Thank you, Madam Chair. So, Madam Chair, again, the total project cost isn't the total necessarily that the GNWT's paid for it. I am providing the total project cost as an estimate. But, again, I'm somewhat constrained because it wasn't a total project cost by the GNWT. It was paid for by this other entity. That's the nature of having a P3 partner design and build a project and deliver it. And they ran into some significant issues in the course of that project, which we didn't then have to have the risk for. So the claim that was made and the settlement that was reached, as in the case of many claims and settlements, started at a different point and had to go to a mediated process in order to reach a conclusion, which is what brings me here at $27 million on almost $200 million project is the resolution that is before committee right now. But, again, it is not the total cost of the project, nor is it reflective necessarily of what the GNWT's portion would have been.

The ability to undertake a fairly technical delivery and a very technical procurement and project delivery on a fibre line running up the value is not one that I would suggest, frankly, and with respect that the GNWT has the technical expertise to deliver upon. So it's a matter of paying upfront to have a third party come and do it or having them engage in some risk to deliver on it. Thank you, Madam Chair.