Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do not see the issue anywhere here in the interim appropriation, but it is always good to revisit larger issues from time to time. There is no question that we have a morale problem in the department. We had a lot of uncertainty when we first set up the department. Some felt we were constitutionally incapable of balancing, in a fair way, environmental concerns with wildlife concerns with interest in developing the economy, creating jobs, getting diamond mines to open and operate. But I think that we have dispelled that, and not through grandiose statements, but by the fact that BHP Diamonds is operating a mine, and Diavik is hopefully on its way to realizing that.
We have also shown the commitment to handle environmental issues and wildlife issues. This has been well done. We are currently setting up to do a huge undertaking in writing up the Wildlife Act, as no one has tackled that in over twenty years. We have successfully completed a Protected Areas Strategy, and we have, I like to think successfully, to date managed to get a substantial benefit out of diamonds that was not made readily available in the beginning.
Again, we have done that through a one-department approach. So the argument can be made that there is a substantial reason to believe that the idea of putting the environment, the wildlife, the economic initiatives under one department was a wise one, and it has substantially benefited this government and the people in the regions and communities. That is truly what I believe.
In any case, if there was some possible merit in thinking that we would be better served to have two or three departments again, we have even less money than we did a number of years ago. So there is no way that we can ever get Members, like the Member for Thebacha, to agree that we should create more jobs at the headquarters level, and proliferation of the bureaucracy would meet with very staunch opposition. I happen to disagree with the Member. Thank you.