Very good. That's very helpful. Thank you very much.
I'm going to change channel here a little bit.
One of the things that frustrates me, and I asked this question of the government officials that were here as well, and I'll pose this question to you.... Mr. Cullen brought up the salmon species. If we take a look, we'll see the peregrine falcon and a number of other species that are in here. If we look at them, some of them are actually classified as sub-species. The act is called the Species at Risk Act, it's not call the Sub-Species at Risk Act. We're dealing with populations that are extirpated when we have perfectly healthy populations of that same species existing elsewhere. We have climate change. The climate is always changing; it always has changed. We have ranges where animals or creatures normally existed, in a constant state of flux as things change. Yet the recommendations by COSEWIC are a snapshot at a particular point in time.
I was hoping to see some constructive recommendations from the members of COSEWIC that would deal more with some of the issues pertaining to whether or not we should be examining the reason why nine-spine stickleback are missing from a particular lake while they're flourishing in just about every watershed. Is that a productive use of COSEWIC's time? Is that a productive use of the assessment process? Or should we be focusing on a much larger-scale picture about the health of populations in general, as long as we have healthy populations and can maintain healthy habitat for those populations?
None of your recommendations is addressing that. Your recommendations actually address the political process, and it's a little bit disappointing to me. Why is it that COSEWIC has no recommendations on changes to the act that would deal with working on some of the issues when it comes to differentiating habitat versus species versus sub-species?