Just a comment, Mr. Chairman. I would respectfully suggest to the Minister, as I said earlier in my comments today, that income alone, without looking at the family circumstances, is not proof that a family can pay more rent or can sustain themselves in home ownership. Unless people can manage their money, unless they're free of some of the problems that afflict families, including social issues, the mere fact that income is available does not mean they're going to suddenly be able to produce the money without a lot of work, a lot of time, a lot of counselling and a lot of education.
In fact, I predict the opposite will happen. I predict that, in many cases, tenants will give up, refuse to pay rent, will be forced to be evicted and will end up in the laps of the Minister of Social Services. And I think there's still a case to be made. Maybe it will have to be a public outcry that will provide the evidence for the Minister to tell Ottawa that it ain't gonna work the way it might work in southern Canada. That's just a comment.
Mr. Chairman, if I could just proceed with some other questions. I'm getting very curious -- and this has been a theme all the way along -- when I compare Pangnirtung and Tuktoyaktuk. I see that on page six and page seven of the proposed rent scale that there's a comparison of two families, one living in Pangnirtung and one living in Tuktoyaktuk. A statement is made on page six and seven that the cost of living is high in both communities.
As I understand it, Mr. Chairman, Tuktoyaktuk is 60 to 100 miles from an all-weather highway. Pangnirtung, by my understanding, is more like 1,600 or 1,700 miles away from the nearest highway. Pangnirtung is in zone eight on the Minister's cost zoning of communities and Tuktoyaktuk is in zone seven. They're not even in the same cost of living zone, so why does this document compare two communities that are so different that they're not even in the same cost zone according to the department's own zone criteria? Is that not misleading the public? Thank you.