Thank you for the question.
There are a number of things that certainly added complexity to the project. One of them was the project decision being overturned by the court and the government needing to reconsider the project. In the reconsideration of the project, the government had to instruct the Canada Energy Regulator to re-examine the marine shipping, the environmental and safety aspects and all of the different components of the regulatory decision-making on the pipeline. At the same time, the court told the government it had not adequately consulted with indigenous peoples. The government had to reconstitute its consultation team to work and meaningfully engage and consult with indigenous peoples along the route of the pipeline.
Those things took more time because they added, I think, nine months' worth of examination by the CER, and it was close to 10 months, perhaps, for the government to reconsider indigenous consultation. Those two things happened in parallel. Doing so required a more thorough assessment of a number of the elements.
Of course, those come with benefits and they come with costs. The benefits would be a much more significant examination of marine shipping and the impacts of the proposed tanker traffic in the Salish Sea and the port of metro Vancouver area. There were much more sophisticated examinations on emergencies, species and a number of features.
At the same time, the consultations with the indigenous groups—128 of which happened with a team of federal officials from the Department of Natural Resources, Justice, Environment and Climate Change and Fisheries and Oceans—examined all of the different components that were raised as concerns by indigenous peoples.
Both of those things are examples of how it took more time and there was some regulatory uncertainty.
At the same time, the Province of British Columbia at the time had said it was opposed to the pipeline and wanted and expected a very different outcome. That was supplemented by the work the government did, as well as the consultations of indigenous peoples. It is something we've now carried on in other large, major projects, looking at that consultation using the benchmark the Federal Court of Appeal had, which was a meaningful and engaged two-way dialogue with indigenous peoples. That's been an important part of the reconciliation path for the federal government with respect to section 35 rights.