For the Nautilus project, the company was based in Vancouver at one point, then Toronto, so there's some Canadian mining interests in it. I think Barrick might have some interest in the project. I'm not very clear about how the corporate conglomerate is comprised, but the project has proceeded. There have been a number of questions locally along the coast of Papua New Guinea regarding civic engagement. Many of the people do not feel listened to.
It's the same old situation where Nautilus, the company, has gone through selected individuals to pay to then purport that the project is okay, that it will not cause any damage. In my view, they've co-opted the government process there, and in developing countries, it's quite easy.
Actually, in developed countries, in the United States, it's quite easy for these very savvy extractive industry companies to co-opt the government process. It's even easier for these companies to do so in governments in developing countries, such as in Papua New Guinea. It's easy to corrupt. It's easy to bribe. It's easy to co-opt process and that's what's gone on there.
I don't think the environmental impact statement.... I wrote a long technical review of it and it simply is not fit to purpose.... If Bill C-300were in place, the local people in Papua New Guinea, could file a complaint that transparency, civic engagement, and free prior and informed consent have not been achieved, and they do not have the social licence to operate yet. Then your ministers would take a look at that and assert that either those claims are valid or they're not, and then propose mitigation for such.
I also wanted to mention on the question you asked—
