Environment committee  When SARAC operates, it operates on a couple of meetings a year. Usually, the Government of Canada will be providing us with some documents to respond to, at which time individual members are providing advice from their own association or from their own group. It's not always a prerequisite that we all agree on what we're saying altogether before we send it back to the government.

Environment committee  As a committee, we feel strongly that these are areas where the consensus is quite clear and where we believe you need, as a committee, to spend your time looking at. On those “strongly emphasize” comments, when Ms. Duncan asked where you should spend your time, it's in those areas.

Environment committee  I guess my answer would be that we need that, whether it's part of the law or part of the policy implementation. It doesn't make a lot of difference to the species at risk or to the people trying to protect them. We just need those definitions to have clarity on both the industrial and environmental sides.

Environment committee  I think the SARAC members would agree that where we came to consensus was on implementation. The implementation of the act is the key issue. Make no mistake, it is about resourcing. They simply don't have enough bodies. Think about the number of recovery strategies. We're off by 150 or something like that.

Environment committee  The government does not focus enough resources on developing recovery plans. There is a shortage of staff, with too few biologists working on strategies. You asked why we had not defined critical habitat. First, the definition set out by the federal government is not good enough.

Environment committee  I think most of the members of the SARA Committee would agree that Environment Canada simply does not have the resources. And probably within Environment Canada it is not seen as the highest priority. You had mentioned at the beginning of this session that there are issues around climate and issues around toxics.

Environment committee  Mr. Bigras, within SARAC, there is no consensus on where and when socio-economic implications should come into play. Should it be when the species is determined to be at risk? Should it be when the strategy, the action plan, is being implemented? When should it come into play? There is no consensus on those questions.

Environment committee  Yes, there is.

Environment committee  I don't think it has come into effect at this point. The way most Canadians understand compensation would be the opposite of what we're worried about. When rural Canadians find a burrowing owl on their land, the big worry is the shoot, shovel, and shut up. To prevent this, and to encourage people to delight in having an endangered species on their land, we would have to provide them with some assistance as they continue to manage and use their land, while at the same time protecting the habitat of a critically endangered species.

Environment committee  At this point it has not gotten any further. You need to go back to the act. We're barely getting listed species approved. We have very few recovery plans or strategies in place, hardly any action plans. We're nowhere near the compensation question at this point in the implementation of the act.

Environment committee  Right now, the act applies to federal lands, like the House of Commons, or any national park or national wildlife area. But it applies only to land owned by the Government of Canada.

Environment committee  I just want to check.

Environment committee  I just want to make sure that the French and English versions are the same.

Environment committee  Yes.

Environment committee  I think we could come up with one page of recommendations quite easily. Are you asking us to come up with the recommended definitions as well?