I understand. The input and the feedback I'm hearing is that they want to see a recovery plan as well and a commitment to a recovery plan, especially on the Atlantic coast.
In your opening remarks you talked about habitat protection. In the questions you also pointed out an example of a jamboree in a field. Isn't it more to the point of looking at pipeline projects and that you've been intensely lobbied by large organizations, with more of a focus on pipelines and oil transportation off the coast, perhaps mining and other major activities? Isn't that more of a concern? Certainly it's come to light.
As you know, I've been asking in question period about this fact that the department intends to make sweeping changes to section 35 of the Fisheries Act, and that will have a major significant impact on habitat protection. With cuts of $10.2 million to species-at-risk recovery, $11.9 million from science and sustainable fisheries, and cuts of $6.7 million to environmental assessment regulation for major natural resource projects, is it safe to assume that DFO is indeed pulling out of habitat protection when assessing major projects? I specifically mention pipelines, oil tankers, mining operations, and not just farmers' fields, bridges, roads, and housing developments.