Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I find this a very enlightening conversation. I thank you both very much for your presentations. Maybe both of you can reflect on this. Perhaps you might say there are two norths in a way. There is the one north where you have first nations who have signed treaties and have settled land claims. That's where we have heard from other companies, including your own, where the work seems to get done and where you can go through the permitting process a little faster. You can build relationships, there is co-management, or companies like your own are able to operate in these areas.
But on the other side we have a very different north. That is where we don't have any treaties, or with first nations we have treaties and we have disputed land claims. Essentially, that seems to be the main place where the hang-ups are. Maybe I'm mistaken here. I guess it comes back to the Constitution, of course, under which, in section 35, first nations have rights that are protected. And where there is clouded title on lands, there has to be—in my mind anyway—a government-to-government negotiation on how those settlements are going to go forward. It's not simply just moving land from, say, under the jurisdiction of INAC to Natural Resources. It's actually getting down to the fundamentals of who is in control of the land.
I see you nodding, Mr. Sibbeston. Could I perhaps—and Mr. Gemmer after—have your comments on that thought?