Thank you, Madam Chair. The old model with the housing corporation was we waited till a building deteriorated until it was unusable. Then, we ripped it down and we put another one on. One house, one family.

This model is the same. I have already said, we can't exceed the 2,200. I think it's 22. Is it 24 now? 2,400 and 200 market. The 2,400, we can't exceed that. We're not going to exceed that. Instead of waiting until they deteriorate and ripping them down and then put another one up, which was the old model, why aren't we giving those houses better, in good repair, not junk. I'm not okay with giving away shacks. I lived in a shack. I know the problems with living in a home that's not appropriate. Give 100 homes away, build 100 more. You're right, we stay at 2,400. But if I use it one and one because it's easier. In the old model, we have one house. We wait until it deteriorates. At that time when it's deteriorated, we rip it down, and we put one more house on. We have one house.

This model says, we give 100 homes away. We build 100 homes. We have 200 people living in homes versus 100 from the old one. We're not increasing. We cannot afford to increase our public housing stock. We don't know how we're going to figure it out. We can't leave our future governments in jeopardy and say, well, this government will be done in 2038, which isn't very far if you think about it; that they can deal with that. We have an obligation to protect our future. My goal is to have people in homes, irrelevant of whether it's public housing or not. In fact, I'm not even a big fan of public housing, period. I'd rather have all people in home ownerships. Thank you, Madam Chair.