Human Resources Committee on Dec. 10th, 2024

[Coleen Volk]

It's going to very much depend on the employee. Some of them are involved in the delivery of programs, and they will have targets for units that are done in the programs in which they work. There are things like that, but it depends very much on the employee. Someone in an overhead function would not have the same—

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

With your motto being, “we strive to ensure more Canadians have access to what they deserve: a home they can afford that meets their needs”—this is right on your website—and with the housing crisis we have in Canada, do you think it's fair to pay out 30 million dollars' worth of bonuses to employees?

[Coleen Volk]

We're not paying bonuses, sir. We're paying incentive pay, and it's an agreement. We set a total compensation level for someone. We give them part of it at the beginning, and we reserve part of it to say, “If you meet your objectives, you'll get the rest of it.” It's not a bonus.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

In the real world, that's called a bonus. You can call it whatever you want, but it's a bonus and it's usually tied to performance. You won't tell us what the performance metrics are, so I'm putting the question to you. It really can't be about actually getting houses built, and it can't be about the process.

We heard from Victoria Park Community Homes, a not-for-profit, that it took six years of working with your agency to finally get its project approved, and we might get shovels in the ground this year. Is that part of the performance review? Do the people who were involved in that project, which took six years to be approved, deserve a bonus for working on that project?

[Coleen Volk]

I'm not familiar with that project or what would have contributed to the delay.

I can say that every individual has an agreement in terms of the way they can contribute to the corporation's overall objective, and they're very specific to the individual.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

The overall objective seems to be based on your website, which says, “Together, we strive to ensure more Canadians have access to what they deserve: a home they can afford that meets their needs.”

We see that there's a housing crisis, so why were so many bonuses paid out to 98% of employees in the middle of a housing crisis, with a motto that says that we should build homes?

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Mr. Seeback.

Mr. Collins, you have five minutes.

[Chad Collins, Liberal, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Thanks, Mr. Chairman.

Mrs. Volk, in your opening remarks, you talked about partnerships and the importance of partnerships.

It's hard for me to listen, every day in the House of Commons, when someone pulls the string in the Leader of the Opposition's back and he demonizes municipalities for not doing their part. He and his political surrogates—you heard it today—are blaming cities for the cost of housing, in terms of development charges. He pretends that's the reason why there's a housing crisis here in the country. We know that's not the truth.

We know that development charges across the country pay for important things. You can't build houses without water and waste-water services. You can't build communities without rec centres, fire stations and police stations. Many of us around the table come from the municipal sector, and it's hard for me to sit at this table and in the House of Commons and hear the Leader of the Opposition when someone pulls that string in his back. He says the same thing over and over, every day.

I'm going to ask you about partnerships. I'm going to ask you about the importance.... Our government is taking a different approach, of course. We're working with municipalities and we're trying to work with provinces.

My friend and colleague alluded to the issues we've had with some of our provincial partners. Much like Premier Ford, the Leader of the Opposition is using encampments as a political prop in his commercials. He doesn't talk about encampments in the House of Commons or about the solutions. We're building those programs to try to help municipalities and our non-profit partners.

I'm going to ask you about partnerships. I'd like you to talk about the importance of dealing with our provincial partners and trying to get them onside for some of the programs, as well as our municipal partners.

[Coleen Volk]

Partnerships really are.... As I said in my opening remarks, that's who we are. We don't do things alone; we do things with partners. Our provincial partners are very important. Our municipal partners are very important. Without them, we wouldn't be able to get a lot of stuff done.

The relationship with the provinces is more directly managed, day to day in many respects, by the housing and infrastructure department. They have the primary responsibility to nurture and develop the relationships with the provinces on a bilateral basis, so I can't speak in that much detail. I can say we're involved because our programs are being brought to the table in those discussions, but we don't have the overall lead for that program.

I can say they're very conscious of the need to work with the provinces and try to develop programs together and, as we're designing programs, make sure they're going to work for the provinces that would be delivering them.

[Chad Collins, Liberal, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Thank you for that answer.

I'll switch gears right now to building capacity within the non-profit sector.

There are over 80,000 people who sit on Toronto's affordable housing wait-list. There are over 6,000 who sit on Hamilton's. That's a reflection of 30 years of underinvestment in that sector from the federal government—different administrations at the federal level—as well as provincial investments that we haven't seen in 30 years.

