Thank you, Chair.
It's always a privilege to speak on behalf of the great people of Mississauga Centre.
We've already heard, on a couple of occasions in the course of this committee session, about this notion of what falls within our mandate as a government and the priorities that we were elected on. It seems that there's doubt around this table about what they are, so I will remind people that when we were knocking on doors a year and some months ago, we heard every day at those doors from young people who wanted to enter the housing market, from families looking to grow and upsize in their homes and from seniors looking to downsize. They made clear that what they wanted was an increase in the supply of affordable housing. That is what they wanted.
We stand here having this conversation as to whether that is what our government is doing and what we're fulfilling as a mandate currently. Simultaneously, what's been put forward—and I say this for the interest of Canadians watching us at home right now—is that the Government of British Columbia is proposing to purchase 2,200 units at below market value so they can effectively repurpose them into affordable housing in a rent-to-own model. To be crystal clear, the Government of British Columbia would be purchasing 2,200 homes and turning them into affordable units. That is what we're having a conversation on in this specific context.
The Conservatives for some reason are opposed to that idea. The Conservatives are opposed to the idea of introducing 2,200 affordable homes into the market. I heard a comment earlier, which was made by a certain member, that the 2,200 homes change nothing. I fundamentally disagree with that notion, as 2,200 homes change a lot for 2,200 families, and 2,200 homes change a lot for young people looking to enter the market. They change a lot for growing families looking for property and change a lot for seniors looking to downsize. It is not an insignificant supply of affordable housing.
Of course, these facts don't matter as much to our Conservative colleagues. The minister wrote to the chair and provided a relatively comprehensive response to many of the questions we got today, and they say that it's not enough. They claim that billions are being spent. I've heard six numbers in the course of the past hour and a half as to what the total amount spent was. I've heard $1 billion, $3 billion and $300 million. The truth of the matter is, as outlined in the response, $150 million in federal taxpayer dollars is going towards creating 2,200 affordable units.
Monsieur Thériault said it perfectly: We don't get to dictate how the provinces spend their money. Our job as a government is to work in partnership with them to deliver on a mutual mandate, and that is what we're doing. The mandate that we both have is affordable housing. Those are the only two words that matter in this specific context. It's affordable housing for young Canadians looking to enter the market, affordable housing for growing families and affordable housing for seniors—2,200 units.
To Monsieur Thériault's point—and I wholeheartedly agree with him on this—we don't currently have enough information to debate this in good faith. I choose the words “good faith” earnestly. Also, to quote Monsieur Thériault, is the summer adjournment the best time to do this? For most members of Parliament, the summer is the greatest possible opportunity to re-engage with constituents, to spend time with the people who elected us and sent us to Ottawa. There's been a deliberate choice made here to not fulfill that mandate, to not fundamentally spend time with the people who elected us and chose us to represent them and to voice opinions here in Ottawa on their behalf.
Canadians are intelligent, and they will make up their own minds through the facts. That is exactly how it should be.
With that, Chair, I move to adjourn debate.