First of all, we have to recognize the value these housing assets represent. It costs a lot of money to develop new housing. It costs a lot less money for the public to support existing community housing assets that were built a generation ago and that probably need reinvesting in now but still represent a very good deal. Our proposal is that the governments, if you like, make sure that these projects are able to continue to house at least as many low-income Canadians after their federal funding arrangements come to an end as they do now. Otherwise, we'll suffer a real setback in housing.
I agree with your estimate, Ms. Davies, of three million. What we don't want to see is that number grow merely by dint of existing social housing assets, if you like, going to waste.
The other concern we have is that absent some renewed commitment from governments and renewed partnership arrangements with governments, we might simply see the loss of these assets, a loss because of a failure to reinvest in them or even a loss at the hands of unscrupulous groups that might wish to convert these assets to equity housing. This is housing Canadian taxpayers have paid for over a generation, and it should remain available.
So we're saying maintain the purposes and maintain the affordability as it is now.