Thank you, Mr. Chair and Mr. Blaikie.
Yes, that's a great point. If we dig into the affordability criteria of the capital funds in the national housing strategy—for example the RCFI, which I mentioned—only 20% of units are priced at 30% of the median family income—not individual income—and only for 10 years. That's not permanent affordability. We know that this far exceeds what is affordable for most low-income individuals, even mid-income individuals, and it's not a large percentage of units either. Just to expand on that, the national housing co-investment fund has very similar criteria.
These are the biggest, most expensive programs in the national housing strategy. If we want it to genuinely address the housing shortage in Canada, it would require more aggressive, permanent affordability guidelines, far exceeding 10 years, and it would require some funds earmarked for social housing so that this funding is not going back to real estate investment trusts and very expensive buildings that are really only affordable for about 10% of the population in some cases.
I think that answers your question.