Thank you for the question. I think there are a couple of issues there.
I think all of us here would agree that, in keeping with the spirit of SARA, the identification of critical habitat ought to be based on biological criteria. In the analysis that Stewart and I have done over the last several years, and which I presented in my brief, the disinclination thus far to do so for a relatively small proportion of the species, which in principle, at least, under the act could have had critical habitat identified and recovery strategies but did not, suggests that there are these socio-economic issues percolating into that decision.
I would suggest that this is probably not in keeping with the spirit of the act. Critical habitat identification, at the very least, should be based on biological criteria.