There has been a lot of discussion about this interest in working with partners. There has also been a lot of discussion about all of the steps necessary to go through in SARA. And there is also the issue that Mr. Bigras, in his usual informative fashion, has introduced—the idea of the relationship between other statutes.
Environment Canada, DFO, and Parks Canada have the power to intervene in environmental impact assessments and to look at cumulative impact assessments. So you don't have to sit and wait for something to be listed. I haven't heard any mention of that.
If you had partners and a lot of people interested in moving forward, and if by some miracle the provincial government was willing to work with you, is it possible that under the statute you could expedite the process? In many cases that's what came out of a lot of these court decisions. The government was saying they couldn't identify the critical habitat, but it was evident that under the definition of the term it had already been identified.
I'm a little frustrated to hear that as a result of the court action the government went out and again started to identify critical habitat, when it was known that oil and gas was one of the major impacts on the sage grouse mating.
We now hear that despite the boreal agreement, which is lauded as a great agreement with all partners working together, there is now a logging permit about to be issued in the area where the logging company agreed to protect the habitat.
Does it not make more sense to have the legislated regulatory initiatives by the government operating in tandem with the partnerships? In most cases those partnerships are not binding and enforceable. It puts the species at further risk when we have to take another 10 or 20 years for the government to do its work.