THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL FINANCE
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Tuesday, September 26, 2023
The Standing Senate Committee on National Finance met this day at 9 a.m. [ET] for the consideration of the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2024; and, in camera, for the consideration of a draft agenda (future business).
Senator Percy Mockler (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: I wish to welcome senators as well as the viewers across the country who are watching us on sencanada.ca.
[Translation]
My name is Percy Mockler, senator from New Brunswick, and Chair of the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance. Now, I would like to ask my colleagues to introduce themselves starting from my left, please.
Senator Forest: Welcome. Éric Forest from the Gulf division in Quebec.
Senator Gignac: Welcome. Clément Gignac from Quebec.
[English]
Senator MacAdam: Jane MacAdam, a senator from Prince Edward Island.
[Translation]
Senator Loffreda: Good morning. Tony Loffreda from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Smith: Larry Smith from Quebec.
Senator Pate: I’m a senator from the unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabeg.
Senator Marshall: Elizabeth Marshall, Newfoundland and Labrador.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: Jean-Guy Dagenais from Quebec.
[English]
The Chair: Honourable senators, today we will continue our study on the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2024, which was referred as an order of reference to the committee on March 7, 2023, by the Senate of Canada.
Today, honourable senators, we have representatives of the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. With us are Lisa Williams, Senior Vice-President, Housing Programs; Bob Dugan, Chief Economist; and André Charbonneau, Deputy Chief Financial Officer.
[Translation]
Welcome to all and thank you for accepting our invitation to appear in front of the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance.
[English]
We will now proceed with comments from Ms. Williams. The floor is yours. After your main comments, we will have questions from the senators.
Lisa Williams, Senior Vice-President, Housing Programs, Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation: Thank you for welcoming us this morning. We have been looking forward to the conversation. It’s an honour to be here on the traditional, unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabe people.
I’m pleased to have the opportunity to provide an update on CMHC’s work in administering federally funded housing initiatives — work that is being supported by the 2023-24 Main Estimates referred to this committee.
CMHC’s research and analysis points to a basic fact: supply of housing in Canada is failing to keep pace with demand. This has been true for some time. This break is driving the housing affordability crisis in this country.
You may know that we released a study a year ago outlining the scale of the supply gap. To reach affordability by 2030, Canada will need to build 5.8 million new homes. That’s an additional 3.5 million homes on top of what the country is already expected on track to produce.
[Translation]
We need more housing across the board and across the country, and we need more of every type of housing, because housing exists on a continuum.
The National Housing Strategy, launched in 2017, is a supply-oriented solution. It has initiatives that address housing across that continuum — from community or social housing up to market rentals and homeownership.
In the years since the strategy was launched, the government has continually expanded and adjusted, reacting to changing circumstances and feedback, and building on what works.
[English]
One recent addition I’d like to point to is the Housing Accelerator Fund. This is a new $4 billion fund that is a direct injection into the bottom line of municipalities to build homes faster. This new program responds to the need to work more closely with municipalities. CMHC recently conducted a survey that found that communities with more overall land use regulation have housing that is more unaffordable. Higher levels of regulation were associated with longer approval times for new developments, which in turn can make building projects more costly. The Housing Accelerator Fund allows us to work with municipalities to cut the red tape.
The addition of the fund is one way the National Housing Strategy has been adjusted as we continue to work toward meeting its clear, measurable targets. I’m pleased to be able to say that we’re making real progress. At the halfway point in the 10-year lifespan of the strategy, we are, for example, either past or near the halfway mark of our two most basic and most significant targets. We have supported, or committed to support, the repair of 126,000 housing units out of a target of 300,000 and the creation of more than 113,000 new homes — more than two thirds of our target of 160,000.
But I should clarify: The National Housing Strategy was never meant to be the only solution to the housing crisis we face in Canada. It was meant to be one tool and ideally to serve as a rallying call that brought others to the cause. That’s why most of the strategy’s initiatives are grounded in partnership.
The federal government doesn’t have access to all the levers that control housing affordability in Canada. Most of them are in the jurisdiction of municipal, provincial and territorial governments, who are responsible for things like land-use policies, permitting and tenant-landlord relations. Non-profits and Indigenous organizations, for examples, are key partners, but the private sector’s ability to finance, explore and operationalize housing projects will continue to be the driving force. The vast majority of housing supply — 96 percent — comes from the private market, so governments can’t do this on their own.
The federal government, and governments across this country, need to find ways to stimulate that investment, particularly for much-needed rental construction. The Prime Minister recently announced the removal of GST on the construction of new, purpose-built rentals. CMHC already has the Rental Construction Financing Initiative in place, which incentivizes developers to opt for building apartments for rental instead of condos for purchase.
On CMHC’s commercial side, we have products like Mortgage Loan Insurance Select, or MLI Select, which supports rental construction while also incentivizing other pro-social goals like climate compatibility, accessibility and affordability. Activities like these are encouraging the kind of housing we need. That’s the kind of role CMHC, and the federal government, is playing and can continue to play, and we need to do more of it. That understanding is what’s driving our approach to housing, as I’ve outlined it to you today.
I thank you again for your attention. I’m happy to answer any questions you may have.
The Chair: Thank you for your comments, Ms. Williams.
We will now proceed to questions. Senators will have a maximum of five minutes each for one round only. Therefore, please ask your questions directly. Witnesses, please respond concisely. The clerk will inform me when the time is over.
Senator Marshall: Thank you to the witnesses for being here. Thank you for your opening remarks, Ms. Williams. It was well laid out and very interesting.
I do have questions on the Rapid Housing Initiative and also on the Housing Accelerator Fund, but I want to start off with an issue that has always been of interest to me, and that’s the net exposure to CMHC with regard to the insurance-in-force and the guarantees. I believe last year you provided a summary to the Finance Committee over in the House of Commons and indicated that the net exposure was $609 billion. Do you have a more current figure?
Ms. Williams: Yes, I do.
Senator Marshall: I don’t expect it went down; I expect it went up. What would the new net figure be?
Ms. Williams: If my colleague has additional information, I can pass it over to him, but from an insurance-in-force perspective, as we refer to it, I can split it down in a couple of ways. Our total insurance-in-force is actually $403 billion right now. That takes into consideration our homeowner mortgage insurance and also our multi-unit insurance.
Senator Marshall: That’s comparable to the last update. What about the guarantees-in-force?
Ms. Williams: The guarantees-in-force are similar. We are at $488 billion.
