Yes, I think in this issue, we have to look at the politics of inclusion not exclusion. However, I think that one point that has been missed, is if we go from 372 units to 153, that is, theoretically, 219 units that we would not be building. I am sure that Mr. Pollard and the Government Leader will be concerned with the net economic impact on the territories.
The building of houses in these communities is usually, the only economic stimulus in some of these small communities. What is the net impact going to be on the jobs? What is the net impact going to be on the materials, the pads, the piling, the hotels, the corporate income tax? So, while I understand that the focus, and it is an important focus, is on housing and the need for housing and that should be the primary thrust, there is another significant argument in this territorial environment.
I will talk about my own riding, and you put two houses in there that can employ six, eight, ten people at a local level for ten to 12 weeks. If you are smart, then they find a way to go onto the federal purse at U.I.C. I do not think you can underplay the economic impact this will have, as well as the housing need impact, and how it could theoretically, increase people on social services. I do not know what the dollar value is of 219 units, probably around $21 to $22 million, as you have said. That has a significant impact on those small communities. That may be an argument worth pursuing particularly where we have a limited economic activity in some of these communities.
I know that over the years that I have been involved in the construction business, there is a number of people who sit and wait for these opportunities to come forward at the community level and find employment.
I would suggest to you that the ripple effect, aside from the obvious housing shortage, is great and has an impact on our overall economic situation and financial situation of this government.