Information & Ethics Committee on July 7th, 2026

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Ms. Kwan.

I'll just note that in the last part of your comments, you talked about having other organizations. The motion mentions “Organizations that advocate for affordable housing and on behalf of homebuyers” and “Other witnesses as may be proposed by members of the committee”. It's in the motion. They're not specifically named, but I just wanted you to be aware of that.

I have Mr. Mantle next, followed by Mr. Chang and Madame Lapointe.

I think Mr. Thériault had his hand raised as well.

Mr. Mantle, go ahead on the motion, please.

[Jacob Mantle, Conservative, York—Durham, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm pleased to be here this morning to debate what is in my view a very straightforward and simple motion to have this committee, the ethics committee, review the recently announced Canada-B.C. partnership on condo conversion—what has more colloquially become known as “the condo bailout”.

This motion requests that individuals who are involved with the bailout appear before this committee, including the Minister of Housing, Gregor Robertson, and the Build Canada Homes bureaucracy, of course. It also requests that the federal and provincial governments provide the committee with written documentation and agreements with respect to the condo bailout. Two things that are squarely within the mandate of committees are to send for people and to send for papers to get answers for Canadians.

That's why this study is necessary. We need some transparency in this condo bailout. We need answers to some basic questions. At the top of that list is, who benefits? In other words, who asked for this bailout? Which condo units in which buildings will be bought? What prices will be paid? Who will be eligible to buy or rent these condos?

Beyond just the mechanics of the bailout itself, the proposal from the Liberal government raises some very real ethical considerations respecting the close relationship between the Minister of Housing and the Prime Minister on the one hand, and Liberal donors and developers on the other.

Mr. Chair, I'll just add a note on your prerogative, because I heard some criticism earlier, and we might hear some more from our Liberal colleagues. Of course, the Standing Orders empower you as a chair to call a meeting, and I'm always pleased to see committee chairs doing their job, which is chairing meetings and calling committee meetings to investigate matters within the committee's purview.

In contrast, we've seen Liberal chairs cancel meetings. It's ironic to hear criticism that we would have a meeting as parliamentarians to discuss an issue of importance to Canadians while we see Liberal chairs—those on the other side—cancel meetings because they don't want to do their job. Now, I won't say it's all Liberal chairs. There are some Liberal chairs who are admirable. I think of Ms. Sgro, who has not cancelled a meeting for any untoward reason. Chairs like her and like you should be commended for doing their job, not criticized for it.

I ask Liberal members to help me make sense of this, because the whole bailout doesn't make any sense to me. Mark Carney used to take the advice of his banker mentor, Bob Hirst, who said, “If something doesn't make sense, it doesn't make sense.” He said if it doesn't make sense, you should run because you should never buy simply on trust. However, today the Prime Minister is asking us to accept this bailout on trust, and that doesn't make any sense.

In a normal, functioning market, excess supply of unsold condos would typically lead to one or both of the following. First would be price reductions to clear supply so developers would lower their asking price until price and demand match supply. That's economics 101—supply and demand. Young Canadians, at that point, would be able to purchase those condos at the new, lower equilibrium price. As an MP from a generation that has been consistently shut out of the market for the last 10 years, it's insane to me to see a program that would continue to shut out my colleagues and friends of this generation.

Second, if developers simply refuse to lower their prices.... We know that's what they've told the Prime Minister, because they said they don't want to sell at a loss. The Prime Minister said they're stuck, and he wants to help them out. If they don't want to lower their prices, the costs to carry those units would remain, so they might face losses from that—distressed sales, bankruptcies—and banks or new buyers would acquire those units at discounted prices in distress. The losses in those cases would be borne by the party that took the risk. However, instead, the plan that we have been presented with is to use taxpayer dollars to socialize those losses while developers avoid the full consequences of their actions. Maybe they can help me make sense of that.

