Thank you, Mr. Chair. No, and it's not. I think that that's actually -- it's a good question, and it's one that -- it's important, actually, that they not be conflated, I'd suggest, in that we still want to be able to go to the federal government, particularly with the nation building scale work, the kind of infrastructure that provinces, you know, arguably not taken for granted in an expressed way but have and have at their avail that were built, whether it's a national railway, whether it's a national highway, whether it's capital level airports, ports, you know, pipelines, whatever it might be, the North as a whole has significantly of it, and what we have was built 60 years ago and hasn't necessarily been maintained. And some of the responsibility for that gets downloaded to the GNWT over time while still not necessarily having the front end of revenues available to us to do the upkeep and with -- and now morphs perhaps into a bit of a conversation about territorial formula financing and just how much of that upkeep is built into that or not, but it's definitely not the idea of having a borrowing limit to take on a reasonable and manageable amount of debt, which, again, we are still servicing that debt in a reasonable comparison to revenues. That is different from going to the federal government to say we have nation scale projects that we want you to be involved in at the table. So I definitely want to keep the two of them separate. Thank you.