Information & Ethics Committee on July 7th, 2026

[Linda Lapointe, Liberal, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair. I gather that the video wasn't working earlier, so I'd like to repeat the point of order I raised initially.

I recognize that it is your prerogative to call a meeting, but you didn't consult any of the vice-chairs before convening this meeting, which, according to you, is urgently needed. You decided to call the meeting after receiving a letter from the Leader of the Opposition, but if the matter was so urgent, why did you schedule the meeting eight days later? I wonder whether you would have done the same had the letter come from Mr. Carney, the Prime Minister, or Mr. Blanchet, the leader of the second opposition party. That's my question. Standing Order 106 requires that the opposition parties be consulted.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Ms. Lapointe.

Mr. Gunn, you have the floor. Go ahead, please.

[Aaron Gunn, Conservative, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

I'd like to move the following motion:

That, given that:

a) Prime Minister Mark Carney recently announced a plan to bail out developers, bankers and investors by using taxpayer dollars to purchase more than 2,200 unsold condominium units in British Columbia;

b) This bailout will not make housing more affordable, but will prevent a price correction from taking place, preserving high prices for developers rather than lowering them for British Columbians trying to enter the housing market;

c) Questions remain about which ministers were lobbied, and by whom, in the lead-up to this announcement—

[Wade Chang, Liberal, Burnaby Central, BC]

I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Go ahead, Mr. Chang.

[Wade Chang, Liberal, Burnaby Central, BC]

Chair, can I have the speaking order, please?

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

After he's done, I'll give you the speaking order.

[Wade Chang, Liberal, Burnaby Central, BC]

[Inaudible—Editor]

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

I have Hardy, Kwan, Mantle, Chang and Lapointe. That's who I have as the speaking order.

[Wade Chang, Liberal, Burnaby Central, BC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Mr. Hardy.

[Gabriel Hardy, Conservative, Montmorency—Charlevoix, QC]

I just want to remind the member that the purpose of a point of order isn't to ask about the speaking order. It is to flag an immediate problem.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

I see what's happening here, Mr. Hardy, so I'm going to ask that Mr. Gunn be given the opportunity to present his motion. Members of this committee will have an opportunity to speak to that motion. I have a list formed.

Mr. Gunn, start from the top.

[Aaron Gunn, Conservative, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

The motion is as follows. I move:

That, given that:

a) Prime Minister Mark Carney recently announced a plan to bail out developers, bankers and investors by using taxpayer dollars to purchase more than 2,200 unsold condominium units in British Columbia;

b) This bailout will not make housing more affordable, but will prevent a price correction from taking place, preserving high prices for developers rather than lowering them for British Columbians trying to enter the housing market;

c) Questions remain about which ministers were lobbied, and by whom, in the lead-up to this announcement;

d) Questions remain about which developers and lenders will benefit from this bailout, which condo units will be eligible, how prices will be determined, which financing tools will be used and which entity or entities will ultimately own the units;

e) Forcing homebuyers to compete with their own tax dollars while raising housing prices for the benefit of developers is not in the interest of Canadians; and

f) Prime Minister Mark Carney is building an economy of bailouts and handouts to Liberal insiders, while creating higher costs, debt and taxes for everyone else—

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Hold that thought right there.

Go ahead, Ms. Chagger.

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

I don't know about anybody else, but my interpretation is not working.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

That's fine. We'll make sure your audio is working.

Is the audio working? Okay.

I know what you're doing here. I know what you're doing to disrupt the meeting, and that's fine. You can continue it, because people are watching.

Go ahead, Mr. Gunn. Start with the next paragraph. Put your motion on the floor, and we'll continue with debate after that.

Go ahead, sir.

[Aaron Gunn, Conservative, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

I'll begin with a repeat of the last sentence:

f) Prime Minister Mark Carney is building an economy of bailouts and handouts to Liberal insiders, while creating higher costs, debt and taxes for everyone else;

