Yes, absolutely.
You raise a good issue. As I mentioned, compared to other OECD countries, which are similar to Canada, we have far less social housing. We're at about 4% of the total housing stock, whereas the average is 7%. Countries like the United Kingdom are at 17%. There's a huge gap there that obviously a lack of investment over the past few decades has resulted in.
You're correct. For example, there's a huge rental arrears issue happening right now. A lot of low-income folks are getting evicted and have nowhere to go. If we start targeting more programs toward folks and their specific needs, we'll have less competition for these generic units that everyone seems to be competing for in the hot housing market.
To speak more to addressing people's specific needs, that's something we are not adequately doing right now through the national housing strategy. Yes, there's the opportunity to invest more in social housing, but there are also all of our other programs that claim to be addressing priority groups, for example low-income folks, indigenous people or persons with disabilities. There is no collection of disaggregated data to see if we're meeting these people's needs. There's no monitoring. Even for the rapid housing initiative, we claim that we want to invest 25% of all housing funds toward women and girls, but only five to 10 points out of 120 for the rapid housing initiative are actually given toward projects that meet the needs of women and girls. That's not 25%.
Yes, there's definitely a gap here in terms of addressing specific priority populations.
I'm sorry. Are we over the time?