Thank you, Madam Chair. I have, a number of times, expressed confusion and that I don't actually think there is clarity between the role of corporate communications and Cabinet communications, and I want to underline why. My view of why this has happened is that, in a lot of governments, the Cabinet communications would be clear political appointments. We get these emails from a press secretary that doesn't exist, but in a lot of governments, you would choose your press team. You would make them clear political appointments. They would not be members of the public service; they would serve at the will of the Premier for that. You see that in the Prime Minister's office. You see that in other governments.

Over time, our Cabinet communications have become civil servants. We keep the same people over the governments, and as such, they are essentially not a political communications tool but a corporate communications tool, where they speak on behalf of the GNWT as opposed to this Cabinet as a whole. I think there needs to be a hard look at what is happening with corporate communications and Cabinet communications, and then all of the communications within departments, and there needs to be a clear line of when someone is giving political communication advice and when someone is speaking on behalf of the public service or the GNWT.

All that being said, I've expressed this concern before. Can we have an update on when we will see a review of the different communications functions? I hear we are adding another person to communications, but I don't know if that necessarily improves communications without the roles and responsibilities and restructuring occurring. Can I have an update on the communications strategic planning work that is being done in EIA? Thank you, Madam Chair.