Supplementary, Mr. McLeod.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to thank the Minister for that information. That certainly clarifies some of the grey areas that we have been questioning. I would still like to know why the Minister decided to go to the secretary to Cabinet and not directly to the Conflict of Interest Commissioner. It's the responsibility of each Member in this House to ensure they are not in conflict, not staff and opinions from staff. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Minister responsible for the NWT Housing Corporation, Mr. Allen.

Mr. Speaker, at the time I felt I was not in conflict in terms of my own personal interests. My approach to my Cabinet colleagues was to indicate that I had felt I was in conflict with the issue, the harmonization initiative, based on the facts I have given earlier. So I felt it was wise for me to approach the Cabinet secretary to guide me in the finality of this issue. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Time for question period is over. Item 7, written questions. Item 8, returns to written questions. Item 9, replies to Opening Address. Item 10, petitions. Item 11, reports of standing and special committees. Item 12, reports of committees on the review of bills. Item 13, tabling of documents. Item 14, notices of motion. Item 15, notices of motions for first reading of bills. Item 16, motions, Motion 7-14(6). Mr. McLeod.

Your motion is in order. To the motion. Mr. McLeod.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, this issue has been something that's really been discussed on a number of occasions in this House during the last couple of weeks. It's an initiative that was started by the 13th Assembly. It was never a policy that we, as the 14th Assembly, have had much input on. We didn't initiate this harmonization strategy. We did not have the opportunity to debate it in this House. In fact, this initiative was only tabled yesterday after many requests and it's still considered to be a rolling draft. It's being compiled as we go.

Mr. Speaker, I am not convinced that proper consultation was going to take place. It's something we counted on the department to do and we've received a list of the different groups that were consulted and the list was tabled yesterday in this House. That list is very outdated. That consultation must have taken place at least four years ago. Most of the chiefs on the list are no longer there. It's something that really concerns me. In fact, when I try to find one name in that whole document that was from my riding, it was non-existent. There was nobody consulted in my riding. No wonder everyone is very upset and surprised at this whole initiative that's being brought forward. There is no consultation with aboriginal governments.

We are moving into negotiations for devolution. We are moving into negotiations for self-government, yet we don't have the decency to sit down with aboriginal governments and tell them we are going to initiate a new program for you. The Minister stated that the LHOs have been contacted and trained, so I followed up on that. It's true, they have been contacted. They have been trained, for one day. They had a one-day workshop for each LHO and most people are still not certain what they are supposed to be doing. They are not clear on what rent is supposed to be calculated. They are not clear about the mandate of this whole initiative.

It really concerns me that we are going to start calculating all income in the assessment of rent. When we ask for a list of what that means, spell it out, tell us what is going to be included as income. The Minister stated we are still working on it. This initiative is going to be implemented April 1st. We said we would train our staff in the communities to implement it. We don't even have the information in this House as what is going to be calculated as income. That, to me, is really unfair. We don't know who is actually going to enforce this whole thing. There have been jokes in here about bingo cops and bingo police and all kinds of things, but that may be a reality. What's it going to cost? What is it going to cost to enforce this program? We don't know that either.

What about the information that now is confidential and restricted to income support workers? That information is going to be shared across the board. Is that not a violation of the client's confidentiality and privacy? Does that make it open season to view what is being requested in confidence?

There is no consideration in this whole initiative of the condition of the homes. Some homes in the communities are very rundown. Some homes have had the seniors living in the house for 30 years. Now they are expected to pay rent. In the next couple of years they are going to pay full rent, but the conditions have not improved. If we are going to start charging them for market rent, let's give them quality housing.

