Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, if that's correct, then this government is discouraging entrepreneurship by using the fact that it does cost more to deliver certain services in certain geographical locations, and only if government is the one that's delivering that service will this government subsidize or recognize the need for subsidies in this area. What I'm trying to suggest is an opportunity for the government to get out of the delivery of this program and service by recognizing that there are people in these communities that could do the job just as well as they can, and that they should get the same kind of treatment that government gets when government delivers these products and services in the community.

All I'm saying is we have an opportunity here to save nearly $1 million in salaries alone in this division. With 11 people averaging $100,000 a salary, with benefits and all, factoring in the costs for renting office space, etcetera, etcetera, there are some savings that could be had here. Capacity could be developed in communities, only if government in this area wants to get out of business, and recognizes that there is a subsidy requirement. Who knows? Once you agree on a subsidy per year and the cost goes up, the individuals in these communities could raise their prices and they'd take the political heat, not the government. There's a possibility of that happening. If the fuel price goes down, they could drop the prices and get the benefits rather than government. I'm just suggesting a different way of delivering this program, a suggestion that might save this government a lot of money and a lot of headaches, and develop capacity in communities. That's just a suggestion, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.