Shame. Shame.

... and people who live in remote communities like those communities in my constituency, lose even more. I also agree with these points made in the editorial.

However, Mr. Speaker, the editorial goes on to say that the loss of the VTA may not be important if it is considered as a recreational benefit and not as income.

Of course, those people are fortunate to have government jobs. However, Mr. Speaker, let us not forget that these people are doing very difficult jobs and are working under increasing stress. They are expected to work even harder, with fewer resources, even as their cost of living increases very fast.

Take a look at the situation of an employee who lives in staff housing, for example. My constituents who work for the government have seen step increases in their staff housing rents and have recently been required to pay for utilities. Sharp increases in the cost of staff housing have made it very difficult for many government employees, especially those who are supporting their own and extended families with their wages. In many cases, they are trapped in increasingly expensive staff housing. To make it worse, unlike better developed communities with a private rental market, my constituents who work for the government don't have any alternatives to living in staff housing.

Mr. Speaker, I seek unanimous consent to conclude my statement.

Thank you, Mr. Barnabas. The Member for High Arctic is seeking unanimous consent to conclude his statement. Do we have any nays? There are no nays. Conclude your statement, Mr. Barnabas.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. With no wage increases for years and sharp increases in the cost of living, they certainly can't afford to build their own houses either.

So how does the VTA benefit fit into this picture? Mr. Speaker, Nunatsiaq News suggests that the VTA is now what they call "an outdated relic of colonial times, when it was assumed that the territorial government's workforce would be made up of transient southerners who need extra incentives to live and work in the far north." Mr. Speaker, that does not describe the situation today. Most of my constituents who work for the GNWT are long-term Northerners. They are working in remote communities because they are committed to serving the public; as teachers, nurses or social workers, for example. For them, the VTA is not a recreational benefit. It has become an increasingly essential part of their income at a time when the cost of living and housing has increased very sharply. For my Inuit constituents who should be encouraged to work for the government, the VTA is most often used to finance family trips on the land and to allow the family to buy an outboard motor or skidoo for year-round use. The VTA income was especially valuable to these employees because when spent on vacation travel, whether in the South or in the North, it was a tax-free benefit. Cutting the VTA means employees lose not only what they consider to be an income, but also a tax-free benefit.

For my constituents who are doing these difficult jobs, Mr. Speaker, on the front lines in our communities, the VTA is considered as income, and the larger families who are further away from Yellowknife are the ones who are hit the hardest.

I am not concerned whether this is called unfair to Nunavut or not. What I am concerned about is that these front-line workers are getting discouraged. They are starting to feel that their employer does not appreciate their dedication and experience. What I am also concerned about is that employees with larger families who live in remote communities are losing more. Is this fair and equitable? Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

--- Applause

Thank you, Mr. Barnabas. Item 3, Members' statements. Mr. Miltenberger.