Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If that is the case, how did you come up with the amount of $1.525 million over three years? There had to be some way of formulating that amount to know exactly what that amount was going to be for and what those items were going to be for?

In regard to your response to the questions, I find it hard to support some initiatives such as this without knowing what the answers are in regard to the nontax-based communities where you are saying, they do not pay their taxes, so they should be getting less than tax-based communities. That is the message that I am getting. I do not believe that is the case. All the communities in the north have to be dealt with on a fair basis. The way the municipalities are developed, that the larger you get, the more responsibilities you take on. Also realizing that the formula that is in place for municipalities has been downgrading in regard to the amount of capital projects the communities have been getting in the past. Because of the situation we find ourselves, it is the smaller communities who had to take a lot of cuts in regard to not having the opportunity to have recreation centres or upgrading their utilidor systems or their capital infrastructure, because of the way that the municipalities were dealt with. But now, because of this block funding arrangement, it seems like there is not a balance there.

You keep referring back to the Keewatin project, but what is being done to those communities which do not want to look at formulating a regional structure such as in the Keewatin, but looking at in regard to the overall formula for all communities, not just these ones here. It seems like, if communities ended up getting $1.5 million over three years, we would all be happy. I do not think that is the case. There has to be some policy or principle in place that you came up with this number. Where did it come from?