Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Minister has raised an interesting point in response to a Member earlier. He has indicated, I think throughout the day, that he didn't want to deal with this issue of the co-payment. And remember, committee did make a very clear recommendation that we thought this co-payment should be scrapped because it was simply targeting a small segment of society, and in effect picking on these people when they're sick to boot, Mr. Chairman. He had indicated that it wasn't a matter of just being able to deal with that in a piecemeal fashion. He said supplementary health benefits are a basket, a basket of programs that are linked. There are programs in here that we can't look at in isolation. It has to be an overall comprehensive plan. It involves Metis health benefits, senior benefits, benefits for the indigent. He's talked much about the consultation discussion paper that he's put out there and said that there is this list of options and he wanted to have a response from committee on these options and get our feedback, before moving in a comprehensive manner, in a well thought-out, well planned, coordinated manner, and simply not deal with the co-payment issue in isolation. But then I believe, unless I misheard the Minister, Mr. Chairman, he indicated that as of April 1st he was raising the Metis health benefits to 100 percent from 80 percent. I don't understand how that's possible, if in fact we are dealing with this as a basket of benefits and not looking at these pieces in isolation. Option one in this discussion document speaks to creating a single policy to house all GNWT supplementary health benefits, except for Metis health benefits. I mean, there are things in here that involve... Really some of the options are precluded if the Minister has already decided that April 1st Metis health benefits are raised to 100 percent, and he is in fact dealing with it in a piecemeal fashion. Is that not the case?