Thank you.
We're back to caribou. I have a rhetorical question that you don't have to answer.
With caribou, we have scientists who have already given Environment Canada recommendations on critical habitat, and repeatedly, in my understanding. It seems to me that the real problem is that the recommendations are not being implemented. They're being ignored. You can let me know later if I'm wrong about that.
It's not easy and it's a big issue, but it's really pretty simple. You're on the right track with what you've just said. I would agree with it. But as for all we need to protect, again, it's simple, but not easy. We need to protect winter habitat currently used, winter habitat supply for the future--to maintain or create that future habitat-- and calving habitat and corridors, and we need to avoid trails, roads, and seismic corridors and things that allow humans and predators to access the caribou. It's a simple prescription. And it's not a third of the land base and not an eighth of the land base; it's probably way less than that. It's doable, so please get on with it.
The critical habitat is what this is all about. As you can probably hear, I am feeling a little frustrated that we're moving so slowly in this area. For example, to move away from caribou, the Federal Court found that in the Pacific region, Fisheries and Oceans Canada made a policy decision not to include critical habitat in recovery strategies--I'll quote--“in clear contravention of the law”. It was apparent in that judgment that the main reason the government delayed identifying critical habitat was that they prejudged, illegally, that there were socio-economic constraints. Again, we just have to get past that.
Then, on the last thing, which will lead to a question here, could you, Ms. Poter, give me, today or later, examples of enforcement of prohibitions against destroying critical habitat for any species under any agency, anywhere, at any time?