Thanks, Mr. Chair.
I want to thank the deputants for their testimony. I think it's been helpful. You may still pick up a little frustration from people, in the sense that we're trying to come to a landing on what's possible here. In other words, will the act unbundle itself?
As the discussion on budget says, if we had $100 million going in, how much of that is going to dead-end process? How much of that has gone to laws that weren't properly formed into regulations that require processes on an ongoing basis that don't lead to a productive end?
The problem here is that if the implementers in the bureaucracy can't provide us with that, you're going to get inaccurate decisions made. After seven years of experience, I know that four or five of them might be just the catching up of the implementation initially of the act. We want to give some life to it.
I have two questions. I have a number, and I'll try to unbundle them for you.
Do you have faith that this will unbundle itself, in the sense that we'll have the serious boundaries we want and the process will be there? Are there intrinsic things in the way of that process smoothing itself out, being able to work with the other partners, and so on? Very specifically, are there dead-end elements here because of the way the act was designed that maybe were put in because there wasn't adequate protection in one place or another? We can deal with.... Maybe they were there for a good reason, but do you find in your implementation that you do a lot of things that just don't add to the net bottom line of protection? I assume that everybody at this table speaks for the protection of species.