Where do you go if you don't want to live in public housing? In my riding, the majority of the units are public housing. If you are not happy with this initiative, what are your options? It's not the same. This is why there are opposing views on this because the larger centres say it's a good thing. Yellowknife, Hay River, maybe it is a good thing for them. They have options, we don't. We only have public housing. If we don't like it, where do we go? Seniors giving up their houses, we say we'll look after you, we'll take care of you, you are not going to pay rent. Now they are saying pay rent. Where does a senior go? We don't have the independent senior strategy in my communities. We never had any houses built under that. Maybe Inuvik or other larger centres have it. That doesn't apply to us. EDAP doesn't apply to us. It's really forcing us into a corner, Mr. Speaker. Our list for housing is growing.

On the reserve, we had one unit available last year. We had 25 families apply for it. We only get two houses a year. This year, the Minister has been able to target our communities as core need and that's helped, but with two units a year, it's very difficult to catch up. We will never catch up. We are falling behind. Some families are now going to have to calculate all rental income as part of the household calculations. I know in my riding I have houses that, for a three-bedroom house, we have 12 people in it. We are going to charge everybody who makes a dime in that house rent, when in fact most of them are sleeping on the floor. Is that fair? We have to remember that not all our people in public housing are income support clients. Most of the people are in public housing are in public housing because that's all there is. That's the reality of living in a small community. You are not in a position to choose whether you are want to live in an apartment or anywhere else. You have public housing and that's all you have. You are lucky if you get a unit, waiting on the list for two to three years.

What really bothers me is we seem to forget, as a government, that we have an obligation to the aboriginal people in the North. The Minister offended a lot of people in the North when he stated all people are treated the same. We have to start looking at our federal transfer agreements. We have to recognize that there is an obligation. We have to all be informed of that. I don't believe everybody is up to par when it comes to that information.

Mr. Speaker, I am very concerned about this initiative. It may be something that we need down the road. At this point, we don't have all the information. We are still trying to develop it as we go. We've spent five years on it. Only yesterday this document got tabled. We spent half a million dollars on it. Only yesterday this document was tabled and it's not a complete document. It needs work. We have to do a proper communications strategy. We have to do this right. We can't just put in a document that's incomplete and expect everybody to live with it.

Mr. Speaker, we need a free vote on this issue. The constituents in everybody's riding, especially the Minister's, have to know how they are representing the people in the North. Their constituents are phoning some of us on this side. They want to know why we can't have a free vote on it. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

To the motion. Mr. Lafferty.

To the motion. Mr. Nitah.

To the motion. Mr. Braden.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I stand to speak in opposition of the motion, but it's with some reluctance and I am going to try to explain my position and reflect that what I am trying to do today is really in the best interest of my constituents here in the riding of Great Slave in Yellowknife. A year ago, when this new policy was brought forward -- actually more than a year ago -- I was in firm support of it. The thing that really appealed to me is two departments were actually going to combine their resources and their needs in the interest of improving service to clients and customers, in this case in the income support and the public housing area. One of the things that I found as an MLA is that low income people or those who have had some kind of disadvantage often have very common needs relating to their incomes, their housing needs and very often there are issues relating to justice, perhaps, or education and health. A great barrier, Mr. Speaker, to these people getting by and improving their lives was within this government in a number of so-called stovepipes that were set up from one department to the other that kept people going back and forth from one voice mail or one appointment or one office to another.

So the whole idea of harmonizing these two departments, bringing them together on these very closely related social services was, I thought, not a great step forward but at least a good step forward. I was hoping that we would be able to see more, if you will, harmonization and amalgamation of services. It's somewhat disappointing that a year after this move was deferred, with the hope that we were going to be able to level out some of the bumps in it, take off some of the rough edges and improve some of the communication, we still obviously can't seem to achieve that. However, I still stand in support of the harmonization effort as proposed and just recently amended by the Minister.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to talk about the impacts or at least the forecasted impacts, of this harmonization on tenants in Yellowknife and I'll be happy to make this paper available to anyone who would like to see it. It came to me a few days ago from the Housing Corporation and it talks about the impact of the new rent scale in Yellowknife, for a total of 259 housing units. The information suggests, Mr. Speaker, that 63 percent of those people will actually receive decreases in their rent. Now these were numbers that were put together as of last October, so things may have changed somewhat. I haven't seen or heard of any brand new information or numbers, Mr. Speaker, so I think I need to go on this; it is fairly recent. Let me give you a little bit of a breakdown.