Senator Marshall: Do you track that by year? I was interested in seeing it by year, like the schedule you gave to the House of Commons. Are you able to go back in time and give it to me for each year for, say, the past 10 years? I wanted to see the growth.
My next question is, how does that work? Does that show up on your financial statements as a contingent liability, or is there any allowance provided? Mr. Charbonneau looks like he has the answer. How does that show up in your financial statements?
I was also looking at the public accounts. I’m trying to get a handle on the government’s contingent liabilities.
André Charbonneau, Deputy Chief Financial Officer, Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation: Thank you for the question, Senator Marshall.
We are required to disclose our exposure, so, ultimately, in separate notes of the financial statements, we include in our mortgage insurance note our exposure to mortgage insurance, and in our mortgage funding note, our exposure to our guarantees-in-force. There is not a contingent liability for those amounts. However, we are fully transparent with respect to —
Senator Marshall: I didn’t think you had an allowance for it.
Mr. Charbonneau: We do recognize a provision for claims. For our mortgage insurance business, if we have an incurred claim for which we’re able to estimate an amount, we will record a provision in our financial statements, similar to our guarantees-in-force. However, at this time, we have zero recognized for our guarantees-in-force.
Senator Marshall: Historically, I’m wondering what the experience has been, because people are having difficulty now paying their mortgages. Are you noticing that those programs are being called upon to honour guarantees or insurance? Historically, what is happening? I’m trying to get a handle on the government’s exposure and if you’re seeing an acceleration now.
Mr. Charbonneau: Again, thank you for the question, Senator Marshall.
Our overall exposure has actually been decreasing over the last number of years. There was a period of time, I would say, right after the great financial crisis where our insurance-in-force went up significantly as a greater portion of the market came over to CMHC. As the years have gone by, our exposure has actually decreased quite a bit compared to where it used to be on the mortgage insurance side. On the mortgage funding side, it has stayed relatively stable. There is some movement there.
Senator Marshall: If I could get the chart by year, that would be helpful.
I am going to move to the Housing Accelerator Fund. It was supposed to start last year, and I think there was $925 million budgeted for it, but the money didn’t come through until we were doing Supplementary Estimates (A) so it seemed as if there was a lag of a year. Why was there a lag? Why didn’t you start implementing it the previous year, and have you caught up now?
Ms. Williams: We officially announced the program launch on March 17 this year. That was the official launch date. Prior to that, there was a period of time to set up the requirements of the program, making sure it was delivering on the outcomes that were required and working our way through the regular process to obtain access to those funds. We did announce it in March of this year, and in that period of time, my team was working closely with those cities that were projecting the largest growth. We recently announced the first one.
I would say we have caught up. We feel we are on schedule and on time. We actually are quite proud of delivering in the period of time between March and today, setting up a portal, getting everyone on side, being able to help between 30 and 40 and directly figure out how to manage and make the most of what they could do. So we are absolutely on track, and there are going to be more announcements coming shortly.
Senator Marshall: So you’re well on your way.
Ms. Williams: Yes.
[Translation]
Senator Forest: Thank you for being here.
I believe that, yes, the diagnosis is catastrophic in terms of housing availability. You rightly estimate that we need 3.5 million additional housing units. When we’re looking at a balanced market, there is a 3% vacancy rate, and yet we have communities that don’t even have a 1/10 of 1% vacancy rate. That’s pretty significant.
I’m also pleased that a fund is being set up to accelerate housing construction; it’s really an important first step and municipalities are key players in that. Working with the CMHC, municipalities have carried out some interesting projects in the past, and I feel that’s a really important point.
I’ve been advocating for a real federal-municipal relationship for a long time. It’s not that far-fetched, because in 1970 we had a federal department responsible for municipal affairs.
To sum up, as is often the case, there’s an agreement issue with Quebec right now. Can you tell us if you think it can be resolved in the short term?
One more thing: I’ve been wondering about a measure that was both very efficient and highly decisive for the communities, the gas tax fund, where the money went straight to municipalities. Have you considered adopting this model for the housing accelerator fund?
Ms. Williams: Thank you for the question, senator.
[English]
Just to make sure that everyone is aware, there is a law in Quebec that doesn’t allow municipalities to deal directly with federal government programming, so we cannot engage directly with the municipalities to deliver these programs. We respect that. That’s the choice that they have made. But, with that, my team is working closely with the Province of Quebec, talking about the Housing Accelerator Fund and getting an agreement in place. It’s an active conversation. I know there have been a lot of discussions around that, and we’re hopeful that this will come to the ground shortly.
The second part of your question, Senator Forest, is with respect to the gas tax. That’s not something that is within, necessarily, the provincial range and definitely not in our jurisdiction. But one of the things that we are seeing in other provinces at the moment is, for example, with our Federal Lands Initiative, municipalities are finding parcels of land they want to be able to bring to market and allow developers to develop housing on. There are also some initiatives out there that are looking at speeding up the process of permitting and streamlining that process to make it faster.
So we’re seeing some initiatives along those lines that are making the delivery of housing quicker in the municipalities, and those are just two examples of several that we’re beginning to see at the moment.
[Translation]
Senator Forest: Yes, and there are no advantages to it. In Quebec, when a municipality has a relationship with the federal government, it’s like an extramarital affair: It very much leaves them at a disadvantage.
For example, if a project were carried out by a non-profit organization supported by a municipality, would it be eligible for your program?
[English]
Ms. Williams: The Housing Accelerator Fund is directly provided to municipalities. It does not look at it directly with non-profits. We do have other programming in our suite of programs that do support the non-profit groups, such as our National Housing Co-Investment Fund, where we work directly with non-profits to provide some of that. Certainly, recognizing your earlier comment on that in terms of wishing that that could come to fruition faster, I can tell you that the teams are hard at work trying to bring that forward.
[Translation]
Senator Forest: What criteria are used to determine whether a municipality or community is a suitable candidate?
[English]
Ms. Williams: As part of the process when we receive these applications, in some of the larger cities, we work closely with them to understand what they are trying to accomplish and what their outcome is meant to be. In that, and we’ll talk a little bit about London, but when we come to an agreement with a city, we basically require them to report on the progress on that. They will look at what their existing process is. For example, let’s pick permitting. If they decide to fast track the permitting process by bringing in technology to allow that to happen electronically, they will take a look at the process to estimate how much faster they can get the permitting through. If they decide to take off exclusionary zoning, which means that in some areas, you are only allowed to build a single-unit home and they want to allow four-plexes or six-plexes on that lot, they will estimate how many units or permits they will be able to release based on that change. We take that information in and do an assessment in terms of how reasonable that estimate is and work with them to make sure we’re locking down the appropriate target.
