Certainly.
I would say that, with the on-the-land initiative for Kashechewan, certainly COVID was a factor, but it was not the only factor. The nation's leadership and community members were very interested, from a cultural perspective, in doing that on-the-land piece. Getting back to some of the previous questions, it is a more cost-effective way, beyond how fantastic it has been from a cultural and safety perspective. The numbers we've seen there are now about $140 per person per day for that on-the-land initiative versus $235 per day when they were evacuated to host communities like Thunder Bay. That's a tangible piece that we are able to then redirect and, as folks have said, move towards prevention as opposed to continuing down the recovery path.
I'll just note that there were questions earlier about previous audits. After the 2013 audit.... Before that, the emergency management program was very much only a recovery-based program. That 2013 audit sparked a discussion around the four pillars of emergency management. This is how we've been able to do these types of projects with nations like Kashechewan that are at risk. They are at risk every year and are looking to find ways beyond diking, because there is a dike there, but it creates within the community kind of a dust bowl effect.
We're working with the community and working with the province to make sure that we're finding ways by which people can be safe but can also explore that cultural piece so that it is not just about an evacuation but also building on other pieces that are important to the community.
Thank you.