Thank you.
I won't profess to critique or be an expert in the Canadian strategy on critical minerals, but I will say that something we've seen in a lot of places—not just the United States, which I know very well, or Europe, which I also know very well—is that we have a tendency to think about the energy transition and trying to enable the final products that we want. We want solar or wind or electric vehicles, but we neglect to think about the supply chain that will enable those final products. We give a subsidy if you install a solar panel or a wind turbine or if you buy an electric car, but we don't have the same amount of industrial focus to make sure the rest of the chain is built either in the country or in allied countries.
I think that has been a deficiency in multiple countries, with the exception of maybe Australia, which is a major producer of a lot of these critical minerals. That is one area of attention.
The second area of attention, of course, is finding the right balance between local populations—especially first nations in the case of Canada or aboriginals in the case of Australia—and foreign investors for high environmental standards. Doing that has been trickier in the west than in some of the places that maybe don't adhere to the same kinds of standards we would like them to adhere to. That, I think, is another area for critical government work: to try to make sure we can raise standards, but not to do so at the expense of ever producing anything, which is sometimes where we may end up.