What also doesn't make sense is the desperate letter that was sent by the Minister of Housing at 10:30 or later last night to the members of this committee. He was trying desperately, clearly, to give members of the Liberal Party the cover they need—

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

I'm sorry, Mr. Mantle. The letter was actually received this morning, just so you're aware.

[Jacob Mantle, Conservative, York—Durham, ON]

It was this morning. Okay. That's excellent.

The letter that was received even later by committee members was clearly an attempt by the minister to give Liberal members cover and avoid this study. This letter provides no new information and no new explanations, and it restates some of the unpersuasive arguments that the government has previously made. For example, the minister said that this committee should wait for more details before undertaking a study.

First, I would respond by saying that it was the minister and this government that announced this program. Should they not have the information and details available before they announce a program? If the minister would like to provide more details, we are requesting him to come to this committee and provide them.

Second, he says the intent of the program is to purchase at “below market rates”. That's a little vague, because we've heard discussion of purchasing at cost and at market rates, and those are two very different things. I'd like to know what the cost of those units is, the market rate the government is proposing to pay for them, and if there's any delta between those two. Again, the minister could come and explain that.

He rehashes and trots out this analogy, which is, unfortunately, extremely inapt: “When you buy something that's on liquidation, you don't say to yourself, I'm supporting a bailout for the store.” That is an inapt analogy because we're not at liquidation. If we wanted to buy on liquidation, the government would let these condos go into distress or, after letting the banks and developers absorb the losses, buy them at an even more reduced price. In fact, what they're doing is preventing a liquidation sale at the cost and expense of the taxpayer and the next generation of homebuyers.

Lastly, the minister tries to address our concern and this committee's concern about who was lobbied for this program. He said that neither he nor the Prime Minister were directly lobbied. That's interesting language—“directly lobbied”. Were they indirectly lobbied? Were their staff directly lobbied instead of them? Maybe we'll see that in disclosures when those are published in the future, or maybe we won't, and that will raise further questions.

This study matters, because we are in one of the worst times in a generation for young Canadians to buy homes. The average salary no longer buys the average home nearly anywhere in Canada, let alone in places like Vancouver or Toronto. Home prices have outpaced income growth for a decade—a decade during which this party was in government—and that means that the price-to-income ratio for a home has risen dramatically.

The age of first-time homebuyers is higher than it has ever been. It's about 36 nationally, about 40 in Toronto and 46 in Vancouver. That has real consequences for families. Family formation is delayed, and some people don't even start families because of these concerns with owning a home. Those ages are among the highest in the world. Even if you scrape your way into the market, mortgage payments today are eating up a larger and larger share of your income—over 50% of income. We call that being house poor.

A missing middle analysis done about two years ago, I think it was, showed that Canada has the worst housing affordability out of all of the countries in the OECD. The sad part is that Canada is actually unique, because they looked at other countries where affordability had improved or had not deteriorated at the same rate as in Canada. It's simply untrue to claim that Canada's deterioration is the same as everybody else's. Actually, Canada's is far worse.

This condo bailout changes nothing for Canadians seeking to enter the market. If anything, it makes it worse by preventing the natural correction in one of the most expensive housing markets in the world.

Let me end by recounting a brief story in the Prime Minister's own words from his own book. During his time at the Bank of Canada, he spoke with banks and financiers during the financial crisis who were exposed to their own mess. He had some thoughts for them, which I think are apt today.

I'm going to read two paragraphs from his book Value(s), and I hope he will remember these values in considering this bailout. He said:

And when the music stopped, these masters of the universe turned to the state. I remember that, once I became Governor of the Bank of Canada in early 2008, I would receive delegations of investors in [asset-backed corporate papers] or bankers that were exposed to the mess. Their requests had the benefit of being consistent—consistently self-interested. They would argue that it was the responsibility of the Bank of Canada to take on their risks. We shouldn’t be unduly worried: the market had momentarily taken leave of its senses.

