I have canvassed my riding. I have gone to the hotels in my riding and there was a lot of emotion and a lot of criticism of this government when I tried to explain what was going on. In fact, in some cases I had to convince them not to shoot the messenger. It was not well received. In all, the hotel owners and motel owners in my riding spoke against it. They justified why they spoke against it. With the hotels in my riding, the occupancy by the tourists is very low. It is a small percentage. Who are the main users of those hotels in the riding I represent? It is mainly government employees and construction workers. The construction workers who are in the communities utilizing the hotels and occupying the rooms are working on government projects. So the percentage of occupancy by government dollars is a lot higher than we are being told.

In the riding I represent, almost all of the economic projects are paid for by the government. We have no real economic base. The oil and gas industry has not taken off yet. So this will be a flow-through tax. What will that result in? That will result in a higher cost of living because mostly communities that are average size or smaller will be taxing government people and construction workers.

Due to the location of Enterprise, of Kakisa and Fort Providence, which is only, in the case of Enterprise, half an hour away from Indian Cabins which has accommodations, I am sure the cost of a room per night would make a lot of people who are driving through reconsider whether they should stop on the south side of the border or bother to come across because the cost of the rooms are going to be a lot higher.

In the case of High Level, it is only three hours away from Fort Providence, so it is not a great distance. I think the location is going to be a factor in people making the decision on whether they want to come North.

The biggest issue I have with this tax is that in three years when our formula financing review will come up, there will be a claw back clause and that does not make sense to me. My colleague has done some quick math here and it results that out of every five dollars we collect, we will keep one dollar. I cannot justify that to the people of my riding and I cannot accept this tax as it stands. I will be voting against it, Mr. Speaker. Thank you.

-- Applause

Thank you, Mr. McLeod. To the principle of the bill. The honourable Member for Inuvik Boot Lakes, Mr. Roland.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, as a Member of the 13th Assembly, I found myself in an unfortunate situation going back to my constituents time and time again telling them, "Reductions. You will have to make do with less."

It seems, Mr. Speaker, that in the first year now of the 14th Assembly, our government is proposing taxes. We cut back, now we are going to tax. It seems like there is no other avenue. Meanwhile, we have strategies flying off here, there and everywhere in the Northwest Territories. That alone probably covers what the Minister is looking for in fees here.

Mr. Speaker, this tax has been flogged on the highways, byways, board rooms, back rooms and no doubt even in the boys' room. Mr. Speaker, the Minister himself stated this is a huge industry. It is developing and growing into an enormous potential and yes, the Northwest Territories holds a bright future in the area of tourism.

In fact, Mr. Speaker, I had an opportunity for a number of years to work in the tourism sector. I alone with my father and family operated Nuktigvik Tours. We did a river and fishing tour operation. I know in that market, it is competitive. If you could not match the lower price of your competitor, you were going to be squeezed out of the market.

Mr. Speaker, in Inuvik itself, we have had a number of concerns raised with the cost of living. The cost of hotels went up and there were rumours around town that they jumped up too much and so on and so forth. Now I must say that the hotel group in Inuvik has done a lot to rejuvenate the economic activity within the community, but there is only so far you can go before you hit the wall, as they say. I know the Minister is trying to stop from hitting the debt wall. As I see it, it is a band-aid solution.

If we are going to do comparisons, Mr. Speaker, we have to compare apples to apples or oranges to oranges. I think we have to look at how we are going to do things and how we are going to operate and how we are going to tell the people of the Northwest Territories we will work for their benefit. How will we show them that we support the tourism industry?

Again, if we compare ourselves with the Yukon, Mr. Speaker, they have a huge area in tourism. More than three times the amount we spend is what they spend in tourism, and the results show. They have a huge...the "rubber-tire market", as they call it, as well as those who fly in to Whitehorse in the Yukon...it is very good. We hold the same potential.

Mr. Speaker, what I found after working in the tourism industry when we had regional tourism bodies and the government of the day decided to pull them altogether and make one tourism association for the Northwest Territories, I saw the decline of tourism in my region.

We count on the "rubber-tire market" in Inuvik. The Dempster Highway is a vital link when it comes to tourism. Most of those people stay in campgrounds. So is that the next area we are going to look at to tax?

