is moi, and I'll be right there with you all the way, as much as you might have hoped it might not be the case.
[Translation]
Mr. Leroux: I have a question about this. You say that the flight leaves Ottawa on April 6. Is it possible to catch a flight in Montreal instead of Ottawa?
[English]
The Chair: For example, I won't be in Ottawa on April 6. I'll be coming from Halifax. We'll work it out. I don't know if you can get a flight in the morning from Halifax to Quebec City. We'll check all this out. Obviously members of the committee will be accommodated in every way possible. We'll work out the difficulty.
Now, we have a second motion. Who would like to move my second motion?
Mr. Collins: Madam Chair, coming from western Canada, I have a real fear about the time constraint here. I say that sincerely, because once you're into the grind -
The Chair: Mr. Collins, I think you misunderstand me. There is no question the committee will stop if an election is called. I myself came into Parliament in 1988 and joined a committee that had been working on a report for two years. As soon as Parliament sat, this committee was reconstituted in the middle of the report it was doing. We continued to hold hearings for a further six to eight months and then our report was written. All the previous testimony was made available in written form to the new committee members. We had power to recall witnesses if we wished to hear more. We were briefed. It was all there.
That's the absolute point. The minister has made this very clear in several public statements. I have made it very clear. Mr. Gray has made it absolutely clear. As I said, there is precedent. Committees have done this on more than one occasion. This is not unusual.
If there were not an election until next spring, I'm not certain we would have every single thing finished on this. I would hope we would. But certainly if the election is going to be before the end of this year... I have never thought our work would not be interrupted - but only interrupted, not stopped. Okay?
.1735
Mr. Collins: I just made the point that I wanted you to know that I have some misgivings about us starting and proceeding, and then if we take a break... I think, certainly - the people on this committee have really put it off - there's a real urgency for us to review what your agenda is here. So I respect the chair and I'm sure you'll direct us accordingly, but I just had a moment of caution.
The Chair: We need to discuss it, because I think, clearly... The clerk would back me up if you don't believe me, but -
Mr. Collins: Madam Chair, far be it from me not to -
The Chair: Well, I don't understand. What's the problem?
Mr. Collins: The problem I had, and maybe I'm going to have to put it in writing... I'm telling you I have some concern that as we proceed through this - I still have two committees, and maybe that's the other part of the problem for me - I have to have a certain amount of time to be in the House of Commons and a certain amount of time to be on committees, and I just feel that we may be coming up to a point in time where there's going to be an election.
The Chair: I reiterate that when the election is called the committee ceases instantly. There is no question that if we have an election in the spring - and I don't know that any more than anybody else - or in the summer, I would suggest to you that the May portion won't happen, but it will happen in September or October.
Mr. Collins: That's fine.
The Chair: Okay.
Mr. Leroux: There's another thing here. It's a five-day week all the time. I have to go to my riding and I have office...once a week. We're close to an election, and you can't go away from your riding just before an election and presume that everything is going to be just perfect. The timing is not that good. I respect the chair, but...
An hon. member: What if the election isn't called until the fall?
The Chair: Or next spring?
Mr. Leroux: I know, but you never know. Everybody is talking about an early election; nobody's talking about fall.
The Chair: I'm sure the Prime Minister has probably consulted people, but he -
Mr. Leroux: Couldn't it be possible that we have a four-day week instead of a five-day week, so we can be in our riding for at least one day in the week?
The Chair: Mr. Leroux, you have to make that choice, clearly.
Mr. Leroux: Well, we can split time -
The Chair: You have other people on this committee or you have people who can substitute for you, as do government members.
When committees travel, I don't know how familiar you are with some of the exigencies of transportation to some of the places we're going, but, for example, the Labrador portion of our trip is extremely difficult. Not to do it then would leave us in a great deal of difficulty.
The itinerary has been planned in consultation with members of the military who know what the exigencies are. If you can't come, that will be unfortunate, but I would hope that you would be able to find a substitute. We all have exactly the same responsibilities in our ridings.