They left out the bit about why Canadians, who had never had a chance to ask the questions unvoiced by these masters of the financial universe, should take on the burden. And they left out the implications such behaviour would have for moral hazard in the system, for if banks and markets were bailed out from their mistakes, then what was to stop them from taking on greater risks in the future—a continuation of “heads they win, tails we lose” finance? How would that promote the values of responsibility, accountability, prudence and trust that are essential to sustainable finance?

I would ask him the same questions today. Why should Canadians take on this burden? Why should he now continue to allow developers to engage in a “heads they win, tails Canadian homebuyers lose” housing development plan? How does this condo bailout promote the values of responsibility, accountability, prudence and trust, which are essential to sustainable finance and a sustainable housing market for the next generation? I hope he takes heed of his own values.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Mr. Mantle.

Mr. Chang, I have you next. Go ahead on the motion.

[Wade Chang, Liberal, Burnaby Central, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We are sitting here talking about a program in the process of being designed by the B.C. government to meet the priorities they have set provincially and address an issue that is within their jurisdiction. The federal government is respecting that as a provincial priority and taking action to help facilitate it, as Canadians expect of co-operative federalism.

It's worth reminding Canadians that the condo conversion program that brings us here today has not even been finalized. The B.C. government has said that the details will become available in the coming weeks, but instead of waiting for the details and instead of having the complete picture for us to discuss, the Conservatives have decided to call us into an emergency meeting, pulling us away from important work in our constituencies.

I want housing. My constituents in Burnaby Central want housing. I think everyone around this table wants housing. Burnaby is one of the most expensive rental markets in this country. The average rent here sits at roughly $2,300 a month, about 18% above the national average. Burnaby is consistently ranked among the top five most expensive cities in which to rent in all of Canada. That's the reality facing thousands of families, students and workers in my riding.

This is not a theoretical policy debate. It is about whether a nurse, a transit worker or a young family can find affordable housing to live in this year or next year, not five years or 10 years from now. The Canada-B.C. condo conversion partnership will convert more than 2,200 unsold move-in ready condo units into affordable rent-to-own homes, making use of homes that are already built instead of waiting years for new construction. That's exactly the kind of fast action a rental market like Burnaby Central needs.

This program does not stand alone. It is backed by real federal investment already in the region. For example, there's $2.5 billion over 10 years through the Canada public transit fund, on top of the $852 million already committed to TransLink and BC Transit—investments that directly serve Burnaby commuters and make transit-connected housing more viable.

Also, nearly $1.6 billion in federal funding, matched by B.C. for up to $3.2 billion, will cut DCs for multi-unit housing by up to 50% in priority communities, saving up to $40,000 per unit. This is about getting Burnaby renters and B.C. renters into homes faster, rather than waiting years for construction to catch up with demand.

At the end of the day, this committee has a choice: spend more time debating speculation instead of solutions or spend time getting Canadian families into homes. I know what my constituents in Burnaby Central expect from me and this committee, and it is not political theatre.

To be very clear, the units will be acquired at below market rate, to be converted into affordable housing. Secondly, the overall contribution of the Government of Canada through Build Canada Homes will be approximately $150 million, not billions. Finally, through a rent-to-own program, units will support home ownership for people who otherwise would not be able to own a home.

Let's get to work.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Mr. Chang.

Madame Lapointe, go ahead.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I would first like to congratulate our colleague Richard Martel, who was appointed to the Senate today. This is wonderful news for us, and for you. I wanted to say that, and I also wanted to welcome Mr. Thériault, who is back for the first time since his surgery.

As regards the motion, I would nevertheless like to correct some of what Mr. Hardy said earlier. We are not talking about billions of dollars, but about a $150-million housing agreement between British Columbia and the federal government.

This really doesn't match what you implied earlier, Mr. Hardy. It's a provincial agreement. It's comparable to the $10-billion agreement between the federal and provincial governments, which allows the province to spend those funds in line with its priorities. It's a provincial jurisdiction.

