Thank you.
Those are very important questions, but I'd like to distinguish between those kinds of questions with respect to first nations that arise because of previous developments. There are legacies of poor engagement. On Chalk River, I'm afraid that I don't know enough to say whether that's the case.
We have to remember that in the past, of course—and this is the case in northern Saskatchewan—uranium mining was undertaken very quickly as a matter of national security in the 1940s and 1950s, and it took a very long time for that legacy to be overcome, but I have to say that Cameco is a world leader in indigenous engagement, and it shows that it is in fact possible to remedy the mistakes of the past and to regain trust from indigenous people.
New projects with SMRs I think are interesting. Some of the work we've done that has been funded by the Fedoruk centre has suggested actually some very significant interest from indigenous people in terms of the energy poverty and energy insecurity that many of those indigenous nations encounter on a daily basis, but they wish to understand more about the technology first. They wish to know exactly what they're getting themselves into and they wish to know, as you say, answers to questions like what's going to happen to this material when it's spent and what's going to happen to the installation if it has to be taken away and so on.
Those are questions that people are attempting to answer, but (a) we shouldn't take our eye off the ball here, and, second, I do think that this is a really important role for the federal government in Canada: to try to make sure that those consultations happen and that appropriate consent is asked for and given.