We have already signed impact and benefit agreements with two first nations, and under each agreement the relevant first nation participates in the projects for revenue sharing. So it's effectively, if you want to call it that, a type of royalty arrangement whereby a portion of the profit or of the revenue accrues to the first nation. It is necessary to have impact and benefit agreements, and under those agreements it has now become the norm to include revenue sharing or financial participation to secure the support of the relevant first nation. This support is essential to get a project permitted in the Northwest Territories.
The permitting system in the Northwest Territories is a co-management system. The boards are quasi-judicial. Because they're quasi-judicial, they're not like government agencies or departments. They're semi-independent and get their own legal advice. They do not respond to any federal authority, and as such, because they're a co-management system, they tend to be pro-environment.
Contrary to what you suggest, I would argue they should be pro-development. The purpose of the board is to issue permits, not to stop them being issued. I'm suggesting there needs to be a champion to negative the anti-development argument. The ministry of mines and economic development needs to be there as an advocate for development and for mine projects to counter the dominance of the environmental argument and the anti-argument.