All of these things would become more expensive under a carbon tax, and therefore, the threshold would go up and the number of people beneath that threshold would also rise.
I'd like to move on to the question of measurement. I noticed that you spent an inordinate amount of time on the low-income measure, which I felt was ironic given the government we have today. The government has spoken quite a lot about the need to increase middle-class incomes, and of course, we agree with that. We are very proud of the fact that, under the previous government, they rose faster than under the previous seven governments combined. But under the low-income measurement, when median income goes up, if nothing else changes, the number of people considered to be living in low income also rises because low income is measured as 50% of median income.
If the government actually fulfills its objective and raises median income and nothing else changes and people who are lower on the income scale are not falling any further behind—they're doing just as well in four years as they are today—we will actually see an increase in the low-income rate. Do you believe it is logical to use a measurement that paints an ugly picture in the event that median incomes actually rise?