We nevertheless believe that a portion of the funding should be dedicated to affordable housing.
We need to define what affordable housing means, and that definition should include the percentage of the overall market it accounts for. Affordable housing could be considered to be $2,200 in a city like Montreal, which makes no sense. When we talk about affordable housing, we are talking about a place where people are going to live, so it can't be affordable for just one year; it has to be affordable on a lasting basis. It has to meet the needs of the middle class, so that those people can afford it.
If the new fund can't do that, it won't do what it's supposed to. If the goal is simply to create housing without taking affordability into account, the initiative is missing the mark.
The committee heard from witnesses who said that funding should be project-based, a bit like the process for the rapid housing initiative, which was quite effective. Do you think that's a good idea?
We are in the middle of a study where we can assess options. That approach worked well for organizations, even though the process was such that they had to submit their projects quickly.
Does a project-based approach sound like a good idea to you, Mr. Moffatt?