Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the comments. I should point out a couple of things. We did make a modest increase to rents about two years ago. That was under a different government, a different collection of Ministers. That caused a huge uproar regardless of the proposed five per cent increase. I think Members have to appreciate that this came from people who were paying no
more than $300 a month in many communities for their houses. It also came from government employees living in the next town who, for the same unit, were paying well in excess of $900 a month. So, regardless of the amount of rent tenants were paying at that time, the uproar was consistently loud and the outrage was well enunciated. I know in some of the Member's communities the tenants were already paying in the neighbourhood of $1,000 a month or so. In our constituencies there are already people who are paying about $300 a month for the same size unit. Regardless of it, the people are just generally opposed to any type of increase. I raise that because I know there are huge inequities in the amount of rent we ask different employees in different communities to pay, for generally the same type of units. Members should know, as well, that at one time housing was part of the union negotiations; it was part of the collective agreement. It was legislated out because whenever it was time to sit down and negotiate, I understand this was the deal which would make it or break it. No matter what was talked about, invariably it was housing. If you wanted to talk about salaries, rents came into it, subsidies came into it. Some years ago the government decided to legislate the housing out of the collective agreement. It is a highly controversial, highly emotional issue. I know people have grown accustomed to the system, however unfair and inadequate it is, and it is difficult to deal with it. I think however well thought out our strategy may have been, if the Members support it and they make good suggestions we would be supportive of making some changes. Once Members decide the substance of the proposed changes that we will make then we can respond.
I should comment on the tabling of letters. I did table two letters, I believe. One was from a private businessman who complained that because of the huge subsidies and benefits that this government, he says, lavishes on its employees, he as a private businessman continually loses good employees to the government. He feels it is time there is a more level playing field for people who are trying to run a business; quit having everyone running to the government because it is such a heavily subsidized employer. I had thought it was very bold of this man to write the letter and so I asked if he would mind if I presented it so Members could enjoy the flavour and view of this gentleman. The other letter I tabled, which was from a local citizen, was because here was a woman who was bold enough to put her thoughts down on paper. In the face of a huge pile of letters which I know we have all amassed protesting this initiative from the tenants and other people involved who felt they needed to protest, I never felt the need to table these, though I would have no objections to it if people felt that way. I think we all receive copies from our constituencies. The Government Leader has received numerous letters. They have been passed over to me. I have tried to respond to every last one of them in the course of the last few months. I just wanted to say that because I did not want people to think I had any other motive in tabling those two letters. I thought they should be recognized for what they were.
Regarding examples such as the Member raised about the huge impact the proposed changes are going to have on the take home pay and income of these individuals, we have said people are not going to have their rents taken of more than 30 per cent of their income and we will make adjustments for the anomalies we know exist right now. We are prepared to sit down with each individual Member who has constituencies with unique situations in order to help them deal with the impact of the strategy. This offer was made and it still stands. Thank you.