What's required is not so much to make changes to the Species at Risk Act as to implement what's there. When you look at the Species at Risk Act, it provides opportunities for identification of species and some collection of traditional knowledge, but it also provides opportunities through the levels of recovery, planning, and other different aspects of that to actually have sound socio-economic analysis being conducted. I think that's the failure from an aboriginal standpoint. If you're familiar with the Statutory Instruments Act, you know that one more or less looks at the implication of a regulation or of not implementing that. In there, it also calls for a socio-economic analysis.
They'll do an analysis of pharmaceuticals. They'll do an analysis of impacts to industry and local economies, but there is nothing in there that provides for socio-economic analysis of aboriginal interest. A lot of these interests are economic, yet there's this pushing of the listing of the process, where you just pick and choose which ones you want to apply so that, for example, Environment Canada meets its obligations of conservation without actually implementing those points of analysis of socio-economic impacts.
Finally, there are things in there that talk about compensation for extraordinary impact, for example, under subsection 64(1). In order for that to be operable, there must be development of subsection 64(2), which hasn't been done. That act was passed in 2004. It's now 2013, and subsection 64(2) remains inoperable. That has affected places like Osoyoos, which has areas with high levels of species. It impacted some of the ability of a locatee to actually develop their land, and the loss of about 80% of their most valuable lands in that instance.
So I'm saying what's there needs to be followed, and there shouldn't be picking and choosing of whichever one is beneficial to whatever federal agency is looking at implementing it.