When I asked your predecessor about building capacity in the sector, she said that you don't build capacity; you're underwriters. I can't tell you how disappointed I was with that statement. It says a lot about the culture issues, I think, that my friend and colleague just asked you about. You said the culture is excellent. I think most people in the industry, whether it's the private industry or the non-profit industry, would agree with my colleague's assessment and some of the criticisms I've levelled at the organization here at this committee, as well as when I was a municipal councillor, with some of the frustrating issues I had to deal with in terms of the application process when I was president of CityHousing Hamilton.

I'm going to ask you that question again, about what your role is in terms of building capacity in the sector. We are not going to build 6,000-plus non-profit homes in Hamilton without the assistance of CMHC in terms of building capacity with organizations that don't have a lot of staff and, quite frankly, don't have a lot of money.

[Coleen Volk]

That's an excellent point and excellent question. I don't think it relates to our culture. I hope it doesn't, but I'll be on the lookout for that should I see signs of that.

We're measured on targets and the delivery of targets. We try to work with as many non-profits as we can to help them get their projects over the line. It's obviously easier and faster to deal with large non-profits that are skilled, have repeat clients and know the process. It takes more hand-holding to work with smaller clients. We are looking at ways to address that, but that's an important question.

It does require resources to work with them and help them through the application process. It is, in many respects, like a process for a loan application. There's an amount of information we need in order to do our due diligence, that sort of thing. If it's their first time through, sometimes that does take a while.

We appreciate that it's challenging for them. We are looking at ways we can simplify our application processes and streamline some of the documents to really help them through the process. I appreciate that, at the end of the day, it's still a complex transaction for an organization. In many cases, this would be the only one they would do in a lifetime.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Mr. Collins.

[Chad Collins, Liberal, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Chair, I know I'm out of time. I should have mentioned that I will have questions for Mrs. Volk and her staff, which I will leave with the clerk by the end of today.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

That's fine.

Ms. Chabot, you have the floor for two and a half minutes.

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I will rephrase my last question. I was saying that our committee, the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, had done several studies, and, in particular, released the report entitled "National Housing Strategy" in June 2023 and the report entitled "Financialization of Housing" in October of that year.

We are currently doing a study on federal funding. In our June 2023 report, specifically, we made numerous recommendations to CMHC. One of them said:

That the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation report back to the committee on how the specific targets established for the National Housing Strategy will fail to meet the government’s overall vision... .

We were asking CMHC what corrective action the federal government should take to meet this public policy. Basically, we were saying that it would not be happening.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Excuse me, Madame Chabot.

The bells are ringing in the House.

Is the committee okay with continuing?

[Chad Collins, Liberal, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Kevin's back in action. We're okay.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Madame Chabot, I'll give you extra time to refocus and continue with your question.

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

How many minutes do I have left, Mr. Chair?

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

You have two and a half minutes.

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

I raised these issues in my initial questions.

Is corrective action being taken?

We are talking about a public fund totalling $82 billion. When it comes to affordability, however, it is not happening.

[Coleen Volk]

In terms of how targets are set, we set the targets in accordance with the amount of money that we're asked to deliver. For a certain amount of money, we'll look at how many units that could support. That's related to the affordability targets within the program. If it's a deeply affordable program we're trying to develop, we'll be able to support a smaller number of units with the same amount of money.

If it's affordable to the average Canadian, that's one set of targets. If it's deeply affordable, it's less, so that's—

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

I apologize for interrupting, but I only have two minutes.

There is a problem. Your predecessor agreed, to some extent. There are definitions of affordability in the programs that do not reflect people's needs. Yours talks about 30% of income, while some programs talk about median income in the market.

Do you think the definition of affordability given in the programs is one of the criteria that needs to be reviewed?

[Coleen Volk]

Thanks for the really good question.

The answer is that there are different kinds of programs that require different sorts of affordability. If we're looking at a supply program as opposed to a deeply affordable program, it might be appropriate to look at a different measure.

Sometimes we will look at affordability measures related to the average renter, and sometimes we'll look at affordability measures related to the average household income. It really depends on what kind of program we're looking at. If it's a supply program, it may be more appropriate to look at the renter. If it's a deeply affordable program, we're more likely to look at the income of a household as we're establishing those targets.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Ms. Chabot.

Ms. Zarrillo, you have two and a half minutes.

I will remind the committee that we are following the same sequence of five minutes and two and a half minutes until we conclude.