I just want to touch on a couple of things, one thing that you previously said and one from just now, on being creative in the way we respond and some of the logjams, the roadblocks. I was in Victoria when I went to Calgary and back, and in Victoria, another beautiful city where you would not for a second imagine that there would be people sleeping on the streets, there were just hundreds of them. They couldn't open up church basements fast enough to take them in during the winter. The really troubling reality there was the number of disabled people living rough. It was startling, and shocking, and depressing all at once.
In Victoria, we had a forum and we had co-op housing folks come, and they had the plans, they had the money, but they couldn't get the land because it was too expensive. They made a suggestion then that we look at the whole taxation regime and see how we might make it more lucrative for people who have land and are sitting on it and they don't want to sell it because of the impact on them regarding taxation. At that time, Denise Savoie, who was our member there, actually brought back to the House and to our caucus some suggestions.
It goes back to the question I asked earlier today: how do we get a discussion started on taxation such that we could reorganize it in a way that benefits not only those who work hard and generate the wealth and deserve a good return on that, but also those at the bottom end, who also participate in meaningful ways, but maybe not quite so valued? How do we rearrange our taxation system so that this type of thing could be done?
Do you have anything further on that?
I think that recommendation is important. Where did we hear that? Somebody made a recommendation in Vancouver where they talked about this notion of making it more financially attractive for developers, for example, to do affordable housing, because they're not doing it.