[Translation]
Senator Forest: Thank you.
Senator Gignac: My first question is for the CMHC’s chief economist, whose mandate is to facilitate access to housing. On September 14, the Prime Minister announced plans to reduce the GST on new rental housing. As housing experts, were you consulted about this? What impact do you feel this will have on the supply of rental housing?
Bob Dugan, Chief Economist, Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation: I will leave the consultation part of the question to my colleague. As for the impact, we haven’t had time to estimate the specific impact reducing the tax would have on building new rental units.
It’s a very difficult environment for supply: Interest rates are very high, input prices to build homes are high and labour availability is rather low right now. It’s a very difficult environment for new construction. Any program that can make things easier or reduce costs will be welcome. I don’t have exact figures, and I can’t say how many units will be built, but it will help the situation because it will change the economic conditions for housing supply creation. In a context where there will be a shortfall of 3.5 million units by 2030, it’s important to have everything in place to stimulate construction.
Ms. Williams: With respect to being consulted about the GST, yes, we were consulted before the announcement was made.
Senator Gignac: Quebec’s finance minister Eric Girard said he may not follow the federal government’s lead. According to his analysis, a third of the benefits go to the tenant, a third go to the landlord and a third go to the contractors. It looks like he’s done his homework when he says he’s in no hurry to follow the federal government’s lead. What analysis did the federal government base its decision on? Since you’re here, I’d like to take the opportunity to ask you about this.
Secondly, about a decade ago, under Mr. Flaherty — with whom I’ve worked — the CMHC had reduced the limits and changed the mortgage insurance rules, namely that homes worth $1 million or more would no longer be insured. Unless I’m mistaken, I believe that was July 9, 2012. Back then, the median price of a home in Toronto was $575,000; today, it’s $1.6 million. If we look at something a little more modest, like a townhouse, the median price was $350,000 in 2012, but today, it’s $995,000 or close to $1 million. Other changes have also been announced, like the maximum amortization period of 25 years.
Is the CMHC looking into raising the home insurance limit? Otherwise, people need a 20% down payment to buy a home in Toronto. That no longer applies only to luxury homes; it could also apply to Vancouver. Is the CMHC considering raising the limits imposed 10 years ago?
[English]
Ms. Williams: You are absolutely right that the cost of housing — and for home owners — is absolutely increasing and has increased over that period of time.
We do look at and are consulted on various options in terms of what we can do with our mortgage insurance products. I need to state up front that those decisions are not CMHC’s decisions in terms of those limits; they are the decisions of the Department of Finance. They do engage with us, though, on various occasions to understand what we’re seeing in the environment, what we’re seeing in terms of applications coming in and what we’re hearing on the ground. We do provide that feedback to the minister.
[Translation]
Senator Gignac: Can you provide us with some statistics on the percentage of homes you were insuring in Toronto in 2012 and the percentage today? I get the impression that you’re insuring fewer and fewer homes and that people are having to ask their parents, uncles and grandparents for help with their down payment. In young households starting out, no one has $200,000, and that’s what’s needed — $100,000 or $200,000 — to become a homeowner.
It seems that parents and grandparents are playing the CMHC’s and the government’s role.
Surely you have statistics on the percentage of homes in the Toronto and Vancouver areas that are insured by the CMHC. If you have the data, could you please get it to us in the next few days?
[English]
The Chair: Ms. Williams, that is a very important question, so could you please bring that answer to the attention of the Finance Committee in writing, please?
Ms. Williams: Yes, Mr. Chair. We will take that away and find information to help support that.
The Chair: We will give you the date for providing that to the committee. Please do that through the clerk.
Ms. Williams: Thank you.
Senator Smith: Thank you for being with us today, witnesses.
CMHC’s estimates to date for the one-time payment through the Rental Housing Benefit Act is just over $1.1 billion, with a request of $46 million in these estimates. Can you expand on the number of Canadians who have benefitted from the one-time payment?
Ms. Williams: That is an excellent question. I will have to come back to you with that number because it’s not one I have at my fingertips, to be honest.
Senator Smith: As you know, the program comes with many conditions, one being having paid at least 30% of net income on rent, if I understand correctly. Could you talk about the cost of administering this program as well as the application process? I’m trying to understand how easy or complex it is to apply for the program.
Ms. Williams: Is this in relation to the Canada Housing Benefit, sir?
Senator Smith: Yes.
Ms. Williams: Okay. I’m digging deep on my response as I haven’t been in this role that long, but I can tell you that the Canada Housing Benefit has been in place for a bit of time and the take-up on that plan is a little below what we had anticipated. In terms of the specifics of how that is delivered, I would need to get back to you on that, Senator Smith.
Senator Smith: Are there any sort of simple examples to outline the potential difficulties that you would see with people applying? What are the top two common reasons for people having difficulty getting access to the program?
Ms. Williams: From the information that my staff have provided, we’ve had close to 800,000 applications — we’ll start there — and 400,000 in payments. But in terms of the difficulties, unfortunately, no one at this table has that depth of knowledge of this program. I do apologize for that, but we can get back to you, Senator Smith.
Senator Smith: To continue along the administration themes, are there any anti-fraud mechanisms built into the program? How is CMHC ensuring that this funding reaches people who actually need it?
Ms. Williams: In any program, Mr. Chair, in today’s environment, we need to be very careful about fraud. We do take steps to identify opportunities or to identify areas where fraud could be a concern. We do follow up with respect to those. We have programs to assist us to look at the information that is provided. We refer those to the RCMP when we believe there are fraudulent cases. It is absolutely something that we track. Fraud is one of those things that is very difficult to detect because it is usually done very craftily. Certainly, when we deliver our programs, we take that into consideration, and we look for areas where that could be a concern.
Senator Smith: Which regions of the country have the highest levels of regulatory impediments to development of the program?
Ms. Williams: That’s a really good question. I can’t pinpoint a specific province or location where that’s the case. It’s very local. As I explained earlier, it can go down to the municipality level, and there are lots of those in this country.
We focus a lot of our work on the areas that are in the highest need, not excluding rural communities and northern communities. Those are in high need as well, and those needs are rising in the country. Generally, there are challenges across the country with respect to regulations. That brings it back to what the Housing Accelerator Fund is meant to do; it’s meant to support the municipalities to find those areas and get some support to help them bring those barriers down. That’s ultimately what that program is meant to do.
