Thank you very much, Mr. Trost, for this opportunity. You've indicated a number of areas where we have concerns.
We are very pleased that there has been a 120-day extension to the comment period. We're concerned with the completeness of the data that was used to inform the study. For example, we are very concerned with the use for a number of different areas that are now deemed to be local population units but are not actually population units.
We're very concerned with the model's use of fire, which is a naturally occurring event, in controlling what is deemed to be available critical habitat. For example, in northern Saskatchewan, between 49% and 69% of the area in question is deemed not to be able to support any caribou habitat. That really leaves no way out for Saskatchewan in order to have any development opportunities.
They currently are allowing only 35% of the habitat to be disturbed, but with fire already disturbing between 49% and 69% of the area, we are not able to carry on any activity in that type of area or to actually have any infrastructure development in Saskatchewan, such as roads or power, to help source growth in the north, whether it be communities or mining development.
Those are some of the issues we're concerned about. We're concerned about the use of a model that was generated in an area which we understand has very high human activity and low fires and translating that information over to Saskatchewan, where the landscape is dominated by a high fire regime and a regime of low human activity impact. Those are some of our concerns.