I'd like to speak in support of this particular amendment because, again, it was one of the areas in which there was a lot of debate, not only in the public forums that we held in Yukon but also in many of the individual meetings that we held with stakeholders in that area. Again, I want to get back to the piece regarding significant change and the fact that it has not been defined in the act and that it really is open to interpretation, which could be very wide-scaled in many cases.
The other piece to this was when they talked about renewing or amending an original project. In lots of cases, circumstances change. We live in the north where we're going through things like climate change. We're going through a lot of environmental changes that could have an impact on different projects at different stages. So sometimes it doesn't have to be significant for it to have tremendous impact and require consultation.
I think the amendment really allows for more flexibility and for more input by people who live in that area, so that they will be able to express their concerns and review at certain points in time where a project may be and what the impact of that project could be in the area where they live.
I don't think the intent of the amendment is to slow development in any way. I don't think the intent is to cause grief to any of the companies that are operating in this area, but rather to be more inclusive, to ensure that there is full awareness and engagement of all people who live there, and that at certain points in time when there are changes in industrial development or projects of significant development, they will at least have an opportunity to provide input and to re-evaluate where those projects are is in terms of their impact upon the Yukon. For those reasons I feel it is important that the amendment be supported by the committee.