I'll start, but I'm sure my colleagues will jump in.
SARA is very clear on the types of information that can be taken into account. In determining recovery objectives, and so on, and the critical habitat in some cases required to achieve those objectives, it is strictly based on the biological needs of that particular species.
We can consider socio-economic factors in two portions of the act. First is in the listing decision, as was mentioned, and any regulatory change must consider socio-economic factors. The decision whether or not to list takes into account socio-economic factors. The decision on the risk level--threatened, endangered, special concern, or so on--rests on the assessment by the committee on the status of endangered species in Canada. The biological portion of the listing decision is what degree of risk a particular species is at. Then GIC makes the decision whether or not to list, based on the biology, socio-economic factors, etc.
The only other place in the act where we may consider socio-economic factors is in action planning. There is a list of specific actions to be taken to help recover a species at risk, and you can take the most cost-effective approaches to implement cost savings.
A third area where at times socio-economic factors can come into play is when the amount of habitat available to achieve recovery for a species is more than what is actually required. In those circumstances, socio-economic factors can come into play to help determine critical habitat. But for the vast majority of cases, critical habitat is strictly a biological definition.