Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I, too, will be supporting this motion. The only reason for that being, Mr. Speaker, is that no one in my riding has been calling me up, or sending me any kind of indication that they support the implementation of this container program, but I have been getting inquiries, Mr. Speaker, that the time is not right to implement this. That is why I am fundamentally opposed to getting this beverage container program in place. Failing to stop it outright, Mr. Speaker, I am in favour of delaying and deferring the progress in the communities that don't have it. I know that it is great legislation. It is a good thing, Mr. Speaker. But what is going to happen to everybody within the smaller communities that have more of an impact? The average family will be paying an extra $10 a week. That is $520 a year, Mr. Speaker. There is something fundamentally wrong with that when they are not going to have equal opportunity to recover all their costs, Mr. Speaker.

At any rate, I think that the best I would estimate is that any family would recover probably up to 75 percent of the extra costs that they are giving to our government. That is something wrong there, too, Mr. Speaker. We are paying the government. There are other ways of doing it too. We call it taxation, Mr. Speaker. We are actually taxing our residents unfairly, I believe, Mr. Speaker. I also believe that, yes, we are so far behind our southern counterparts in terms of recycling our papers, our plastics, and our glass. It is something that the big centres and their people

deserve, Mr. Speaker. They deserve to have a place to bring all their glass, papers, and plastics, and to get rid of it, and to save. In fact, Mr. Speaker, I was thinking in terms of this legislation, it turns out that Fort Simpson -- I am proud to say -- will be considered a big centre in terms of this legislation.