Debates of Oct. 7th, 2025

Commissioner for Modern Treaty Implementation Act

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, the temptation is to challenge the Conservatives when they say, “zero”. I suggest that the Whitecap Dakota Nation is one they might want to do a little research on, not to mention things such as the Manitoba Métis Federation, which, technically, is signed off. They can talk to President Chartrand, and I am sure he would be more than happy to give a full update on it. There are others, as well, where consultations with indigenous leadership in terms of reserves and other things need to be approved before it can be brought in.

The essence of what we should be talking about here is the fact that we have indigenous community leaders from coast to coast to coast who recognize the value of Bill C-10 and want it to be passed. It is only the Conservative Party in Parliament that seems to not value Bill C-10.

[Dominique O'Rourke, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I really appreciate my colleague's clarification.

Let me be clear: The commissioner could do reviews, audits and briefings to see how government programs are working and share what they find with ministers, indigenous partners and Parliament, including members opposite. Earlier in this conversation, one of the members opposite said that we could do this in question period. How many questions have we had in this session of Parliament on our obligations to our treaty partners? Any audit in any government would have a follow-up like this to make sure that the organization was meeting its audit findings.

[Marc Dalton, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today as the member of Parliament for Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge and as a proud Métis Canadian, one who wants to see first nations, Métis and all Canadians thrive and prosper. The opposite has in fact happened under 10 years of Liberal government. Crime is up, the cost of living is up, food bank usage is up, and hopelessness is up. The economy is down, opportunities are down, and employment is down. The malaise that is felt in Canada from the Pacific to the Atlantic and Arctic oceans is felt by all communities. It has been experienced among indigenous and non-indigenous people alike.

Bill C-10 is the latest example of what the government does best: announce, reannounce, repackage and then do nothing. It proposes a new bureaucracy, a commissioner for modern treaty implementation. This is something that sounds nice and reads nicely in a press release, but when we open the box, we see nothing. We see no real powers, no real accountability and no tangible outcomes, just more process and delay.

Canadians, indigenous and non-indigenous alike, are right to be frustrated. The government has had 10 years to act but has delivered zero new modern treaties. That is a fact.

In contrast, the Conservative government under former prime minister Stephen Harper produced five modern treaties that were signed in six years. Therefore, I ask what exactly the commissioner is supposed to do that has not already been done or that should not already be happening. Would the commissioner build new homes? Would the commissioner provide clean drinking water? Would the commissioner hire police officers or ensure that indigenous policing is treated as the essential service it is? No, the commissioner would not, because they would have no power. The mandate would be to strengthen relationships and uphold the honour of the Crown, but the commissioner could not compel action, enforce treaties or even table reports to Parliament without waiting for the minister's permission. In fact, Parliament itself could not direct what they should review or audit. Who would this office report to? It would be the very people it is meant to oversee. This is not oversight; it is a public relations exercise.

Let us be honest about what is really happening. The government knows that it has failed indigenous people again. It knows the Auditor General has issued dozens of reports, not just one or two, but over 14 just since 2015, detailing how the government has been failing indigenous, Métis and Inuit peoples in everything from housing to clean water and treaty implementation. What has the government done with these reports? It has ignored them. Now indigenous peoples, many of them rightly frustrated, are calling for more oversight, not because they believe that Ottawa will suddenly fix things but because government has refused to deliver on its own obligations. I do not blame indigenous leaders for their frustration. I do not blame them for trying every option. I do blame the Liberal government. Instead of fixing the real problem, which is that its own departments are not doing their jobs, it decided to create another layer of bureaucracy to give the illusion of progress.

We already have systems in place: the courts, the Auditor General, parliamentary committees, deputy ministers, performance frameworks, oversight committees, secretariats and internal audits. The government does not need another reminder that it is failing. It needs to start doing its job. The Auditor General has already laid out how to fix this, going back two decades. In 2005, there was a report on the treaty land entitlement obligations. In 2006, there was a report on the B.C. treaty process. In 2013, there was an audit on modern treaty implementation. In 2016, there was a report on the Labrador and Inuit Land Claims Agreement.

