It will; it's bound to be.
The chair gave it away. I am the member of Parliament for Yukon. I'm looking at the map here, and there are lots of triangles and blue dots and red dots, none of which exist in the territories. Nunavut I think I understand, but in Yukon, of course, about 57% of the territory is covered with boreal forest. That represents about 281,000 square kilometres of forested land, with white spruce and lodgepole pine. That tends to create a pretty close-knit, hard-grained timber, and that's good, but obviously there's not a lot of stock up there. Market access is a bit of a challenge.
We went through an experience of devolution 10-plus years ago now. The federal government had forest management control at that time. The Northwest Territories has just gone through that. Nunavut's outstanding, although there's not much in the way of forest there. In terms of the two territories, is there a federal forestry approach? Is there anything left outstanding in the Northwest Territories in terms of devolving forestry control, or is that done? Is there a specific look at territorially based involvement of the federal government from a territory forestry strategy?