Mr. Speaker, I am not certain that I could go into a community and tell people "I am thinking about raising your rent, what do you think about it?" That is not normally the kind of thing we do, especially when it is not a new initiative. I think we have to get our heads around another issue which is the terminology that is being used here. I remind Members it is not a policy. It is not a rigid, fixed rule by which this government is going to operate. It is simply a strategy. It is a very flexible strategy that says the government wants to get out of housing, the government wants to make sure employees pay is fair and equitable and takes into account the situation of everyone else in the north.

The fact is this strategy is not a new initiative. It is one that was started some years ago. It started in Hay River, Yellowknife and Fort Smith with the implementation of the user-pay. By next year at this time, the government is going to be completely out of staff housing in all of those communities. We are phasing in the approach we are taking to employees across the north. The Member knows that this has been talked about for quite some time. We are at the tail end of trying to complete a long-term strategy. I agree it was done with no notice. It would be nice if we had a year or two to give notice to people. The Member knows, particularly in light of what the Minister of Finance had to say today with regard to the budget address, that the fiscal situation of this government is very tenuous. Right now, as I see it, by introducing this strategy and by trying to implement it this government has put all Members on notice that there is a potential $5 million bag of money in front of us. This bag of money has historically been used exclusively for the benefit of less than 2,000 people in the Northwest Territories. We are saying "Yes, it is true, we have done it very quickly, with hardly any notice. Yes, there were a few flaws in our introduction, but aside from that, here is the benefit. We have about $5 million we could spread out and use in ways that could benefit all 57,000 people." That is the way I see it.

If you want to bash me for the next few days about not having thought this through and about some of the technical problems we have had in introducing this, that is fine. I accept that. In the end, that is the way I see it. You can give it back to them and say, "It is your fault, it was not done correctly, it was not well thought out. Therefore, we are going to punish you and give back the $5 million to the 1,800 employees." We should get on with it and ensure public money is used and redirected where it is needed the most. Thank you.