The committee, during the summer adjournment, undertake an urgent study into the Canada- British Columbia partnership on condo conversion, with no fewer than six meetings dedicated to this investigation, and, for the purpose of this study, invite the following witnesses to appear:

i. Gregor Robertson, Minister of Housing and Infrastructure;

ii. Christine Boyle, Minister of Housing and Municipal Affairs for British Columbia;

iii. Ken Sim, mayor of the city of Vancouver;

iv. Build Canada Homes;

v. BC Housing;

vi. Bob Rennie, often called Vancouver’s “condo king”;

vii. Duncan Wlodarczak, chair of the Liberal Party of Canada in British Columbia and chief of staff for Onni Group;

viii. The Urban Development Institute;

ix. Concert Properties;

x. Brookfield Asset Management;

xi. Organizations that advocate for affordable housing and on behalf of homebuyers; and

xii. Other witnesses as may be proposed by members of the committee; and

The committee order the federal government and the Government of British Columbia to provide the committee with any agreement made between the federal government and the Government of British Columbia related to the Canada-British Columbia partnership on condo conversion, and any agreement between either government and any developer or lender related to the Canada-British Columbia partnership on condo conversion immediately after any agreement becomes finalized.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Mr. Gunn.

We are in committee business. The motion is in order.

I have a speaking list. I'll start with Mr. Gunn. Then it's Mr. Hardy, Ms. Kwan, Mr. Mantle, Mr. Chang and Madame Lapointe.

Go ahead with your comments on the motion, please.

[Aaron Gunn, Conservative, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Those are the contents of the motion, Mr. Chair.

Look, we're gathered here today in the middle of summer not because I think everyone loves spending time in Ottawa in July but because Canadians have very real concerns about the Liberal plan to bail out billionaire condo developers in the fifth-most unaffordable housing market in the entire world.

It starts with the fact that during the last election, the Prime Minister and the Liberal Party never campaigned on this. They never campaigned on spending more than $1 billion in taxpayer money to give a handout to their wealthy developer friends. They never campaigned on using the taxpayer dollars of hard-working Canadians to buy more than 2,000 condos in greater Vancouver so that developers wouldn't have to lower prices and, God forbid, sell at a loss. They never campaigned on artificially propping up what are already extremely unaffordable housing prices and on preventing the market from moderating to a more affordable and sustainable level.

All of this begs some pretty obvious ethical questions that I think deserve answers. If the Liberals didn't campaign on this policy, why are they suddenly deciding to pursue it now? Whose idea was it? Who lobbied for it? Is this being planned for more Canadian cities? Maybe most importantly, which well-connected developers, big banks and foreign investors stand to benefit the most?

I want to take a moment to share with members of this committee a particular dictionary definition that I think describes the direction of economic policy in Canada over the past year. It's an economic system where business success depends heavily on close ties between corporate executives and government officials. Instead of competing in a free, meritocratic market, companies thrive by securing political favours, such as bailouts, tax breaks, subsidies or specialized regulations that block competition. That, colleagues, is the definition of crony capitalism. It increasingly, in my view, represents the official economic policy of the Liberal Party of Canada. It's rewarding insiders, well-connected corporations and party loyalists while everyday Canadians fall further behind. It's privatizing the profits of the wealthy, and then bailing them out should something go wrong.

As one of the millennial members of Parliament, I also have to point out how insane the generational inequity of this policy truly is. It's handing out huge sums of money to developers that have made billions over the past 20 years. It's paid for with tax dollars by those who are still trying to enter the housing market for the very first time. It is yet another generational transfer of wealth that creates no new units of housing while rewarding those who have built and priced condos nobody can afford. It's not only bad economic policy; it's unethical, it's immoral and it's wrong.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Mr. Gunn.

Mr. Hardy has the floor on the motion.

[Gabriel Hardy, Conservative, Montmorency—Charlevoix, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Obviously, we are meeting here in Parliament, in Ottawa, in the middle of the summer. I heard someone say earlier that this meeting was ridiculous and was going to cost taxpayers money. That's precisely the issue. We have to shed light on what's going on before spending $1.45 billion. I think it's important that the committee is holding this emergency meeting in the summer, before things are too far along, so we can understand the situation. I think that's the goal here.

We met with Mr. Champagne, the finance minister, at one of our last meetings. He was quite explicit in something he told me. He did not come here to answer our questions, but he did say something interesting: The Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics has to rely on facts. This is ethics, so let's look at the facts together. That's what this investigation should focus on, in my view. This isn't a partisan probe. You can take notes. My colleagues opposite may not get all the facts in their party briefings. We want to examine the matter on the basis of those facts, to understand where the money is going and why this project was undertaken.

