Thank you, Mr. Chairman. There are two problems that the motion creates. First, the suggestion that the Minister could proceed may be in doubt because of the motion. The fact is, there may be a suggestion in the review by the standing committee that the policy not be implemented until a later date. If the notices are given which suggest the policy is going to be implemented earlier and you're asking the municipalities to do all the work with their by-laws, it is not very helpful for them. I have to say that it could cause more problems than it will solve.

The other point is this, no matter what situation occurs, nobody wants to pay more. That's the reality. Nobody wants to pay more money. In a political process, the criticisms that people are going to be receiving are going to be that they can't afford to pay any more. But, this is a situation where we're dealing with a subsidy. I hope that my colleagues on the Standing Committee on Finance would recognize that their constructive suggestions should be to ensure that there is fairness of the subsidy, which was the intention of the department in the first place, rather than suggesting that it not be applied. That it should be applied as fairly as possible should be the basis on which you review this matter.

If it is to suggest that it is not going to happen, well, that's another political issue very different from the principle that Mr. Antoine spoke of a few minutes ago, and that is, fairness and equity in terms of the application of the policy. I would hope that my colleagues would consider this in terms of their review. But, it still could cause very serious problems about the implementation. You're talking about 90 days and you're in the 60- day period, and you only have 30 days to change it. The review may not happen within that 30 days. I would ask that my colleagues be aware of that.

I'm not speaking against the motion, I'm just raising a few concerns that I have, so that you're aware of them.