Thank you, Mr. Chair. There are an awful lot of opinions out there as to how we should proceed. I know that when our officials went out, and I'm looking at the report on what we heard, there were quite a few different suggestions about how to proceed. I do see, at page 20 of the report, there seemed to be, when asked the question, "Do you favour sales controlled by a GNWT agency or a more open system," there was a slight majority in favour of a GNWT agency, such as the Liquor Commission, but when we got to other questions, such as retail model suggestions, there were many, many different suggestions.

One that received the most support seemed to be the Liquor Commission one. There's one that suggested a tobacco model, a pharmacy health centre model, online mail order model, GNWT-operated dispensaries, private retailers, entrepreneurs. Raising taxes, I see, is one, and nowhere -- I guess those were opposed -- and others. I'm not sure what they wanted. It's not surprising that there were an awful lot of opinions on the other side of the House, if I can put it that way, because there are a lot of differences of opinion within Cabinet. However, we felt in the end that this was the way to proceed. So there were active discussions on our side, also.

Ms. Green has raised the issue of co-location, which is a complicated issue, and I am well aware that the McLellan Report stated that that might not be the best way to go, but that same report acknowledged that smaller and remote communities may not have the flexibility to accommodate a dedicated separate retail location. So it's a very, very tough issue. We are alive to it. As I say, I think all of us had different opinions going into this situation. We're now having to respond to the federal government's initiative, and I think we've come forward with a compromise bill that probably doesn't make everybody happy, but I think it is most appropriate in the circumstances. Thank you, Mr. Chair