When we first started to discuss the mandate, I had proposed some changes to this section to try to make it a little more balanced. I will give some examples of those. The focus, really, in the fourth paragraph: “GNWT has a fiscal problem that will require expenditure management.” There is nothing in this section that talks about efficiencies or new revenues. I would look for a much more balanced approach. There are a couple of other parts of this that I find objectionable. Another sentence here that says, “We should not take any actions that will decrease investment or increase the cost of living or operating a business in the Northwest Territories.” Changes have actually been introduced while we have been MLAs that will increase the cost of living, and I'll give an example: The electronics recycling fees. But that's for a specific purpose and it serves an end, and I'll support that. I believe all the MLAs support that sort of thing. That kind of a blanket statement, I find really quite objectionable and tried to have that adjusted during our debate and discussion around the mandate. I’m not sure I can support the approach of building up large surpluses in our O and M to fund Roads to Resources. I have been on record as saying that, and that's, I think, part of the messaging in the fiscal context here. The other sort of messages in here are around that, “We can no longer afford the suite of programs and services we have been providing to our residents at the levels we have been providing them.” I don't actually accept that statement as fact, and tried to have it changed and adjusted through discussion, but I was unsuccessful. There are a couple of problems, I think, factually with the content of this. I mentioned earlier how the impact on the federal cut to our Territorial Formula Financing funding is not the $33 million that's specified in this. This could have been corrected before it was tabled in the House, but it wasn't. We now know that it is, I believe, $9 millio The second sentence talks about the resource sector accounting for one third of our economy. My understanding is that it's 25 per cent. So there are a number of issues with this. When this was first brought to Caucus, I also talked about, if we are going to have something in here about the fiscal context, we should have something about the environmental context and something about the social context, so that people have a good understanding of the situation that we're in and how that has helped shape what's in the mandate. Those other two pieces were not added. They were not dealt with in any way, in my view. Given those reservations about the content of this, I am more than happy to see the whole thing be deleted from the mandate, and I agree with my colleagues who have spoken before that this is not necessary as part of the mandate. We have better places to talk about this in terms of the budgeting cycle and so on, so I am in support of the motion.