Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you to our witnesses for appearing here today.
I'm enjoying this, not just as a legislator, but a bit as a spectator as well, because some of the discussion is wide-ranging. We've been talking about national parks, and yet in my area--Essex is as far south as you can go in Canada--we measure on a much different scope, I think, a lot of our victories in habitat restoration. We measure in either single, double-digit, or low triple-digit hectares. We have more plant and animal species at risk than anywhere in Canada, and our challenges are pretty acute, so how this act plays out is of some real significance.
Potential new approaches for the government are also interesting. I'm looking at a Canadian response to the Detroit River International Wildlife Refuge in southeast Michigan and at whether there's a new approach that can be pioneered to bring new tools to bear in an area where most of the land is already occupied with agricultural, municipal, and other uses like that. Habitat restoration poses some significant challenges given competing land use.
I want to bring some of the discussion back to what the committee is actually charged with. And this is a legislative review; it's not a policy review and it's not a number of other things. We're looking at a specific piece of legislation and recommendations on what, if any, changes need to be made to that.
I was concerned about some of the preamble of a couple of our Liberal colleagues, who almost suggested that SARA should be tossed out the window and a new approach should start again.
I just want to start by getting on the record from each of our witnesses whether they accept that the fundamental architecture of SARA is good as a principled starting position, and then we'll work toward subsequent questions.
I'm not sure who wants to start on that answer.