Public Accounts Committee on Sept. 25th, 2025

[Coleen Volk]

Every individual has their own performance management agreement in which they, along with their supervisor, establish their objectives for the year. Some of those objectives would be fairly common things, such as good fiscal administration and those kinds of things, but then they have very specific targets based on what they are bringing to the organization. It's different for someone in an IT function, versus someone in an HR function, versus someone on the front lines, versus someone in our insurance function. Everybody has their own, so they, along with their supervisor, are establishing their own objectives. If they don't meet their objectives, they are not entitled to that pay at risk. It's pay at risk.

[Ned Kuruc, Conservative, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

We know that 99% of your organization met their standard. I still don't see clarity on that. I can appreciate that everybody has their own goal set out, I guess, at the time of signing the contract. In my opinion, I don't think that's a good explanation to the taxpayer. I think it has to be a little more clear-cut. Even if you work at a car lot, you understand where you're going to get above your base pay. You're clearly not a car lot; you're a massive organization. There's no real clarity. Out of all the employees you have, each individual has their own incentive. I just don't think that explanation is a good explanation for the taxpayer, in my opinion. It's not very clear.

My recommendation would be to have a lot of clarity in there. As it reads, it's $30 million in bonuses to 99% of your workers. At a time of a housing crisis, we have to justify that to the taxpayer.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you, Mr. Kuruc.

I'll allow a response, please.

[Coleen Volk]

Thank you.

I agree that it could be interpreted that way, but it's not the reality to me. First of all, as I mentioned, CMHC, in and of itself, is not capable of solving the housing crisis, so that can't be the overall measure. Also, very importantly, every person at CMHC has a different way of contributing. I use the example of someone in IT. They're going to do an excellent job with their IT systems, whatever the situation is on the ground in a housing context. Everyone brings their own individual piece to the organization, and that is what is recognized through the performance pay.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you very much.

Ms. Tesser Derksen, you have the floor for five minutes, please.

[Kristina Tesser Derksen, Liberal, Milton East—Halton Hills South, ON]

Thank you so much, Mr. Chair.

Thanks, everyone, for being here.

I think you can tell how passionate we all are about this issue. I have a background as a municipal councillor, and we really were boots on the ground, talking to people about housing and dealing with regional governments and local governments, with our federal and provincial partners at the time, and with lots of non-profit groups to address this issue. It really is a multi-faceted solution that we need to meet. You should know, and I think you do know, how serious we all are about addressing this for Canadians.

I have a hodgepodge of questions, but I'm going to start with the Auditor General.

Ms. Hogan, I know PSPC is not here today, but I will ask about the note in your report about improvement to data collection, particularly with respect to the federal tenants. What improvements would you say could be made internally to get that data flowing more effectively so that we can make more data-based policy?

[Karen Hogan]

When we approached looking at federal office space.... There are two basic elements you need to know if you're planning on reducing it: how much office space you have and how it is being used. While how much you have is known, how it is being used is the missing element. If you want to be able to consolidate buildings and free up buildings or, as a witness said earlier, if you want to target buildings, you need to know how they're being used so that you know how many public servants you have to move. That's what's missing—the standardized collection of information that would give that piece of information to PSPC.

We looked at how federal tenants know who's in the building, how often it is being used and how much space is underutilized or left vacant. There are so many ways this is being tracked—badge swipes, applications or just physical counting—and that's not giving you a reliable picture. It's difficult to consolidate when you're not comparing the same elements. We felt that this basic piece of information was key to help solve how to target going forward.

[Kristina Tesser Derksen, Liberal, Milton East—Halton Hills South, ON]

My question is for Mrs. Volk.

This was already touched on a little bit, but it goes back to the Auditor General's report, which noted that your department is on track to meet those goals of 4,000 new housing commitments. There is a note in there as well that coordination across government entities and stakeholders can be improved. I already mentioned the work that I did when I was back in the municipality, working with non-profits, for example, and other stakeholders.

What's your department doing to improve that coordination?

[Coleen Volk]

I absolutely agree that coordination could be improved.

At CMHC, we make it a priority to deal very effectively with the provincial governments, the municipalities, our colleagues at HICC, and soon with Build Canada Homes. That will be very important, and we are doing everything we can to coordinate that. There is a role for more coordination there, and I believe that will be part of the role of Build Canada Homes, as a one-stop shop for affordable housing projects in order to bring those people together and act as a catalyst for some of that. That's my understanding, anyway, of part of the role of Build Canada Homes.

