Thank you. It does give me the opportunity to say a couple of things. I think, first of all, historically -- and maybe I'm repeating myself to the point of boredom -- a lot of what was going on in terms of policy and the direction of tourism development was driven at headquarters. I was fundamentally opposed to that. It is now driven by the superintendents who, theoretically, are supposed to discuss it with industry.

One of our initiatives right now -- which I hope will be met with support in this House -- is we are doing a review of what we call the Tourism Industry Association. I believe that the current Tourism Industry Association no longer reflects well enough the different and diverse tourist interests across the territories. I said in my speech that there is clearly a need for an east/west split. And it's not just because of Nunavut; it is also because of the different conditions. In Mr. Koe's area, you can fly in on a jet or you can drive in a truck. In Mr. Ningark's area and Mr. Pudluk's area, you simply cannot do it. The conditions are different.

It is my hope that we will get support for two industry associations. Once we have support for these two industry associations, I'm committed to taking the marketing dollars that are currently spent under the direction of civil servants and putting it into the hands of those associations for them to determine how that money is spent. Let me assure you, those are significant dollars. We're not talking about $40,000 to $50,000; we are talking about $1 million.

It would be my hope, if we can get general consensus that we move towards two associations, that we find some way to streamline the zones -- and I am ready for the question on zones and will answer the question when we get to it -- and their representative nature. It is my hope that we will have two associations. If we can get that, I'm prepared to transfer the fiscal dollars that are in marketing to those associations for them to determine where they go. Thank you.