The Liberal government has had a map, but instead of following it, they got lost in their own maze of offices, titles and press conferences. While they were doing that, the communities were suffering, treaty rights were not being honoured, fiscal transfers were delayed, infrastructure was crumbling, the police were underfunded and housing was inadequate. Why do they think one more office will suddenly change anything? What might actually change something is accountability. This is what we should be asking: Who has been fired for all these failures? Who has been demoted? Which departments have been reorganized? What consequences have been imposed on those who have failed to implement the treaties that have already been signed? None. Zero.

As my colleague, the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley, himself a former treaty negotiator, said, why would anyone believe a powerless commissioner will get results when years of direct negotiation with the government haven't? He is right. The root is not oversight. The issue is a government that refuses to be accountable, that prefers symbolic gestures over real results. Let us remember what these treaties mean. Modern treaties are nation-to-nation agreements. They are not symbolic. They are legally binding. Indigenous governments negotiated hard for them. They traded undefined rights and titles for legal certainty under the laws of Canada. This is paramountcy. They came to the table in good faith. It is Canada that has not been holding up its end of the bargain.

Now, the Liberals are proposing a commissioner whose job would be to watch the government break its own promises politely. This is not reconciliation; this is theatre. Under the current government, and now under the new Prime Minister, we have seen more bureaucracy than ever: a defence investment agency duplicating what the DND already does; a $13-billion housing bureaucracy while no homes are built; and now this, a modern treaty commissioner with no teeth.

This is all for what? The Parliamentary Budget Officer just called this government's spending unsustainable. Canada now spends more on interest payments than it does on health care. Our economy is the slowest-growing in the G7, with the highest unemployment. Meanwhile, the Prime Minister, who took office in March, has not even tabled a budget in seven months. Two-thirds of the fiscal year is already gone and we have no budget, but somehow they are going to find money for another office, another round of talking points and another layer of bureaucracy that accomplishes nothing.

Canadians are tired of it; indigenous peoples are tired of it, and Conservatives are tired of it. We do not need a commissioner to tell us the government is failing; we already know that. We do not need another office to report on reports that are already gathering dust on bureaucratic shelves, and we certainly do not need a Prime Minister who refuses to lead.

Here is what we do need: We need the department to do its job; we need ministers who are accountable; we need indigenous peoples to be respected as equal partners, not clients of the state; and we need to uphold the honour of the Crown by fulfilling the promises we have made, not creating new positions to tell us we did not.

Reconciliation is not measured in how many offices we open in Ottawa; it is measured in homes built, water cleaned, treaties honoured, safety delivered and prosperity shared. Let us stop the charade. Let us scrap this hollow bill and get back to doing the hard work of government. Common-sense Conservatives will continue to stand with indigenous Canadians, with treaty partners and with all Canadians, believing in results, not reports; in leadership, not lip service; and in a government that does its job instead of just expanding itself.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, as we start to wind down the debate today, it has become apparently clear and somewhat sad that the Conservative Party has taken the position to vote against Bill C-10. This is legislation that puts into place an independent agent of Parliament that will be a strong voice in dealing with modern treaties. The Conservatives, for political and partisan reasons, have decided that only they believe this is a bad idea. We have indigenous leaders from coast to coast to coast who want to see the legislation pass. We have every other political entity inside Parliament wanting to see legislation of this nature, but the Conservatives have made their decision: They do not like the legislation.

Does the member feel any guilt at all in terms of rejecting what indigenous leaders across Canada want to see made into law?

[Marc Dalton, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I think indigenous leaders are responding to the lack of action and respect regarding them and treaties. That is what they are responding to. They are grasping at straws, asking, “Let us do something.” Why? It is because the Liberals are not doing their job. What is the Liberals' solution here again? It is to build another bureaucracy to do something and to report not to Parliament but to the minister. That is not accountability; that is just another way to give plum jobs to their friends.

[Mario Beaulieu, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I salute my colleague, with whom I served for a long time on the Standing Committee on Official Languages.

When the Conservatives criticize and say that this is nothing but red tape, we have reason to be concerned.

The Bloc Québécois supports the principle of the bill. However, we see that it does not provide for the power to enforce compliance. It kind of reminds me of the Commissioner of Official Languages, as I said earlier, whose office was established over 50 years ago in 1970. Since then, French has been in decline and the assimilation rate of francophones has been going up. Year after year, the commissioner has expressed concern and criticized the government, but the government is not doing any better. It seems like things are only getting worse.

If a commissioner position is established, does my colleague agree that the incumbent should at least have the authority to compel the government to comply with the early treaties?

