Agreed that Part 2 has more "meat" than Part 1. However, Bob R. did not reveal anything that's really new to us. Everybody can talk about the environment, the effect of development on the pristine land, etc. But even leaving the mining development aside, a development of infrastructures such as road, rail, power corridor, cell towers, fiber-optics for internet access, for the benefit of the folks in the FN communities will change the land and will make the land less pristine.

There is a process called the Environmental Review which sometimes takes too long and may be held hostage by just a few objectors. But at least, there is a process to make sure that any development would create the least impact on the environment (perhaps a better word should be "acceptable impact"). This seems to be Bob R #1 priority, which is fine, as long as he would accept the fact that we need also to develop our resources to generate the cash for building the infrastructure to improve the living conditions of the folks in the isolated north. Governemnts simply cannot do this alone (spending the cash that they don't have) without the involvement of private sector. It's good to hear that Bob R was advocating "working together" "to be part of the solution", etc...

There are a lot of issues/facts of this multi-facet problem that Bob R. still has to hoist in. To be fair to him, he was just appointed as Chief negotiator of the 9 Mattawa communities, and perhaps the interview did not give him enough time to cover all key aspects. But I have a few observations:

- Bob R. only talked about the "road" for CLF. He did mentioned KWG, but did not mention the "rail option". Not sure if this was deliberate, or he has not done enough homework on the transportation corridor and options (private road, RR, or RR with a smaller servise roads, etc.)

- As a former (NDP) Premier of Ontario he must have known the situation the workers of the ONR are facing (potential layoff) and the plan they proposed (with the endorsement of KWG) to the Ontario Government not to divest the ONTC, but instead to transfer its holding to a proposed Federal Port Authority for this entity to build and operate the RR to the RoF, in addition to its current rail system. This is "killing two birds with one stone" (as indicated by a union official, head of the worker union?). The RR is one important option which should be front and centre in view of the recent ruling against CLF application for the easement over KWG claims (for building the RR).

- He did not mention the fact that the proposed road would be a private road for CLF with a reportedly matching fund from the Ont. Gov. (some $600M).

- He would need to study a lot more about the land to see which of the 9 FN communities would likely be affected by the mining activities. Depending on the terrain and the water flow in this watershed, there will be different effect on each community, some would probably not affected at all. The EA will address all this, but Bob R. must be prepared to discuss the details at the EA hearings, not just talk about the generalities.

IMO, as a Chief negotiator for the 9 FN communities he would have a good opportunity to "convince" the FN folks to take a reasonable approach for their negotiation with other key stakeholders on the following key topics: the environment, revenue sharing, job and training opportunities for the FN folks.

goldhunter