Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I think the Minister and I are talking about two different things. What I am talking about here is I am trying to get the Minister to see the unfairness in a situation where we have a community that has employment rates in the 40 per cent, most people over the age of 65 living on Old Age Security; very few, if any, people in the small communities I represent actually have a pension that is, for example, a superannuation pension, something that gives them fairly decent income.

We are talking about people who are living on Old Age Security. There has never been employment in these communities, so people have gone from one short-term job to another short-term job to another short-term job until they get to 65 years old and they start to draw Old Age Security. Old Age Security, as an estimate, is about $1,000. How would any department or any government see it being fair to already charge somebody four months' worth of salary? I will correct myself because of the relief, it turns out to be two months' worth of salary, and that is if the senior knew that they were supposed to go down and apply for the relief.

So how does somebody justify or see that as fair now and even further look at possibly increasing that fairly sharply? We are opposing this because we are saying at least phase in the increases, and I am not talking about the minimums. If the minimum is $800 for this type of thing, that is probably about what we should charge. I am talking about this unreasonable 10 per cent mill rate, is the only way I could really determine it, and if it is rent it would be like if we rented a house in Yellowknife under the same type of rule. Let us say a three-bedroom trailer for $400,000. This indicates that $40,000 would go to rent and that would be the land, that would be just renting the land.

I am asking the Minister take a look at that. I think anybody would agree that is inappropriate and it is not fair. Thank you.