Let's start with the facts. On June 18, before the House adjourned, the Prime Minister still wasn't in Parliament. He's often away. He announced a $1.45‑billion plan to buy 2,200 unsold condos in B.C. The government is going to spend $1.45 billion of taxpayer money to buy 2,200 condos that aren't selling. The idea is that the government can say it's going to build housing through Build Canada Homes. It's supposed to provide affordable housing and all that. We're talking about 2,200 unsold condos. That's roughly $660,000 per condo, and it's supposed to be affordable housing.

Then we learn that we won't find anything out about the developers, prices or agreements until the fall. We are being told not to ask questions, because we'll have the information in the fall. The government makes this big announcement to say it's building housing but in the end provides no answers. That's when people started asking questions. It's urgent that we get to the bottom of things this summer. When Parliament isn't sitting, someone has to keep watch for the public. When the government announces something like that right before the House adjourns, obviously, there will be no oral question period the following week. That doesn't mean we shouldn't be asking the questions or meeting to investigate the matter.

Is this a new situation? Is there a conflict of interest? According to an article that came out when the House rose, the Prime Minister's ethics screen was triggered 17 times in less than 17 months. It's not us who trigger it. It's not the committee. It's the Prime Minister's staff who trigger the ethics screen. There are potential conflicts of interest. There are questions that need to be asked about the current Prime Minister and the things he announces.

Our party has already provided eight full documents on potential conflicts of interest, which are laid out in detail and proven. The documents show that these matters aren't always fast, easy, clear, obvious and straightforward, and that we do need to ask questions. I've been here a year, and for a year, we've been saying that the things the Prime Minister is announcing don't pass the smell test. Why do we need this emergency meeting today? Because in yet another case, the announcement isn't as great as it seems. It's fishy. It amounts to $660,000 per condo. That is fishy, so we need to know why taxpayer money is being used for that.

I'm going to continue on that topic. The Prime Minister always finds a way to get into trouble. Here's an example you don't even know about yet. He made a nice announcement about an aircraft project in Mirabel. Twenty-eight days earlier, however, Brookfield became the co-owner of a company that needed the type of aircraft made in Mirabel right away. The committee didn't meet to ask questions about the matter, because whenever we propose motions, we're told that we're looking for information that has nothing to do with the situation, that we're peddling conspiracy theories. Situations like this are always happening, and I think the public needs to know what's going on. We are right to ask questions.

Brookfield Asset Management is one of the witnesses in the motion, and you'll see why. The Prime Minister is always getting himself in situations that lead us to ask the same question: Is it a coincidence that Brookfield is somehow involved, either just before the announcement or shortly after? Why is Brookfield always involved? These are legitimate questions, and they should be answered. For the past little while, it's become clear that the members opposite seem to have no intention of answering those questions for the committee. They are doing everything they can to keep this study from going ahead. Then they'll say this was a waste of time and taxpayer money.

That's the environment we've been working in for a year now. We were able to work when the Liberals did not have a majority, but since obtaining a majority, they've done everything they can to stop us from investigating matters.

Let's look at the sequence of events, date by date, that led us to call for this probe today. Why are we here on July 7 at 11:30 a.m.? Let's take a look.

In February 2026, Bob Rennie, known as the condo king in British Columbia, hosted an evening with Mark Carney at his headquarters. Attendees paid $1,775 to meet Mark Carney. We are talking about the Prime Minister of Canada. That's not insignificant. The event took place at Mr. Rennie's headquarters, with no reporters in attendance.

That's a common feature of the issues we've raised here. That's usually how these things go: Discussions take place behind closed doors, without reporters. We are told not to worry, because the Prime Minister is virtuous.

What happened, though, is that 17 of B.C.'s biggest developers attended the event, and they all had one thing in common: they had thousands of unsold condos. That was in February 2026.

In March 2026, a month later, a B.C. Housing document revealed that Bob Rennie and B.C.'s premier had met and discussed the event involving Mr. Carney.

In May 2026, the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation reported that the number of unsold condos in the Vancouver area, especially Burnaby and Richmond, was up 76%, exceeding 5,000 units. Remember the names Burnaby and Richmond because they come up again, and that information is important to understand the situation.

On June 3, Brookfield became the co-owner of Concert Properties, at a cost of $1 billion. That's how it acquired eight industrial properties. Are the two connected? I just want to be clear that the joint venture with Concert Properties concerns warehouses, not condos. Brookfield and Concert Properties have a $1‑billion agreement in place. They work together on another project, but Concert Properties, which is now working with Brookfield, has developments in Metro Vancouver, including 50 in Burnaby. Oops. It has 50 condo buildings in Burnaby. Now the connection is emerging.

