Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to our witnesses for their presentations.
First, I found your presentations troubling. It seems to me that, within a framework of healthy environmental governance, we need to have as much scientific independence as possible, particularly in the decision-making process. That is how I would summarize your four presentations.
Second, another thing struck me, particularly as regards critical habitat. I may have seen the numbers before, but the ones we presented caught my attention. As for the species on the list, Mr. Findlay, you said that only 19% of recovery programs designate critical habitat, and that the remaining species are basically already on protected territory. We can only conclude that the concept of critical habitat is far from being applied as set out in law, and that economic considerations seem to have priority. I would like to know what you think about this.
We knew this is the way things were at the beginning of the process. That is what is dangerous, in my view. I understand that it is important to ultimately take science into account. Thank you for having shown us this diagram, which assesses the situation based on the registration process. However, don't you think that, generally speaking, socio-economic considerations have gained the upper hand?