Environment committee  If I may, I would say very briefly that I do think that there's actually incredible value in having basic government researchers work with government researchers, industry researchers, and so on. As Fred indicated, the goals of both can potentially be achieved, but the way we're currently doing things, which is requiring increased funding on the part of businesses to contribute to programs, puts an undue pressure on business and industry, and an increased movement in that area also takes away from basic discovery-oriented research.

Environment committee  I suppose what the panel was referring to there was the fact that there is no legislation in place, such that when a certain set of circumstances arises the minister must act in a particular way. Unlike the Species at Risk Act, for example, which is highly prescriptive, the Fisheries Act is highly discretionary.

Environment committee  The greatest challenge there is money and infrastructure. Other groups could certainly do the work if government were willing to provide the work. So a good example is the polar continental shelf project of Natural Resources Canada, set in Resolute in the Arctic. Fundamentally—and it's something I've personally taken advantage of as an Arctic researcher—this is a base that provided everything from planes to helicopters to boats to gasoline, in order for researchers to work in the Arctic.

Environment committee  Well, I think there's no question that cutting back on the science capacities of government will hinder the development of a national conservation plan. In order to identify the objectives and targets for any type of plan, whether it's a marine protected area plan or a terrestrial biodiversity plan, we are ultimately reliant on government knowledge, and that comes from government science departments.

Environment committee  Thank you for the question. Certainly the question of what COSEWIC does and the consequences of COSEWIC's assessments are of course not part of the COSEWIC decision-making process. COSEWIC is charged, under the act, with making species assessments on the basis of the best available scientific evidence that pertains to the status of those species.

Environment committee  Thank you, Monsieur Choquette, for your question. Your estimate of 1% is actually an overestimate, if I may. In fact, we have protected officially approximately 0.8% of the aquatic waters in Canada, but about 0.3% of that is actually in fresh water. So we've probably protected one half of 1% of our marine waters, as opposed to almost 10% terrestrially.

Environment committee  I think what we should do for now is we really need a Canadian discussion of this with the public. What's in the oceans belongs to all Canadians. The Supreme Court of Canada has made that very clear. It doesn't belong to industry. It doesn't belong to individuals. It belongs to Canadians.

Environment committee  I'll begin. Thank you for the questions. It's a two-part question with respect to current legislative changes. I do envisage a weakening of environmentally based legislation. Thus, from a national conservation plan side of things, I would be concerned in terms of the degree to which, whatever objectives and aspirational qualities are part of such a plan, it might reduce our ability for it to have the accountability element—and indeed, the enforceability element—associated with a national conservation plan.

Environment committee  I think it holds great promise. Key to an effort like that is the formative structure. What are the key objectives? Precisely how would the contributions of people be used? [Technical difficulty—Editor] It would be an excellent way to engage the average citizen, the citizen who wishes to contribute.

Environment committee  I very much do agree. I think targets like that are important for their aspirational elements. It does give someone something to shoot for. But by the same token, those targets also need to be empirically based. There needs to be a sound information basis for identifying particular targets.

Environment committee  Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would say the primary focus should be one of habitat. The species are secondary. If one protects habitat for one species you are almost certainly going to be protected for multiple species.

Environment committee  I guess what I'm thinking of is not necessarily focusing on anything specifically, but thinking of the various forms of remote sensing technologies we have--for example, stations in the Arctic to monitor changes in ozone and sea ice changes, which of course we use satellite technology to determine.

Environment committee  I think strengthening current environmental laws is fundamentally important to the success of any conservation plan, which one would naturally wish to have. Another element is the degree to which new legislation might be considered. Australia in 1999 established the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act.

Environment committee  In terms of tools and from a science perspective, I will reiterate what I said in response to Mr. Lunney's question, insofar as I do think that a national conservation plan would be well guided by having national operational objectives and the means of determining whether we're making progress in achieving those objectives.

Environment committee  I might simply mention that I think the key importance underlying your question is one of monitoring. In the absence of monitoring programs, we don't have information upon which to judge the efficacy or the utility of a national conservation program, whether it's on land or in the water.