I have heard the Minister and another Member state that the Northwest Territories is not known. I must say we must have been doing something terribly wrong with the millions of dollars we spent in the area of tourism if nobody knows where the Northwest Territories is.

That is not a fact of just putting more money after it. It is what are we doing wrong? The idea of just putting more money into the pot does not work. I know, for example, I spoke with the Hotel Association in Inuvik along with bed and breakfast operators. They would support it on condition. However, from what I have heard from the Minister and what has been flying around about the hotel tax, there is nothing there that would meet those conditions as far as I can see to date.

We talk about getting the tourists here. Again, how will the hotel tax get the tourists here? In Inuvik, the rate for hotel rooms is equal to those at the Delta in Edmonton, Vancouver and so on. Can we do the same thing in the Northwest Territories, in Inuvik or in Yellowknife?

The potential is good but out of the $1.1 million that might be left to the department, how will it divide that up amongst hotel groups, amongst tourism operators, outfitters, the central tourism industry organization here in Yellowknife? How will you do that?

The fact is there has been too much information going back and forth that has not been concrete. Not concrete enough to get my support. We heard initially four or more rooms will be taxed. Then we heard a commitment saying no, all rooms will be taxed, bed and breakfasts included. Now the Minister today says we are looking at four rooms or more because of some by-law situation, especially here in the city.

Mr. Speaker, when we should be trying to be more competitive, this Minister seems to be proposing to push the costs up in the Northwest Territories. How are we going to sell ourselves to the rest of the jurisdictions, to the tourists who can travel in Alberta, British Columbia, Newfoundland, and tell them come North? We want to take an extra five percent out of your wallet when you stay in our rooms.

I believe Alberta has such a good market in their area because for one thing, they do not have a sales tax like other jurisdictions in Canada. I agree with the statement made earlier by Mr. Dent regarding the area of whether we follow other jurisdictions. It is like following friends. Not all the time do your friends have the best intentions or have all the knowledge. Just following somebody for the sake of following is not the wisest way of living.

The fact is, in the legislation the Minister talked about, there would be a sunset clause and if this does not work, we will get rid of it. I understand that in the bill, there is no sunset clause. I am sure when they said the payroll tax was being introduced, we will just try this and it only costs so many dollars to be administered. Payroll tax continues to exist and it costs much more than they anticipated. Is it worth a million dollars, Mr. Speaker, to tax our people? A million dollars divided between all the interests in tourism?

We have heard Mr. Krutko say that he had support from his community to have the tax administered in the community. I know the Department of Finance is having a difficult time with self-government. Self-governments are pushing for their own tax regime and this government is hanging onto the strings. So can we even do that to communities? I do not think that would be possible.

We know it is going to go into the general revenues of this government. How is it broken out from there? Who knows how it is going to happen? It is not concrete enough.

Initiative should be applauded by the Minister. He is lucky. He is trying, and I say within the Department of Resources, Wildlife and Economic Development, I know there are quite a number of strategies that are outlined for a number of years. Why do we continue with more strategies? Why do we not as a government say look, we have a serious problem here. Let us reduce some of this travel and conference industry that is supported by the Government of the Northwest Territories and put that money where it is needed, like the tourism groups.

This is piecemeal, Mr. Speaker, and we have to quit operating piecemeal. Let us put a solid plan together. Show us how this will really work. Do the homework and come back when it is ready. Right now as I see it, Mr. Speaker, this is not ready and I will not be supporting it. I will vote against this bill. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

-- Applause

Thank you, Mr. Roland. To the principle of the bill. The Member for Hay River North, Mr. Delorey.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, when this bill was first introduced some time ago, I had some grave concerns about this bill. It has been quite a while now and I have been travelling around talking to many different people. I may be fortunate or unfortunate in the fact that in my riding, I have no basic hotels. There is one hotel there but if they rent out any rooms, it is very few rooms.

I applaud the Minister for taking initiatives towards tourism. We all know we talked about tourism in the North and what it could mean if we can develop the industry. Maybe if the industry develops enough I will have a hotel in my riding. If we do not have any money to put towards tourism, I know we will not have a hotel in my riding. Is the tax the answer to tourism? I am not sure, Mr. Speaker.

