What I would say about indicators is that we've learned some interesting things. Many of us have worked through the 25 in 5 Network for Poverty Reduction in Ontario. While we have a lot of limitations on data in this country, we have some important existing measures. For example, if one concern about setting targets and timelines is how we would measure change, we have now an established low-income cutoff, an established low-income measure, and an established market basket measure.
If we want to look at primarily the count of who is living in income poverty, I think we could move forward. I'm not sure we would need to wait for a new measure. The U.K. adopted three measures. We could start with one, and if people thought we needed to develop something else, it could be done. That was actually a big discussion in Ontario, we felt from the community side, convincing the minister, who was quite an advocate, that we didn't need to wait for a new deprivation measure. That's one indicator.
The other indicators become more complicated. We could look at how many early childhood education and care spaces we have in relation to the population of children, for example. That might be easier to look at than a more detailed issue of access.
As for affordable housing, I don't know. Perhaps we might look at the same. Those are just a couple of thoughts off the top of my head. We probably should not lose sight of the unemployment rate and the number of people who are working and still living in poverty.
Those are some thoughts.