I guess whether you've been adequately consulted is in the eye of the beholder. I do know that with the areas we've closed.... I'd like to pick an example, simply because it's easier to visualize in my mind.
I'll go back to the Disko Fan conservation area in the north. That one started out with an existing narwhal “box”, as we called it, that was protecting the food for the narwhal. We thought that area would be a good candidate for other closures. We worked closely with the fishing industry, NGOs, and academia to help define the actual footprint. In this case we had a predefined geographic area that we can outline to say there are corals or sensitive bottom areas and there's a feeding area. From that perspective, yes, there was a preconceived image of the general area. But with feedback from the user groups, including the indigenous groups—because we ran this through the Nunavut wildlife boards and the Nunavik wildlife board—we were able to shape and define the footprint so that it would achieve its overall objective while still allowing for some economic and social activity that was...I guess, I would use the word, “compromised”. I don't know if that's the proper term. There was some give and take, shall we say. We arrived at a final area that was perhaps not satisfactory to everybody, depending on whom you ask, but it achieved the objective: it allowed the fishing industry to still carry out some of its objectives, and it met the indigenous objectives.
I think that would probably be an example of consultation that was effective. Even in that case there will be individuals who will come out of the woodwork to say, “I wasn't consulted”, or “My community wasn't consulted”, or “My fishing group wasn't consulted”. However, I think there was an opportunity for everyone to participate in the consultation. At some point there has to be a finite end date to the consultation process.
I don't know if my colleague would like to add anything to that.