Up until last night, I was in support of this bill. I had nobody come forward except for one person at a meeting in Hay River who spoke against the bill. Whether he was speaking for a group of individuals or not, I am not sure. The other people who had concerns about the hotel tax must have been in hibernation since the bill was introduced, as far as I was concerned, because they did not make their views known to me.

However, something happened yesterday that all of a sudden these people came alive and all of a sudden my phone was ringing off the wall last night, supposedly all opposing the hotel tax.

There is one thing that I have learned since this hotel tax was introduced, we have an awful lot of accountants around. The Minister who introduced the bill has his figure that he thinks we will bring into the tourism industry. Everybody who has spoken against the bill has their figure of what it will do to the industry and what this tax will bring in. I have not heard two figures the same yet, Mr. Speaker. I, for one, am not an accountant. I would hope that this tax would do what the Minister is proposing that it will do.

Yesterday we flew to Fort Smith to a meeting there called Growing Communities and it had to do with tourism. The Minister was there and he was the keynote speaker. He did speak about the hotel tax. I did not see anybody throw any cups at him. If I took anything from the meeting, they were a little encouraged by the fact that he was going to be promoting tourism and he was going to be putting money into tourism.

I am a little surprised, Mr. Speaker, at Yellowknife's reaction to this. If anybody is making money in tourism right now, it is Yellowknife. I think if we are going to do anything in tourism in the Northwest Territories, there is going to have to be a sharing of wealth somewhere.

Although I have questions as to where this tax money would be spent, I am sure that if there is a bunch of money generated in tourism, whether it is through a tax or whether it is through a direct donation from this government, Yellowknife will be there with their hand out saying we want the biggest portion of it because we are the biggest population. That I do not doubt for one minute.

Just recently, Mr. Speaker, we went on a trip to Washington. It had to do with the oil and gas industry. Our representatives, who are tour guides in Washington, brought up an interesting point. They said, "How come you people are not down here promoting tourism as well as oil and gas?" The one person said, within about a five-mile block, there was something like 80 millionaires and they have travelled everywhere. He said if you were to promote tourism here, they are looking for a place to go. Money is no object to them. They want a place to go. It has to be promoted though. Every time I step on an airplane to go somewhere, I am amazed at the price we pay for airline tickets. The prices keep going up. Do we quit travelling? No, we continue to travel.

So, Mr. Speaker, we talk about industry being involved in tourism. I think they are very involved. I think they will sit back and complain about anything that is going to hurt them when it comes to a tax, but they will be very quick to make the profits from it. I do not know if this is a true fact or not, but I hear that the hotels in the Territories, or at least in Yellowknife, are probably the richest hotels in the world. Is five percent going to hurt them? I do not think so, Mr. Speaker. If they are that rich, I do not think they are going to turn anybody away because we are putting on a five percent tax. They will probably cut their rates by five percent to maintain their people.

Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I still have some concerns I would like the Minister to address if he is going to have a rebuttal to any of this, and I am going to reserve my vote until that time. I would like some clarification as to how this money is going to be distributed. I would also like clarification on whether we are collecting one dollar when we collect one dollar or are we collecting 20 cents? Those are a couple of questions, Mr. Speaker, that could probably sway my vote. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

-- Applause

Thank you, Mr. Delorey. To the principle of the bill. The honourable Member for Yellowknife South, Mr. Bell.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am not going to take a long time to speak in opposition to this bill. I think it has pretty much all been said here today. I have spent the last two sessions trying to call into question a lot of the assumptions the government is making and discussing the disadvantages of this bill. I will quickly summarize some of these things that I picked up on along the way.

The Department of Finance thinks they are going to generate $1.2 million and they are basing this on 60 percent occupancy. When I talked to hotel owners, they tell me that is an ambitious figure even for Yellowknife, but if you go to the smaller communities, it is more like 40 percent. They really call into question the 60 percent figure.

The Minister also says six to eight percent of the hotel spending is government spending. That may be direct Government of the Northwest Territories travel, Mr. Speaker, but it does not talk about bands, municipalities or consultants. Any of us who have travelled around the North and booked into a hotel looking around know that 94 percent of the people staying there are not tourists.