I would also like to correct something Mr. Mantle said a little earlier. Ms. Sgro did not cancel the last meeting. However, on June 18, our meeting was cancelled at the last minute. The House adjourned at 3:30 p.m., and we were informed at 3:25 p.m. that the meeting here had been cancelled. There has been a huge lack of respect here.

I shall now return to my comments on the motion that has been tabled. I am disappointed that the Conservatives have chosen to disregard our usual schedule and to convene this meeting without any consultation with the vice-chairs, of whom I am one. Apparently, this committee is at the disposal of the Leader of the Opposition, rather than that of the committee members. There was no discussion with members regarding the timing and details of this meeting. Do not worry, I will always attend when there is a meeting unless I have a major family commitment. No information was provided about the motion we were due to consider. Once again, we only found out at the last minute. We learnt about it through social media. Unfounded insinuations and accusations are being made here.

We are sitting here discussing a program that the Government of British Columbia is currently developing to address a priority that has been identified at provincial level. This is a provincial jurisdiction. It is a funding transfer agreement between the federal and provincial governments. We want to tackle an issue that falls within the province's jurisdiction.

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

On a point of order, Mr. Chair. I just want to clarify something, because it seems we are trying to clarify the facts. As the Premier of British Columbia says this comes from the federal government, we need to come back to that.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

That's debate, Mr. Hardy. Thank you.

Ms. Lapointe, you have the floor.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Earlier, I set the record straight. We weren't talking about billions of dollars invested in housing. We were talking about $150 million for the program and the 2,200 homes. It's important to set the record straight, because you're always saying that people are following our work. Well, they need to be given the correct information.

I'll continue my speech. The federal government respects this provincial priority. We respect that, and I am sure Mr. Thériault agrees on this point. The government is taking steps to facilitate matters, as Canadians expect, within the framework of co-operative federalism. I also think it is worth reminding Canadians that the condo conversion program, which brings us together today, has not even been finalized yet. The Government of British Columbia has indicated that the details will be available in the coming weeks. We do not yet have the details.

Instead of waiting for these details, instead of waiting until we have the full picture so that we can all discuss it, the Conservatives have decided to drag us into an emergency meeting and tear us all away from the work we are doing in our ridings. When the House is in session, there are things we do not have time to do in our ridings. Right now, we are here in Ottawa. As I have told you before, I will always come when it's time to be here in Ottawa. I worked very hard to be elected in Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, and I will always do the work that needs to be done and that I have been asked to do.

Today, I am convinced that they are once again fishing for information so they can spread disinformation about this proposal. There is no mystery as to the reasons behind this impatience. They are actively trying to pre-empt the final details, because they want to give people an inaccurate picture of what is actually happening. We can see that this is the case, because inaccurate statements—which have already been clarified by the Canadian and British Columbia governments—are being deliberately repeated.

We have before us a letter from Minister Robertson, which all members of the committee have received, explaining all of this. In his letter to the committee, he states very clearly that these condos are being purchased in bulk at a reduced price. He states very clearly that the federal government's contribution represents a relatively modest part of the program, namely $150 million, which comes from Build Canada Homes. The opposition continues to show a complete disregard for the details that have been made public. We keep hearing about developers in downtown Vancouver. The Premier of British Columbia has made it clear: These are not condos in Vancouver. They are condos in British Columbia, across the whole province. The Conservatives continue to suggest that this is driving up prices, even though the properties are being purchased at a reduced price.

Finally, they continue to cite the interests of developers, even though the developers themselves—notably Wesgroup Properties, Goodman Commercial and the Urban Development Institute—have made it clear that they do not regard this program as one from which they would benefit. There is something the Conservatives are not telling us. We are not hearing anything about the 2,200 families and individuals who will gain access to affordable housing and a pathway to home ownership thanks to this proposal. As the minister stated in his letter, we have a choice to make. We can take urgent action, or we can follow the approach suggested by the Leader of the Official Opposition in his recent social media posts and do absolutely nothing. Thanks to this program, we have the opportunity to house people in homes ready for occupation—properties that are currently vacant—while people across the province are looking for a place to live.

