Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I am not against this motion. I understand full well about the frustration that has been created by this process and this shift. Mr. Speaker, I am just not for the shift back. I think that I feel strongly that the service model was the approach that needs to be considered. In a time of efficiency when we are trying to organize and strategize how we can do business better, this seemed to be the right direction to go.
Mr. Speaker, what you are hearing today is frustration about, in my view, what is a good model but with pathetic implementation. Mr. Speaker, why do you send people to two offices in order to be able to have housing? To me, that’s just foolishness. That signal should have been raised loud and clear over three years ago. Mr. Speaker, someone should have been able to put the connect between the frustration of trying to get your paperwork processed and filled out and then get that money and then the transfer over to that office by carrying down the cheque or the money order to make sure that they don’t raise your actual subsidized rent to market rent. Mr. Speaker, it’s very clear here where the problem is. You know, there was a time when I agreed that switching it back was the only solution and I’ll make note of that. I supported those last two motions, Mr. Speaker, but I think after examining the complexity of this problem, it’s the fact that it’s a good model, just horrible implementation.
Mr. Speaker, there is no reason why people need to go to two offices in order to process this work. I think very well it also explains why we have 14 extra employees on this file. That’s because the people from the Housing didn’t want to migrate over to the ECE income support side. So the system facilitated the need for two sets of employees that at one time, only one set was required to process the paperwork.
Mr. Speaker, in a perfect world, you know, nobody would need subsidies and everybody would be able to work all the time and take care of their families but, unfortunately, there are struggles. I think the government has misunderstood they’ve complicated this process by trying to fix it and I think what they’ve done is they’ve missed the obvious, which is to bring them together.
Mr. Speaker, I know some people believe that if you get income support, you are on welfare and if you
go get a housing subsidy, you’re not. Mr. Speaker, I think those types of terminologies need to end. People are looking for help and that’s what it really is, it’s a helping hand.
I would hope that we see beyond those types of terminologies. Mr. Speaker, it’s about helping people. I think in the long run, the model that needs to be considered is the one that is being looked at and it’s about efficiency and process. If they would just sit down…Sorry, if ECE would just sit down and work it out with Housing, they could quit and easily come up with a model by bringing over those extra employees, migrating them over to the income support side and you could go in there and fill out your paperwork from start to finish and your subsidy would be processed at that moment. All the information you need to do in order to qualify for the housing, you can process all in the same shop.
Mr. Speaker, at one time I understood it was if you were getting a housing subsidy support through the housing program and you go down there and file your paperwork, they didn’t necessarily quite know what you were doing over at income support. So there was a disconnect between the two offices. So someone could go down and get some support and then go down to another office and come under another type of position and say I need some support too and the two offices were duplicating a process, which this service model was aimed to correct.
The long and the short of it is, Mr. Speaker, as I have said twice, it’s a good model, just poorly implemented and the one-window approach is the way to go. I respect my colleagues. They are right in the sense that there has to be a better way to fix it. I can fully understand their call to return it because it makes sense that if it’s not working, let’s go back to how it was working. My issue really is it should be working and they forgot to do the other part of the job.
Mr. Speaker, with regret, I won’t be supporting the motion, but I do fully subscribe to the passion brought forward by my colleagues here. I recognize that, because it is an important issue. All that’s being created out of this -- let’s fix it -- has created frustration. Mr. Speaker, I once again say to the Minister of Education and the Minister of Housing, go for a coffee, realize that you have to get together and you guys can sit down and sort this out over a small conversation. You can have a Cabinet directive and we could sort this out within a couple of days. That’s all it would take, Mr. Speaker, is some vision, some energy and some wherewithal to say we are going to do something today and, darn it, we are going to do it right. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.