I’d like to thank the Attorney General for his question. It’s interesting that he’s talking about setting up bureaucracy when this government, when they were in opposition for 15 long years, promised that they would get rid of the monopoly known as Tarion, that they would overhaul it. Instead of fulfilling their promises, instead of being good to their word, instead of doing the honourable thing, they instead created yet another regulatory body, the Home Construction Regulatory Authority. They created yet more bureaucracy, using their words.

Now, had that been something that advanced the purposes and the causes of consumers, and had it protected people, had it stood up for people in the Ottawa area who were having to add yet more money to an unethical developer just to honour the contract they had already signed, maybe that would be something that the official opposition could support. But instead, we see the same systems at play again and again and again: consumers being exploited by government neglect. We see words; we don’t see actions. Let’s see some more actions. Let’s see you stand up for seniors.

I apologize to the Attorney General. I noted with interest the member stated that the value of this land went up by $8.3 billion or something like that, and I’ve noted in conversations with the member from Oxford that I find that number intriguing, because we hear all the time—I think the member mentioned it in her speech—that we have enough land for development. If that’s the case, how could the land from the greenbelt that we put in go up in value by $8.3 billion? Because if we had enough land, I couldn’t see that going up. I’m just wondering, how could that land that we took out of the greenbelt go up in that kind of value if we have enough land? Either we need more land for development or we don’t, and that’s my question for the member.