Senator Smith: Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: Good morning, Ms. Williams. My question is for you. Do you feel that your reports on the housing situation in Canada for the coming years have had little to no influence on the political decisions the government has made in recent years? Could the current crisis have been avoided if politicians had paid closer attention to your observations? Could they have done better, given your knowledge?
[English]
Ms. Williams: On many of the questions that you would ask me, I would probably say we can always do better. In the last five years, I don’t think people could have predicted what was going to happen with the economy and COVID and so forth, but this issue has been at play for more than just the last five years. It has been decades in the works. This crisis is not one that just happened over the last couple of years; it’s been mounting over time. Unfortunately, with the confluence of the pandemic and the economy and everything else that is happening at the same time, it has become prevalent in this time.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: When so many orders of government are involved in making decisions to encourage and stimulate housing construction, I honestly think it can discourage builders and developers. I’m referring to an interview with Groupe Mach, a major Montreal real estate developer. Its representatives said that removing the GST would have no influence on housing construction.
Can you tell us what we should be focusing on so that rapid improvements can be made in order to speed up housing starts?
[English]
Ms. Williams: From what we’ve seen, there’s no one answer to this problem. There’s not one solution that will speed everything up and bring it to the ground.
Multiple players are involved in this process. We are one. The federal government is one. Provincial governments are another. The developers list is quite long. It will require that we all come together to figure out how to make it work. From my perspective sitting here, it is bringing together the various groups with which we interact to understand what is holding up the creation of supply. As you mentioned, supply is the answer, and it is supply across the board.
We can help municipalities find better ways to deliver more quickly, but we can also work with developers to provide them with financing. In this instance, it’s becoming more and more difficult, with the rising costs of construction and rising interest rates, to make a project work. There are various ways to address some of these issues. We need to continue to do more but also continue to strengthen our relationships in this system. Perhaps we can put down our differences and really align with each other. We all have one goal, and that goal is to bring housing.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: If I refer to your analysis and observations, to what extent has the major influx of immigrants into the country had an impact on the housing crisis? Do you feel the government accounted for this problematic situation in its immigration policy?
[English]
Ms. Williams: I will ask my colleague to give you more flavour from an economist’s point of view. From our perspective, various elements are impacting the supply and the demand. I’m not prepared to say that this is a result of immigrants or that that is the case, but there are various things and levers we need to consider in making these moves.
Mr. Dugan: It’s also important to recognize that immigration affects more than just housing. We can think about things like the labour shortages in Canada, and bringing in immigrants helps to meet some of those needs. It helps to get some of the jobs filled. Targeted immigration can help bring in tradespeople who can help us build homes. Those are the kinds of things that can help with housing supply.
To your question, there’s no doubt that immigrants, when they arrive in Canada, need a place to live, creating a certain pressure in terms of increasing demand for housing. A lot of immigrants, when they first come to Canada, tend to settle in the rental market. That can put a particular pressure on the affordability of the rental market. The solution is supply. We need to build enough homes in order to keep housing affordable with this kind of immigration because, in the long run, immigrants help. When they arrive here and participate in the economy, they help to promote economic growth. If we don’t do something about housing affordability, Canada’s ability to attract immigrants might decline down the road because the immigrants may face such high housing costs when they arrive in the country. Supply is very important in order to help deal with the problem.
Senator Pate: Thank you to the witnesses for being here.
As you know, last year, when the Auditor General looked at CMHC’s housing initiatives, there were concerns about where resources were going for particularly marginalized communities. You have done an admirable job of mentioning the housing challenges and the supply issues.
One core cause of homelessness is poverty. Through the Innovative Solutions to Homelessness funding stream, under the Homelessness Partnering Strategy, which is the predecessor to the current Reaching Home program, Employment and Social Development Canada, or ESDC, helped to fund the B.C.’s New Leaf Project. I’m not sure if you’re familiar with it, but this project demonstrated that unconditional cash transfers — in this case, $7,500 — to people who were homeless resulted in them finding stable housing more quickly. It resulted in a general saving of $8,277 or $777 net per person per year in terms of fewer days spent in shelters. What concrete measures has CMHC taken to integrate this kind of important finding in its approach to housing initiatives, especially those geared towards eliminating homelessness?
Ms. Williams: With respect to the programs you’re talking about, they do form part of the National Housing Strategy. However, they’re not programs that are administered or delivered by CMHC. Our colleagues at Infrastructure Canada would be better placed to answer that question.
Senator Pate: Have they been taken into account at all in terms of the ways in which you are determining the most effective strategies for addressing the housing supply as well as lack of housing?
Ms. Williams: We take all the information that is available. When we look at our recommendations to the government, we think about the housing continuum as a whole. In making our recommendations, we would take into consideration various types of information that we have. I assume that would be part of that information as well.
Senator Pate: In light of what the Auditor General said last year, can you please explain — perhaps more fulsomely — what kinds of efforts you’re taking to ensure that those who are most in need, particularly some of the most marginalized groups, are actually benefitting from the housing strategy?
Ms. Williams: We agreed with the observations of the Auditor General’s report and have been taking it quite seriously.
What I will say is that when we do our programs and underwrite these projects, we know who we are intending to help. It is very clear to us that if the project is meant for women fleeing violence with their children, we know that is what is meant, and we include that in the documentation and contracts we have with the proponents.
Where we can do better, though — and this is probably speaking more to the Auditor General’s report — is the reporting on that and the collecting of the data post the time when it’s been built and people have moved in and so on. That’s what we’re working on right now in order to be able to collect the information we can, with respect to the Privacy Act and so on, but we’re certainly looking to improve that reporting.
Senator Pate: In the past, CMHC has acknowledged that homelessness increases the likelihood of future incarceration, and incarceration increases the likelihood of future homelessness. As you’re no doubt aware, about 8,800 Canadians are released from prison every year. What work is being done to address homelessness and barriers to housing for previously incarcerated people, in particular?
Ms. Williams: Thank you for the question. It’s a very good question but, again, it’s one on which we at CMHC do not do research or provide advice. Our colleagues at Infrastructure Canada would be best positioned to answer that for you.
Senator Pate: Thank you.
Senator Loffreda: Thank you to our witnesses for being here this morning.
