Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I also will be voting in favour of this motion and I have heard Members mention this idea many times in committee and the House, or in any number of meetings. I feel, like the maximum rental rate policy, this particular policy is also debilitating and it also is a policy which does not enable our residents. We want our residents to be confident, we want them to lead productive lives. We want them to contribute to our communities, but this policy doesn’t help them do that. Our residents can’t do that if the effect of housing guidelines such as this one is to keep our people unemployed or crush them with rent shock or debt if they do get a job.

This motion speaks to the need for flexibility. I agree, housing policies seem to be rigidly implemented, and that was referenced by another one of my colleagues. There’s no opportunity for discretion at a local level, in my view. There’s no opportunity to apply common sense. One of the things that could be done is to average income over a period of time, over a year perhaps, over six months, but that certainly would take away from somebody getting a job for three months, their rent goes way up and then they lose their job and the back and forth and the seesawing that occurs right now. So I would hope that the Housing Corp would consider that.

There may be some loss of revenue by changing this policy, but I think over the long term if you take a longer view than just a couple of months, people will stay employed. Employed people pay higher rents than people who are unemployed and I think in the long term we will find that we probably increase our revenues from rent.

I urge the Housing Corporation to seriously consider this recommendation and I look forward to seeing the amended guidelines in the upcoming Shelter Policy. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.