Thank you. It's an excellent question.
I'll note initially that this sort of evidence will generally be heard by an independent panel of the board, in the context of a specific project. That's a very key element of how the National Energy Board would handle that.
I'll note also that in our context we're talking about linear infrastructure that may cover thousands of kilometres and hundreds of territories, traditional territories and first nations. I think you're quite right that the story a panel may hear from elders and knowledge keepers will reflect that diversity and complexity.
The other thing that I think may be helpful here is that the National Energy Board, as the life-cycle regulator, has the power to compel or ensure that a project is designed in a way that protects the interests that the panel is hearing about and understanding. In one sense that's often first nations and indigenous interest in the land and water, things like traditional medicines and plants. A lot of those are handled through fairly well-understood routing and mitigation kinds of concerns. Proponents, particularly because the proponents are out there early doing this kind of thing—they're on the ground, often walking the route with elders and getting that knowledge first-hand—some of that doesn't even come to the regulator because it's proprietary at the level of a nation. A lot of those things, where it can be done, are sorted out through routing and avoidance. It's inevitable that—