As a former banker and lender, I’d like to discuss housing financing. CMHC plays a vital role in this ecosystem by providing mortgage insurance and mortgage financing. On page 6 of your report, you list several reasons why you have lowered your estimate for how many units will be built by 2030. You mentioned that materials have become more expensive, labour is in short supply and it’s difficult to get financing for construction. I would like to address this last item. What are some of the impediments or barriers that builders are facing with respect to securing financing? What is your relationship with our big banks? How are you working together to ensure that financing is readily available to address the housing stock shortage? Is access to financing a major barrier to increasing supply?
Ms. Williams: Thank you for the question.
Our programs at CMHC, whether they’re funded through appropriations or whether they’re a commercial business, as you mentioned, span the spectrum of the housing continuum. Much of our programming that is focused through appropriations is along the low-income end of the spectrum. Our mortgage insurance tends to focus more on the market side of the spectrum.
In terms of the financing or programs that we receive on our appropriation side, we work very hard. The demand for our programs far exceeds the funding we receive for those. We often hear disappointment with our programs because we can’t fund everything that we’re being asked to fund. That’s a factor of our not having enough money to be able to support the demand that’s out there.
Over the last little while, we have noticed that demand for commercial mortgage insurance products has increased, that banks are coming to us for that insurance and maybe a little less appetite to provide financing without that insurance. It comes down to the availability of capital in the system and that capital making its way to the developers.
Our role at CMHC is to help support that. We help support that through our mortgage insurance but also through our securitization product, which provides access to funding for banks. It’s cheaper access to funding, so it incents them to provide liquidity and capital to developers in the system who are seeking to build housing.
As you mentioned, and as we mentioned in the report, the cost to construct has definitely gone up. We see it in all our applications. The rising interest rates have an impact on that, absolutely. It’s becoming more and more difficult for developers to be able to make the numbers work, and that’s what it is at the end of the day. You have a project and need enough rents to cover your operating expenses for a period of time. When those operating expenses are on the rise because of cost of construction and so on, it becomes much more challenging.
Senator Loffreda: Thank you for that.
Your projections show that we need at least 3.5 million new units from now until 2030 to meet current and future housing demand. It’s clear that we have a serious housing shortage in Canada. We all know that.
CMHC has been Canada’s national housing agency since 1946, when it was created as a federal Crown corporation to help address post-war housing shortages. Does the CMHC have any historical data on its projections over the years and its success in achieving its targets? I’m trying to get at whether or not, in the last 75 years, Canada ever had a period when there was not a housing shortage, or a limited one. What were the conditions at the time that allowed for the success? In other words, if we look back in terms of why we had success then, maybe we can use that same formula to build success for the future. Or have we always had a housing shortage per se? Do you have statistics on that? Data is wealth.
Ms. Williams: Data is absolutely wealth. I’ll comment and then pass this over to Mr. Dugan to provide the economic perspective.
I would say that, yes, we’ve certainly been in this world since 1946. The context of the world that we’re in has changed significantly over that period of time, as has the economy and what it takes to build these buildings. There has been an affordable time in our history. Supply and demand is the equation. If you have balanced supply and demand, then you should have housing that is affordable. When one of those gets out of sync, that’s when things start to tilt, and that’s what we’re experiencing in the moment.
Perhaps Mr. Dugan could add more colour to that.
Mr. Dugan: We benchmark to 2004 as a time when housing was much more affordable. When you look at charts of shelter-costs-to-income ratios, that’s when they were at their lowest. They declined through the 1990s to early 2000s and then started to climb since then. That would be a period of time where I would say affordability was a lot higher. We talk about building 3.5 million new homes between now and 2030. By the way, that’s beyond what will be built anyway. We have a forecast for housing starts, and we say that by 2030, that projected number of housing starts is insufficient and we need 3.5 million above and beyond that in order to get the supply we need to bring housing back to the affordability level it had back in 2004. That’s our benchmark.
That’s not to say that level of affordability meets our standard. We have this objective that, by 2030, everybody in Canada has a home that they can afford and that meets their needs. Getting back to 2004 levels makes housing affordable for the average person earning an average income. It doesn’t take care of that part of the market that’s most in need, namely, lower-income folks. The 3.5 million would still leave us in a position where we have affordability challenges for certain target populations that are lower income and that aren’t as well served by the market.
Senator Loffreda: Thank you for that.
The Chair: Before I introduce and recognize Senator MacAdam, as chair of the committee, I would say that there’s no doubt that all of us would like to thank you, Senator MacAdam, for choosing to join the Finance Committee. Thank you again for that decision. When we look at your experience as former auditor general of the Province of Prince Edward Island, and also as a chartered professional accountant, there is no doubt that you are well versed for the Finance Committee.
Senator MacAdam: Thank you chair, and thank you to the witnesses for being here today.
You mentioned in your opening remarks the importance of partnerships to move things forward on housing and that 96% comes from the private sector. To what extent does rental regulation or control impact housing in terms of the uptake of the investment with the private sector?
Ms. Williams: Confirming the lead into that, yes, that’s definitely the state. We do feel partnerships are ultra important. I can’t even find the right word to put “ultra” in front of. It’s definitely important for the success of this work.
In terms of the rental regulations that you’re referring to, these regulations are provincial jurisdiction, just to make sure we’re on the same page. There is an impact with respect to that regulation. I don’t know, Bob, if you have any intel on that, but it does have an impact in terms of when builders are creating their pro forma and trying to understand if their project will work. They need to take those rents into consideration. While it may put a cap on some of the rents they are able to charge, that’s often not the case on new construction. It’s often in situations where there’s a unit that’s in place and then it vacates, or there’s a unit in place and people remain within that unit. It varies across the provinces in terms of what those regulations are. I’m not well versed in all of them, but there is an impact that needs to be taken into consideration, absolutely, when they’re looking at the future of their projects.
Senator MacAdam: Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator MacAdam.
With the indulgence of all the senators, I have a question for Canada Housing and Mortgage Corporation. I have to admit that I was responsible for the ministry of New Brunswick housing more than 20 years ago, and there are a few questions I would like to ask. One is for the record. I know this question is related to Public Service and Procurement Canada because they manage — and I’ll give a little intro to the question — the government’s real estate portfolios.
[Translation]
Here’s my question: Since the beginning of the pandemic, telecommuting has become more and more prevalent in today’s society. As a result, many federal government buildings are only half full.
Are federal government organizations — yours or others — looking into converting certain buildings into residential housing? What do you think the housing potential is for Canadians?
I know from experience that you’re frequently asked for your opinion, because you are consultants; how are negotiations going with the provinces on the issue I’m talking about?
