Thank you very much.
Like my colleagues, I want to congratulate all of you for the quality of the briefs you've brought in. I think you've really managed to highlight some of the challenges we have and that have made our hearings on SARA so complex. You've managed to make it--for me, anyway--much simpler and much clearer.
One of the big reasons that SARA hasn't been as effective over the past while as we would like it to be is that the science and the socio-economic and democratic policy decisions are interfering with each other a little bit.
All four of you made varying degrees of calls to separate the science from the decision-making and to highlight as well the need for clarity, transparency, and consistency, which are all hallmarks of successful science but should also stand as hallmarks of successful policy and successful decision-making.
I particularly liked, Dr. Findlay, your framing of the entire thing as: “Yes, we're using science in SARA, but we're using it because there is a political decision to value species at risk and to say that this is something we need to do”. I'd therefore like very much to try to combine a little of the essence of some of the different recommendations.
I think it was Dr. Barrett-Lennard who brought forward the idea--and Dr. Pearson supported it--that we look at the scientific aspects of it only in the recovery plan aspect and that as soon as we get into the action plan we then involve consultations. My concern, which I think was brought up by Mr. Mooers, is that this might be a little late in the process to bring in socio-economic concerns. One of the really important things we want to do around SARA is get it right.
I'd like to hear from Dr. Mooers and Dr. Findlay where we should be drawing the line between science and politics, or where we should interlace in a clear manner throughout the process.
I'll leave it up to you to respond in the remaining time.