That is an excellent question.
It's really important to have only one straightforward definition of affordability, because quite often, with the cobbling together of different programs, you end up having to do some very complex math indeed in order to reconcile different definitions of affordability.
It's really important to have targets and have overall goals such as we will end homelessness by X date, we will end the low-income rental housing need by X date, and we will ensure that there's an affordable home for all Canadians by X date. The only level of government that can do that is the federal government.
Then there's a question of how much leeway should be given to provincial, territorial and municipal governments. I would agree with a lot of what was spoken in the last hour about innovation and about the differences between rural and urban housing, but the outcomes and the targets need to be clear. That should be the basis of any agreement between the federal government and provincial-territorial governments or city and regional governments.
We want to see homelessness go down by 20% over the next five years. You sort it out, track it every year, and you get back to us. I'm a great believer of flexibility in terms of program delivery and of absolute clarity, which frankly has been missing from the federal government, about what's meant by affordable housing and what would be necessary to create the kind of Canada that we all want in terms of year-on-year reduction of homelessness and year-on-year reduction of housing stress.