Thank you very much to all of our witnesses for appearing here today.
My question is for all of you, because all of you referenced the right to substitute that is articulated in proposed section 31 of the bill. You have already noted that it's actually the minister's discretion on whether a substitution will be permitted. A number of your organizations already have agreements in place that have been there for quite a number of years. You've been operating under those. Now there's another process that you're being expected to accommodate somehow.
I believe either Ms. Darling or Ms. Lam referred to “parallel” systems. You have the Inuvialuit Final Agreement in place. Now you have Bill C-69 also, running parallel to that process. I believe one of you articulated that you're concerned that this was a discretionary power on the part of the minister whether to allow the local process to substitute for the impact assessment process set out in Bill C-69.
My first question is for all of you. In your consultations with the government leading up to Bill C-69, did you apprise them of this concern, and did they acknowledge that this was an issue that needed to be dealt with? Second, can you more broadly comment on how this parallel system is still going to challenge your ability to have, effectively, a full say in what kind of development happens in your region?