Mahsi, Mr. Chair. I will probably not even be voting on this motion. I haven't really decided yet, but I would like to hear everybody's arguments here. I know they are all good ones and they do all have a lot of weight that we have to consider. What I look at also is basically these are intervener positions and resource development impact advisor positions, pipeline positions, whatever you want to call them, whatever title you want to give them, basically they are all pipeline driven. To me, the pipeline is not anywhere in the near future anymore. It is a couple or three years down the road. We do have a pipeline impact office that is supposed to, and should be I would think, doing all of this kind of resource development impact advisory role for the regions up and down the valley. On the flip side, there is all the federal government funding that has been thrown in the regions up and down the valley to deal with the socio-economic impacts, resource development impacts and everything else that is going to be following with the pipeline. The federal government is doling out lots of money for that with this government included. There is also a lot of money sitting on the sidelines should that pipeline get the go ahead. There is around $500 million that the federal government has sidelined for socio-economic impacts. So all of these things, we put them all in one pot, that is a lot of impact advisory dollars and stuff like that. To me, just throwing an extra $300,000, I know it is not a whole lot of money when you look at the big picture, but I have to agree with some things that Mr. Braden was saying. Your value for money and this one is really hard to swallow. I understand Mr. Yakeleya's point of view. Sometimes the regions need the assistance and they need the advice of experts in resource development. But on the flip side also, sometimes the regions come out at the end of the day and say, gee whiz, we weren't given the right advice. We should have done it on our own. We didn't want it that way. Why is the government making decisions for us? There are always two sides to every argument on this one here.

I like to look at it on a human resource side of things that this government has. We have a lot of human resources out there and so do the communities. I would rather see maybe some of this money going right to the community level and saying, well, you give us an inventory of what you have in the community. I am sure they can pump it out in one day. I am sure a band manager or a community settlement manager can come back to MACA in one day and tell them everything about the community that they have and the people that they have available for resource development or what they should be doing to mitigate the impacts of resource development. That, for me, is a really tough call. I understand MACA's point of view too, that this has already been developed, researched and looked at. This is the conclusion that they have come to, but, again, it seems like this human resource growth in public service is just steamrolling ahead. It seems like we are getting ahead of ourselves in just hiring and hiring, like Mr. Ramsay said, knee-jerk reactions to needs that I think we should do some reprofiling and reassessing of exactly what those needs might be and how we can use the people at the community level more to address their own concerns as opposed to hiring somebody from wherever to go into communities and tell them what they should do or not do.

With that, I will just be reserving my decision until the vote. Thank you, Mr. Chair.