Thank you, Chair. If I have any time left over, I would like to give it to Mr. Sopuck. I really appreciated his questioning and what was coming from that.
We heard that the goal is to delist species that are listed. We heard that SARA came into force on June 1, 2004, so it's just under seven years that it's been in force. We heard this morning that $312 million have been spent with no positive results yet. It's not been from a lack of effort; it's whether the money has been effectively spent.
Looking back to SARA being established as legislation in Canada, it was very controversial. One of the promises that was made by a previous Liberal government was that there would be compensation for rural farmers. Mr. Sopuck talked about the importance of partnership and that there would be incentives so you can have those partnerships built. To this point, that hasn't happened. Unfortunately, that was a promise broken by a previous government.
You highlighted that you listened to what the witnesses shared. They all recommended that there be some changes because they acknowledge SARA isn't working. They don't want to see SARA scrapped, but changes are needed. Some said the timelines were too prescriptive, that they didn't allow adequate time for consultation. Some said they're not prescriptive enough and that we need to tighten the timelines and remove any discretion for consultation by the minister.
We talked about socio-economic factors. We heard that from the witnesses also. Some thought that was important; some thought it should be totally science-based.
On the importance of critical habitat, you said that in a vast majority of cases it is biologically science-based, yet we heard from Mr. Sopuck that it may not be critical habitat that's the issue. I think you also mentioned that.
I have three questions on how we can make SARA more effective. Your responsibility is to implement SARA and not to create policy, but you are on the front line, so I think the committee would value your input in hearing about some of your challenges in implementing SARA. After $312 million, and seven years later, we don't really have anything to show for it, other than paper. How do we make it more effective and practical?
Being very prescriptive isn't working. Would it be helpful to consider an ecosystem-based approach, supported at each step under SARA, from the assessment of COSEWIC, to the recovery planning, action, and monitoring?
My second question is what type of flexibility would be appropriate in ensuring accountability and transparency?
Third, how do we encourage partnership? I think that was what Mr. Sopuck was starting to ask questions on: how we can encourage partnership. We heard from people with hydroelectric dams that, as good partners, they introduced fish back into the stream, and now if one of those fish ends up in the turbines they are in big trouble. So how do we encourage partnership instead of punishing partnership?