Obviously, this is the very long version of the story, but I think the public has the right to know what's going on.

Brookfield becomes the co-owner of companies that have unsold condo inventory, and 15 days later, the Prime Minister announces a $1.45‑billion plan for the very cities and areas where his company Brookfield, in which he has interests, holds investments.

Is there an ethical problem? I think so. The committee's mandate is to probe situations like that and to make sure the public can clearly see what's going on. If everything's above board and there's nothing to hide, then what's the issue? Let's investigate and show there's no connection. We'll look like the ones who were asking the wrong questions, but we're never able to get far enough to obtain those answers.

There you have it: the connection between Burnaby and Brookfield. That's why Brookfield is listed in the motion.

The question, then, is this: Will Concert Properties, which became one of Brookfield's partners 15 days before the government's announcement, be one of the developers the government buys condos from in the fall? It's a simple question. These are facts, not even assumptions or accusations. They are just the facts. We want to know. Can you tell us whether that company's condos are among the properties the government is going to buy? It's not hard.

On June 25, Mr. Carney said that no developer had asked him for this directly. Great. Who asked him for it indirectly? Who is involved? We just want to know how it all happened in space and time. What went on in Mr. Carney's mind to make him meet so quickly with developers who paid for the opportunity, to make him announce a taxpayer-funded plan to buy condos involving companies that donate generously to the Liberal Party and work with Brookfield?

Can the government stop telling the public that there's nothing for it to question and us, the public's representatives, that we shouldn't be asking questions? Can we just let the committee do its job? We are asking the Liberals to agree to invite witnesses. We want to ask them to explain. Then each of us will have the facts to support what we say, but we can't get to that point, so there.

We're talking $659,000 per condo; that's affordable. I don't know anywhere in Canada where a $659,000 condo is considered affordable. And that's just the average. If the Liberals now think paying $659,000 for a condo, on average, is affordable, we have a problem. I can assure you that the average Canadian family can't afford to buy a $659,000 condo. Just imagine what a house would cost. If the government is trying to say that this is an affordable price, something's wrong. We want to understand the rationale behind using $1.45 billion in taxpayer money to buy 2,500 condos.

When you start looking at the facts, you realize something else is off. Vancouver is the fifth least affordable city on the planet. The government had started putting measures in place to bring down prices. It had introduced policies over the last little while to bring down prices, three in particular.

First, non-Canadian foreign buyers have to pay a surtax. The measure is to deter speculative buying in the condo market by people outside the country who aren't going to live in Canada. The practice drives up prices, making it unaffordable for people living here, our fellow citizens, to buy condos. Second, Airbnb rentals are no longer allowed. That's over. Third, a speculation tax was introduced. The goal is to bring down prices.

Clearly, the government has put measures in place. For a while, condos won't sell, and market prices will start to come down naturally. It's a classic case of supply and demand. It's simple, easy to understand. For a period of time, developers who were looking to sell their units for too much will have trouble selling them. Gradually, they'll be forced to sell the units at a lower price, possibly at a discount, possibly at a loss. Who will benefit? Ultimately, families, who will have access to a less expensive condo market.

When one developer starts lowering their prices, the others will follow suit, and market prices will gradually come down. That's what was happening. The government is trying to bring down market prices with its right hand while buying those units with taxpayer money and preventing prices from coming down with its left hand. At the end of the day, everyone will pay the price. On one hand, less expensive housing won't be available to families, and on the other hand, the taxes those families pay are being used to make sure market prices don't come down. Who benefits? Wealthy developers and Liberal donors. Again, I think it's appropriate to ask questions. Even TD Bank forecast a 15% drop from 2023 prices. The market is adjusting on its own. Again, that is why paragraphs (b), (d) and (e) of the motion refer specifically to that.

I have a slightly unusual question. Laws are in place so that developers don't have to pay construction companies in full until the project is completed or everything on the deficiency list is fixed. A crack in the wall might appear after a certain period of time or a pipe might break, so developers often wait to pay the full amount, and workers don't get a certain portion of their pay until the end. There are laws on that. I did some research. A Burnaby developer, Thind Properties, sought creditor protection because it wasn't able to sell its units, but they weren't fully paid for. The project was 95% complete and wasn't fully paid for. Business owners and workers are still waiting to get paid. One company says it's owed $1.7 million for drywall work. Another says it's owed $600,000 for electrical work. A window company is owed half a million dollars. There are people who worked on the development whose employers haven't been paid.

