Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just to follow up on some of the comments Mr. Steen had earlier made. I am going to have to review the Hansard just to make sure of what was being said, but according to the motion that was passed and the understanding, the Keewatin mayors had looked at the transfer of all of the Keewatin region infrastructure a complete control of all the GNWT capital funding designated for the Keewatin region and all GNWT operations and maintenance funding that could be attributed either directly or indirectly to the management of said infrastructure. After saying that, the question that Mr. O'Brien had made earlier on the decentralized model, for example under the centralized model of government today, under NIC, under Footprints 1 and 2 that the GNWT has accepted, DPW, as an example, would move to Baker Lake, Health and Social Services, Education would move to Arviat, MACA would move to Arviat.
So if you now have one group controlling all this in the region, the mayors' region controlling all this, then what happens to that decentralized model? Why would you have to move people, MACA as an example, DPW, Health and Social Services, Education, why would you move those people from Rankin Inlet to Baker Lake and to Arviat? Does that not jeopardize the decentralized plan in place? What would the impact be? There would be no decentralization then because there is no government then, because everything is under the control of the mayors or that society that we talked about. I think that is part of the confusion. Maybe we could have some elaboration on that?