[Marc Dalton, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from the Bloc Québécois. We served together on the committee.

I truly believe that we do not need this position. It is a new position created to produce reports like the ones already being produced by the Auditor General and the courts. We do not need yet another thing that will make everything more complicated and slow the processes down even more.

[Kurt Holman, Conservative, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it was nice to hear the thoughts of my colleague from Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge regarding Bill C-10. This bill would establish an independent commissioner and office. The Conservatives support modern treaties, but our concern is that the proposed legislation to establish an independent commissioner and office would add another layer of bureaucracy and cost to the government.

Does the member's opposition to Bill C-10 reflect the unwillingness to have accountability and/or oversight?

[Marc Dalton, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives are not at all in opposition to accountability. We are for accountability, oversight and respecting treaty rights. We just have not seen this. We are concerned about another level of bureaucracy slowing things down. As I mentioned earlier in my speech, the one thing the Liberals are great at is gumming things up with red tape.

We are feeling it with projects. On the topic of resource projects, many first nations communities need resource projects, and what are the Liberals doing? They are strangling the prosperity of first nations. That is something the Liberals could address that would make a difference.

[Jaime Battiste, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations]

Mr. Speaker, this evening I would like to share some thoughts on something that has been a lifelong passion for me, and that is ensuring the implementation of treaty rights and inherent rights in Canada.

In fact, besides studying treaties in law school and being a professor of aboriginal and treaty rights at Cape Breton University, I was honoured to be given the opportunity to be the first-ever treaty education lead for the province of Nova Scotia. While doing that job, I was honoured and privileged to be able to do some work with some of the treaty commissions that are already set up in certain provinces across Canada. We have the Office of the Treaty Commissioner in Saskatchewan. We have the Treaty Relations Commission of Manitoba. We have the B.C. Treaty Commission. I had the chance to meet with all of them and hear about the important work and the successes they are having across this country.

In fact, last week, or two weeks ago, I was in Treaty 4 territory in Manitoba, where treaty commissioner Loretta Ross told me that one of the best things the treaty commissioners were able to do there was to ensure treaty education was offered in all schools across Manitoba. Largely championed by Premier Wab Kinew, we have been able to see treaty education become mandatory in the province of Manitoba.

These treaty commissioners are doing some amazing work. I would invite the Conservatives who have been saying they are not going to support this legislation to reach out to them and hear about that important work in advancing reconciliation through building trust, through ensuring collaboration as treaty partners and through educating the public on the importance of sharing that we are all treaty people in this country.

The overall purpose and objective of this important piece of legislation is to ensure oversight and accountability to ensure the treaties we have signed are implemented. There are more than 27 modern treaties in this country, covering more than 40% of the land mass across this country.

Indeed, what we have heard from stakeholders and leaders is quite simply that we need to implement these treaties we have signed and made promises on. All we are asking, and they are asking, in the most simplest of terms is that we honour and obey, and if we make a promise we keep it. I think if we asked any indigenous nation across this great country what is important to them, they would ask us to honour the treaties, implement the treaties and be treaty partners.

I am troubled by what I am hearing from the Conservatives and the narrative that we are creating some sort of bureaucracy and that it would cost too much money to implement what we have signed on to in the 27 modern-day treaties. They talk about bureaucracy and they talk about money, but what they are not going to talk about is that when they go home tonight to their children, they are going to quite simply tell them that if they make a promise, they should keep that promise. That is what we are talking about.

This is not a surprise to me. I am the son of one of the original drafters of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, who went to the United Nations for decades. When they finally got a declaration that all nations could sign on to, Canada, led by Stephen Harper then, rejected it and said, no, we would not vote for the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

Thankfully, as a Liberal, as a member of Parliament for my riding, I was able to help ensure that the Liberal government said it believed that first nations people should live without racism and was going to ensure that these rights were implemented. That is why we passed the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. However, when it came time for the Conservatives to decide whether they would support the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, they once again voted no.

Twice last year, I got up in the House of Commons and asked for unanimous consent to give first nations clean water legislation, protecting their source waters. Twice I got up here. Twice I heard nays from the Conservatives. Twice I was shouted down and not even allowed to get the words out of my mouth on the protecting first nations clean water legislation. It would appear the Conservatives are showing their true colours again in delaying, denying and obstructing any legislation that benefits indigenous people.

