This is just the type of thing that some of us with experience would know full well, that if you're looking at an extremely long use on a piece of property, you buy the property, you don't lease it, unless you think it's going to go through serious modifications down the road. Many of the other levels of government are talking this type of thing for hospitals and schools and things. You wonder about the same aspect, because those are generally longer term.
The second aspect I'd like to discuss is the disposal of properties, particularly in the case of Griesbach, the military base in Edmonton. It's currently handled by Canada Lands. Is there not interaction with other ministerial levels here? It's been clearly identified--and again, this comes from building owning and management experience--that a military base within the confines of the city of Edmonton, with modest houses, schools in place, and community halls in place would lend itself absolutely ideally to infilling, with affordable housing, walk-up apartments, and other modest housing units in virtually a square mile or two of property area.
I think that was an opportunity that was just totally lost. It was turned over to Canada Lands, and I would imagine their mandate is to sell to the highest bidder. They do have high-end housing on this property that they're doing the infilling on.
Is there not some interaction between the departments, or can there not be? It's unconscionable that in this country we would have such a problem in terms of the lack of affordable housing, not utilizing some of the most wonderful, basic means we have to be able to accommodate it.
What would you comment on that?