Thank you, Mr. Chair. In recognition of the clock here, also, that is ticking away, I will just mention in the pre-devolution area over the years and the post-devolution area, we are at a milestone developing this post legislation here which really, really reflects a system that is and has been through the engagement session.

Now, to tweak what is existing, I think that this is kind of where we are at, when I look and hear some of the comments being made. It may not be the perfect system here on the post-devolution side of things, but it gives us identification for where room for improvement can be sought.

In the case of the Sahtu secretariat, what is really stopping that organization from going back to the IGC and saying, "Okay, right here, this is my recommendation on improvements to the existing system so that it is more effective"? We can say, "Okay, here is notification." What is notification? "I haven't been notified," or "I want you to notify my co-management structure within the Sahtu land claim." Could that be a phone call? Could that be an e-mail? Could that be a fax? There are a number of identification ways to ensure that, but to legislate that, I think, gets to the point where it doesn't give a lot of flexibility to the government to move in that area of reconciliation, which I think is the overall goal. Otherwise, we won't have an area of pre-devolution and a strengthening process of administration moving forward in a post-devolution area. This is kind of a timely process as we are going through modernization of land claims.

I just summarized all that up here. I am satisfied with the current system, the status quo, and I don't see myself supporting this motion. Thank you, Mr. Chair.