Thank you very much for this question, because it's one I'd like to address specifically. The government has recently taken some very positive steps with the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act to put some timeframe parameters on the review of projects. However, when those changes to CEAA were made, they excluded projects under the review of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission and the Energy Board.
To us in Saskatchewan that meant those improvements that included timeliness and predictability of process did not apply to our uranium mine project. So we would like to see some parity between the uranium mine project and the other mines. We've seen some improvements, but we'd like to have them across the board.
The other example is the Species at Risk Act. It is threatening development in the very areas you're looking at in northern Saskatchewan and the Northwest Territories. The current flawed recovery strategy would not allow any future disturbance in these areas, and disturbance includes fire, roads, power infrastructure, forestry, and any land clearing. It's not only a concern for natural resource development; it's a concern for community growth and viability themselves.
So there are two very specific examples—the Species At Risk Act and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act—and having them applied across all projects.