Especially under the two court decisions that have been rendered—this was failure to identify critical habitat in both cases—the finding was that it was not in keeping with the spirit of SARA that those kinds of considerations were creeping into the ministerial decision--ultimately, the ministerial decision not to identify critical habitat at the recovery stage.
It's my position that the identification of critical habitat is a scientific issue. The scientific community has asked: given that we want to recover this species, what do we need in terms of critical habitat? That determination is done, to the extent that we can do it, with the best available knowledge. Then the decision about whether or not you proceed in an action plan to do hat gets back to the issue of social values.
But I think it's pretty clear that the spirit of SARA is that the identification of critical habitat is a job for science.