It's a fascinating question, and I appreciate Ms. Cobden's answer. I too share the belief that the economics have to support it.
In the case of aboriginal communities, however, I think there's a role in accessing the actual idea, and in the actual technology as it is proven coming out the gate.
I go back to the Oujé-Bougamou example. That was a regional heating option that was put on the plate 20 years ago, and it hasn't been followed up on. The aboriginal regional heating policy piece has been in various government documents from that time, but the budget going into supporting it has not been there.
This is where we see a critical gap for the aboriginal forest sector. What you would have with the aboriginal forest sector and aboriginal communities is a real democratizing of the technology, not so much on the large pulp and paper green transformation front, but on the microsizing of this technology to make it work for communities in the rural context. There's a little creativity and some room there.
This is what I would ask members of the committee to think about. Those areas have been in government policy, but they have not been supported to the same degree.
I think what you'll find is that the messenger matters in this. It should be first nations trade associations, which are made up of the business community and which actually have an interface with the decision-makers in the communities, so that there's a separation of business so that the economics can win out. That's the magic mix we're locating on and would advocate for.