When a developer declares bankruptcy, the banks come first. The companies won't end up getting their money, so the workers won't be paid. The government thinks it's a good idea to spend $1.45 billion to bail out developers who haven't even fully paid workers what they're owed. Then the government says it's doing this to help people, to help Canadians. Did it not feel like tackling the problem from the other end to make sure the people got their pay? If this plan moves forward, can we get some answers, so we at least know that the businesses who worked on the development will get paid and that families will have access to affordable housing? Can we get assurance that the money won't go to the Liberals' developer tycoon cronies? That's why we want this examination. I'd say it's straightforward.

Another thing is clear. Build Canada Homes, another bureaucracy created by the Prime Minister, was supposed to build half a million homes annually. The first phase was building the bureaucracy. A year later, nothing's being built. Announcements have been made, but no homes have been built.

In this case, the agency is acting much as the Liberals did before the end of the parliamentary session, by rushing through the passage of bills because they needed a good track record to claim that the parliamentary session had been productive, even though they had spent more time striking backroom deals than working hard to move bills forward in collaboration with the opposition parties. Now, they want to improve the figures, so they're going to buy existing condos with taxpayers' money—condos that Build Canada Homes didn't help to build—to boost the percentages so that it looks as though they've built housing stock. Once again, it makes no sense whatsoever.

That's exactly what we're asking: how is it that you've created a bureaucracy that's supposed to be efficient, yet it can't even build one darn house? Can we find out why it's there when you realize it's not working? You're buying existing condos with taxpayers' money. For goodness' sake! Do away with your bureaucracy, if need be. Once again, this is a question which, I believe, is relevant. We should bring people in to answer our questions.

In life, when you have a good idea, you want to take the credit for it. You want to be recognized as the person behind that good idea, because you're proud of it. However, this is a bit of a special case, because ever since the announcement was made, our Prime Minister and the Premier of British Columbia seem to have been passing the buck back and forth over who came up with the idea, which is surprising. Nobody wants to take credit for it. One says it was the other's idea. The other replies, “No, it was the first one who was happy to announce it”. That in itself is a sign that the situation is a bit fishy. Indeed, if nobody wants to take ownership of the idea, it's because the idea must not be all that good.

So, once again, I think it is legitimate to want to understand who came up with the idea. It is legitimate to ask questions about the reasons and the process to people who come before the committee to answer to Canadians, not to us. We are here to ask questions so that citizens know what happened. We are not the ones asking for this. We want Canadians to have the information. That is all we are asking for, and we are asking for it as a matter of urgency during the summer to prevent a situation—as in past scandals—where taxpayers' money is spent, only for citizens to later ask us if we could have intervened sooner and stopped it before it got too costly.

That's why we're here in July. We want to avoid finding ourselves in September or October with billions of dollars already spent—money paid for by taxpayers—without families and workers having received anything in return, while the Liberal cronies have made money. That's why we're asking questions.

I'll wrap up with this, because I think it's really important. Over the past year, we've been working hard on the issue of conflicts of interest. The Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, who addresses conflicts of interest as an independent officer, has stated that the concept of the appearance of a conflict of interest should be included in the Conflict of Interest Act. We proposed adding it to the act, but my colleagues across the way opposed it. We weren't the ones asking for this. It was the Ethics Commissioner.

However, here, once again, we are faced with a potential conflict of interest. There is the appearance of a conflict of interest. We would like to shed light on this appearance of a conflict of interest, but it does not seem that my colleagues across the aisle are willing to allow this study to move forward. From the very beginning, they told us that what we're doing here isn't important and that we're wasting our time. According to them, the only reason we came here was to collect per diems or get reimbursed for a meal at Subway. That's what they think, even though that's not the case at all. There are appearances of a conflict of interest, and we want to know if there actually is a conflict of interest.

If there really was a conflict of interest with Brookfield, why did the Prime Minister not recuse himself from this announcement? If there was one in Mirabel, why did he not recuse himself from that announcement? That is why this committee exists. It doesn't seem like my colleagues on the other side want us to do our job, but that's just how it is.

