Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Thank you to the witnesses for being here. As you can see, the time limits we are faced with prevent a really satisfying discussion about some of these very complex issues.
I want to congratulate National Chief Atleo on his election. It doesn't seem to me like it's been more than a few months. I know it was an exciting one and I'm sure, from the degree of articulation that I've heard, it's a well-deserved election.
I want to comment that I was interested to hear that in fact there's recognition that sometimes listing recommendations can be disagreed with. That seemed obvious to me, and I was rather struck by some of the rather outrageous and simplistic remarks of one of the Liberal members opposite about the fact that the minister wouldn't necessarily put a single scientific opinion on a pedestal, because I think there can be disagreement.
I want to say, especially to Mr. McNeely, that I took note of your comments that in the current context, without the necessary tools and without the necessary ethic, it can take a long time to reach conclusions sometimes about the species at risk listings, and I took note of your comment that there are many views across the land, and therefore to gather in only six people to COSEWIC isn't necessarily the end of the matter.
I agree with you, and I would go maybe further and say that once COSEWIC reaches a recommendation or comes up with an assessment and it goes to the minister for consultation, there are any number of questions that need to be asked, in fact. Does the assessment correctly identify the species as being at risk? How do you reconcile any disagreement over that that might exist? Where is the habitat of the species? What are the activities within that habitat? What first nations might be involved in that habitat and those activities? What non-first nations persons? What methods of protection should there be, and where can there be remediation?
I'm concerned because I think one of the issues on the table for our committee is how much time should be allowed for those consultations. I regard them to be quite complex, and I think that they do need to involve socio-economic considerations.
So I would be grateful, particularly from Mr. McNeely, since you've already alluded to this question, to get your point of view. Assuming we're in the present situation, without that ethic of reconciliation and without those additional tools, if I were asked how much of a timeframe I should place on the minister to conduct those consultations, what would be the best answer I could give from a first nations point of view, keeping in mind that we would need to go to the first nations, in my opinion, in those consultations? How much time do you think would be required, with the present tools, to come up with answers to those questions?