Mr. Speaker, it appears we may have had a misunderstanding. When the strategy was discussed and debated in committee of the whole on March 11, just prior to the vote taking place, I responded to the motion and indicated at that time to the Members of the Legislature that as a Cabinet we had discussed some of the concerns which had been shared with us from the ordinary Members in earlier discussions that week. As a result, I was prepared to make some amendments to the strategy. This was to reflect a definitive Cabinet position in response to the debate. The comments I made at that time are contained in Hansard and I will go through them rather quickly.

First of all, we agreed the strategy should be implemented over a longer period of time. We were concerned and did not agree that we should establish another steering committee, but I supported the idea of keeping MLAs informed, perhaps, by designating two MLAs to keep in touch with me and to work with them on an informal basis, to work through problems as they arose. Once we dealt with the motion and changes to the strategy, the matter should be handed over to officials to manage within the rules which we set. I indicated that officials would be directed to start rental increases on August 1, 1993, with further increases over the following two years until full rents are reached on August 1, 1995. Our calculations indicated an increase of 15 per cent per year to base rents would be required to equalize the three increases. Rental increases would only be applied to base rents which do not include utility charge costs and that was a change from the original package as we had proposed. We felt the 15 per cent on base rent was, in fact, a better deal with less impact than the 10 per cent on the full rent, as proposed by the Members. We suggested that we would introduce the standard accommodation allowance to all level III communities this year. We would, after calculating a 15 per cent rent increase to the rents of the people in the level III communities, add that on to the base rent and then add the other base rents back on it, plus the $450 and introduce the standard accommodation allowance, just so there is not such a large gap in the level of rents. We went on to suggest that all staff units will have an energy audit to be assessed for sale. In cases where the fuel or electrical bills, for instance, are unusually high we would go in and ensure that it would either be repaired or the rent would be lowered in a manner which would be fair. I indicated those were being made to meet the spirit of the motion.

I regret that the Member misunderstood what the intent of my comments were, but it was to meet clearly the demands of the motion. We did not meet all of them, but that was the extent to which Cabinet was prepared to go. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. For the record, the changes that I indicated in my response to the motion on March 11 have been approved by Cabinet. The changes are a reflection of Cabinet position. We had no intention to set up another working group to oversee the implementation of this strategy. We felt that perhaps it is time for officials to get on with carrying out the work as set out by the Legislature and Cabinet, but I would be prepared to work with MLAs or a couple of designated MLAs who may want to take on the responsibility of keeping their fellow MLAs involved and informed over the next few months. I know the intensive work load of Cabinet and MLAs and the increase in limited resources we have. The Cabinet and I felt that it is not feasible to set up a formal working group. However, we would be prepared to work with a couple of MLAs on an informal basis.

Mr. Speaker, there was no attempt to deliberately not inform MLAs, it was my understanding that the debate, the subsequent motion and the response to the public and the tenants gave some finality to this issue. It was my view that the issue was largely resolved, to continue to debate and seek further changes to this strategy at this time would become counterproductive and continue the unease and instability which some of the employees felt at the time. The information in the letter which the Member has referred to has not gone out yet. I think it is being drafted to go out. There is an update which was intended for employees to apprise them of what changes have occurred as a result of the debate on March 11.

Mr. Speaker, the issue of the tax rebate was one that arose in the course of discussions by MLAs in the latter part of the debate in the back room. As the Minister of Personnel, I could not find a way, in the few days I had, to rationalize how it tied into the staff housing strategy. So, I had no mandate from the Cabinet to respond to it. That was the reason. It was not directly or easily tied into the

housing strategy and the elements which we had set out at that time.

Mr. Speaker, the Residential Tenancies Act.