Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Ms. Poter, for that presentation.
I'm not going to speak for the whole committee—certainly not the yeomen folks who have been here for a period of time and perhaps have met you before, and others—but I do think there is a concern about how many of the problems that are generally accepted about SARA have to do with implementation and how many have to do with design. When you make remarks about the pace picking up, I think it would be helpful for me, and maybe some other members of the committee, to know what factors, what variables, help to deliver.
I mean, I think these numbers do have some significance: 486 listed, 144 strategies. But there is a strong sense that at the end of the SARA process, which people are familiar with here, there is grinding that takes place.
You did mention factors, but if it's possible to see it as redoubled efforts under way, that there are things happening, I'm interested in what makes that difference. Quite apart from what we do with the act operationally, what makes a difference? I would be interested to know that.
There are two things in particular. Has there been any change in not just the availability of resources, but the applications and the way they're done?
Secondly, we heard from many witnesses about regulations or their absence, or policies, definitions. When you talk about the need for partnerships in shared jurisdiction, surely it must be important to negotiate some of those things. Otherwise, you don't really have partnerships. And I think the act allows that flexibility.
The absence of the translation of the act in clear policies, definitions, has been identified by numerous stakeholders—things that people can then be on the same page with in terms of expectations. Without being leading, the first question I would like you to answer is about the pace and the factors behind it. If it's not resources and regulations, I'd like you to answer those separately.
Thank you.