Thank you very much.
Mr. Chair, I'd like to begin my comments by addressing why it is that I think this is such an interesting and difficult issue. My thoughts were triggered by something that Mr. Trudeau had to say earlier, and I regret that I didn't note it down word for word. I think it's useful for us to have regard to the preamble of the act, because in fact the act itself does not set up a contradiction between the preservation of wildlife and the necessity to take into account the cost factors of doing so.
The act itself, in the preamble at least, strives to achieve the kind of balance that Mr. Hyer was talking about. I would specifically like to draw your attention to that part of the preamble that recognizes that community knowledge and interest, including socio-economic interests, should be considered in developing and implementing recovery measures. In addition, the preamble recognizes that there will be circumstances under which the cost of conserving species at risk should be shared. Indeed, elsewhere the preamble refers to cost-effective measures, and it refers to the economic reasons for preserving wildlife. I think the act itself was intended to balance those factors. I thank the witnesses for bringing to our attention the fact that the specific provisions of the act don't necessarily carry through on that.
In particular, my first question is around section 41, regarding a recovery plan and what must be in it. There is indeed nothing in section 41 that is consistent with the terms of the preamble that I read, other than possibly paragraph 41(1)(e), which says that the minister can take into account matters prescribed by regulations. I wonder—and I know this is a lawyer's question—if any of the witnesses can tell me whether there are any regulations that do set out socio-economic or cost considerations to be a necessary consideration in a recovery strategy.