Thank you, Chair.
Thank you to the witnesses for being here while we do this legislative review of SARA.
It's also interesting that at this time we are looking at sustainable development. Industry cannot be successful in the long term unless it goes to the model of being sustainable, which includes the environment, the economy, and social impacts. That's the three-legged stool, so to speak. Also, the recommendations coming from science will depend on the model that is used.
Your recommendation, Mr. McGuinness, was that the model be a model that would be international, so to speak. I appreciate that input.
I'd like to focus on two things. Could you comment on when, in SARA, socio-economic considerations should be taken? For COSEWIC, my understanding is that there is no socio-economic consideration for the recommendation of a listing of a species. There is when it goes to the minister and the Governor in Council, but then, when critical habitat is identified, again there are no socio-economic considerations. Should there be? When should socio-economic considerations be considered at all levels of managing a species?
My other question is about the timeframes. Consultation is a very important part of this. Even for yourselves, in working with industry and ENGOs to come up with joint recommendations, that takes time. As a species, its listing criteria may change. What's the proper model for a timeframe with COSEWIC, with the minister and the Governor in Council, and also for the critical habitat?
Are these timeframes that we have realistic? It's been highlighted that litigation seems to be the only model or a model that's often used. Is that because the timeframes are not realistic to do proper consultation?
So my question is about the importance of socio-economic considerations and when they should be considered in managing a species and also about timeframes. Could each of you comment please?