My understanding is that the Canadian version is more formal, has stricter guidelines and, in a lot of ways, reflects best practice. At the same time, in the U.S. consultation, I think the agencies are given a lot more leeway to act in the interest of the project and the people, in a way that doesn't feel formal but is innovative and responsive.
There is some version of those two systems that might feel better to communities, such that it doesn't feel like you're checking a box and you do feel meaningfully engaged. That's less often about reimbursement, but it might be more about the capacity to be engaged.
Fatigue is having to come back every month or every day to respond to multiple industry partners and multiple agencies. I think there are 14 to 20 different U.S. federal agencies working on Arctic issues. In terms of the number of requests in that regard, to the extent that those can be streamlined, that would reflect a best practice. Ultimately, it's a question of whether that community sees benefits from the process.
I spoke earlier about the conflict within, and a moratorium or not. Groups that are often intent on restricting development are the most likely not to see benefits from the project, and groups that support development see that benefit accrue to their community.
Consultation needs to be structured in such a way that communities do see benefits, do feel respected, and that there are efficiencies and effectiveness within that consultation that reflect their time and their interests.