Non-market housing is not just housing that's subsidized, because there are subsidies for people who have deeper economic needs. For the people who are non-subsidized, again, Tim's numbers spoke to that.
That being said, when I'm hearing people talk about the rental market and say that if we only build more homes for mortgages, people will get out of the rental market and it will free up rentals.... Because we don't have vacancy and rent control applied when people move out, whatever those people were paying for rent is not going to be what's available for new people moving in.
If there is a dependency to look at the whole housing system and the whole housing spectrum trickling down, regulations need to be put in place. It doesn't seem that government has an appetite for that, certainly not around vacancy control. If that's not going to happen, we'll have to focus on non-market housing, and that's the point.
If we're talking about taxpayers' money, the private market will do what the private market will do. It will look out for itself. However, if we're looking at government investments and regulations, this is where they need to be focused.
If we had a higher representation of non-market housing, it might have a chance to compete with purpose-built rentals and the private market. It certainly won't when it represents only 3.5%.
There's a lot I could say. I'm afraid I strayed—