We have the opportunity to offer thousands of people a path to home ownership through a proposed rent-to-own scheme that is currently under discussion. Where is the Conservatives' social media video about these more than 2,200 households? Where is their plan to house these people? Their proposal is to do nothing and wait for years, hoping the problem will sort itself out. That is not how we respond to a crisis. We are in a crisis. We are taking bold action, thinking outside the box and finding creative solutions.

If the Conservatives' priority is to play political games and post on social media, they're just criticizing from the sidelines. That is really nothing new. If their priority is to provide people with housing, let them take action now. As the Conservatives have no concrete plan to tackle the housing crisis, and no solution to offer other than doing nothing, they are reduced to insinuations, empty accusations and slander.

Colleagues, we are here today because a political party wants to play partisan games, spread disinformation and claim that it is considering a proposal that has not even been fully presented to the public yet. That is not how we set about putting things right; that is not how we solve problems. For our part, we remain focused on delivering results for Canadians. We have delivered results, and this is something the Conservatives are keen to ignore. In British Columbia and Ontario, we have announced measures aimed at reducing development costs in municipalities by up to 50% or more.

When we're out doing our work in our ridings, what do we hear? Cities specifically want us to invest in sewer and water systems, amongst other things, to support housing construction. This will result in savings of up to $40,000 per home in British Columbia and will enable the roll-out of infrastructure that supports housing, such as water and sewer systems and local roads for the provinces. This is precisely what the cities are asking for.

Indeed, a CMHC report dated June 2 confirmed that reducing or eliminating development costs could increase the number of viable housing projects by up to 14% in certain cities. In Quebec, we have announced billions of dollars' worth of infrastructure investment over the last six months to support housing. These investments directly support the expansion of communities and neighbourhoods by providing the roads and water supply systems they need to build homes. That is what I was referring to earlier. I would like to point out that this agreement was concluded recently. The Government of Quebec will receive $10 billion to move these projects forward.

Build Canada Homes, which Parliament transformed into a full-fledged Crown corporation last month, has been working tirelessly over the past year. More than 11,000 homes have been announced across all regions of the country. We have abolished the GST on the sale of new homes to first-time buyers.

We have been able to work with the Province of Ontario to extend this measure further. The Government of Ontario estimates that this measure will provide $2.2 billion in tax relief, support 8,000 additional housing starts next year, create up to 21,000 jobs and contribute $2.7 billion to Ontario's gross domestic product.

Through measures such as the apartment construction loan program, we are ensuring that the necessary funding is available so that we can continue to build apartment blocks. This helps Canadians find work and contributes to keeping rents affordable. Indeed, according to the June 2026 rent report, the median asking rent in Canada fell by 4.7% year over year in May, marking the 20th consecutive month of year over year decline.

We are working very hard. On March 3, the government announced $157 million in funding to help build 388 secure rental homes in Burnaby. This will consist of two towers providing a total of 388 homes for families, older people and individuals in Burnaby. This followed an announcement in February of more than $55 million in combined funding to build 116 secure rental homes.

On May 14, we announced over $52 million in funding for Killam Apartment REIT to help build 128 secure rental homes in Waterloo. This is a six-storey residential building with retail space on the ground floor.

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

On a point of order.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Excuse me, Madame Lapointe.

Mr. Hardy, if it's not on a procedural matter.... I don't want debate.

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

We are currently praising Build Canada Homes, but that is not what our motion is about. We want to discuss a specific issue.

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

I am talking about housing.

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

The issue of housing is a broad one.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Mr. Hardy.

Go ahead, Madame Lapointe.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Over the last year, we've provided nearly $12 million in funding through the housing accelerator fund to reduce red tape and speed up housing construction in the city of St. Albert, in Mr. Cooper's riding, although he isn't here today. That's right, we're not allowed to say that he isn't here. In any case, he's a member in good standing of this committee. The city recorded 966 new housing units in April of this year.

