Thank you. I recognize that the previous standing committee on finance did recommend this; however, we have a new standing committee on finance, and it might want to take a different position. I guess that is the one point I want to make. Let me try again. I guess my concern would be, it seems to me these two essential services are ones that we all need, and a reflection of the charge-back is a reflection of the way in which they run -- the cost of producing the product, whether it is petroleum or whatever. It is my understanding, and somebody correct me if I am wrong, that a subsidization program is in place, particularly with the purchase of fuel, et cetera. I have some difficulty in understanding, if we put it into an independent power corporation, given that we require petroleum products almost 12 months of the year and it is an essential service, it seems to me that it is putting a tremendous amount of clout in one particular group of directors or one particular corporation. I am not sure that is in the best interests of the public and I am not sure it is in the best interest of the Eastern Arctic. Cost savings are important, and I do recognize that, and there is a way, perhaps, in which we could amalgamate bulk fuel purchasing; but I have not heard a convincing argument yet, especially in my northern health discussions, that the NWT Power Corporation is going to be able to run it any more efficiently or less efficiently than what it currently is.