Mr. Chairman, that's the point I'm trying to make. If there was ongoing consultation, if the association was aware about the recommendation that you brought forward to the Executive, if they had known about it ahead of time, they would have had ample time to consult their membership. They could have said here are the ball park rate changes the department is looking at, but they required Cabinet approval and this is what we are going to recommend. If the department would have done that, then we wouldn't have this problem now with consultation. Right now, because there was nothing official, and all of the sudden it was approved, there is a problem. That is what I mean by ongoing consultation. If they were aware of the proposed rates that the department was recommending to Cabinet, they could have done their homework. Unfortunately, that wasn't the case. That is why we are running into this problem. Now everyone is scrambling to see what kind of effect it will have on them. The deputy minister indicated that he advised the tax-based municipalities -- two or three of them -- of the initiative of this policy, but the non-tax-based municipalities haven't been advised yet. They are anxious to see what impact it will have on them. I am saying because there was a lack of consultation, the time frame of 90 days is not long enough. I think we require a longer period. I am suggesting to the Minister and to his Cabinet colleagues that maybe we should implement this policy in August or September 1. That much time is definitely required.

Some of the municipalities are eager to get into this policy. They have been waiting for a long time. I know MACA has been working with them on a special case basis on their water and sewer, So I don't think it will have a drastic impact on them by not implementing the policy on June 1. I am sure they can wait for another three months. Thank you.