I think that's an ongoing question for the country of Canada—whether you have sufficient rights protection, as you call it, inside different pieces of legislation. I'm probably not best placed to judge whether that is the case.
I think I would put it this way. If you want to make Canada work effectively, and you want investors like us to invest in indigenous areas—and you need indigenous partners most of the time on almost all national projects—then you need to engage thoughtfully and early, and to have real dialogue and conversations. There's a phrase that's often used—lots of times consultation is that I'm pushing information at you. It's unidirectional. That's not really engagement. There has to be a back and forth, bidirectional. I would say there's a learning journey.
I'm positive on Bill C-5, mostly because I think there's an economic imperative for Canada to look at how its economy is structured and what needs to happen. We need to reframe economic institutions in Canada, which I think, frankly, are based on the colonial ideas that are 400 or 500 years old; the economic structures that most of the western world is working with. In there, if you really want to get work done, you need a business climate where people feel confident that they're going to move projects forward. In order to do that, they want to know that you've engaged. That doesn't really mean just in Canada with indigenous people—that's anywhere. If you want to do work in a municipality, you better engage the municipality in dialogue and action.
I can't speak to the rights protection, but I can speak about getting business done well and investing well. That requires talking to people frequently and deeply.
By the way, you get better, more resilient investments out of it as a result.