Of 259 units, 192 are occupied by working families; 146 of those will see their rent decreased. That's three-quarters of those working families will see decreases in their rent. Half of the 30 units are occupied by students who will see decreases in their rent. Mr. Speaker, there is a third area that is defined here and that is for seniors and of the 37 units occupied by seniors, only three will see decreases. This is not entirely unexpected, Mr. Speaker, because in the interest of fairness - - which is really, I think, one of the underlying philosophies of this policy -- the departments wanted to redistribute some of the wealth that was going into this program. It's long been understood that there are a number of seniors who have good incomes, adequate incomes at least, who are paying nothing or next to nothing for their units; whereas, a neighbour might be a single mother, a student who is being forced to pay a whole bunch of money on a monthly basis because of her situation. So in the interest in fairness, I liked what this program wanted to do, which was balance the needs and the resources among our population and our government. So that's largely where it got my support.

Another indication, Mr. Speaker, that I should be supporting this, is that my phone and my e-mail has been largely quiet on this issue where people are complaining that they are going to be misused or abused by this. This is where I really have some sympathy and a large question in my mind about the kind of impact this is having here in Yellowknife, compared to what is going on with my colleagues in the smaller communities. The kinds of questions and issues that are being raised there seem to be dramatically different from what is going on here.

I have no explanation or information about that and it does point, Mr. Speaker -- and this is the last point I would like to make -- in that as much as I don't want to see this program deferred because it is going to help more people in my riding that it may harm or effect, I'm not pleased to see that we are continuing to tinker with, to design, to add new layers to subsidy programs, to welfare situations, to lifestyle inequities. Every time we try to do something or make an improvement somewhere for a deserving group of people who are at a disadvantage or disabled or cut out of the action somehow, we are creating yet another tier of inequity and inequality where people can say, with some justification, you are better off than I am because of this government's policies or approaches to things.

Government has a big responsibility, Mr. Speaker, to redistribute wealth, to provide safety nets and buffers for people who don't have the best and the biggest and all the opportunities that are afforded in this country. But the consequence of it is that we're leaving ourselves open to so many of these challenges, so many of these barriers. The idea that this program should be deferred for a year, Mr. Speaker, if it is approved or adopted, may have one hope that we will look back at the whole philosophy and what we are doing with these lifestyle supports, back-up, safety nets, whatever you want to call them. That is really where we should be looking to see whether or not this is in the best long-term interest of people in the NWT. I thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate everyone listening and again, I say with some reluctance, and with a qualified answer, I will be not supporting this motion.

To the motion. Mr. Dent.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, in speaking to this motion, I am somewhat torn as well because I know, ever since the last Assembly, I have been a supporter, in theory, of harmonization. I think it is important that we have two branches of government that deal with people who are in economic need, and some people get treated better than others. We've heard a lot in this House about how seniors will suffer if we move forward with harmonization. One of the driving reasons for harmonization has been that, in many cases in the same community, seniors are being treated better than single mothers. I don't think it is right that this government says that we should treat kids in a lesser way than we do seniors.

I'm sure that most people wouldn't want to come out and say that sort of thing publicly but, unfortunately, the way the program is set up now, that is the way things happen in many of our communities. A single mom with kids living side by side with a senior, one approaching income support, one going to the Housing Corporation or to LHO for housing, even if they have the same income in that household, one gets treated differently than the other. That's not right, but I have to recognize that given the amount of criticism that has arisen from this program, there has obviously been a failure in the implementation process here. The government has failed very significantly in the communication process. The program has already been deferred once because the communications were proven to be inadequate. The last time this was tried, the people were getting less than three months' notice. They weren't being given the accurate information. We encouraged the government to defer the process and do it right the next time around. Unfortunately, given what we've heard in this House, Mr. Speaker, it is hard to see that they have done it right this time.

