I think there are probably different answers for each of those communities as to exactly what went wrong, but the general theme to all of them is that there was a very poorly done consultation process. The one I'm most familiar with is KI in northern Ontario.
There was confusion about what consultation meant. I think different parties had different understandings of what that meant, and at the end of the day, the companies who were involved didn't satisfy the interests or needs of the communities, so the communities just said no. That set things back a long time, and it's going to be a very hard road to change opinions and change mindsets within those communities because they've had a bad experience.
I would say that, yes, the key thing is the duty to consult, but it has to go beyond that. There has to be a meaningful engagement with communities from very early stages. One of the comments we often get is the first explorer or the junior miner may make promises, which then the community remembers, but for the company that then buys three companies up the food chain, there's a challenge in remembering those promises, or even documenting those promises.
It is that element of having some of those IBAs, or whatever we're calling those agreements now, more transparent, more available. There's sometimes an unwillingness both by communities and by companies to share that potentially sensitive information, but I think there has to be a way to encourage that process so that this stuff is better preserved.