Government Operations Committee on Sept. 23rd, 2025

[Charles Sousa, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

During the time of the pandemic, there was an acceleration in trying to get things done very quickly under the urgency of the time.

On another matter, the F-35s, are you called before PACP as a witness on this very issue? You're here today. Are you doing more committees?

[Karen Hogan]

This afternoon I'm going to the public accounts committee, but that's for an in camera discussion about my office and how we can support committee members. Any time I'm invited, I'm more than happy to go to a committee.

Typically, the national defence committee and the Senate committee would study this. I would trust that the public accounts committee will have outlined what they're expecting to study, perhaps after they chat with me this afternoon.

[Charles Sousa, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

Would it be appropriate, given the recommendations and the work and the reports you've made...? It's now been given to government for their review. Are they reviewing it? I believe there is a review under way right now by government to respond to some of the work you've done. Is that correct?

[Karen Hogan]

I believe that the Prime Minister asked for a review of the decision to purchase the F-35s. That has not yet been made public. Other than that, the departments have responded to our recommendations, and they've agreed with them. It is now really up to the public accounts committee and other committees to hold them to account for delivering on the action plans they intend to use.

[Charles Sousa, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

Thank you.

Would it be appropriate to have those action plans before us in response? You're going to go before these committees and you're going to talk about the issues that you've already reported, but the main question from all of us is, what's going to happen next? That's the report we're waiting for.

[Karen Hogan]

The public accounts committee does require that every department that is in a report submit a detailed action plan to them. I would imagine that, committee to committee, you could get hold of that, or you could ask National Defence for their action plan to use as part of your study on these reports.

[Charles Sousa, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

I understand.

Do I have any time left?

I do not.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

There will be plenty of time afterward, though.

Go ahead, Ms. Gaudreau, please.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

I have a question about National Defence as well.

Over the past few weeks, we've been hearing a lot about how the government is planning massive spending. We'll find out on November 4.

On June 25, the Prime Minister, Mr. Carney, told NATO that Canada would allocate up to 5% of its GDP to military spending.

That's all well and good, but we heard earlier that there's a shortage of pilots and technicians. National Defence is unable to spend its money at this point.

Are we on the right track? Is that pledge to increase Canada's military spending to 5% of its GDP realistic?

[Karen Hogan]

That's a hard question for me to answer because I don't know exactly how the government plans to spend the money it has allocated.

I know some of the money will go to a pay increase for National Defence personnel, and I think that will help with recruitment and retention. I can't say any more than that about whether Canada is on the right track or not. I would have to see what decisions the public service makes.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

My last question is about accountability and transparency. As I said, I worked in a certain field.

How can it be that the government is unable to demonstrate what it has to do in terms of accountability when many small organizations, including many not-for-profits, have to undergo reviews and audits before they can get a contract or funding? Those organizations don't even have the internal expertise to do that.

How can it be that the government awarded 106 contracts through GC Strategies without even checking security clearances, without following the rules and without appropriate accountability, just because it said the situation was urgent?

I expect the rules to be very clear, and I expect all departments to follow them. I also expect to see direct communication between you and the departments, and I expect you to have all the information you need to do your job properly.

[Karen Hogan]

You've mentioned the precise reason why I did not make any recommendations in the report on GC Strategies. There are already many rules governing procurement. It's time to take a step back to ensure that there are not too many, that we keep the ones that are necessary, and that we then ensure that they are properly implemented.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Mrs. Block is next.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Thank you, Chair.

I want to circle back to some of the questions that my colleague was asking in regard to CMHC.

According to your report, you found that under the federal lands initiative, CMHC was reporting numbers that were already committed under another agreement as their own. Is it possible that, outside the scope of your audit, there are other instances of numbers being reported like this?

[Karen Hogan]

You're right about this report. We highlighted what I would say is a lack of clarity in their reporting. CMHC is still leading other projects, but those homes were counted in another project and then counted again here because land was added to the projects through the lands initiative. While that might be how you want to get to your 4,000 commitments, I think you just need to be clear. That's why we made some recommendations around a project being delayed and so on. That kind of information is useful.

My biggest concern in this area is around how they're measuring success. They're measuring success based on commitments, which is a great benchmark to get to, but those buildings are not ready for occupancy, and people who need affordable housing are going to be waiting longer than 2027 or 2028 to be able to move in.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Thank you. I agree with you. I know the government has made very ambitious commitments to tackle housing affordability, including with the federal lands initiative. After making those commitments, how you get there matters, so I appreciate what you pointed out in this report.

I think you mentioned this already. CMHC was also found to be reporting units committed and units that have been built in the same category, as we just discussed. You noted that after examining all 23 agreements, you found that they provided for only half of that—49%, I think. You spoke to it not being 4,000.

Could this be misleading to Canadians looking to evaluate the government's progress on the commitments that we just spoke about?

[Karen Hogan]

I think your question aligns exactly with the statements I was making about providing better clarity.

We did conclude that they're well on track. I'm just trying to find the exhibit number that I can give you.

Exhibit 3.3 in the report outlines our lay of the land. The 49% is really those that will be available for occupancy by 2027-28, even though they're well on track to meeting the benchmark of having commitments for 4,000.

As everyone knows, when you do a renovation or a build, there are things that cause delays. Even that kind of clarity could be provided so that there is more accurate information for Canadians to make decisions on where they could access affordable housing.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Chair, how much time do I have?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

You have a minute and a half.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

I have one final question.

In your report, there were groups having difficulties navigating “the CMHC's legal framework”.

For indigenous businesses and for smaller and medium-sized businesses, what options do they have to participate in programs like these without having to hire lawyers, consultants or lobbyists? How do they compete?

[Karen Hogan]

I will see if Markirit wants to add anything here, but I will offer this. We spoke with indigenous groups, and they actually appreciated their experience through the federal lands initiative and are eager to participate again. However, they did raise concerns with us about the burden that it puts on an indigenous community to deal with all of the paperwork, the process and so on.

That's where I would expect the federal government, in the spirit of true reconciliation, to support indigenous communities who want to participate, supporting them differently from the way they would support another builder in the country. It's about figuring out what they need, meeting them halfway and supporting them better.

I don't know if there's anything you want to add, Markirit. It's not necessary. It's up to you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Briefly—

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Okay.

Could you comment as well on the experience of the small and medium-sized businesses that would want to compete in that space?

[Karen Hogan]

I don't know if we zeroed in on smaller businesses versus larger businesses, but there are only 23 agreements, so there are not many participating. I think you need rigour no matter what, but you can't make it too much. That would be the advice I'd offer.