That is correct. What we are saying is we want to ensure that there will not be a continual cost as it relates to the territorial coffers, for the sake of a better word. We also have to remember that there are additional O and M costs attached to some of these buildings. That is what we are saying. We are not trying to be unduly harsh, but it should be the exception and it should be as you have suggested. I would suspect that if a community came on the front end and demonstrated its ability to find funding from other sources and put forward a strong case, that we would be sympathetic. But there is a bit of a concern within the standing committee on finance that if we proceed with this as a matter of course, that ultimately it could cost us money; and frankly, it is unfair to some of the communities that cannot.