I would suggest that the budget that we bring before the House and its component pieces with the various departments and the $1.5 billion we do have captures what money we have available to deal with the pressures. We have identified, for example, in terms of infrastructure, we have about a $3 billion infrastructure debt that we build up for various reasons. A lot of that is going to be to deal with some of the issues that are tied directly to climate change.

There’s a clear line relationship. We have $1.5 billion in the government to manage. We know that there are things that we could easily spend that money on and more, just on infrastructure, let alone all the program needs. I think that is the litmus test. That is where you capture the money.

We could say and we could build or pull together projections and say we need $10 billion if we wanted to put solar in every community and we want to expand all the hydro, we wanted to do all the other work that needs to be done in Inuvik with the gas, and Norman Wells with their situation. Is that attributable to climate change and is that a place where we want to spend all of our time and energy arguing over that, or do we want to actually stay focused on the ground in terms of limiting our emissions and the practical application of all the programs we’ve put in place over the last number of years? Thank you.