You know, we have had a lot of discussions in this House about where infrastructure money should go, and a lot of people believe that it should go to education, health, and housing infrastructure.

When we go down to these meetings with our federal colleagues and provincial and territorial colleagues, the criteria is clearly laid out. The federal government has said that our bilaterals are for green infrastructure; public transit; social infrastructure, which is community, culture, and recreational bilateral; rural northern communities; and Arctic Energy Fund. That is the criteria that I have to work with.

When my fellow colleagues go down, they have to lobby for their own pots of money, be it health, the ones I just laid out, and there are federal engagements on those, and they have their own pots of money.

A lot of people, and particularly this Member, thinks that there is a lot of money in this program for social infrastructure, and there isn't. The criteria is clearly laid out by the federal government. We had to line up, as I said, our mandate, our 20-year capital needs, the priorities of this Legislative Assembly, and work with the criteria the federal government gives us to try to access these dollars.

Now, I'm not saying that we don't go down there and argue for some stuff. We are continually down there trying to fight for every dollar we can get, and, thankfully to Minister Sohi when we signed our bilateral, between myself and the finance minister, he clearly listened to us that we don't want it on a per capita basis. We want it base-funding plus, and he did that. We got more money than the Yukon, Nunavut, and PEI. We did very well on our bilaterals, but there seems to be this notion that we can just take these pots of money, there's $570 million, and spread it around the Northwest Territories where we want, and we can't. That's not how this program works. We have to work within what they have laid out, and we will continue to do that. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.