If I understand the question correctly, the work we’ve done around self-government financing in fact has shown and has been endorsed by the negotiators at the table that are involved in that to help them as we prepare our way forward, and then we’re working on trying to come up with a package of how we would advance this to the federal government. Ultimately, when it comes to the self-government financing, it is the fiduciary responsibility of the federal government. Although, for example, when an agreement is signed and it draws down a certain jurisdiction that we have as a GNWT, whether its transportation or housing or one of the programs we deliver, they would draw that down on the delivery based on today’s expenditures, for example, and the program as it exists and once they take it over they could redesign, but that dollar value is the same. It does not enhance it, because we don’t have that ability as a GNWT and that is sort of the work around the self-government financing piece, because the capacity issue is one that’s being dealt with. We’ve agreed, for example, in earlier discussions around devolution and resource revenue sharing, that we would use some of those benefits of resource return from the investment on resource revenues to help with the capacity side as a GNWT, but that still falls short of what would actually be required. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.