To move on to a bit of a different topic, you said there was some talk about the steps taken that were not intended, and then, in the meantime, there appeared to be unintended consequences. If we were to take all this out there and say that you intended to do what you did, that means....
We hear back from builders in our communities, in our ridings. We know that people lost money, or they cannot sell their properties anymore and they end up with no profit, or below zero. We know that there's another interpretation to what you did, which was to encourage more or less the rental market versus the home builders, which was another consequence of the whole thing.
Another perception is that you are imposing policies on Canadians, especially first-time homebuyers, in terms of their dreams, their opportunities, and what they want. If we look at the Alberta market—we represent Alberta—we see that this policy has impacted Alberta a lot, including small businesses. During the difficult time of the economic downturn in 2007-08 until now, Albertans managed to really hold their market and to hold their mortgages, and we've seen the best results of all.
With these controversies surrounding what you have suggested to the Minister of Finance, can you clarify exactly why you think your policy is of benefit to Canada and Canadians? We know that Vancouver and Toronto markets have driven your policy, in many cases. What does that represent percentage-wise compared with the rest of the Canadian markets? Is it a good blanket policy that's really fair for all Canadians?