I think during my opening comments I talked about flexibility, because I think we need to deliver housing that's right for the community and where it will reside. When it comes to the definitions, as much as they will provide predictability, we are looking for that flexibility.
Surely the fairest definition of affordability is that it meets the needs of the individual. It is based on their ability to pay for that unit. I think that would be the fairest approach to that.
Similarly, when it comes to tenure, I know Hamilton has a great need for rental tenure, particularly accessible rental tenure. Often, those with disabilities struggle to find rental tenure that meets their needs.
I would push that many of those options are determined at the local level. What I would really stress is that it not be a punitive approach. Guidelines around predictability are important, but I think, instead of looking at punitive measures, what you do is look towards bonusing those who are taking this fund, leveraging all other abilities as a municipality to deliver on local housing need.
Ultimately, any opportunity to take a sum of money and then demonstrate in response back to the federal government how we have taken that money, leveraged it and delivered on local housing needs should be a priority and a bonus opportunity as opposed to a punitive approach where every municipality is forced by the requirement for a certain percentage of accessibility or a certain definition of affordability.
I think there's an opportunity there to work flexibly within the system, providing clear guidelines but also allowing the bonus of the ability within the municipality to demonstrate where they have shown leadership and commitment to the individual housing needs of their community.