Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As I stated, our funding formulates approximately 75 percent of what could be termed a healthy food basket. Additionally, there is federal funding, such as the national child benefit, that also comes into play here, that also contributes on a monthly basis to the income of income support people.

What has to be considered and taken into account here, Mr. Chairman, is the balance between those on income support and those who are low-income earners. We have to consider that and always take that concern, because what we provide on income support is the cost of housing, and it does not matter what the cost is. If public housing is available, then they are able to obtain that or we pay the cost of whatever it may cost for an individual to be accommodated in private housing.

We also pay for the utilities. We pay for a clothing allowance on an annual basis. It is $200 to $250 per person, per year. We also pay for a furniture allowance. An individual can earn $400 per month that would be considered earned income and is exempted.

We do have what I think is a balanced area for individuals to have a situation where they can move into a productive choice and accommodate themselves. The program was never meant as a lifestyle program, Mr. Chairman. I should also point out in most cases, we are two times the national payment that is made here. If you work all that out to an hourly rate, it is quite substantial.

We have to be concerned about the balance between low-income earners and those on income support. At what point do we discourage people from making the productive choice and discourage them from going to work but stay on income support? Thank you.