[Microphone turned off]...turned capital, but I could also say infrastructure. Now, if there is a community, such as Yellowknife, which has lots of infrastructure, and there is a depreciation on that infrastructure, then, every year, when they replace water lines, I know that there is little depreciation the first year, but as soon as it goes into use after one year, there is a depreciation. That depreciation would be considered a deficit in the infrastructure. That is what I am trying to get at.

In the small communities, we have very little infrastructure, a few warehouses here; most of our roads are gravel; we have no running water. We have water trucks that haul things around and so on. They depreciate as well, but they are very minor items. If you write a water truck off over 10 years versus trying to write off a water system over 50 years, I mean, I realize that some of the systems in the city last longer, but, Mr. Chair, what I am trying to get at is that we, in some of the small communities, don't appear to have huge infrastructure deficits because we don't have the infrastructure that we need. Not all of our streets are chipsealed. We don't have piped water systems. We don't have the swimming pools, arenas. I mean, we do have some arenas, but not something, certainly, like what some of the larger centres have.

I have always been concerned about the way that infrastructure deficits are accumulated. It looks like the people that have the most have the greatest deficits. The greatest amount of money goes to the people that have the most infrastructure, and the communities that have very little infrastructure are having very little accumulation of appreciation, if I can use that term. It is kind of an oxymoron, but there is an accumulation of deficit to determine the infrastructure deficit.

I am wondering if the Minister has looked into that system that they have employed since 2014 to see if it really is a fair system in determining infrastructure deficits. Thank you, Mr. Chair.