You know, as a government and as a corporation, I think we have to develop a comprehensive report or some sort of a process in regard to looking at the holistic approach of housing. I’m not just talking housing as a stick-built unit. I’m talking about housing for all classes of people, from disabled people to seniors to families to singles to transitional housing to basically shelters. I mean, we have to look at the whole configuration of housing, right from, like I say, the time an individual is born to the time they pass away, through a seniors’ home or whatever, through that system of housing.
I think that most jurisdictions in the country have looked at that. They have a comprehensive approach to housing. They work with NGOs. They work with seniors’ societies. They work with the private sector to look at housing and exactly what our long-term needs are — not five years down the road or ten years down the road — and where we’re going to be in 20 years, where we’re going to be in 50 years, and look at it through a comprehensive approach, looking at housing.
Also in regard to urban housing, rural housing and a comprehensive idea of where we’re going as a government…. Not just have a reaction every year to the budget process but look long term at where we’re going for housing.
Mr. Chair, I’d like to ask the Minister: would he seriously consider re-profiling or putting the dollars back with regard to the contribution assistance for residential enhancement programs, in which there was $3 million and now it’s $750,000 less? Is this something that the Minister can look at, re-profiling that amount, knowing that it has a detrimental effect on the whole idea of the programs and services that we deliver, and especially in regard to home repairs and assistance for homeowners?