All of this is important work, but we know that more needs to be done. We need to work with provinces and municipalities across jurisdictions to continue aligning policies. We must continue supporting the most vulnerable and investing in our communities ourselves. We need to seize opportunities when they arise.

That brings me to British Columbia, where the 2,200 housing units represent a real opportunity. Through this proposed measure, we have an opportunity to provide housing to more than 2,200 families and individuals more quickly and at a lower cost than if we had to build those units ourselves. That part is important. It's less expensive, and the units are already there. I don't think letting this opportunity pass is a way to respond to a crisis.

We need to wait for the details of this program. As I said earlier, we don't yet have the details we need to know where these opportunities will arise, but the data on vacant condos are clear. We have thousands of vacant units: 2,200 in the Abbotsford-Mission census metropolitan area, 67 in the Chilliwack census metropolitan area, 571 in the Kelowna census metropolitan area, 598 in the Victoria area and 961 in Richmond. These are available housing units that could be occupied. We'll know more once the final details are available.

Is there not a single Conservative member in those metropolitan areas who wants to see those units put to use? We aren't seeing them.

Colleagues, the time has come to roll up our sleeves and respond to the needs of Canadians. This motion does none of that.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Ms. Lapointe.

Before I give the floor to Mr. Thériault, I'm going to suspend the meeting for a few minutes to allow committee members and the staff here to take a break.

We're just going to suspend for a couple of minutes.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

I call the meeting back to order.

Mr. Thériault, you have the floor.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good afternoon, everyone. It's nice to see you all again.

Let me start by saying that Canada is a large country and that media coverage varies from coast to coast to coast. Very little has been written in Quebec about the issue we're discussing today. When I reviewed the media coverage of the issues before us, I realized that this was a hot-button topic, particularly in British Columbia.

In fact, rather than blaming you, Mr. Chair, I'd like to say that you made a wise decision by holding an initial meeting today to try to clarify the issues. I thank you for that.

There are a number of things that concern me. I'm not going to repeat everyone else's remarks. A lot has already been said. Some issues are troubling. I'm not saying this to pat myself on the back, but you know that I taught ethics for 30 years, so these issues concern me greatly. That said, I'm trying to analyze the situation in a way that avoids, as much as possible, mixing politics—in the pejorative sense of the term—with ethics. Ethics and politics go hand in hand because ethics deals with what is as opposed to what ought to be. However, if we want to achieve what ought to be, it takes the “power to act”, and that “power to act” is politics.

That said, we don't have all the information today to answer all the questions that have been raised. We don't have all the information needed to answer, among other things, the questions raised by Ms. Kwan, who is directly affected, since she's the member for that area and lives in that province.

However, even though I agree, as a good social democrat, with much of her analysis, there is one point on which I disagree. Once the Government of Quebec, which is accountable to its National Assembly, signs an agreement with the federal government allocating $320 million for housing, it is not from my seat in the House of Commons that I will begin to hold the Government of Quebec to account. The people of Quebec, the political parties in Quebec, and the opposition parties—if there are any—will hold the Quebec government accountable for this agreement signed between the Quebec government and the federal government. There is one thing that exists in this federation—and you know how critical I am on this point—and that is constitutional jurisdiction. So, the Quebec government will have to answer to the people of Quebec, not about what it calls a $320 million deficit, but about a comprehensive agreement that suited its interests. There will be an election soon, and the people will be the judge.

That seems important to me, because there's a part of the motion I would have liked to have seen beforehand. Even though I understand that politics is politics, I would rather not have learned this morning from a friend that it had been posted on a Conservative colleague's website before it was even presented to the committee. Personally, I like it when people say they want to protect institutions and preserve them, but that also implies respect for the people who work there. Look, I'm not going to make a big deal out of this. It didn't make my hair frizz—there's enough humidity for that—but it bothers me to see the end of this motion, which states that the British Columbia government is being ordered to provide information. If someone in the Parliament of Canada were to order the Government of Quebec to do anything, regardless of which party was in power, I can tell you I'd stand in their way.