At CMHC, we will be doing everything we can to make sure that this coordination works smoothly and that every party knows what the other party is responsible for.

[Kristina Tesser Derksen, Liberal, Milton East—Halton Hills South, ON]

l appreciate that.

Leading from your answer, my next question is this: Are you putting best practices in place now? Are you discussing this with your team to determine—once that does come down from Build Canada Homes, as you're anticipating—how you are going to implement that quickly?

[Coleen Volk]

We are having discussions internally, but it will be reinforced when Build Canada Homes is up and running and when we have interlocutors at the various levels of the organization. It's certainly something that I will be speaking about with the new CEO of Build Canada Homes right away in terms of how we can work most effectively together.

[Kristina Tesser Derksen, Liberal, Milton East—Halton Hills South, ON]

Thank you.

I have a question for Mr. Halucha.

We noted in the report that there was this cutting of the preferred disposal time in half, from six or eight years to now three years. Can you talk to me about the rationale for doing that? In hindsight, was it realistic, and were there outside factors that made the proposed reduction sensible then, but perhaps more difficult now?

[Paul Halucha]

Are you talking about the movement of surplus properties on to the housing land bank?

[Kristina Tesser Derksen, Liberal, Milton East—Halton Hills South, ON]

That's right.

[Paul Halucha]

This was a really important change. The land bank is a very important innovation in terms of the way the public service is managing public lands. The average time of moving a surplus property through the surplus process was nine years, and it remains so—too long at this point. There are a lot of different theories about why that is the case.

In my previous role, I worked at the Privy Council Office and was responsible for public lands. What really seemed to stick out was that there wasn't a premium put on getting lands through the system. There weren't the public policy objectives; therefore, things sort of moved at their own speed. Now, however, it has been infused with urgency, as was mentioned at the table. There's a crisis now; therefore, in terms of getting lands out, there's a lot more senior attention being given to what is occurring and how long things are taking.

There are some things that simply do take time. There's a process of consultation, including first nations consultations, that is obviously extremely important. There are environmental assessments that need to occur. In some cases, there's infrastructure, so there are some things that are, I would say, out of our control. Those things don't happen if attention isn't being paid to it. That's the big difference that is occurring now and will need to continue.

You probably wouldn't know that the Canada Lands Company has moved into the housing portfolio, and that was done—

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you, Mr. Halucha.

You were about to land there, and then you took off again. We'll come back to that, because I know you have a lot more to say.

I will remind members that I operate a little differently in this committee, and I'll do so until I'm told otherwise by members. If members get their questions in on time, I will allow the witnesses to respond to those questions. However, you can't interrupt; if you do, it ends right away.

Mr. Lemire, you have two and a half minutes to ask your question. When your time is up, here's what will happen.

I will still let the witnesses answer, within reason.

As well, just so that members know, if there's ever any trouble with translation, I do pause the clock, or if the witness seeks clarification, I don't take that from your time. Again, you know all this, but I just thought I'd reiterate it as we start the autumn session.

Mr. Lemire, you have two and a half minutes.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I noticed your sense of fairness with respect to the interpretation. Thank you so much for that.

Mr. Halucha, Ms. Volk says that she is aware of the difficulties in adapting programs in the regions and that they are due in part to government policies. Do you agree with her analysis? Do you think programs are adapted to the reality of regions like Abitibi-Témiscamingue?

[Paul Halucha]

Yes, I agree with her.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Very well.

Could you provide us with the written definition your department uses for the term “affordable housing”? I think it would be beneficial to clarify that definition, as well as the various levels of affordability, whether social or otherwise.

For that matter, how do you define “rural region”? I would like those definitions in writing, because I will be working from them. Gatineau and Laval meet the criteria for what constitutes a “rural region”. What is a truly rural region? I don't like the terms “remote region” or “resource region”. We may have to come up with another term if we want programs to reach the regions.

The construction of an eight or twelve-unit building in a Témiscamingue village can have a significant impact on the regions' ability to attract and retain people. At the moment, that's not the challenge. How does your department intend to help regions like Abitibi-Témiscamingue meet their housing needs when the current initiative is not limited to those regions? How can we ensure that the money doesn't only go to Canada's major urban areas?

