Evidence of meeting #68 for Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities in the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
Ron Cannan Conservative Kelowna—Lake Country, BC
Thank you.
Unlike several folks around here, I don't have a law degree, so I just want to seek clarification. If this requires government money to be expended, would that require royal recommendation?
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Dean Allison
This bill is about coming up with a strategy. Part of the thought process is that there would be incentives in there. To my knowledge, it's not asking the government to spend money, but rather to come up with a strategy.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
4:50 p.m.
NDP
Megan Leslie NDP Halifax, NS
Just to add to that, an incentive doesn't necessarily have to be money. It could be looking at changing zoning.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Dean Allison
Are there any other comments on NDP 5?
I'll call the question.
(Amendment agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]
We're now going to turn the page to Liberal 4, which is on page 6.1.
Mr. Kennedy, I'll turn it back over to you, sir.
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
Gerard Kennedy Liberal Parkdale—High Park, ON
It's just adding safety and security to this, so you have “safe, secure, adequate and affordable” and then into the existing wording of “accessible”. Again, it's a friendly amendment for more completeness so we know what we're talking about as the core of the bill, which is the minimum housing we want to be able to provide to all Canadians.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
Ron Cannan Conservative Kelowna—Lake Country, BC
Just to clarify, do they have a definition of “affordable”? Is that part of the bill?
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Dean Allison
It's the third paragraph under the interpretation. There's a definition at the front part of the bill.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Dean Allison
That's the only reason we've stood down clause 2, to come back to that.
Are there any other questions? I'll call the question.
(Amendment agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]
I'll get you to turn your page over to 6.2, Liberal 5.1.
I'll turn the floor back over to Mr. Kennedy.
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
Gerard Kennedy Liberal Parkdale—High Park, ON
Essentially, this just makes it more precise. Rather than just “access for the elderly and the disabled”, which could be only one part of their living needs, it expressly talks to “independent living as a result of housing adaptations”, which is the language from Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Dean Allison
Thank you.
Any questions? I will call the question.
(Amendment agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]
We're going to move to Liberal 6.
Mr. Kennedy.
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
Gerard Kennedy Liberal Parkdale—High Park, ON
Again, it anchors the good intent of the bill with the specificity of the LEED certification, which is becoming the standard for housing, and therefore gives it a more measurable outcome.
4:55 p.m.
NDP
Megan Leslie NDP Halifax, NS
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I've talked at length with Mr. Kennedy about our various amendments, but I failed to ask him about this specific amendment. My concern with LEED is that LEED exists right now at this moment in time, and it isn't necessarily a program that will continue to exist in the future. There may be better standards for environmental design. I'm just wondering if you see any problems with naming LEED in particular versus saying something like “the leading environmental design standards”.
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
Gerard Kennedy Liberal Parkdale—High Park, ON
No. According to the research we've done, LEED has various levels, so this does not require the highest level for government housing or not-for-profit housing, whatever. But it is a standard, and it's the only standard. So I guess I appeal to the committee to support us having the existing standard, as opposed to no objective standard.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Dean Allison
Is that a sufficient answer, Ms. Leslie? Is that what you're looking for?
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Dean Allison
Okay. We can come back.
I have Mr. Lobb, and then Mr. Ouellet.
Mr. Lobb.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
Ben Lobb Conservative Huron—Bruce, ON
Just on the point of this one here, I wonder if there are any thoughts on the extra costs that will be associated with the housing project if it's mandated that it be LEED certified. Obviously it's debatable whether it's cheaper on an ongoing basis for operational costs. But the upfront costs, from my understanding, are normally significantly more. I just wondered if that may hinder any of the affordable housing projects going forward because they are mandated to go by LEED, as well. Are there any thoughts around what the upfront architectural costs may be prohibitive to?
