Well, housing has been built. I think the Auditor General has presented data in percentages that makes it look like there was no progress. Of course there were housing units built.
To go to an earlier question, there are lots of communities that are innovative and have built high-quality housing and are doing all kinds of interesting things. Community leadership is a huge part of that.
I think that raises the issue of what the funding algorithm should be. It's one of these programs, like many others, where there will always be more demand and possible uses than funds that are available. Even if you continue to increase the funding, it'll be finite and you'll need an algorithm for allocating it.
When I was there, there were basically regional pots of money, so British Columbia had a pot, Alberta had a pot, Ontario had a pot and so on, and then there were a lot of negotiations with chiefs in that region on allocation formulas for very finite resources where the department had to say no a lot.
Now, the Auditor General has a very specific view of what equitable means, but it's basically a policy judgment, even a political judgment, of what is the fairest way to allocate finite resources. She puts a lot of emphasis on torquing the money to where the most need is.
I could also argue that maybe you want to seize opportunities where they come up. For example, build an entire subdivision because land becomes available or an opportunity to lever a claim settlement or a litigation settlement comes into a community's hands, and they suddenly have the opportunity to build an entire subdivision of new housing. Maybe there's a community that has tapped into capital markets and can put up 50% of the money—