Mr. Speaker, I think the question is in regard to the way we are going to organize ourselves in the Department of Justice, and I do not think we are taking over the social workers. The earlier question was just suggesting that when the Minister of Justice looks at what would be suitable open custody, that we would be seeking the advice of people at the community level, one of whom would be the social workers, to help in the making of those designations. That would not mean that social workers are going to become part of the Department of Justice. If there is a position in a Department of Justice, it is going to be Director for Young Offenders, and that would mean someone who is going to ensure that the Department of Justice, in its obligations under being designated the lead agency, ensure that the Young Offenders Act is administered properly, that this Director will take care of that for the Department of Justice.

Mr. Chairman, one of the major considerations that we had when we looked at moving Young Offenders into Justice and Corrections was to, amongst other things, prepare for what we think is an eventuality. We are going to have to sit down with communities and discuss the administration of justice, which in this case, includes young offenders. It should be noted that in many communities, the community leaders, community elders, show a strong interest on their part, to assist courts and deal with young offenders. There is a very strong interest among the people in the communities to lend a hand, and provide alternatives to judges, and justices of the peace, when dealing with young offenders.

In the case in Fort McPherson, for instance, there is a very high interest on the side of the communities, and they have been doing it, in fact, for well over a year. This is one of the reasons I think that this move was made, but definitely, the social workers will stay involved in this work. Thank you.

My comments will be kind of anti-climatic following our beloved Chairman's remarks.

---Laughter

Mr. Chairman, I am one of the Members noted in Mr. Todd's statement who opposes this amendment, and will continue to oppose it. Not because I am in any way opposed to allowing insurance companies to use laser printers and not have to put things in red, I do not mind the bold black ink, but, in fact, this is a hidden tax, or this represents a hidden tax, so I am opposed to that type of tax in principle.

Insurance companies are businesses, businesses have to recover the cost of doing business from what they sell. Any cost to the business obviously has to be recovered at some point in time. I have heard the arguments that it is just a small amount, and it is only going to put our rate in the centre of the pack, and that it will not, by itself, cause a premium increase. The bottom line is, at the end of the day, if it is a cost of doing business, any business has to recover that cost, and that means that it is going to have to wind up coming out of premiums. I think that at any time the government wants to tax people, they should be up front about it, and say we are putting a tax on. I do not think that we should try and put taxes on premiums, or taxes on various things, that the consumer may not see. The consumer in this case would not understand that there is a tax being paid from their premiums to the government, they would just see a bill from their insurance company, and blame the insurance companies for the cost of their premiums going up.

I think it is also important to recognize that insurance is something that not everybody has, but it is something that most people should have. Rather than doing something that would perhaps cause people at the end of the day to determine that they cannot afford to buy insurance, we should be very cautious that would cause insurance rates to increase.

In the event of a disaster, where somebody is burned out of their home, this government will wind up passing the bill through social assistance, if they have not been able to purchase insurance in the long run. I am not sure how much of that $245,000 or $375,000 we are going to get back, depending on whose figures you accept this afternoon. I think I heard the Minister say a different figure than what the Chairman of the Standing Committee on Finance said in the opening remarks.

Any tax like this also is not a progressive tax, because it does not reflect on a persons ability to pay. I oppose the tax on those grounds too. It is not like an income tax, which is adjusted as a percentage of income, so that people who are in a better position to pay for something, can pay for it. This one, in fact, hits people who are least able to pay the most.

Mr. Chairman, not to drag this out, after all this is not the Constitution, I just wanted to make sure that the people understand that, on principle, I cannot support this kind of bill.