Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, a significant amount of time and energy has been spent by this government on the harmonization of public housing and income support programs. Harmonization is a word which indicates agreements. In reality, there is little agreement that the proposed changes will create harmony for the clients of these programs. As my colleague, Mr. McLeod, points out, there are faults with this initiative, particularly for seniors, and students as well. The rental scale is not based on the size or the condition of a house or the size of a family. The sole criteria is income, regardless if the income has to support two people or 10 people living under one roof. I am concerned for seniors and for students. The proposed guidelines say that seniors and students currently in public housing will not have their rent increased past $400. New applicants will have to pay rent based on their income, whether they are living in one bedroom, two bedrooms or three bedrooms.
Right now, for the first time, Treaty 11 scholarships are being taxed. Students will be assessed on money that is already clawed back by the federal government. It seems as though this government is clawing back every penny they can from the people who are most in need. We provide public housing as a way of assisting people on low incomes, but it doesn't seem as though we are helping them get into their homes because we are using their arrears against them. A person with arrears is disqualified from housing programs when they might benefit the most from these programs.
Options are available. By taking arrears and consolidating them into their mortgages and loans, people with a higher income would be better off owning their own home than if a higher percentage were simply taken off their rent. This is the situation which exists under harmonization.
Instead of harmonization, it might be better just altering existing policies and regulations. This would be simpler and fairer to all clients. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
---Applause