Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I, too, will not be supporting the bill in its present form. I understand that this is in principle, and I understand that the spirit and the intent of this bill is to protect the forest. The forest legislation proposes, of course, a regulatory system, and we have been told that it is a framework that will basically guide any form of development related to forestry in the NWT.

As everybody is aware, devolution changed things. I think that the whole idea behind devolution is that we are at that age where we could be responsible for our lands and resources. There are various legislations that need to be mirrored, and it could be just simply a cut-and-paste program, or else you take a very extensive approach to consultation and build approaches from the grassroots up. In this case, there are two efforts. There is the forest management and the non-timber forest products that have to be merged in one legislation.

In one section, we have an industrial interest for forest products at this point. An example is biomass or wood pellets, as an example, but there is still a prevailing interest of Indigenous people to go into the bush, you know, without hassle, without harassment, to cut wood and be able to heat their homes and cook their food and warm their children. Provisions like that should be reflective of future legislation.

In understanding consultations, I understand that it is supposed to be collaborative, and it is supposed to, at the end of the process, be a co-management system. At this point, with the draft that we have, do we have a co-management system? No, we don't. Mahsi.