Thank you for helping us to understand these things.
The Supreme Court decisions in the Delgamuukw, Haida and Taku cases are not just about the duty to consult aboriginal groups. The actual point is to consult them and accommodate their demands, is it not?
I was a bit surprised to hear you continually talking about it as a duty to consult. That might be the federal way of framing it. In British Columbia, we always use those two words together; it's consult and accommodate. So I am trying to understand more what that means, and I know you've been wrestling with explaining to us, so I'm going to go back to my specific example, and that's the review panel of the Northern Gateway Pipelines project.
I would guess it has a strength of claim in terms of the numbers of aboriginal peoples' territories that this line will cross and that the transport of oil in the waters will impact. The interest is strong, and I think there could be an argument that the risk of adverse impact is strong. Can you just paint for us the picture of what might be adequate consultation and accommodation in a case like that?