Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, as I stated earlier, the one avenue we have within our control is under our own-source revenues and the government can establish a new tax regime. It would have to be based on a broad base impact; we can't do it so specific that we'd end up being challenged on it. We do have examples of taxes in the Northwest Territories and I guess, overall, in Canada you can consider the fuel tax is a consumption tax or a number of the consumption taxes that are meant to offset the impact of the product that is being consumed. For example, we have one of the highest rates of cigarette tax in the country for the sale of tobacco in the Northwest Territories. We also have one of the higher mark-ups on our liquor products in the Northwest Territories because we also recognize the impact of those products. The government, in 1995, the government-of-the-day did hire a firm, KPMG, to look at practices or sound environmental tools or instruments, I guess is a way of putting it, as seeing what could be done in that area. That report is there. Ultimately, as the Member stated I think, direction of that, and I think this falls right into the work of the macroeconomic policy unit because if we want to establish that, then we also have need to look at the fact that the potential of a negative cycle to that where companies would not do business in the Northwest Territories, what that impact is on existing resources or expenditure patterns we have within the government. So it all has to be looked at together, but it is a fundamental tool that is available to the government and it has been looked at in the past, in previous governments. Any government deciding that it wanted to come up with more revenues, than it had to look at that as one of the options. Thank you.