Thank you. Mr. O'Reilly.

Thanks, Mr. Chair. That is interesting information. I would have thought that it would have been allocated or it would have been some sort of aggregate of the LHOs that are in a surplus situation, but it just seems like it was cut across the board. Can I just get someone to clarify that for me? Is this to just to cut across the board or was this an aggregate of those LHOs that are in a surplus situation? Thanks, Mr. Chair.

Thank you. Minister.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. When we looked at the allocations to the local housing organizations, we realized that some of them actually, like you said, had surpluses. Some of them actually had differing numbers. It is a formula that we need to look at, the amount of funding. As stated, we will be looking at and watching the monitoring very closely. I am committed to ensuring over the next two years that, if the local housing organizations may need more financials to be able to meet their needs based on, because they don't get all of the housing units, at that point, then we will look at reinstating from internally.

Thank you, Minister. The question was whether or not this was a cut across all the LHOs or whether this cut represents an aggregate of those LHOs with the surplus. Minister.

Yes, so the cut was across all LHOs. So far the feedback that we received is that the local housing organizations are stating to us that they are manageable. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you. Mr. O'Reilly.

Thanks, Mr. Chair. Yes, I'm a bit disappointed to hear that. Is the Housing Corporation then going to develop some kind of policy about surplus retentions and deficits for LHOs? I know the Department of Education has something similar, but is that something that the corporation is going to look at, developing rather than these across the board cuts? Thanks, Mr. Chair.

Minister.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yes, we have a surplus and deficit policy in effect already. The policy states that if any local housing organization is over $100,000 in surplus that they need to re-invest that into housing. My goal is that housing organizations should not have a surplus. They need to be using that money. We have critical needs in the community, so I'm trying to just let them know that building a surplus is not acceptable, that they need to actually put those into the housing and repairs that are needed in communities. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you. Mr. O'Reilly.

Thanks, Mr. Chair. I appreciate the response from the Minister. I would tend to agree that you don't want large surpluses built up over a number of years, but if they have capital needs or something, that might be a good reason to do it. Can the Minister commit to share the policy with standing committee? I just checked with my colleague, the chair of the standing committee, and the committee hasn't seen that policy and the chair is interested in seeing it. I'm interested in seeing it. Can the Minister commit to share the policy with standing committee? Thanks, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. O'Reilly. Minister.

Thank you. It's actually within our Community Housing Services Agreement, so our operating agreements with the local housing organizations. I can provide a copy of that agreement with that piece in it by tomorrow. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Minister. Mr. O'Reilly.

Thanks, Mr. Chair. I don't think I've ever heard a prompt answer like that before in Committee of the Whole, so that's great. In any event, I just want to go on the record. I don't think this is a good way to cut funds out of the Housing Corporation. If there are some LHOs that are in surplus, they're the ones that you should go after, not just right across the board cuts. I'll just leave that on the record. I don't have any further questions. Thanks, Mr. Chair.

Thank you. Next, I have Mr. Beaulieu.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I'm at page 377. I have a question on the electrical power. I noticed that power first dropped by $1.6 million and then another drop now by $700,000. I'm wondering if that's because the Housing Corporation is moving to more user pay. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Beaulieu. Minister.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. That is correct. We are moving towards a more user pay. We did realize that, in a lot of communities when people are -- and not everyone, so I want to justify that -- but a lot of community members, when the Housing Corporation was paying for all the utilities, the lights were left on, the windows were left open in the winter months. The public housing units were used as the local car washes. We are trying to bring more people more responsibility within that, so the user pay is the reason for it. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Minister. That last remark wasn't on the record.

Like I had said before, another reason is for energy efficiency. It's not okay to have your windows open and your lights going. We need to recognize that, in this day and age, we need to be more energy efficient and energy conscious. The money that we're actually saving by making people more responsible for their utilities will be utilized for the declining CMHC funding that we will be facing in 2038. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you. Mr. Beaulieu.