So, we need to look at the motion as a whole and take the time to read it. This is important, because people listening to us might think we're engaging in petty politics. However, the motion is online. Anyone can look at it. The points I've just mentioned, anyone can go and read them. We're asking for facts. We're not asking for Conservative witnesses to be called. We are asking for the Liberal allies to be called. We are asking for the developers to be called. We are asking for the “condo king” to be called. We want to be able to ask all these people questions. We want to ask them questions so that they can answer not to us, but to Canadians and Quebeckers.

So, that is why we are here today. I hope that, in light of all this, my colleagues will agree that Canadians and Quebeckers deserve answers. At that point, we will have shed light on this whole affair and we will be able to move on to another committee study, which is tasked with examining potential ethical violations. That is all.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Mr. Hardy.

Ms. Kwan, I want to welcome you to the committee, and I invite you to participate in this debate.

Please go ahead on the motion.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I appreciate the opportunity to add the NDP's perspective on this condo conversion developer bailout scheme.

Fundamental to today's discussion is whether public housing dollars are being used to serve Canadians struggling with housing affordability or to protect private interests from market losses. Canadians are facing the worst housing affordability crisis in generations. Renters are struggling. First-time homebuyers are locked out of the market. Homelessness continues to rise. Non-profit housing providers, co-operatives, indigenous housing organizations and municipalities are all calling for sustained investments in affordable housing, yet the government's response is to use public funds to purchase unsold condominium units from developers.

While the federal and B.C. governments continue to speak about creating pathways to affordable home ownership, their decision to purchase existing distressed condominium units raises important questions about whether their public policy is addressing the root causes of housing unaffordability. The Carney government's rollout of affordable housing policies was fundamentally flawed in its design from the outset. In fact, virtually every announcement to date betrays Carney's election promise of “build big, build bold, build now”.

Make no mistake: This latest announcement of the condo conversion is a massive bailout for developers, even though the Prime Minister wants to pass it off as affordable housing. No one is buying it. The truth is that the Prime Minister betrayed himself when he admitted as much during the announcement when he said, “developers are stuck. They don’t want to sell at a loss, they can’t afford to hold those empty units indefinitely.” He sounds like a board member from Brookfield Asset Management rather than a Prime Minister when he uses his inside voice out loud.

This comes just months after shovel-ready project proposals from non-profits were stopped in their tracks by the B.C. government. I don't agree with my Conservative colleagues very often, but this scheme has major problems, and it does not pass the public smell test. Every dollar spent on buying existing private inventory is a dollar not spent constructing new social housing, co-op housing, supportive housing, indigenous housing or non-profit housing. This is particularly grating when affordable housing providers have shovel-ready projects waiting for funding in B.C. Canadians deserve to know how and why this option was chosen.

In the final week of the sitting of the House, the Liberals wielded their hammer and forced closure on Bill C-26, the legislation that approved spending authorities. At the time, I voiced my concerns that there are no affordability criteria, no measurable outcomes and no clear accountability mechanisms. The bill didn't even say what funding formula was used to determine how much would be allocated to each province and territory. Instead of calculating it on a per capita basis, the government refused to say what secret formula was used. Based on what has been announced to date, I would venture to suggest that it is based on how much overpriced condo glut exists in each province.

If I were an MP from Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Quebec or Alberta, I would want to know why my province was being shortchanged by tens of millions and why we were not getting our fair share. If it had been done on a per capita basis, Alberta should have gotten $208.5 million, but instead it got $119 million; Manitoba should have gotten $62.2 million, but instead it got $10 million; Saskatchewan should have gotten $52.3 million, but instead it got $10 million; New Brunswick should have gotten $35.8 million, but instead it got $10 million; Newfoundland and Labrador should have gotten $22.7 million, but instead it got $10 million; and Quebec should have gotten $373.1 million, but instead it got $320 million.

Perhaps Liberal MPs were never told how much was allocated to their province. After all, in the eyes of the Prime Minister, they are just seat warmers for votes. Given the centralization of the Carney government, not one Liberal MP said boo about this inequity. This right here speaks to the whole problem of this scheme—how Carney is governing and, yes, why we're here today.

Bill C-26 is a piece of legislation that authorized the expenditure of $1.713 billion of public funds. It contained no meaningful safeguards, no measurable outcome, no affordability requirements and no clear accountability mechanisms. It is not a plan to support home ownership for first-time buyers. Rather, it is an investment banker's plan.

