Thank you for the question.
We're very aware, obviously, of when the specific terms of the agreements expire. We have struck a federal-provincial working committee, which has actually been under way for about a year now, to look at the viability of these projects when the agreements expire.
The whole notion, when the programs were designed, was that when the mortgage was fully paid off--i.e., at the end of the operating agreements--the projects, with the low rent they were collecting and not having to pay the mortgage any longer, would be able to be self-sufficient going forward. That was the theory of the program design.
What we're looking at, and this is the point that I think CHRA is making, is that some projects and some programs work better in that regard than others. They prepared a report called “Was Chicken Little Right? Is the Sky Falling?”, and they concluded that in fact non-profit housing and co-op housing are in pretty good shape at the end of their agreements, whereas public housing is less so with its 100% concentration in low-income housing.
The working group that's been put together, and that includes all jurisdictions, is looking jurisdictionally at the portfolio of housing that's out there. They're looking at the portion of the portfolio that will in fact be financially viable, as was hoped at the outset of the program design, and that can continue on post the agreement expiry, and looking at which projects may need some reinvestment, followed by how that reinvestment might occur.