I agree.
Dr. Whoriskey, I think you hit the nail right on the head, and you certainly got my attention. I'd be interested to see what some of the other witnesses here would think about your comment when you said this act needs a focus. It's tremendously prescriptive in the process of listing a species, yet it's not as prescriptive and it's not as clear in the legislation about what needs to happen in the recovery stage. I'd like you to comment a bit more on that.
From my perspective, I think that when Canadians hear the title “Species at Risk Act”, they're thinking of things like the whooping crane in Alberta, which had a strong recovery far before the Species at Risk Act was ever created. It's a shining example of how these kinds of efforts can happen outside the existence of legislation like this. However, we have this piece of legislation now; we're trying to fine-tune it to make it better. I would be curious to find out if, in your collective opinions, you think we spend too much time and effort listing species rather than making more of a socio-economic decision earlier on in the process so we don't spend as much time listing species but actually identify those species we deem to be most important for recovery and putting the resources from the listing process or other aspects of this legislation into the recovery.
Does anybody want to touch that?