So I'd like the Conservatives to explain this aspect of the motion to me today. What exactly are they aiming for? As I understand it, they don't want to lose anything. There's a kind of suspicion here, as if they didn't want to miss a single opportunity should something come to light. In short, they'll have to explain this to me, because I wasn't expecting it. That said, I agree with the rest.

I think the committee should write to the Commissioner of Lobbying and ask her to look into the issue we're discussing today. Why? When I reviewed the media coverage, when I read what's being written across Canada, I realized there's a kind of networking going on. Political decisions are sometimes made based on who you know. It seems to me there's something to this. Often, the culture of the private sector clashes with that of the public sector. There are people from the private sector, businesspeople, who have networked and crossed paths at various points in their lives. Suddenly, a quick solution is found that suits everyone, and these people are trusted. However, the process would be entirely different in a public sector culture where there is no lack of transparency, where there is openness and where there is accountability.

What I don't understand is why there was such a rush on June 18, when Parliament was adjourned, to announce such a program, one that the Prime Minister himself said he wasn't ready to announce. The Premier of British Columbia says it wasn't him, but rather Prime Minister Carney, who wanted to do it as quickly as possible. We're also seeing that several people are part of a network surrounding Mr. Rennie, whom I don't know. That said, I'm very pleased to see that we want to hear from him here.

The Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner told us that he wanted to incorporate the concept of the appearance of a conflict of interest into the act. We must ask ourselves what influence Bob Rennie has, given that he helped organize a private event for Prime Minister Carney in February 2026. The event was titled, “An Evening with the Prime Minister”.

A few years ago, the Quebec government was heavily sanctioned because it was holding fundraisers at $100 a ticket, which is the limit. It was selling a meeting with minister X, Y or Z. This did indeed result in a penalty, and the Quebec government even imposed self-restraint. It stopped holding public fundraisers for the following year.

Here in Ottawa, there is someone at the very heart of this condo issue. We could look into what role he plays. He organized a fundraiser with people for whom paying $1,700 for a meeting with Mark Carney is of interest. There's also the Minister of Housing and Infrastructure, who used to be the mayor of Vancouver, and that same Bob Rennie has already hosted fundraising events at $25,000 per person. That's no small matter. David Eby, the Premier of British Columbia, met with Mr. Rennie in March 2026. In June 2026, a hasty announcement was made. I don't understand why people aren't acknowledging that there might be a problem. Even if there is no conflict of interest, even if there was no improper lobbying, the fact remains that there is an appearance of a conflict of interest here, and this needs to be clarified.

You could say it's a good thing to move quickly and ensure that people have access to housing. Yes, well, I agree.

However, in what I've read, I came across the opinion of Mike Moffatt, the director and founder of the Missing Middle Initiative. What he says—and this is what I was getting at earlier—is that it's possible for the government to negotiate a substantial discount off the current market price by buying up housing in bulk. However, the danger is that it might not be able to negotiate a deal that's worth considering.

In his view, a good deal would be for the government to acquire the units at 40% of their original price. A $1 million condo would cost $400,000, not $600,000. He also says that if developers ended up getting a price close to what they had hoped for three years ago for the same units, the proposal would amount to a way out for the developers. No one here today can take a stand on that. What I understand from the Conservatives' motion is that they want to shed light on this and get answers to these questions.

What's shocking about this is that for Prime Minister Carney, it's probably something that goes without saying. That's the culture of the private sector. The thinking is that it's a good deal, that it solves the problem, that everyone comes out ahead and then we can move on. Some people will have access to home ownership. The market doesn't matter. The consequences of whether the market goes up or down don't matter.