The Minister also optimistically insists it will only cost us $100,000 to administer this tax and that businesses will gladly remit it. Initially, his figure was $250,000. I do have a question about whether or not businesses will gladly remit the payroll tax. We have asked in this House about audit information on the payroll tax. We have asked about interest and penalties charged. There was legislation to allow for it. Mr. Speaker, nothing has come back yet because we do not really do it.

Mr. Delorey asked where the money will be spent and so have others. We have heard regional capacity building. We have also heard destination awareness. The Yellowknife Chamber of Commerce thinks, I believe, that if money is raised in Yellowknife that it will be spent in Yellowknife. I wonder how much that leaves for regional capacity building, Mr. Speaker.

This Minster may commit to tourism but this is not something that has been legislated, not in the sunset clause, the three-year sunset of this bill. It is not in legislation. The next Minister may decide to spend it on something else and there will be nothing we can do about it. Is this supposed to target tourists? I do not know.

I think it looks like it is going to target Northerners. I think it will be Northerners bearing the brunt of this tax. I think it is just one more thing to add to the expense of living in the North. So there are enforcement provisions in this bill, but there are enforcement provisions in the Payroll Tax Act as well. They are almost never triggered.

In this House the other day, we just looked at one riding where there was $700,000 in cigarette taxes that we could not collect. I understand the company is still operating and the owner is still living in Inuvik, Mr. Speaker, but somehow we are unable to get this tax revenue.

Like Mr. Braden, I do not see a plan. I am not optimistic. I would like him to rework this and retool this and come back to this House with something else. I certainly will not be supporting this.

Let me say, Mr. Speaker, I was very impressed yesterday, and I had a constituent call me about this, when Mrs. Groenewegen took herself out of the voting on a motion because she felt even though her business was in trust, she did not feel comfortable voting on the motion. My constituent said to me that they believed the bar for honesty and integrity had been raised. I would have to agree with them, Mr. Speaker. Given that her interests are in trust but she does own a hotel, I assume she will be removing herself from this vote as well and applaud her for that, Mr. Speaker. So in summary, I will not be supporting this bill. Thank you.

-- Applause

Thank you, Mr. Bell. To the principle of the bill. The honourable Member for Weledeh, you may summarize now and bring an end to the debate on this motion. Mr. Handley.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I hope I cover all of the main points that have been raised here. I have listened very carefully. I appreciate the compliments some Members have given to me on this bill and on my willingness to consult on this. I believe in consultation and I think it is important. We have to work with the people who are impacted from this and all sectors of the tourism industry, and no matter what happens here today, I am going to continue to do that.

I listened carefully today for some idea on an alternative by those people who opposed this. I did not hear the alternative. I do not know what it is. It is easy to say find it within, but you can only do that for so long. I was hoping to hear an alternative today. I was hoping that somebody would say instead of doing this, do this, but I did not hear that. I just hear people who are opposing it, saying we need more dollars in tourism. I think everybody said that. We need more dollars. We all agree with that. I do not think anybody disagrees with the need for dollars, but where do we get them from? How do we do this?

I heard some people say it is only going to raise $1 million, $1.2 million, as if that is chicken feed. I can tell you that $1 millions is a lot of money to a lot of people. You may not think so, but I think so. If I could raise another $1 million to put into tourism, that is a lot of money. If it is $800,000, or if it is $1.2 million, I am not going to quibble over that. That is a lot of money to put into an industry that needs money badly and where there are tremendous opportunities. We should not downplay a million dollars. It is important, every single million we have.

I heard people say there is no plan. Where is the plan? We do not have a plan. I do not have the regulations made. I do not have the detailed plan of exactly how it is going to be done because I am doing it through a consultative process. That is part of that process.

We have a draft tourism strategy that each of you have, and I hope you comment on it and provide us with feedback. I am working with the Northwest Territories Tourism Association and with the Hotel Association to build a plan, but this tax, as I said, is not going to come into effect for a number of months yet. We will have a plan before a dollar is ever spent out of this. I have to do that in consultation with the industry.

I cannot go out and...it would really be presumptuous of me and I think it would destroy all of the effort that I have done in consultation, to go out and build a plan and say here is the plan. This is it. I am not going to entertain anything else.

Let us be open-minded and let the industry who are going to be impacted by this have a hand in developing the plan. I have absolutely no doubt in my mind that there will be a very clear plan put together long before this tax is ever put in place.

