I'd like to thank the witnesses for coming and for this very compelling testimony. It has sparked my interest in numerous areas, but in particular I'd like to start with Mr. Ross.
Mr. Ross, you started out by saying how you saw agreements being interpreted by the courts—from Haida on down the line to where we are now—through a section 35 lens. You're trying to understand how free, prior and informed consent under UNDRIP fits in. I tend to see the issue a little more like you do—that these agreements and the duty to consult and accommodate will be looked at more through the section 35 lens.
I note the language of the more recent cases and how the courts are telling us to grapple with issues that come up from indigenous peoples in their negotiations on what an energy project would look like.
Did LNG Canada, in your view, take suggestions from the community, then change its plans and move forward? What did that look like? You said it's successful in your view, but were there instances where it had to go back and forth a number of times?