It might be something a federal government might well want to consider supporting, in terms of its research, its design, its improvement, and so on over time, as we seek to open the north in more remote areas.
Just hold your thought on that one. I appreciate your insight.
I'd like to go to another comment you made about due process. You say in your brief:
Due process can be used by the boards as a tool to stall an application. Public servants...
—“public servants”, you say—
...can, and do, use their office to promote personal agendas—such as an extreme environmentalist viewpoint, or as a platform to exert aboriginal rights.
Now, we had another witness come here several meetings ago, Mr. Donald Bubar, from Avalon Rare Metals. Mr. Bubar made similar comments, except he said that in his view, there was a very strong bias against developers, in the Northwest Territories context—very anti-development. I didn't have a chance to ask him whether he wanted the panel to be pro-development, and I'm assuming that's not what he was suggesting. Do you have any evidence, practical cases, when you claim that public servants are promoting personal agendas, such as “extreme environmentalist viewpoints” or “a platform to exert aboriginal rights”?
This is a very serious claim to make. It would be very helpful for us to know if that's case, as we struggle with this question of regulatory reform.