I think part of the problem may be in the approach. If we think back to the approach this government took when we were negotiating with other governments across Canada on the increases to the National Child Benefit, the important factor that all governments had to agree to was that no one would be worse off after the implementation of the National Child Benefit. With the approach that the government has taken to harmonization, the emphasis has been in their approach on cost neutrality. In other words, the government has not been prepared to put any more money into the programs, either one of them, in order to bring about this harmonization.

That's what is causing some of the problems here. Instead of saying one of our programs may be inadequate and in order to harmonize them we have to put more money into the pot to bring it up to the same level as another program, they said, oh no, we have to take money out of people's pockets to put into other people's pockets so that we can make everybody equal. I think that we are going to have to look at what has been proposed here. Although I certainly support the idea of harmonization, as I said in the beginning, I can't stand that in some instances we treat moms and kids who have the same income as seniors in a lesser way. That is not right. Kids have to be as important to us as our seniors. We can't let them not be treated as well.

So we need to find a way to harmonize the approach but we also need to take a really good look at whether or not we can afford to harmonize by taking money away from those who really can't afford it. So I hope the government will take a look at this. I do want to see harmonization, but I want to ensure that we don't wait unit the last minute next time around. Let's start right now. Let's start today, tomorrow, to work at realigning the program. Let's start to recognize that it is going to cost us money to do the right thing here and then let's talk about how much money it is going to cost and where we are going to find that money. I think that it is important that we do the job right. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

To the motion. Mr. Roland.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, as well, I am torn on this issue. As Members have stated in this Assembly, harmonization was born out of an initiative of the 13th Assembly. Mr. Speaker, it might have been born out of the 13th Assembly, but it would have been nurtured or malnourished, in a sense, in the 14th Assembly. It is an initiative that I think in principle is the right way to go for all residents in the Northwest Territories. But it also has to meet certain criteria and the message has to get out to individuals across the North, how they will be impacted.

I think that we've tried to put too much in one basket. We've tried to correct all the wrongs in one way and that is difficult to do. I have to hand it to the Ministers who have been involved in this at this time. They initially heard from the Members, they went back to the drawing board and tried to do a few things and as of just recently, made some more adjustments to try to address concerns of Members of this House. Mr. Speaker, I can agree in principle with what the government is trying to do, but I cannot agree with what might be put in place if this harmonization package goes ahead as is.

Mr. Speaker, I will point out some examples from my constituency of what happens. It's different from a constituency that has all public housing, whereas, in my community, it's split. I have a large private market and there is public housing. Mr. Speaker, the income being calculated is going to take in a number of avenues such as sewing and selling of meat, which we traditional harvesters are still doing in my constituency. If we have somebody winning a bingo, then that will be taken into consideration. That individual goes back into the income support office and says I made some money, I've sold some meat or I made some sewing money or there is bingo.

Mr. Speaker, I don't think those are being evenly applied across the board and that is my concern as well for my constituency. For example, the Inuvik town council took over the lottery provisions within our act and they've taken care of bingos in the community, and the way they work that arrangement is that every organization holding a bingo has to record who has won that bingo. The town collects that information so that it knows who's won prizes from what organization's bingo. Well, income support staff go over to the town office and is given information on who's won bingo, whether it was two people winning $100 or one person winning $10,000. They take that information and apply it so when the individual comes back the next month, having won $150 or $200, to apply and the money has been spent wisely or unwisely, that reduces the amount of income they'll have from income support.

Now I agree with that in principle to some extent. Somebody winning $1,000, $2,000, $5,000, or $10,000, should be able to pay their own way for a number of months. I agree with that, but can we be told that that standard will be applied in all communities in the Northwest Territories? I don't believe that's so, Mr. Speaker. I know it's so in my constituency, but do they record that in any other community? Do they record who's won the bingo and provide that information to the income support office in that community? I don't believe so. I've talked to individuals in my community who are quite closely connected to how things work in the social area.

