Thank you. I'm probably dancing a line of being ruled out of order. I probably will end my questions at this point, but I do think speaking to the bigger picture with the trouble we've had with Sirius, I think we're forgetting the compound effect and we've had trouble in how much it's cost us in the bigger picture. Unfortunately, we're running out of days in this House to put questions with regard to our diamond subsidy program or a diamond program, and what benefit the GNWT has received as a whole. I think this has kind of raised questions -- it certainly has in my constituency and I know with other Members -- about how are we subsidizing the growth of the diamond industry and to what cost.

Negotiating agreements so we could supply 10 percent rough is a bit of a...I don't know; I think it's misleading, because at the end of the day we, at present, one person is the net benefactor, although we have a company separated by paper alone. So in theory, as I understand it, Sirius is owned by company A and Arslanian is owned by company B, yet the general shareholders are the same people.

At this time, if it's appropriate to ask a question with regard to the sale of Sirius, I would like to ask a question. Was a monopoly taken into consideration of the sale price of Sirius where we received $4.5 million because, as I see it, that 10 percent rough at this time is going to one group. Not that long ago we had four diamond cutting plants, if I have my numbers correct. One, Deton'Cho Corp no longer cuts diamonds; the second one which would be Laurelton, they have their own agreement to get a supply of direct rough; and, of course, the next two companies are relatively owned at the end of the day by the same shareholders. As I would see it, it's strictly an administrative matter where a piece of paper divides the monopoly. So the GNWT went very far in negotiating a 10 percent rough. Regardless of how much we actually get out of that is a different question, but at the end of the day one company is, in theory, monopolizing, or I should say one group of people are the net benefactors of that monopoly. Was that $4.5 million sale price built into the fact that the same shareholders would be the sole benefactors of that 10 percent rough? I'll leave that question with the Minister, with a small proviso; if four out of five are the same shareholders, at the end of the day, the way I see it, it's relatively the same shareholders. So would the Minister answer the monopoly question? Thank you, Mr. Chairman.