Thank you for the question.
I agree that when you look at the Quebec numbers or the Canadian numbers broadly, we have seen, counterintuitively, new construction activity actually fall over the last two years, despite our push to continually build more. Part of that is the reality that we just have broad macroeconomic conditions that ultimately dictate what the market does.
When you have a very aggressive tightening cycle that triggers a decline in housing activity and a pullback in investment activity, you're naturally going to see a market response where construction falls. It's very difficult to push home builders to, first of all, build in an environment that's not favourable for them or that perhaps offers them a lot of risk going forward. It's also very difficult, when you have an industry that is already at capacity, to push further beyond those constraints.
In terms of a policy response, I fully agree with my colleagues that any kind of measure that can improve the elasticity or the responsiveness of supply or the productivity with which we build housing is absolutely a positive for this country and for housing supply going forward, because it can make this market dynamic play out faster.
Keep in mind that home builders take time to bring projects to market and to bring units to completion. If we have an acute demand shock on the ground today, it might be two, three or four years before we actually complete units to satiate that demand and bring rents back down to a more appropriate level.
I think that any measures on the supply side, in that context, are very important avenues to keep pushing on.