Is there any reason why the Minister of Justice couldn't answer that today considering he's literally a very good folded paper plane throws' away? I mean, I could, you know -- I mean, he's right in front of me. Is there any reason he couldn't answer that question?

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. For the approval process, it would be nice to know because, I mean, the government brings forward what they decide to accept to fund but, you know, there's no input on the Members with respect to these types of things. So in other words, if the RCMP institution said we need, for example 18, and the government said we'll fund nine through partnership obviously, all we know is the nine that has been funded, and you're not hearing from the Members or input from the Members saying no, no, no, we would like to see the 18 because, for example, there might be more needed based on the needs prescribed by the RCMP, not Members. Again, Members aren't in this position of staffing or pointing out where RCMP people should go. But, you know, be excited to hear that those needs are being met. I mean, we are well aware of what happened today, or most of us are aware of what happened today in Tsiigehtchic, and we can understand the strain of the resources, you know, be it the support services in the regional centres. So that's why it's kind of nice to know what their request was and are we meeting their needs as well, which are the people of the Northwest Territories. Thank you.

Okay. So these are permanent moving forward positions, and the Minister said she'd get back to us with respect to if they're currently staffed or not staffed in that sense.

The other aspect of questioning here is if we're staffing nine new positions, that's great. That said, how many have been requested? And I assume these are the nine that are proved moving forward. So how many in total have been requested? And obviously the difference is the number that are unfunded or not being funded. Thank you.

Are they currently staffed or anticipated to be staffed? I know it's this year fiscal money, but I also am aware it's very difficult to get boots on the ground in that industry considering the shortage, so I'm curious if they're actually in the position or are they anticipated to be funded for this fiscal year?

It's okay. No, thank you, I think I understood it now. It's this $841,000 is intended to pay our 48 percent of the overall funding for that fiscal year for the nine new members. And I'm seeing a nod. That's fine, okay.

That said, are these permanent positions, just to clarify moving forward? Thank you.

Our scribbles on the House, Mr. Chairman, that didn't have the one with Fort Simpson. Now we all reconcile is nine on this and we're all on the same page.

If the Minister could just elaborate a little clearly -- further that is, the $841,000 is for the 2023-2024 budget, if that represents five, and just to reaffirm the ratio of 52 to 48; I'm assuming we pay the 48? Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just wanted to follow up ever so briefly on that. It looks like we're missing a -- the Minister may have said it, but we got Aklavik, Dettah, Fort Good Hope, two in Fort Smith, one KDFN, one for Whati, and one for Fort McPherson. That gives us eight. Did we miss one, or is it actually eight members? That's the first question.

No, I'm okay, Mr. Chairman. I just was just trying to follow the money. Thank you.

So just a -- and I understand that. I just -- it sounds like at one way that there's money already committed to this initiative and this is just backfilling it in some way. And so that's why I'm curious on how the process is working specifically to this because if people are interested in -- sorry, I wouldn't use interest. I'd say if people still need support and if the program is still open or not open, if it's receiving money or it's spent or they're backfilling or overspent, that's the type of clarification I'm trying to (audio). So if there's still room for applications, I think I sort of heard that, and I also think I sort of heard that one needs to apply through SEED. If I'm incorrect, the Minister's certainly welcome to fix that. Thank you.