I can express what we've gone through. Site C is a prime example. We were never opposed to the development of the energy. What we were opposed to was the means of creating the energy: Site C, the flooding of the last chunk of the Peace River Valley we had. We were never given the opportunity to have that discussion. Free, prior, and informed consent, for us, is to be sitting at the table before the decision is made. They made their decision to build Site C, and then came and talked to us. That becomes a mitigative process. They've already decided they're going to do the project. We had no other choice at that point in time. Now we find ourselves in court trying to stop this thing. There are proven alternatives to this project that we never had a chance to have a talk about, that are now identified as being better solutions than Site C was.
I agree that FPIC depends on the project. It's not a veto. But Site C was not a good project, is not a good project, not by any means. It's been proven that it's probably the worst thing that we could be doing, but we never got a chance to sit down and talk about that. We were told, “We're building Site C. What are your concerns? We'll take them into consideration.”