Mr. Chairman, the issue of this funding, first let me just say this, that we have just started to see the forced growth pressures of fuel costs and we haven't even really budgeted for it in any fixed number. But with the price of oil at $55 a barrel, before winter's end our costs are going to be going up significantly as a government. In the case of the Inuvik facility, it was a new facility, there were estimates in terms of what it was going to cost and we had to prove what the costs were going to be to get funding. Normally funding is not given out on projections. Normally it's based on what your costs are, especially this forced growth and in this case Inuvik carried the cost and it ran a deficit, but until
we could demonstrate what the actual costs are for this new facility and as we heard the discussion for any number of reasons the costs were significantly higher. We've dealt with other authorities with deficits as well, where we've come back where there's been a legitimate forced growth that we could demonstrate and prove to FMBS and we've got funding. We expect it to live within their budget costs for normal operations, but when there are circumstances that either increase patient use, or things like meningitis outbreaks, TB outbreaks or this kind of demonstrated hard costs, then we can make the case and quantify it. It doesn't negate the issue of how did we manage to be so far off on the estimates. But that is the process that we've followed here. It's not a special deal for Inuvik, it's dealing with a legitimate, proven, demonstrated cost. How that cost resulted is clearly a subject of debate, but we have the numbers to show from power and utilities that these costs are the real costs. Thank you.