Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, last week when the first motion on harmonization came up, I stood and enumerated a number of issues I had with the harmonization initiative. I pointed out how the communication had been inadequate, how I thought the implementation was flawed because it wasn't being phased in for all of the people it would affect and it was only being phased in for seniors and students. I had challenged the government to recognize that it needed to be changed so that it wasn't a program that had to be only cost-neutral. I think that's at the heart of what the problem is. If we insist that the program be cost-neutral right off the bat, you can't phase in everybody. It's not right to expect people to make dramatic changes or deal with dramatic changes in their rent all at once.

So I think that in theory the issue of harmonization is a good way to go. I think we should treat people the same whether they are single parents or seniors if they are in need. I think we have to find some way to make sure that the kids who live in single parent families have the support that our society thinks is necessary to give them, just as we think it's necessary to support seniors. I don't think we can do that if we have to have a system that's cost-neutral.

So in spite of my concerns, I thought I had gotten a signal from Cabinet that they were going to announce some changes to the program in how it was going to be brought forward and implemented. So at the time, I didn't support the motion to defer. However, Mr. Speaker, not having heard anything from Cabinet that has dramatically changed the manner of implementation, I will at this time be supporting this amendment and then the amended motion if this amendment passes because I agree that the implementation needs to have some examination. It needs to be brought forward in a manner that is reasonable and fair to all of our constituents. So, Mr. Speaker, with that I just wanted to say that I would encourage all Members to support this amendment.