Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I will just pick up on your last comments. It does seem outrageous that when it comes to something as fundamental as a roof over one's head, we're using old data. We're seeing examples that the communities most in need are the ones getting the least funding. It really does seem out of sorts that this is happening in Canada and in indigenous communities. It really does seem outrageous. I just offer that as a comment.
It flows from what we've seen in your audits today about the real lack of documentation or lack of data to support what's happening on the ground. One of the things that caught my eye was in paragraph 2.49 of the housing report, which states:
Specifically, the department had documentation certifying that only 8 of the 22 (36%) projects to build new housing units we examined met the building code standards. Similarly, we found that the department had documentation certifying that only 9 of the 22 (41%) repairs to existing units we examined met building code standards.
It seems like a real concern, from my perspective, when we're talking about the building code. It's not necessarily implying that they didn't meet the building code but that there wasn't documentation confirming they met the building code.
How did you come to that conclusion? Was it simply that they didn't have the documentation, or was it that the documentation wasn't readily available? Where did that come from?