Thank you Mr. Speaker. I won't take a lot of time. I think my colleagues have covered many of the points. I would like to say though, that I think that if somebody is keeping track or somebody's trying to build the model or find the blue print for how to not roll out a government program, this has truly got to be it, Mr. Speaker. I think the philosophy of harmonizing the way two departments treat income for the purpose of housing, makes a lot of sense. Fundamentally, it's hard to argue with that. You may dispute whether or not income earned from traditional pursuits should be exempted; you may dispute whether or not income earned from lotteries should be exempted. It is hard to argue that two departments of this government shouldn't treat that the same way. But, Mr. Speaker, if things started out on the right track, it's obviously in a lot of trouble now. I think what is going to be interesting -- and Mr. Delorey has just put it to our government -- is to see how strongly this government feels about this program. This is an initiative that they've spent a lot of time and a lot of money developing. If there is an abstention en masse on that side of the House, it is a pretty clear indication to me that this thing is a dog.

Mr. Speaker, I have a number of concerns, however, with the way this thing has been rolled out and those concerns to this date haven't been dealt with. The government has decided to tinker with this thing at the last minute to try to garner some support. They've decided to grandfather some seniors, who are currently in public housing, and give them assurances that they won't see rent increases, but the crop of seniors we know will. I think in trying to deal with some of these issues, they've in fact made it worse, Mr. Speaker. I've always had a real problem with this issue of deciding that somehow students and seniors will be treated differently than working families or anybody else. I really think this should be about making ends meet for everybody, treating everybody equally. It should be about a dignified standard of living. This shouldn't be some arbitrary age cut-off that decides whether or not you are going to have a smooth ride or a rough ride, Mr. Speaker. I think when we get into imposing those arbitrary cut-offs on the basis of age or occupation or anything, the quality is out the window and I have a real problem with that.

If you look at how the government has tried to sell this initiative, they've come forward, they've done a couple of different sets of numbers but they have indicated to us that -- I think the last time I saw a presentation -- 80-some percent of people will either see decreases or no increases. It seems that at first glance, Mr. Speaker, a compelling case for supporting something of this ilk. However, when you realize that the Minister from ECE has said folks on income support will see decreases, let's just think about that. If you're on income support and income support is paying your rent and you are going to see a decrease, does that mean income support is going to leave you with more money for other things such as clothing or food? No, it doesn't, Mr. Speaker, it simply means that income support will now have to give you fewer dollars each month in order to pay your rent. So the decreases by and large, will be to the benefit of the income support program, not the people on income support.

Let's think about the other 20 percent that we know may see increases. Well, if this is a cost neutral program, and 20 percent of the people are going to make up for those 80 percent who are seeing decreases, what are we talking about for those 20 percent? Now this may only be two or three constituents in my riding, I'll admit, Mr. Speaker. There isn't a lot of public housing in my riding. As Mr. Braden has indicated, this isn't an issue that I'm receiving a landslide of calls and e-mails on, but I have had several people call me, three or four, who have concerns about the program and have given me a document showing me that their rent may go from something like $800 to $1,300. This may be three or four people, Mr. Speaker, but as I've said all along, if we're going to talk about a graduated rent scale then we are going to talk about phasing-in rent increases to seniors. A $50 a month maximum for the first year, $50 second year, $200, $400, it goes up gradually.

It makes a lot of sense to phase something in, Mr. Speaker. Now, it may be the case that some of the families paying $800 a month are paying too little and should see larger increases to make it more equitable. I don't know, I haven't gone through the numbers. But I do know something, it doesn't seem to me to make any sense to hit anybody, even if it is two or three people in my riding, with a $500 a month rent increase. It seems wrong. I don't know why we can't phase in everybody who is going to see a rent increase. Why wouldn't we phase in all of those increases over a number of years? Now if we have to pay for that, if we want to maintain this cost neutrality, if we have to pay for that phase-in by also phasing in some of the decreases, then I say do it, Mr. Speaker.

I mean, many of the people seeing possible rent decreases may not be thrilled with that idea, but I would rather see some of the decreases frozen and/or a graduated decrease if that is going to allow us to phase-in some of the folks who have been calling me with the $300 or $500 a month rent increases. By and large, I can think of three right now; three of the calls that I have received have been single moms with three, four, and in one case, I think five kids. Unfortunately, this program does assess your income, does take into account how much money you make each month, and two people living side by side making the same income will now be treated the same in terms of rent. But it doesn't take into account your expenses. It doesn't take into account whether you have two children or five children. If you have five children that's a lot of rubber boots, that's a lot of snow boots, it's a lot of food and it seems the reasonable thing to do would be to phase in rent increases.

As I said, I think the roll out on this thing has been terrible. We first heard anybody who makes under $3,833 a month, the so-called low income cut off, which the Minister indicated was a national standard... I've looked quite hard on the Internet to try to find some recognition of this national standard and I wasn't able to find it. I did ask the Minister questions about it and he clarified that it was a number that had come from Housing. But, you know, many Members on this side of the House have asked for some information, the kind of high-quality information that you would need in order to make an intelligent decision about how this program would affect your constituents. We've received some preliminary information from the department and more and more information is slowly rolling out. As I've said, it looks like most people are going to not see rent increases but this late in the game, with only a month to go, my colleagues are right in suggesting that even though this thing has been in the works for months and years, a lot of this hard information is only coming out at the last few minutes.

So the philosophy makes sense to me. I absolutely don't want to see this program killed and this is a very difficult decision for me because I'm afraid that if in deferring the program for a year, to a new government, that might in effect kill it. But, Mr. Speaker, I see all kinds of problems with the way this has been rolled out. I have all kinds of concerns about that small 20 or lower percent who are receiving the increases on the backs of the 80 percent who will see decreases and really I think a lot of that is government money. So, Mr. Speaker, I guess, given the reservations I have about the how the program has been rolled out at this point, I would support a deferral in order to fix the program and phase in all residents, not just seniors and not just students but on the basis of need, Mr. Speaker, because I think that is the fundamental tenet of our income support program.

I think those are the kinds of underpinnings that have driven the development of this, and I think it has been missed because we've added on these little pieces, piece by piece, to try to take care of an interest group or try to take care of certain members of society. By and large, the people forgotten have been those in the middle and for me, it may not be a lot, but it is those two or three moms that have called me and have a number of children that are trying to make ends meet and are going to see a $300, $400, or $500 a month rent increase that, I guess, I am unable, at this point, to stomach. I've asked the government to phase the program in. There has been no acknowledgement or no recognition that is something that needed to be done, other than a "we'll consider it, we'll look at it." That's the kind of commitment I would like to see from this government. If they were willing to phase in the program for all residents, not just seniors and students, I would be standing up here supporting this harmonization initiative right now, but that's not the case. I think it will be quite enlightening to see how the government feels this program has been developed and see how well thought out the government feels this program has been.

Mr. Delorey indicated it will be interesting to see how Cabinet shows leadership on this. Let's keep in mind this was a program that was developed by our government and had a very good start and a very good philosophy behind it. I think it was on the right track, something got lost somewhere and it's unfortunate. I will be interested to see how Cabinet votes on their initiative. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.