Currently in my riding, there are land protectors in the Cape Breton Highlands who are protesting the decimation of the moose population and moose habitat. I went to see them, and while this matter is primarily one of provincial jurisdiction, what was required was a treaty partner that would show empathy, that would create education and awareness, that would look toward collaboration to resolve this. However, the Conservatives decided and believed that fines and jail were more appropriate.

I am proud to stand on this side of the House, which believes in taking steps toward reconciliation and treaty implementation and believes in education, empathy and collaboration.

I have heard from other members of the House that they want to see this legislation pass. They have said that we need to move forward, and not only on advancing reconciliation. Last week, we celebrated the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's calls to action, but I have not heard much from the Conservatives on what we need to do to implement and advance them.

In this House, I have a heard a number of times that, while the Conservatives support modern-day treaties and indigenous reconciliation, they are going to vote no on this legislation. I ask the Conservatives quite simply, in the few minutes I have here, to get on board, stop delaying this important legislation and allow us to move forward with unanimous consent.

Over the years, we have seen that the Conservatives are intent on delaying, denying and obstructing indigenous legislation. I am asking them tonight, the week after the National Day for Truth and Reconciliation, to stand with us to implement modern-day treaties and support this legislation.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

Public Safety

[Michael Guglielmin, Conservative, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I recently had the opportunity to rise in this chamber and ask the Secretary of State for Combatting Crime about the rampant crime on the streets in my community and across this country. At the time, Vaughan had seen seven shootings in just three weeks. Since I asked my question, there have been three more shootings, one of them as recently as yesterday in the early morning hours in the area of Thornhill Woods. It was just another day in Vaughan, where gunshots rang out while families were asleep in their beds.

We know that so much of the rampant criminality on our streets is a direct consequence of weak Liberal soft-on-crime laws and catch-and-release policies that keep repeat violent offenders out of jail and on our streets. People are afraid. They are scared and they are frustrated. They are frustrated because of the lack of action by the Liberal government.

It is not just the Conservatives who have been raising the alarm for years about the Liberals' failed bail laws. lt is the everyday person at the local bakery in my riding, or the mother and father shopping at the grocery store. Even the mayor of Vaughan said this about yesterday's shooting: “These instances are a direct result of a broken criminal justice system that catches and releases repeat offenders instead of keeping them behind bars.... We need stronger and tougher laws and real bail reform from the Federal government immediately.”

Everyone, and I mean everyone, wants the Liberal government to act. Police chiefs, police associations, provincial governments, victims' groups and municipal governments are all begging for action, and what do we keep hearing from government members? They tell us not to worry as bail reform is coming. When? We have yet to hear of a date for this bill.

There are also zero details about what is actually in the bill. Will the government get rid of the principle of restraint from Bill C-75, which compels judges to release offenders under the least onerous conditions at the earliest opportunity? Will the Liberals finally admit that their ideological approach to criminal justice is flawed and that it prioritizes violent criminals over victims?

If this truly was a priority for the Liberals, they would have introduced bail reform in the spring or, at the very least, right at the start of this fall session, but they did not. We have seen their priorities. We have seen them prioritize banning people from buying cars from one another for $10,000 in cash or more, prioritize lowering the threshold for what constitutes hate speech and prioritize confiscating firearms from law-abiding citizens, all in the name of combatting gun crime, despite the fact that police tell us 90% of gun crimes are committed with illegal firearms coming over the border with the United States.

Everyone seems to know what the problem is, except for the Liberal government. That is why we introduced our jail not bail act. We can end the principle of restraint, create a new category for major offences and bring in the bail reform this country so desperately needs.

Given how important it is that we fix this mess quickly, yesterday we tried to pass a motion to fast-track our jail not bail act and send it to committee. We committed to working extended hours. We will do whatever it takes. Unfortunately, the Liberals voted against our motion, once again prioritizing criminals over victims.

Just last week, we heard from the Prime Minister that they want to get tough on crime. If that is the case, why are they standing in the way? Why does the government pretend to be tough on crime while standing in the way of our plan to prioritize victims over criminals and keep repeat offenders behind bars?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, in dealing with the issue of crime and safety in our communities, we have a new Prime Minister who has made a solemn commitment to Canadians. Along with the Prime Minister, we had 340-plus candidates canvassing the entire country, dealing with important issues for Canadians. The issue of crime and safety was a priority. That is the reason the Prime Minister of Canada made that solemn commitment in the last election to bring forward bail reform legislation.

