“Give or take”. I like that.
Thank you to everyone who is here testifying today.
Of course, it's very lovely to see Mr. Nater in the chair and always nice to have a little change.
I think this comes back to a process question. In this committee, we've heard a lot about the fact that in the initial public input process, if people are content or don't have major concerns with it, they don't show up, and when there's a dramatic change, then people are very frustrated when they don't get an opportunity to respond to it. I think it is something this committee should take into consideration. How do we make sure people's voices are heard and that the process is clear enough so that people have time to respond in a meaningful way? The other issue that has come up several times, of course, is indigenous communities being consulted in a meaningful way.
I hope this committee will take a bit of time to discuss how we are engaging with the public on all the different needs they have, and how we ensure the process doesn't fall apart later on and leave this committee in a place where we're trying to navigate these systems and information, maybe without all of the relevant information.
I'll move on to questions.
I have no questions for Mr. Van Popta or Madam Findlay. I have no problem with the interventions you've brought forward and will be happy to support them moving forward.
I have a question for Mr. Julian and Ms. Zarrillo, if there's interest in responding.
What I've heard very clearly is that there are key interests of communities that have connections to services in the community, and communities are completely being removed. It doesn't seem to make a lot of sense. I'm wondering, where did this come from? In the public hearings, were there actually people who said, “We want to take this community out of this community”? It doesn't seem to make sense. Could you provide any clarity, Ms. Zarrillo or Mr. Julian?