I have made a commitment that there will be a way of measuring results and we are working on that. We will work with industry on that to make sure that this money is spent and we know whether or not it is being spent effectively. Do not have any doubt that there will be a plan. If you expect me to do a plan, the act and the regulations and everything all up front, that is not the way I operate. I want to do it in consultation.

Some people said that they did not support this because it might mean other taxes. I have news for you. This has nothing to do with other taxes. You may have other taxes anyway. It is not linking to some other trend someplace. I cannot speak for future governments. You could very well have other taxes. This has absolutely no bearing on whether or not there are going to be other taxes, as if this is setting a trend somehow.

Some people said that they wanted to look at the whole picture. I agree. We have to look at the whole picture, and I think it was Mr. Miltenberger who made that comment, and there will certainly be opportunity as we get into the budget session to look at this in the context of the overall picture, long before we ever have to finally vote on this. Blue chip information, sure. I would love to be able to give blue chip information and we will. I think we will only get blue chip information as this evolves and as we implement it. Each of these hotels are very close with their information. They compete in a very competitive world and they have to maintain a lot of privacy and confidentiality in their work.

I want to say to Mr. Delorey that we are talking about a dollar for a dollar. We are not talking 20 cents. There may be some misunderstanding. The formula financing agreement with the federal government only applies if we increase taxes. If we add a new tax, we get to keep every dollar of that tax. It is not the other way around. We have a dollar for dollar.

When we negotiate a new formula, I do not know, but I tell you, I am going to work like heck to make sure that we get a lot better deal than we have right now. It is an 80 cents to 20 cents, deal. As I say, I cannot commit future governments. I cannot promise you something in a deal that is yet to be negotiated, but for the life of this agreement, it is one dollar for every dollar. It is a new tax. I hope to be very successful. I hope that we are working in a much different environment three years from now when the formula comes due for being renegotiated, so we have to be optimistic on that side. For now, it is a dollar.

We heard a lot today about the dollars, the lack of dollars. That is something we need to work on. I think the one thing we all agree on is that we do need new dollars.

A business plan, yes, as I said, one will be developed. Yes, there will be a clear accounting for all of the money that is raised through the tax and yes, every dollar will go into tourism and I tell you, it is a dollar for a dollar right now.

With that, I just want to say to the tourism industry that I really appreciate them working with me over the last months. If there is a better way of doing it out there, then I really hope that they come to me with it. I will work with them to help them. I appreciate the effort that all of the associations, the tourism associations, hotel associations, and everybody has put into this. I think it is a statement about the importance of tourism to the people that we represent here. I say thank you to everybody, including all the people in small communities who, even though Yellowknife will get a big benefit, so will the places in the little communities. This is their future. For many situations, they are not each going to have a diamond mine. They are not each going to have a pipeline going past them. This is a future. This is linked very much to people's traditional lifestyle.

Mr. Speaker, that concludes my comments. I feel very strongly about this, the whole tourism industry, and I am a bit disappointed by the people who speak against it. I am disappointed by the absence of other clear alternatives, but we will see where this goes. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Minister Handley. That concludes debate. A recorded vote has been requested. Is the House prepared to vote? Mr. Clerk. All those in favour of the bill, please rise.

Thank you. All those opposed to the bill, please stand.

Thank you. All those abstaining, please stand. The results of the vote, Yes, 10, no, 8. There are no abstentions. The motion is carried. Therefore, Bill 13 has had second reading and accordingly, the bill stands referred to a committee. Thank you. Item 18, second reading of bills. The honourable Member for Weledeh, Mr. Handley.

Mr. Speaker,

I MOVE, seconded by the honourable Member for Yellowknife Centre, that Bill 15, An Act to Amend the Northwest Territories Power Corporation Act and the Public Service Act, be read for the second time.

