That's a very good question. Thank you.
There seems to be some confusion among all the parties as to the level of detail required for environmental assessments with respect to some of the projects you mentioned and some of the changes that have been made. It's an evolving process. I think it's very important that we do continue to work hard to get it right, to be both effective and efficient, and as always, to garner public trust in the system.
At the Red Chris mine, for example, ultimately it went in a very positive way, having received a vast majority of support from the Tahltan First Nation.
I think there are opportunities to poison-proof things for sure, but there's a level of detail, a level of science required in any review in order to arrive at a basically well-educated outcome or decision. I think that's what's important to keep in mind with respect to an EA, and not to allow it necessarily to move into very highly detailed, very site-specific—what I would call—permit-level valuations. For the most part, those are the responsibility of the provinces or territories where these projects may exist.
I think I'll stop there. Thank you.