I can only imagine what that will now cost.

---Applause

As you can see, the confusion continues. Mr. Speaker, we don’t have an endless pot of money, and I still think that the program initiative had foresight for the future as to what should really be going on. Mr. Speaker, ultimately our government should be supporting self-sufficiency and self-reliance, and having people go to one centre, a service centre of excellence to help people move forward on the initiatives that they need to get on their own feet was the best idea possible. It’s unusual for government to come up with a clear and simple idea that makes sense, and now they’re reversing it. That’s probably what happens here.

Mr. Speaker, communication, implementation and policy and programs became a confusing factor during this process, Mr. Speaker, I’ll tell you that happens in any program delivery of our system. Mr. Speaker, I can’t tell you about how much biasness I had heard at the start when people said that if they go to income support they’re getting welfare, but if they go to housing programs, it’s just assistance.

Mr. Speaker, a social subsidy program is simply a social subsidy program. It’s the label people chose to put on it, so there was a negative stigma at the very start. Mr. Speaker, I can appreciate the pain that it probably caused a lot of people by filling out one extra form and stopping in the program office to get their help but, Mr. Speaker, that wasn’t confusing. A one-stop-shop centre was the right way to go.

Mr. Speaker, as you can tell from the enthusiasm on this side of the House, that I’m the one voice in this regard, but, Mr. Speaker, I think this is a step backward and it’s going to cost this government more money wasted by switching it back. It had the right vision and the right direction at the time when they did this back in the last government. Thank you, Mr. Speaker