Mr. Speaker, this bill amends the Northwest Territories Power Corporation Act and the Public Service Act to provide that on the expiration of March 31, 2001, employees of the Northwest Territories Power Corporation who are employed in positions located in Nunavut cease to be employees of the Corporation and of the Public Service. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Handley. The motion is in order. To the principle of the bill. Question has been called. All those in favour? Thank you. All those opposed? Thank you. The motion is carried. Bill 15 has had second reading. Accordingly, the bill stands referred to committee. Item 18, second reading of bills. Item 19, consideration in committee of the whole of bills and other matters. Bill 10, An Act to Amend the Adoption Act; Tabled Document 63-14(3), A Human Resource Development Proposal Related to Non-Renewable Resources in the NWT, with Mr. Krutko in the chair.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to recommend that we move to consider Bill 10 then, depending on the time, perhaps start with the Tabled Document 63-14(3).

Does the committee agree?

With that, we will take a short break.

-- Break

I would like to call the committee to order. We agreed before the break to deal with Bill 10, An Act to Amend the Adoption Act. With that, I would like to ask the Minister responsible for this bill if she has any introductory remarks. Mrs. Groenewegen.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yes, I do have introductory remarks. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to have this opportunity today to speak with the members of the committee about Bill 10, which proposes amendments to the Adoption Act.

The Adoption Act was passed on November 1, 1998. It represents the culmination of more than ten years of work, including the work of the Family Law Review Committee, consultation with stakeholders from across the Northwest Territories, extensive review by the standing committee of the 13th Assembly who did additional public consultations, and considerable work done by departmental staff and legislative drafters. Since implementation, the department has provided four separate training sessions throughout the North to assist workers in learning how to use the act.

The new legislation made many improvements to the adoption system.

New provisions are included for subsidized adoptions to provide financial assistance for departmental adoptions. Pre -placement reports are now done for all children, whereas under the old scheme, private adoptions could be completed without ensuring the child was placed in a safe and suitable home.

The Adoption Act also provides for consultation with aboriginal organizations prior to placement of aboriginal children where the birth parent consents. The new system also allows for much greater involvement of the birth parents and allows for the courts to order continued access to birth parents or extended family members where it is in the best interests of the child.

Unlike the old Child Welfare Act, the new act provides for distinct processes to be followed for departmental, private and step-parent adoptions. Under the new legislation, step-parent adoptions are more streamlined. Before, children of step-parents had to be made permanent wards before they could be adopted. Private and out-of-territory adoptions were unregulated under the old legislation. The Adoption Act puts a process into place for private adoptions and strictly regulates out-of-territory placements.

The Adoption Act intentionally takes an open approach to adoptions in recognition of the best interests of the child and the rights of persons to information about who they are and where they come from. During the preparation of the act, the Minister accepted the recommendations of the standing committee of the 13th Assembly, which directed the Minister to make the adoption process completely open.

The act recognizes that closed adoptions are a southern way of doing things. It acknowledges the northern reality where it would be very difficult to keep someone from identifying information under any circumstances. The act makes no distinction between identifying and non-identifying information. Such a distinction is meaningless in such small communities where even a birthplace can be identifying.

Given this, the new act sets out to provide a formal system for disclosing information and arranging reunifications. It puts into place a support structure for adoptees and birth parents during the process of disclosing information or facilitating reunifications by ensuring they are offered counselling and given information about support services.

The vast majority of adoptions in the Northwest Territories are aboriginal custom adoptions which now are regulated by the Aboriginal Custom Adoption Act passed in 1995. Most remaining adoptions are private or step-parent adoptions. Only 17 departmental adoptions have occurred over the past four years.

Because so few numbers of children are adopted through this act, it will take several years to truly assess the benefits and impact of this new scheme. Therefore, it would not make sense to make changes outside of the spirit and intent of the act until the legislation has been in place for a few years. For this reason, the amendments being proposed are limited to changes within the original intent of the act.

The amendments to Bill 10 do not propose any changes outside of the original spirit and intent of the Adoption Act. Instead, the bill seeks to make several changes within the scheme that will improve the act. Some of the changes are being imposed as a result of the legislation having been in place for two years now.

This additional implementation time has given the registrar, the director of adoptions, frontline adoption workers and clients a chance to identify problems or issues not currently addressed in the act. Other parts of Bill 10 are designed to address oversights or gaps that were discovered during the preparation of the regulations. The latter are intended to ensure that all children who are adopted have the same rights to information about themselves. Finally, several minor rewording changes are proposed to improve clarity or make the terminology more consistent throughout the act. I would be pleased to answer any questions committee members may have. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.