[English]
Ms. Williams: That is a very apropos observation. The pandemic has certainly shifted how we think about work and where we work. It has proven for the most part that we can even, at a minimum, have a hybrid situation on many fronts. It does raise the question — one that we’ve been sort of exploring, tackling and looking at, but not on our own; there are lots of companies and people out there thinking that through — about those buildings. They’re often downtown locations, in the centre of cities. Can we just not convert them?
It sounds like a simple thing to do, namely to convert a building, but it’s proven to be quite complex. The structure of some buildings that we have seen and the way they’re set up can work, but a lot of them cannot. It becomes costly and, in some instances, it almost means tearing down the building to rebuild because of the way the buildings are laid out. If you think about an office building, there are windows all around the outside, usually offices are all around the outside, and there’s an elevator tower, but the infrastructure within that isn’t set up to support individual units. From the fire code perspective, you have to have certain accesses. You can have really skinny, long apartments, but they are not practical in many instances. There are many different factors, but it’s one that we haven’t given up on and it’s one for which we continue to try to find solutions. I think some will be successful at doing that, but it’s to find those where conversions can be successful.
The Chair: Thank you. We will now move to the second round.
Senator Marshall: I started with some questions on the Housing Accelerator Fund. One of the problems I have is trying to trace what is happening with regard to your funding and whether the units that you think are going to be constructed are actually constructed. I’m going from the Estimates, to the Supplementary Estimates, to the Budget, to the fall fiscal update, and then I’m trying to take all that information and look at your annual report and see what your results are. I can tell you that it’s not possible.
For the Main Estimates alone, there’s not much information in the Main Estimates document. Can you provide a breakdown of that funding by program? The Budget shows the National Housing Strategy and the different programs, but the number that’s in the Main Estimates is a high-level number. I would be interested in seeing it broke down according to the program. That would make it easier to track it. I could see how much is in there for the Housing Accelerator Fund and how much is in there for the Rapid Housing Initiative.
Regarding your annual report, I noticed that you give the numbers as a conglomerate, so it’s not broken down by program. For example, in your annual report, you’re talking about progress towards aspirations, and you say, “In 2022, our programs funded 115,378 units, affordable to those in core housing need.” I think what is in there is not just new units but also units that have been repaired. That’s the impression that I’ve been getting from the annual report.
Why don’t you report it by program so we can see? Simplistically, I’m looking at the Housing Accelerator Fund. It’s supposed to build 100,000 units and then it shows, over five years, how you’ll be funded, the $4 billion. Why can’t we track what your objective is for that specific fund year by year, exactly how many homes you built and where you built them?
Ms. Williams: That’s a big question.
Senator Marshall: It is, but I’d really like an answer.
Ms. Williams: That’s okay. It’s a completely valid question, and I hope my answer will make your life a bit easier when you’re trying to come up with these numbers in the future.
We do report on our progress, and we have a website called aplacetocallhome.ca. That website will give you overall results. There are a few buckets that kind of gather the information together, but you’ll also be able to look at it by program. For example, if you wanted to see what our current results were, the results that are posted are done so quarterly. The current results that are posted are as of June. We should be posting again soon. It’s hard to believe, but September is ending soon, so we’ll be able to post those numbers. But you’ll be able to see in there what our targets are, and you’ll be able to see our progress against those targets. You’ll be able to see that for all of our NHS programs as well.
Senator Marshall: Can you tell where the units are being constructed? I represent Newfoundland and Labrador. I know there are some units, because I visited them, but can you tell from the website exactly where the units are being built? We’re talking about the shortage of housing in Canada, and then we’re seeing billions of dollars going to CMHC. People are wondering where all those 100,000 units are. Is that information on the website?
Ms. Williams: Absolutely. We try our best to be transparent with all of that, because we take it quite seriously that we’re responsible for the public money that we are given. You will find a pretty map. On the same website, toward the bottom of the page, you will see there is a map that will pin where we’re delivering across the country.
Senator Marshall: Is it an interactive map?
Ms. Williams: Yes.
Senator Marshall: Okay, I’ll try that. When you come back, I might have another question.
Ms. Williams: No problem.
Senator Marshall: In the Main Estimates, there is a$164 million figure there in statutory as a negative amount. What is that?
Mr. Charbonneau: Thank you for the question. It relates to —
Senator Marshall: Are you giving money back to the government?
Mr. Charbonneau: Ultimately, the $164 million relates to amounts in 2022-23. It’s under a category called “non-budgetary,” which relates to previous borrowings we had. On some of our older programs, we issued loans. What is happening is that as those loans are maturing, they are repaying. It demonstrates we are returning the funds that have been collected. We are returning those dollars back. It shows as a negative as they are being reimbursed.
Senator Marshall: It has nothing to do with the dividend?
Mr. Charbonneau: It has nothing to do with the dividend, no.
Senator Marshall: And there are no more dividends being paid? Did you stop paying dividends to the federal government?
Mr. Charbonneau: Thank you for the question. We have recently reduced our dividend, but we are still continuing to pay a dividend. It is just lower than what it previously was.
Senator Marshall: Okay, it has been reduced.
Mr. Charbonneau: Correct. This is very positive, but we are experiencing a significant increase in volumes in our multi-unit insurance business. That is positive because it goes toward supply. However, as a result of that growth, it requires capital for us to grow. As a result of that demand on capital, we are retaining some of the dividend to facilitate that growth.
Senator Marshall: Who decides the amount of the dividend? Is it the government or CMHC?
Mr. Charbonneau: Thank you for the question. Ultimately, it’s a decision of our board of directors.
[Translation]
Senator Forest: Thank you very much for being here and being so informative.
As I understand it, the deadline for filing applications across Canada has already come and gone; in Quebec, we haven’t yet signed the agreement.
That $900 million figure is floating around among representatives of large urban centres. Is that the amount expected once the agreement is finally signed with Quebec?
[English]
Ms. Williams: This answer relates a bit to the question asked by the previous senator in relation to the funding around — I’m assuming that we’re referring to the Housing Accelerator Fund. With respect to the Housing Accelerator Fund, that money is still there.
We basically come to an agreement with municipalities across the country. There is an upfront funding that flows to them to allow them to get things moving and for things to flow. Then there are three equal payments that happen after that for the next three years. When they report back to us on their progress and report on making sure that they are doing X, ensuring they are doing what they said they would do and their permitting units are advancing as they had intended, then we would advance funding in the subsequent years.
