I want to go back, if I could, Mr. Sibbeston, to this question that I need your insight on again, which is about ownership. Your own company, if I understand it, is 51% owned in terms of equity participation.
It's not the first time I have asked questions around equity participation and ownership, and I often hear back that there's a wall there, and the wall is “capacity”. It's capacity. Aboriginal peoples, first nations folks, don't have the capacity to participate. I take that at face value, but I don't see that as an insurmountable obstacle.
Leaving aside capacity, if you wanted Dehcho leadership to participate in a major infrastructure project and own a fixed percentage of that, do you see any other obstacle? Access to capital might be one, but that's easily correctable, whether it's the proponent or the state or a bank—a third-party lender.
Leaving aside capital and capacity, what else is there that would stop first nations people from owning, say, part of Diavik? Why aren't aboriginal peoples in the immediate vicinity of Diavik owners of that diamond mine? As a lawyer, I see no legal impediment and no contractual impediment.
I see an unevenness in negotiation power. I see a reluctance on behalf of project proponents to open that door and let folks walk through it. Taking aside capacity, do you see any other impediments that would make it difficult or even impossible to say let's start having a serious conversation about ownership with folks?