Another concern, Mr. Speaker, that I have is the fact that in trying to address the concerns of Members in this House, they're treating seniors differently again. Those that are in housing right now will remain at the current level but, as of April 1st, new seniors coming in will be brought in at a different level. I have a concern with that because as disjointed as the system is today, we're going to add another joint that puts it a little more out of sync, as I see it, Mr. Speaker. We should treat seniors across the board evenly. Is it is going to be based on income? Is there going to be a certain amount that is going to be exempted before they start calculating rent? At least that is the way it is in housing and there is a certain amount of that for income support as well. So I think we need to look at how much we exempt but, by addressing it in two ways, saying that because a senior is in a housing unit before April 1st, he or she is going to be treated differently than somebody who comes into housing after April 1st, I have a concern with that. Even though we do have differences between seniors and single mothers, we are going to put another system in there that is going to put it a little further apart.

What is going to happen, Mr. Speaker, with students on student financial assistance right now, the system is if you are accepted to Arctic College programs, here in Yellowknife or Fort Smith, or in Inuvik, people in my constituency have to travel out of Inuvik. Right now, the policy is their housing unit can remain in their name and they're deducted $32. When they go out to school, a certain amount of the student financial assistance will be paid to Arctic College for the unit that they received in the program. Now we are going to put more emphasis on that income that is for student financial assistance and apply it to the rent back home. In some cases, there might be a slight drop, but there might be a bit of an increase if your partner or spouse gets a part-time job in that community. It is very disjointed right now and we need to somehow pull it together to make it a little bit more level.

That is why I say that, in principle, I agree with the harmonization initiative. But I've listened to the many questions raised and heard the responses, and some critical pieces of information are lacking. A lot of comments have been made about larger constituencies being well off, better than small communities. That's true to a certain degree because of the amount of resources in a larger community that is tax-based driven. However, Mr. Speaker, someone in my constituency who is in public housing right now, if they are evicted, they have to go the private market. The private market has no qualms about telling somebody you have to pay a certain amount. So an individual who used to pay rent at $32, now pays rent at $1,600. Where do they go?

They used to go to income support and say well I'm not in housing anymore and I need a place to stay and the government had this sort of check stop to say well, we can't let you be out in the cold, we're going to pay your full rent. Well, that has changed, Mr. Speaker, because right now anybody who has been in public housing that has been evicted from public housing for arrears, income support will only give them the amount of rent they were qualified for before. So if somebody qualified for public housing and is evicted and they were paying $32 a month, income support says, okay, good, we'll give $32 a month, now go find some accommodations. What happens after that, Mr. Speaker, is people start bunking with other family members, with friends, with just people in the community that will accept them for a night, so that they can have a warm place to sleep.

Mr. Speaker, we definitely have problems across the Territories. Even without any proposed changes, all members, I believe, have received a lot of calls regarding it. So on this harmonization initiative, as it stands, even with the amendments, I have difficulty supporting the harmonization initiative and feel there must be more work done to try to streamline some of the stuff. I believe it will be a reality, Mr. Speaker, and we can't keep going back to where we started before. We've had lots of time to try to put something together. It won't be acceptable to all groups, Mr. Speaker, but we are going to have to do something because the reality of the government, especially in the 15th Assembly, is that if the financial picture stands as it is, we are going to be in big trouble and some changes are going to have to occur. I hope as a result of some of these comments, the people who are writing these policies and putting these things in place will hear and try to address the concerns being raised so that when it comes forward again, it is brought forward with accurate information.

Mr. Speaker, I remember being to told about how seniors would receive a reduction, quite a large number, and I asked how a senior could receive a reduction when they don't pay any rent right now. Mr. Speaker, it is very difficult to try and make sense of this. I guess I'm coming from my constituents' perspective. If my constituents' bingo earnings are going to be calculated then I expect all constituencies across the North will be treated the same and their residents' bingo earnings will be calculated. I don't accept that we are further setting seniors against one another. So I think that we need to do some more work on this and try to bring it back again.