So the funding is still there, and it’s still meant to be provided to deliver on this program. The Province of Quebec forms part of that sum and will obtain the money once the agreement is signed.
[Translation]
Senator Forest: However, right now, no funds are being paid out since the agreement is not signed; is that correct?
[English]
Ms. Williams: That is correct. We cannot flow funds until there is an agreement in place with the Province of Quebec.
[Translation]
Senator Forest: So many factors are contributing to this housing crisis we’re experiencing.
We spoke of immigration earlier, but people are also talking a lot about the growing presence of foreign students. Could universities be eligible for the program, so they could build student residences to help relieve pressure on the demand for housing?
[English]
Ms. Williams: As I mentioned earlier, we have various programs across many parts of the housing spectrum. Part of that includes student housing. There are programs that we do have at CMHC that support the creation of student housing. It could be universities, but there are also private developers that provide student housing as well. We can work on those through some of our programs, which could be rental construction or our mortgage loan insurance. We do have programs that support the creation of student housing.
[Translation]
Senator Forest: Are there any CMHC initiatives to inform universities that they are eligible for this kind of program? It’s one of a whole range of factors that add this type of pressure. Are you proactive about raising awareness among stakeholders like universities in this spirit of the program?
[English]
Ms. Williams: We at CMHC have a pretty good group of individuals who interact with various clients across the country — anybody from people who are exploring our products to people who are long-term clients with whom we have been dealing for years. We have absolutely had some conversations with student housing providers, and we have been doing so for many years. I will say that we are not doing a concerted push at the moment, but it’s something that is being taken under consideration for us to determine where we should be targeting our programs. But when we look at our programs, we go out and try to find the people who can deliver the biggest outcomes. Student housing is part of that portfolio. It’s trying to figure out where our programming fits to help support that.
Senator Forest: Thank you.
Senator Gignac: Let’s talk about one particular product that CMHC has agreed to insure. The Chief Economist at Desjardins, Jimmy Jean, has called it “the ticking time bomb mortgage product.” I am talking about variable rate, fixed payment. In fact, they mention that you now have $269 billion outstanding in mortgages that have chosen a fixed payment and a variable rate, and two thirds now have an amortization exceeding 35 years and more.
I know that last year you helped 64,000 Canadians buy a home, and thanks for that, but what percentage of them have chosen that particular product? When you enter a mortgage, you do not allow more than 25 years because the Finance Minister decided a decade ago that the ceiling for 1 million properties was a 25-year amortization maximum. But now, two thirds of these people have made a choice, and a lot of the young have also chosen that.
Which percentage of the product have you accepted to insure last year? Sixty-five have been this ticking mortgage bomb. What you will do? A lot of them have hit the trigger rate, and they will have no other choice to find money but to bring back the amortization to 25 years to comply with your request, or ask their parents or grandparents who have a lot of money to reduce their amortization. What will you do, and what percentage does that represent in the last year?
Ms. Williams: I will pass it over shortly, because André has a few of the numbers for you.
What I will say is this is something that, over the last few years, we have been keeping a close eye on. We did see a bit of a shift in terms of business that was coming in. As part of our stress testing we do every year, but also our risk management of our portfolio, when we start to see shifts in business, we start to ask ourselves questions about the implications of that are. We are pleased to report that we’re seeing a decline in that. The balance for us that we have, that we insure, our variable rate mortgages have declined, but it never reached a rate that was concerning, from our perspective.
André, I don’t know if you have some numbers there.
Mr. Charbonneau: I can give you some numbers. Over the last four quarters, let’s say, the percentage of variable rate mortgages has gone down significantly. In our most recent quarter, we are at 3.3% of our total mortgages that were insured were variable rate. However, I can say that is down from its peak. The peak was in the first quarter of 2022. Prior to interest rate increases starting, let’s say, in the first quarter, it was very close. It was very close to 50-50 at that point. Since interest rates have started to increase, we have seen that come down significantly.
Senator Gignac: The peak was 50% of your mortgage applications were choosing that product?
Mr. Charbonneau: In the first quarter of 2022, 49.2% chose variable rate.
Senator Gignac: Thank you for that. What will you do when these people renew? Will they be forced to return to 25 years, or will you give some flexibility? Some people will have difficulty.
[Translation]
When they go to renew their mortgage, they won’t have any choice. Are they going to go back to 25-year amortization, or are you going to offer them exemptions? What are you going to do?
[English]
Ms. Williams: In all of the instances when we start seeing defaults, we always ask what the source of that is. At this point in time, it’s hard to speculate what it will be. We do not feel that it will be a significant number in total, but on an individual basis, we encourage the banks to find ways to work this out. At the end of the day, we don’t want to be taking these things back either. We want to see things work out. It’s hard to predict where the economy will be and the individual situation of the people, but we do understand that there may be complications for some individuals. We would work with our lenders. We don’t work directly with individuals, but we work with our lenders to try to assess what the best thing to do will be.
[Translation]
Senator Gignac: Thank you very much.
Senator Dagenais: Ms. Williams, when you listen to some politicians, particularly at the municipal level, you hear them say they want to grant building permits for new housing. I wonder if the market is open to such diversity or mixing. Let me explain.
I have noticed on occasion that they want to combine luxury apartments, affordable rentals and social housing. For example, on Île-des-Sœurs they are building towers and planning for penthouses, affordable rentals and social housing, all in the same building.
Do you think they can fulfill those ambitions? Should some politicians who grant building permits adjust their rhetoric? I’m not sure they can put all that in one building.
[English]
Ms. Williams: When we look at individual projects, it’s important to remember that when we want housing that is affordable, where you charge less rents, you need to think about how you can cover the costs associated with creating the building. I say that because it often takes a mix of rents to be able to achieve the right income to cover the cost to build. It’s the fact and the financing of the project to make sure the project is viable.
When we do our programming, often our programming has an affordability level attached to it. That is at a cost, at the end of the day, because they could actually achieve a higher rent if they didn’t have that limit put on them. In order for them to be able to pay back their financing and operate the building, they need to be able to have a mix of rents that allows that to happen. It also creates a more inclusive type of environment where you have an inclusive building with various individuals living there and is more representative of society in and of itself.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: Thank you very much, Madam.
[English]
Senator Loffreda: I would like to further discuss affordability. I think most would agree that increasing housing supply is part of the solution in addressing housing affordability.