Are we bailing out people who, as we speak, have obligations to meet with their banks? Is that why things are being rushed? I have absolutely no idea. However, the media coverage compels me to say today that we really do need to conduct this study.

Now, do we want to play politics, or do we want to do something serious? Personally, I want us to do something serious while also respecting the prerogatives, powers and duties of the provinces and the government. In that sense, I don't know how we could word the end of the motion any differently. However, as for the rest, fundamentally, I would very much like us to be able to carry out this study.

Furthermore, I want the Lobbying Commissioner to conduct an investigation. The Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner is constrained by the current legislation. In fact, the last time you hosted him, he mentioned this at one point, but no one followed up to ask him to explain it further. So, perhaps all the requirements of the act he administers have been complied with. It may be that the conflict-of-interest screen has been put in place. We don't know. Perhaps we'll find out. However, when it comes to relationships and influence, there seems to be a problem.

Is it a good idea to launch this study today, when people are preoccupied with choosing a swimsuit for the beach and most of the journalists on Parliament Hill are elsewhere and not focused on what's happening here? Is this the best time to do it? Will we get the answers we're looking for about the program's implementation? When will people be ready to provide clear and specific information about the program's terms? Build Canada Homes has been around for almost a year now, and nothing is moving.

When you call Build Canada Homes, there isn't much happening, and the agency still seems to be trying to figure out what it is. The important thing is not to waste our efforts and not to fight a losing battle. The important thing is to ensure that we can ask our questions and that, when we do, we aren't told to wait until the program is in place and the details have been finalized. There is nothing in the announcement. There's no timeline. There's nothing. Why was this rushed? I have no idea.

That said, I'll ask the following question: Is the summer recess the best time to organize a committee study that will receive the attention needed for people to dig into the issues and for us to be able to carry out meaningful work? It's a valid question. We won't engage in petty politics, as we've done before, by claiming that the Liberals, the Bloc Québécois, the Conservatives or the New Democrats don't want to work. No, that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the need to have the necessary resources, to be able to do the research that needs to be done, and so on.

You know very well that we switch to “constituency” mode as soon as Parliament adjourns. That also involves a whole set of logistical challenges when working in the other world. As members of Parliament, we live in two worlds. There's the parliamentary world, and there's the constituency world. These are two parallel worlds that both have to function. At times, one takes precedence over the other, and then the reverse is true. In short, on this subject, I would say that Ms. Lapointe, who also has political experience, knows exactly what I'm talking about, and she articulated it very well.

It's not because I want to hide anything or have it forgotten. I want this study to have the impact it's meant to have. Right now, I'd be curious to know how many people are listening to us, how many journalists are following our work and actually paying attention to our proceedings, even if they aren't in the room. If anyone is interested in the issue and tries to ask questions, they won't get any answers back because, it seems, at this point, neither the government nor the minister knows where they're headed.

That, Mr. Chair, is all I have to say for now.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Mr. Thériault.

One of the things you brought up was the last paragraph and the ability of the committee to order. This is something that I underlined on my sheet, so I believe it's an appropriate thing to bring up.

We have the ability to compel documents from the federal government, but whether we have that authority, for example, as you cited, to do so with the Province of British Columbia is something that perhaps needs to be further addressed in this motion.

I appreciate you bringing that up.

Mr. Al Soud, you have the floor. Go ahead.

[Fares Al Soud, Liberal, Mississauga Centre, ON]

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.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

A motion to adjourn debate has been moved by Mr. Al Soud. It's a dilatory motion. It's non-debatable.

I'm assuming that we don't have consensus, so I'm going to call on the clerk to call the vote.

(Motion agreed to: yeas 5; nays 4)

The motion to adjourn debate has been accepted.

Mr. Al Soud, I see your hand.

[Fares Al Soud, Liberal, Mississauga Centre, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

What's also become abundantly clear to me is that this committee's mandate, time and again, has been side-cast in—