Maybe as the motion states, not until April 1, 2004. Maybe that is the appropriate time. The new government will be looking at its realities and it will give staff time to clear the air on this one and come back with something that can be agreed to by a majority of the Members. So, Mr. Speaker, even though I am torn on this one, I will be supporting the motion and I will be encouraging both departments to try to come back with something that addresses the concerns being raised here. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

To the motion. Mr. Delorey.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I'm going to speak in support of this harmonization. I am not going to go through a whole bunch of figures as to why I am supporting it because I already did that in the House when it first came forward. I haven't heard anything in this House that has changed my mind about the figures. All I can speak on, Mr. Speaker, is how this program affects my riding. I'm not trying to sway anybody's vote on this harmonization, but I do want to make some comments in some areas of this initiative and I guess they pertain to how we spend our money and whether we are getting what we should for the money we are spending.

Am I in favour of public housing and having everybody in housing that's affordable? Definitely I am. Am I in favour of having 400 people in public housing and a waiting list of 1,200 because we can't afford to give that 1,200 some kind of help in public housing? No, I'm not. I would like to see a system put in place that can give more housing to people and I think that is what it is going to come down to. I hear rumours that the federal government is slowly pulling back, and maybe drastically, on the amount of money they are going to give us for public housing and what we can do with our money. So we have to come up with some initiatives that will give us the ability to satisfy more people and meet the needs of more people.

That may mean, Mr. Speaker, some people might have to pay a little bit. I know right now that there are inequities out there in the marketplace; we can look at seniors if we want. I mean, I know seniors that are living in public housing that are paying very little or nothing. I also know seniors that don't make very much money, Mr. Speaker, and I also know of seniors that are making a lot of money that aren't paying anything. Is that right? No, I don't think that is right. I think that we have to find a solution for that. As for the people that are saying it's being put to us at the last minute, it's not being put to us at the last minute. We've been hearing about his harmonization for a long time.

I have dealt with the seniors' society in Hay River, I have dealt with the town, I've looked at the numbers. I've got all the numbers for the Territories, actually. I have heard nothing that changes those numbers. I looked at the system. I would like to see a system in place that is going to deal with how we can provide more housing to more people. But to just kill this initiative, I don't think it is going to do anything for us. I think Mr. Bell put it right the other day when he said if we're dealing with the situation, do we want to give seniors free housing, then let's deal with that. If we think we can afford a system to give seniors, single mothers, whatever group of people free housing, then let's deal with that and let's deal with that one issue. But I don't think that that is what this is about. It's about trying to find a system that everybody contributes to, and takes a little responsibility in, and helps out in it.

Now Mr. Speaker, another issue in this harmonization is, since 1997, government has been working for a way to come up with something that works a little more fairly for everybody. I just asked and got an answer from the Minister on how much money the departments have put into this initiative and he tells me, apart from the travel and all the staff from the Housing Corporation and Education, the time that they have put into it and the travel that they've done, it's half a million dollars. When this thing comes before the House, I'll be looking for some leadership. I will tell you, leadership to me is not sitting down and abstaining on a vote.

I think that this is a government initiative that they have spent half a million dollars on, not counting manpower, and I'm going to be looking to everybody in this House to vote on this initiative and it is going to speak very drastically. I don't think that we can afford to throw a half million dollars away and just say, throw it to the guys on the other side House to say whether this is a good deal or not, that was the governments' initiative, they spent a half a million dollars on this initiative. I want them voting on this because I don't want to hear whether this is a good deal or a bad deal. I want to see who is supporting this, who the leadership is on it. If the deal goes down, it will go down with everybody in the House; but if it is turned over to us to make this deal, I don't think there is much leadership in this government. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

To the motion. Mr. Bell.

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.