Thank you, Madam Chairperson. I am not really sure what the Premier said. I heard the part about spending a lot of money. I guess they are going to get more legal advice. Anyway, I hope it is not equivalent to the legal advice that said that the Summit members would be able to get leave to appeal, because that was dead wrong.
On the spending of money, I do not imagine that this government would not be able to spend any money, because they would have to make legal presentations if this was going to proceed. I suspect they would anyway because they have a fiduciary obligation to protect the interests of aboriginal people, and they could not leave such a ruling that is so -- I cannot find the right word. It is not really clear, I guess. It is not clearly worded. It is an obligation on this government to clarify this issue because we do have a fiduciary obligation to protect the interests of aboriginal people. We cannot allow future lower courts to follow an improper interpretation of Justice de Weerdt's comments, if it is improper. It is very easy to take it that way, that those sections should not be read together. I cannot say that voting in favour of this motion would not incur money, because I do not see how they could do it unless they urge the federal government to do it, but then they did not make any presentation themselves. I would expect that we would make a presentation but it would likely cost money. Thank you.