At the heart of this condo conversion bailout program are the interests of investors and financial institutions. That is precisely why there is a housing affordability crisis in Canada. For years, ordinary people saw housing prices soar as developers, speculators and foreign investors raked in huge profits. Renters were renovicted and demovicted. First-time homebuyers were priced out of the market. Seniors were forced to leave the communities they helped build.

The Liberals' and Conservatives' mantra that the market will eventually solve the affordability crisis has been a colossal failure. Decades later, working families, renters, seniors and young people are still being priced out of their communities.

In the face of an affordable housing crisis and a glut of overpriced condos that can't find buyers, governments rush to step in with billions of taxpayers' dollars to bail out developers. Developers took risks during a period of speculation and soaring prices. Taxpayers should not be expected to absorb those risks when the market bottoms out. The federal and provincial governments should be prioritizing investments in permanently affordable public co-op and non-profit housing.

There are alternative approaches that deserve greater attention. For years, New Democrats have called for housing policies that treat housing as a human right—as homes first and not as investment vehicles. We have called for action on speculation. We have called for measures to discourage excessive investor activity in residential real estate.

The NDP wants to end special tax treatment for housing profiteers, such as real estate investment trusts, and to change tax policies that currently favour large institutional ownership of residential real estate. We want to see action to discourage the speculative accumulation of multiple investment properties and to see such measures as progressively higher down payment requirements for the purchase of additional residential properties beyond a primary home, as is done in other countries, including Singapore. These types of reforms prioritize the treatment of housing as a primary home, discourage housing profiteering and create a level playing field for first-time homebuyers.

Canadians deserve a housing strategy that addresses the causes of unaffordability, not just the symptoms. They deserve answers. Why are governments using public funds to purchase existing condominium units rather than focusing those resources on increasing overall affordable housing supplied? Did the government compare the cost of condo acquisitions with the cost of constructing new social or co-op housing? How many units could be created through new construction or partnerships with non-profit housing providers for the same concept and level of public investment? Why are shovel-ready non-profit housing projects not receiving equivalent priority? How will the government determine which developers' overpriced condo glut will be the chosen ones for this bailout? Is it the people who attended the special meeting with the Prime Minister in secret?

How will the purchase price be determined? By how much will developers benefit from this bailout? What performance indicators will be used to evaluate this program? What analysis has been conducted on the impact of these purchases on local housing markets and first-time buyers? According to the premier, most of these units will be out of the metro Vancouver region. What is the government's plan to deal with an affordability crisis in Vancouver, one of the most expensive and populous parts of the province?

Why has the government prioritized purchasing unsold private inventory rather than pursuing stronger measures to reduce speculative demand? Why did the government eliminate the underused housing tax? Why has the government not committed to extending the foreign buyer ban? What measures is the government pursuing to discourage excessive investor activity in residential real estate?

Why were there no affordability and accountability requirements in Bill C-26? Officials said housing market conditions data was used to formulate the allocation of funds to provinces and territories. Will the government publicly disclose the data used? How can the government justify per capita inequity in funding for Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Quebec, Newfoundland and Labrador, Alberta and so on? How can Parliament assess value for money without clear benchmarks?

How will the government remedy this lack of oversight? Will the government commit to ensuring that the parliamentary budget office has the opportunity to conduct an independent analysis of this proposal? Instead of negotiating one-off deals to absorb unsold, overpriced condo inventory, governments should be building a new generation of public co-operative and non-profit housing at a wartime scale, which the Prime Minister actually campaigned on during the last election.

It is critical that a study be initiated and that answers be found for Canadians. It is a critical task for parliamentarians to get to the bottom of this. Was there shady business behind how this deal came about? Who is to benefit? How is it really going to benefit everyday Canadians in an affordable housing crisis?

Finally, I would say this. While I support the motion put forward, I would suggest other witnesses, such as Jill Atkey from the BC Non-Profit Housing Association, Andy Yan from SFU and Susan Tatoosh from the Vancouver Aboriginal Friendship Centre Society—people from the non-profit sector who have been working hard to build non-profit housing and address the affordability housing crisis. They deserve a seat at this table for this conversation and for the answers to be sought. We all do. Canadians deserve answers from this government to get to the bottom of this situation and to ensure accountability for the government going forward.

Thank you so much, Mr. Chair.