I listened to what the member is saying, and he is of the impression that we should have brought forward the legislation the moment after the election. There is an obligation of the Prime Minister and the government to work with the different stakeholders who are out there to build consensus in terms of how and in what form that bail legislation should be presented. That is the way it was done previously, and that is the way it needs to be done, because the judicial system is a shared responsibility. Ottawa has a role to play, the provinces have a role to play, and municipalities have a role to play.

Before we can actually present the legislation, it is critically important to work with the other stakeholders, along with the provinces, municipalities, territories and indigenous communities. The Conservative Party knows full well that the legislation is coming this fall. Yes, there is no hard and fast date, because the commitment from the Prime Minister was to give that legislation and present it this fall. That means we have to wait for the legislation to get here, and once it is here, I hope we will get the same enthusiasm that the Conservatives like to portray to Canadians on the issue in the form of their wanting to see the legislation actually pass.

When we have provided legislation, such as Bill C-2, which would make communities safer in Canada, the Conservatives' response has been to filibuster. We are still debating Bill C-2, and it was introduced weeks ago. Now we have the Conservatives jumping up, saying they want bail reform legislation, and the government and the Prime Minister are doing the background work to ensure that we have bail reform that is widely accepted and that we have a consensus based on the feedback we are getting from provinces, municipalities and other stakeholders, because it is a shared responsibility.

We will bring in the legislation to change the Criminal Code to ensure that we have the bail reform that is going to make our communities safer. This is a commitment our newly elected Prime Minister made, and I can assure the member that we will deliver on that commitment. I hope he and his caucus will get behind it—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

The hon. member for Vaughan—Woodbridge.

[Michael Guglielmin, Conservative, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I was on the member's website, and it reminded me of a simpler time in this country, one that made sense, when criminals were kept behind bars and repeat offenders were kept in prison. We hear from the member nothing but excuses for the delays.

Crime is not a new problem in this country. The rise in crime has been going on for years at this point, and we have heard, as I said in my earlier remarks, from police associations; we have heard from police chiefs; and we have heard from municipal and provincial governments. We have heard from every stakeholder. The only stakeholder that has been committed to delays is the federal government. The only stakeholder that does not want to move and get this done so citizens can feel safe and secure in their own homes and their own communities seems to be the government.

There has been enough delay and obstruction. If they do not want to introduce the legislation, they can get out of the way and we will do it for them.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the reality is that the Liberal Party, in particular the Prime Minister, sees the issue of crime and safety in our communities as an issue on which we need to reflect the interests of Canadians. We are putting Canadians first. That is our motivation. We will bring forward that bail reform legislation.

Unfortunately, it would appear, and I can clearly demonstrate it if members would give me leave to provide more detail, that the Conservative Party of Canada is motivated by political, partisan reasons. One of them is to generate funds. Another one is to be able to portray this false impression that the Government of Canada, in particular the Prime Minister, is not doing anything, but nothing could be further from the truth.

We will continue to pursue and present that legislation—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Order. The hon. member for Calgary Crowfoot.

Housing

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is good to be here for an adjournment debate.

Some time ago, I asked the Minister of Housing about the terrible track record of his government, in that the cities that received significant funding from the so-called housing accelerator had collapsing housing starts. The response I had from the minister was quite astounding. In his answer, he said that they are at near-record housing starts, and he questioned the whole premise of my question that there was anything wrong with the situation for housing. It was quite astounding.

We have watched, over the last 10 years, as the government presided over the collapse and evaporation of the dream of home ownership for Canadians, where young people despair over whether they will ever become homeowners. We have seen, in this country, that we have descended and become a country with two kinds of families: those who already own real estate, wherein the parents can share the equity in their home one way or another, through mortgages, selling the home or flat out letting the kids live in the home; and families who do not own real estate. The gap between the two is getting larger, and the despair among young Canadians is growing. However, the answer I got from the minister was extraordinarily tone deaf.