[Paul Halucha]

Thank you for the question.

I'm not in a position to offer a definition of “rural” for you on the spot here, but I wouldn't take issue at all with the way you described it.

We do have very different markets, as you know, across the country. Housing policy has to respect and reflect those different regional realities. That's one of the things that make housing policy not only very exciting but also extremely complicated.

I'll say a couple of things about that. In Build Canada Homes, which is, as you know, the new organization that has been established, we have adopted an income-based approach to affordability, which has been discussed at committee today and which will enable, I think, a better match. When projects take place in rural areas, it will be the local market's average income rate that will be the basis upon which things like the affordability levels will be changed, so that will be very positive.

The question about rolling this out across all programs is, I think, a bit more complicated. First off, the programs are all in stream at this point, and the affordability definition, the market definition, is not a second- or third-level factor. As the Auditor General pointed out, it's kind of a core piece of it. If you change the affordability levels, then you really need to look at what the fiscal allocation of resources is to those programs, because you will get fewer units and your targets will change. It has a significant impact on it.

Where we have been focused for the last number of months, since a new government was elected, has really been around Build Canada Homes. The focus there is on having not a programmatic approach to doing housing, but actually an investment-based approach, which will be a lot more flexible to exactly the kinds of considerations that you're bringing forward, which I agree with.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Next, we go to Mr. Stevenson.

You have the floor for five minutes, please.

[William Stevenson, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Thank you.

I had a list of questions coming in, but I'm going to start with questions from what my colleagues have already asked, just to delve a little deeper.

I'll start with Mr. Halucha.

In your opening remarks, you said that the departments will determine what is going to be vacant land. Have you set out certain requirements for the departments to say, “We'll back up with the one, as to time length. We're now giving you this time, not just being general, but specific times for when you have to do it now”?

Then, what if some departments determine that they don't really have vacant lands? Have you given them a definition of what vacant land is? “If you haven't used it within 24 months, then it's vacant and must go into the program.”

What are their goals, and do they have numbers on that, specifically? Being an accountant, I like to have goals or something to measure by. If we don't have anything to measure by, how do we go from...? That's the first part.

[Paul Halucha]

That's a rich set of questions.

PSPC actually has the responsibility for the surplussing process. I know they're coming before the committee, so some of these questions would be appropriately directed to them.

What I mean about the surplussing process is that all the lands in the public land bank right now are lands that have been identified as surplus by departments, which means that, through their departmental processes, the departments have come to the conclusion that they don't need them and that, therefore, they can exit their holdings. That's the criterion that moves them right now into consideration.

There is another category that is still under discussion, which is underutilized lands. These are lands that they are using, but perhaps they're not maximizing them. For example, if you think about a lot of buildings and about times when civil servants were in the office five days a week.... They have parking lots that are far outsized given the number of people who are actually utilizing them now, given some of the hybrid decisions. So, there are a lot of underutilized lands.

There are two avenues to have those come up. One is that departments have been written to and have been asked to bring forward their lists of underutilized lands. That has some advantages. The other—I think preferred—way is where you have market interest in properties. That's what we have been trying to encourage. We know somebody is interested in a development; they're focused on a property. Sometimes they're building something, and they're adjacent to a piece of federal land. There's the possibility of having a bigger development if that federal land is added in. That's the kind of place we're most interested in. We're not interested in just identifying properties so they can go in a land bank and not get utilized. It's really about where there is an underutilization federally and an adjoining market demand for that kind of property.

I agree with you in terms of the goals and the numbers. To my knowledge, we have not set targets at this point for departments. I think it's a bit like reversing the.... If there is a market demand.... Right now, I think the environment is much more conducive to there being action around those properties. Some of the conversations we're having with tenants are about lands that it wasn't on their mind that they were going to offer.

[William Stevenson, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

You answered my question. They don't have a number, and they don't have the goals set yet. I think that's problematic.

My next question is with regard to Mrs. Volk's opening remarks that the program is going to be the responsibility of HICC, but the CMHC is going to be managing it. I guess I'm a little confused. Let's say we had goals set. Later, when you go back to look at the goals, who is going to be the one responsible if they are not met? It sounds like you both can pass the buck to the other side. Who is going to be responsible for saying, “We accomplished these things”, when one is operational and the other one is managing?