Okay.
The scientists I've been working with who have come and done town hall meetings in my constituency, purely about the science and the research, will assert that there are a number of causal factors in the decline of sockeye salmon. For many of us, the 2010 salmon returns didn't really ease the concerns. It's such an anomaly. It points out the absence of science, in that we couldn't even predict it. It's also like being in Copenhagen at the Conference of the Parties, having a cold winter in Copenhagen that year, and having people say, “Oh, well, global warming is not happening”.
The concerns are very real. Some would say that many of the factors, such as global warming, acidification of the ocean, the impacts on the food the salmon need, and the warming temperatures in the Fraser River are out of human hands, but there are impacts that are within our control. Although they may be minor, they require us to give them full attention, because so many of the impacts are outside our control. Salmon aquaculture with a potential for transferred diseases and lice would be one of the ones in our control. That it may be causal needs to be taken into account in a greater proportion of importance.
Could you comment on that?