On Monday, we had a finance committee meeting where we had experts testify. I would bring this to the minister's attention or to the parliamentary secretary who may debate me during this late show. We were told, so that Parliament now knows, that in the GTA and greater Golden Horseshoe areas, preconstruction condo sales are down 89% and ground-oriented home sales are down 70%. If buyers cannot afford homes, they will not be built. This is testimony from Mike Moffatt of the Missing Middle Initiative, which is hardly a Conservative voice or go-to Conservative witness. He outlined brutal statistics on housing starts. Now, this is on pre-sales, which are the housing starts two years from now. We also heard testimony from Richard Lyall of the Residential Construction Council of Ontario, who corroborated this testimony: Housing pre-sales are down 90% in Toronto. This is a complete collapse of housing starts.

The alarm bells are ringing loud and clear. The minister and the government are completely out of touch with reality when they take credit for the current housing starts. Housing sales and housing starts are in collapse amid a crisis over access to home ownership and the affordability of rent.

I would invite the parliamentary secretary who is going to engage to familiarize himself with the testimony we heard at the finance committee if the Liberals are going to take credit for housing starts.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I think it is important that we recognize, as the government and the Prime Minister have, the needs that Canadians actually have, in a very real and tangible way. In fact, the Prime Minister, who was just elected six months ago, has taken a number of initiatives to support home ownership into the future.

We could talk about the legislation that has enabled first-time homebuyers to be exempt from having to pay the GST. We can talk about the Build Canada Homes agency, which is going to be there to ensure that we are able to meet the future demands on housing. It is in a relatively short time span that we have seen initiatives of this nature.

We could do a contrast, not only in terms of the actions to date of this government and this Prime Minister but also including the last 20 years, taking a look at Justin Trudeau or Stephen Harper. Actually, we could go even further back. We could talk about Jean Chrétien. We could even talk about Brian Mulroney. The worst government in the last 40 or 50 years, to deal with the issue of housing was actually the government in which the leader of the Conservative Party served. He sat around in cabinet when the Conservatives did absolutely nothing on the issue of housing. In fact, when the leader of the Conservative Party was the minister responsible for housing, get this, he built six houses, six.

I would actually contrast the type of housing that we have been able to put together, working with municipalities and working with provinces to ensure that we could increase the housing stock, not to mention the many non-profit housing organizations that are out there that we are trying to support.

We have support for housing co-ops and so much more. We recognize and, in particular, the Prime Minister recognizes, that the federal government does have a role to play in encouraging and being in the housing sector. Contrast that to when the leader of the Conservative Party sat in government and sat around the cabinet table. In fact, when he was the minister of housing, there was virtually nothing. When I say virtually nothing, I am being generous.

At the end of the day, the member makes reference to the condos in Toronto. I would suggest to the member to take a look at the condos in the city of Winnipeg. Depending on the region and depending on the marketplace, if there is a surplus of condo development, which has been acknowledged in Toronto, I suspect that has something to do with the stats. In some areas, it might be weaker. In other areas, it should be greater.

If we talk about Toronto's downtown versus what is happening in other communities around the city of Toronto or even in Toronto, we have seen some downward direction taking place in the prices of homes in Canada.

There is a genuine concern. We are concerned. It is not to downplay it. We will continue to be on top of this particular file of housing affordability.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the member invited me to contrast the government with previous governments, and I would be delighted to. The government has been in power for 10 years and has presided over the collapse of home ownership and the doubling of the cost of rent. The crisis of access to housing that Canadians can afford is entirely of the government's making.

When the leader of the Conservative Party was minister, we had a healthy and functioning construction, home and real estate sector, where private sector builders built, supply and demand were in balance, and wages were rising.

I know that the Liberals love The New York Times. The New York Times said that Canada had the wealthiest middle class in the world that could afford homes. That was during the tenure of the previous government. This government has blown it.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad the member wants to use a contrast. He should contrast the last number of years, particularly the last six months, to when the leader of the Conservative Party had the hands and the ability to use tools to do more and chose to do absolutely nothing. Had the Conservatives done something back then, maybe we would not have the current situation we have. It is as if it was okay for the Harper government to do absolutely nothing and leave it up to the provinces and municipalities to do all the work and give government assistance. Contrast that to a federal government today that recognizes that not just the cities and provinces have a role; it also has a role.

I will use that contrast any day. At least we have a government that is concerned and cares about Canadians and the issue of affordability, and yes, we will do better.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

The hon. member for Swift Current—Grasslands—Kindersley not being present to raise during Adjournment Proceedings the matter for which notice had been given, the notice is deemed withdrawn.

The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 6:51 p.m.)