I think Mr. Bertrand has been wanting to make a point for a while.
Mr. Bertrand: No, you've covered it.
Mr. Hart: When we were on the special joint committee, which had a lot of travel across the country, we split the committee in two. Part of the committee went east and part went west. Two subcommittees, in other words, reported back to the main committee.
The Chair: I'm not keen on this because, I'll be perfectly frank, to a degree, one of the reasons the request came was because I'm the chair, if I may say, and because of my own particular interest in this area. With the greatest of respect, and I do say this utterly frankly for all of you, I think there are certain experiences I have had, both professionally and politically, that make the minister want me to be at most of these sessions. I know I want to be there.
.1740
There are a number of things I want to deal with in regard to human resources, things that relate to female spouses, for example, and to services like that. I'm the only woman on this committee and I don't want the committee to go to some of those places without a woman there. If I'm going to all of them, guys, you're coming with me. That's ostensibly it -
Mr. Hart: I guess my point is somewhat -
The Chair: No, I understand.
Mr. Hart: Some of us have that experience, though.
The Chair: Yes.
Mr. Hart: I've lived in the military, with my wife -
The Chair: I understand.
Mr. Hart: - and Mr. Richardson probably has too.
The Chair: I understand all of that. I gave you a perfect example the other day. I was approached by a chief on board one of the ships. He was talking about the situation that relates to widows. He was very nice and very charming and he said he could come and tell me all about it. I said, ``No, you can't. I want some of the widows to come and tell me about it.'' I really do -
Mr. Hart: We have widows on both coasts.
The Chair: I don't get your point.
Mr. Hart: My point is that we could get all of those experiences by splitting the committee in half.
The Chair: I'm not prepared to do that. Currently I don't want to do that. You can call that one-sided, but I don't want to rush this. I want this done...I think all of the committee members need to be at all of the bases, at least insofar as we can manage it. We can't do it all of the time, but I think we have to make a stab at it. This is why we've known from the beginning -
Mr. Hart: I think, though, because of the concerns we've heard around the table, that you're probably not going to get every committee member at every base.
The Chair: No, we're probably not, but we're going to give it our best shot.
Mr. Hart: I think you would have a better opportunity if you split it in half. That's my opinion.
The Chair: You might, but I have one motion on the floor. Do you want to make another motion? Do you want to make an amendment? Obviously you're perfectly free to do so.
Mr. Hart: I could, but there are two of us and -
Mr. Leroux: It's a twelve-member -
Mr. Hart: - more of you, and we know how the vote is going to go.
The Chair: It's an eleven-member committee.
Mr. Leroux: Eleven? It's not a big committee, so splitting it -
The Chair: That's right.
I want this done as thoroughly as we possibly can do it. It is my opinion as chair, and it is the opinion of a number of other people, that we need the full thing.
Now, gentlemen, can we get to the motion? Can I call the question?
Motion agreed to
The Chair: I have a second motion that I would like a mover for. Then I will read it. It's with regard to money. It's the budget.
Mr. Bertrand: I so move.
The Chair: It is moved by Mr. Bertrand that the committee approve the proposed budget of $314,540.40 in relation to its study of the social and economic challenges facing members of the Canadian Forces and that it be presented to the budget subcommittee for approval.
Is there a question?
Mr. Hart: I think we could shave some money off that if we did it in a better way.
The Clerk: Some money has been shaved off. Just so you know, in the first instance we were going to ask members to use their own points when travelling to Halifax. Between points, in cooperation with DND, we will transport you to various bases. That will occur on the western trip too. You are asked to assemble in Winnipeg for the start of that trip. We have already shaved off approximately $100,000, just in air travel.
The Chair: But we're not going to be penny wise and pound foolish.
Mr. Wood: Does that take in the DND contribution...everything?
The Clerk: Yes. They will return approximately $93,000 of that figure.
The Chair: Are there any questions?
Motion agreed to
The Chair: If there is no further business we will adjourn until tomorrow at 9 a.m., in room 214, the Wellington Building.