Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I want to thank our witnesses for being with us today.
Ms. Gardner, I'd like to start with you. Here at committee, we've had some different testimony, or varying testimony, on your report. I don't know if you've followed the testimony or not, but I'll refer you to two witnesses and the different ways in which they saw your report.
Duane McMullen, who is with Global Affairs Canada, referenced your findings. He said that the report named nine projects with incidents from 2014 or later, and that it was nine out of the 930 projects that they were aware of in Latin America. He said that of those nine, one was a project sold to the Chinese, three were mineworkers or subcontractors, and two were arrests and violence.
He stated:
In no specific case was a specific allegation made against a Canadian company, nor did the report state that the Canadian company caused the incidents in question. Instead, the report referred to very complex and difficult cases in these nine projects.
Then we had Jeffery Webber from Queen Mary University of London. He did reference the report as evidence of systemic conflict associated with Canadian mining projects.
I'm just wondering which of those are.... Where do you find yourself, in the middle of those interpretations? Which of them is an accurate reading of your report?