But the auditor says National Defence does not routinely look at what is available outside its walls, and the private market could in some cases meet the needs of members, notably in Halifax and Valcartier, Que.
Also, myriad regulations limit what can be charged, and in some cases rent for base accommodation is cheaper, particularly in Bagotville, Que., Edmonton and Winnipeg — a discrepancy Ferguson calls unfair to soldiers who choose to live off-base.
NDP MP David Christopherson was outraged and accused the department of being more concerned about buying bullets and bombs than the more important aspects of billets and bread.
Brasidas said:Because no sane person would want to buy a house in Shilo, and likewise there are places we get posted that don't have a whole lot of housing options.
dapaterson said:The bigger question is why the CAF should be in the rental business at all.
Occam said:I dare say anyone posted into Edmonton this APS would love a PMQ, considering the alternative of a real estate market that's plummeting like a rock.
http://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/en/corp/nero/nere/2015/2015-11-02-0815.cfm... rental condominium vacancy rates ranged from a high of 5.3 per cent in Edmonton...
Humphrey Bogart said:Imagine if Petawawa lost all its PMQs? We are talking an influx of several thousand soldiers plus dependents looking for housing. The situation would be a disaster.
PuckChaser said:Housing is already a disaster there, the prices are ridiculous. You either get 1940s war homes in deplorable state for $150k, or brand new at over $300k. Or you drive for a half hour just to get to the base.
dapaterson said:So why housing in Halifax? Edmonton? Toronto? Winnipeg? Kingston? Esquimalt? Valcartier? That's roughly 4200 housing units.
The CAF needs to break away from some of its "Well, we've always done these things" mentality and ask the "Why?"
(Sort of like why do we need CANEX, which is only profitable because it pays no rent?)
dapaterson said:At what point do we treat military personnel as responsible adults, capable of making their own decisions, and compensated sufficiently to care for themselves? How much hand-holding is needed? Pte(3) is over $48K, as is the lowest paid Lt(1). Those are liveable wages that increase over time.
(For those interested, the full OAG report on military housing is at http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/internet/English/parl_oag_201602_05_e_41062.html)
dapaterson said:What core combat or combat support capability does CANEX provide? Why should the military be in the business of running a third rate chain of retail stores? Why should money that could buy boots or clothes or fuel or vehicles or ammo be spent so people can pay the same price as Best Buy for a TV?
The question of military housing is the same: if there is no viable local market, providing housing makes sense (and is aligned with policy). But Kingston, for example, has a population of over 100000. Why does the military need to own & maintain 497 housing units there? Certainly, some SQs for courses are a good use of money (cheaper than sticking people in the Holiday Inn), but why should DND/CAF spend time, effort and money to be a third rate landlord?
dapaterson said:At what point do we treat military personnel as responsible adults, capable of making their own decisions, and compensated sufficiently to care for themselves? How much hand-holding is needed? Pte(3) is over $48K, as is the lowest paid Lt(1). Those are liveable wages that increase over time.
jollyjacktar said:So then what's your solution to do with all these Qs that are within the base proper? Tear them down? Then what? Rent them out to civvies?
Maybe if they didn't gouge the hell out of us to rent these boxes, folks might make use of them. It annoys the hell out of me how we've turned into a profit making business. Those Qs have been paid for time and time again. Charging way more than their upkeep/upgrade costs and a fair admin mark up beyond that is BS. Just like the paid parking garbage.
Halifax Tar said:Whats your beef with CANEX ? You realize its an NPF organization right ? Other than lost rental revenue, much like SISP, it doesn't cost the CAF anything. In fact I would argue it provides CAF members a chance to purchase goods with the profits going back into the pot for the betterment of the people as whole.