All right.
I'm beginning to get the picture that your comments are based on your acknowledged limitations of knowledge, and I appreciate that. But I want to move on to the next issue that concerns me about your proposal that we should not amend the Species at Risk Act for at least 10 years. It has to do with paragraph 41(1)(c), which requires that every recovery strategy must include an identification of a species' critical habitat.
My recollection of the evidence that I heard when this committee studied the Species at Risk Act was that this has in fact impeded the development of recovery strategy, simply because in the case of many species the identification of what is critical habitat is very difficult and requires lengthy study and scientific investigation.
Do you see the problem with the necessity to determine critical habitat? Do you understand what I'm talking about?