Thanks, Mr. Chair. So, yes, we have got a comparison now between GNWT's approach and what's being done in New Brunswick, so I don't think it's really fair to say that this is what the federal backstop would look like for the Northwest Territories. I just want to make that very clear. The debate, some of the debate, is around that this would cost us less or that the rebates would be larger under the GNWT approach than the federal backstop. This is a federal backstop for New Brunswick. It has nothing to do with us.

The federal backstop that has been negotiated though in the Yukon, this is what it consists of: Yukon individuals; businesses; First Nations governments; municipal governments; and quartz mining operations would get rebates. Yukon First Nation governments are expected to pay about .5 percent of the total tax, but will receive 1 percent of the revenues. Municipal governments will pay 2.5 percent of the total tax, and will receive 3 percent of the revenues. The rebates to individuals are also adjusted so that rebates to individuals living in remote areas of the Yukon will receive a supplement of 10 percent. That's what the federal backstop looks like in the Yukon. The federal government collects the money. It is given to the Yukon government, and they do the rebates through a legislated rebate program. Their rebates are set in legislation.

I just would like to know why our approach couldn't look a little bit more like this with rebates to Indigenous governments to municipal governments, a sliding scale of some sort for people, rebates for individuals who live in remote areas? Why couldn't we have designed a system like this? Thanks, Mr. Chair.