I was going to cover this in the question. Under the housing accord with Quebec, the Quebec government sets the criteria and then chooses the projects. We don't have the information as to what criteria or which ridings they chose or which projects and project applications they moved ahead with. We're being asked for information that is not entirely within our jurisdiction. We have to respect the decisions that the Quebec National Assembly and the Quebec government made.
On the amendment, it is a very long, complex and detailed set of requests that have been put here. For example, when we put in place an application that comes from a particular housing application, when they ask for the riding, is it the location of the proponent or the location of the housing? For example, in Winnipeg Centre we had an application that was put forth the other day by a company in one riding for a project in a different riding. We announced it in the riding and the MP in question wasn't invited to the announcement because we thought we were in a different riding at the time. There's a lot more to this equation than simply the information you're asking for.
I understand the need to understand which projects got funding, which ones didn't and why, but it's more complex than just the federal government or just the CMHC making these decisions.
I will go back to the point I raised earlier. I'm not going to fix this motion. The proponent can fix their own motion, but they are asking for us to disclose confidential, proprietary information and detailed financial transactions in a public way to a public body that would literally blow up the process that is currently under way. I would suggest that it would violate the good faith that both vendors and proprietors have put forth in these applications. They were never told they were going to have to disclose their financial information, which properties they were trying to acquire, the dollar amounts they proposed to put on the table or the funding sources for those dollar amounts, which are all part of this calculation.
I would suggest that the member withdraw the motion and come back with a clearer motion. I'd be happy to work with them to get the information they want. The way this is drafted puts at risk everything on rapid housing 2.0 and every single project that's currently on hold awaiting new funding, which is now being delivered by the budget implementation act and the budget.
This motion is a really serious overreach. I understand the intent and support the intent in principle, but in practice and in detail, this will literally take projects out of the hands of non-profit providers and hand them over to somebody else. Who knows what the consequences of that will be? Who knows what the consequences will be to people who have purchase offers that will then expire as a result of this information being disclosed? Who knows what legal remedies may be available to those individuals? They have invested dollars in trying to acquire these properties, only to see a committee of the House of Commons disclose all of the business dealings prematurely and therefore put at risk their security deposits.
There are a lot more implications to what Mr. Vis is asking for than what is currently in this motion. I would ask everyone to take a step back, focus the request more properly and deal with it in a responsible way. Don't put at risk the transactions that are on hold right now, awaiting future funding.