I appreciate it’s unfair for you or anyone, for that matter, to establish a Canada-wide affordability target, because the reality is different from one province to the next. We know, for example, in its most recent bill to address housing affordability, the government did not set a limit on rental prices for new construction that will no longer be subject to GST.
What metric could we use to establish an average cost per unit or cost per home for Canadians? We often hear about the cost of shelter as a share of disposable income. For the longest time, we often referred to 30% of disposable income, but that is clearly no longer a reality. Based on numbers you provided in your June 2022 report on the housing supply gaps in Canada, that number seems to be closer to 50% nationally. How does the current number compare to historical metrics? What metric could we use to establish an average cost per unit or cost per home for Canadians?
Ms. Williams: Thank you.
I will look to my colleagues and give them a chance to respond. I don’t have the specifics in terms of comparatives and historical data at hand. Maybe Bob could provide a bit of context on that. I understand why having one definition of affordability seems like the answer, but it’s important to understand that affordability has many different factors that come into play.
You are correct in referring to the 30%. That is what the definition of affordability is. I will acknowledge that our products have different definitions of affordability, and I will say that there is a reason for that. We are targeting the products and the programs to certain parts and problems within the continuum. It’s not meant to be addressing all of the problems. It’s meant to address certain parts of the continuum, and that’s why affordability levels have to adjust depending on our program.
Bob, I don’t know if you have something you could provide to respond more specifically.
Mr. Dugan: I appreciate the beauty of having a simple number that can just be used as a metric for affordability. For example, using 30%, which was a traditional number, if you make $10,000 a month, 30% might not be a bad target for affordability. If you only make $1,000 a month, having 30% of your income for shelter doesn’t leave a lot for everything else. It gets complicated when you look at different levels of income and what is affordable and what is not. It’s very important to not oversimplify with one measure but try to be as flexible as possible and have a multitude of measures so we don’t dismiss affordability issues when they are really there.
You talked about 50%. Because different provinces have different income tax regimes, what we elected to do when we were measuring affordability, when we were trying to estimate the 3.5 million gap, we used after-tax income. The 30% is usually before-tax income, but 30% before tax leads to a different after-tax income in Ontario than it does in Quebec or other provinces. We worked with after-tax income to try to, as much as possible, have an apples-to-apples comparison for estimating supply gaps from province to province. When you’re using after-tax income, you get a higher number than 30%, obviously. That’s one of the differences there where we get higher numbers in our report because we’re using after-tax income. We are trying to find ways to better measure affordability and to better capture the concept.
Senator Pate: I would like to go back to the question I asked during the first round. Could you please refer to the Auditor General’s report, sections 5.9, 5.10 and 5.13, where it’s made clear the need for coordination on the homelessness initiative between Infrastructure and CMHC, and could you please respond to it in writing?
Turning to my question in this round, CMHC’s rent assist program in Manitoba has shown that portable housing subsidies have significantly addressed and assisted low-income people. We often hear the concern, without evidence to back it up, that providing cash transfer-type measures, whether affordable housing subsidy or something like a guaranteed livable income, may be ineffective as landlords will raise rent in response. However, the CMHC’s 2021 report indicates this is not the case. In consulting with economists, it has been clear that the benefits of these types of approaches versus the traditional social assistance shelter benefit-type of approach has actually outstripped the ability to address homelessness.
I’m interested in whether you can elaborate on the success of this program in providing support to those in housing need without driving up rents, and also, what measures the government can take to try to limit the potential where landlords do try to drive up rents. How can we try to limit that potential?
Ms. Williams: Thank you for the question.
I’ll swing a little bit back to the question that Senator Smith had asked earlier in the session. What we’re referring to is the Canada Housing Benefit. Thanks to my colleagues providing more data, I can tell you it’s estimated there were 1.8 million low-income renters facing housing affordability challenges, and they would benefit from the Canada Housing Benefit in Canada. The window for applications had closed in terms of individual application directly to our program March 31, 2023. Just to follow up, we processed over 790,000 units and distributed close to $400 million.
We also have agreements with individual provinces and territories, and we provide transfers to provinces and territories who administer their own Canada Housing Benefit more specific in relation to the provincial needs they see and wish to address and report back to us. There is that element as well.
I think there is evidence that it does help. Everything is helping. There are bits and pieces, whether you’re providing funding directly to the individual for them to maintain and hold versus providing supply. All of it is needed for us to get to a place where everyone can afford a place to live.
Senator Pate: Just a supplementary to the chair’s question, I’m familiar with, for instance, Saskatoon and other places where government buildings have been repurposed to assist with homelessness and shelters, and I’m curious as to how that is being monitored.
Then circling back to my question, are there ways that you could see recommending regulatory frameworks that might assist provinces and territories in maintaining those structures to prevent things like jacking up rents and those sorts of responses?
Ms. Williams: There is a program, the Federal Lands Initiative, that I referred to earlier. Perhaps that is what you’re seeing. At this point in time, we have been able to bring 4,000 units to the ground with respect to that program. Work continues on that program to try to find more buildings that are ready and able to be converted quickly.
With respect to supporting additional regulations, that is outside of our jurisdiction at the end of the day. It is provincial jurisdiction. Again, we are always open to conversations around data that we see and the information that we gather with respect to the work that we do to support conversations with provinces on that, but it’s not something that we can specifically make changes to.
Senator Pate: Can you point to any best practices?
Ms. Williams: Offhand, at the moment, I’m not equipped to be able to respond to that.
The Chair: Can you respond in writing?
Ms. Williams: Yes, I’ll have my team see what information we can provide.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senators, thank you very much. To the witnesses, as we conclude and adjourn this part of the meeting, you have noticed that we have a common denominator, which is transparency, accountability, reliability and predictability.
Senator Marshall: I do not mean to interrupt. I wanted to summarize at the end what information they are going to provide to us, because Senator Gignac, Senator Pate and myself wanted some follow-up information.
The Chair: Yes, and I will address it momentarily, Senator Marshall.
You have been very informative. You have been very enlightening in sharing that information, because it’s all about accountability.
To follow up on the comments made by Senator Marshall, we have agreed that you will send written answers to the committee through the clerk. I will give you a timeframe. In order to prepare for our own reports to the Senate of Canada, please submit written responses to the clerk by the end of the day, Friday, October 13, 2023, or earlier. Ms. Williams, Mr. Charbonneau, and Mr. Dugan, thank you very much. We have appreciated your information.
Ms. Williams: Thank you for having us.
The Chair: We will now go in camera.
(The committee continued in camera.)