Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Mr. Sopuck.
You asked a number of questions. You went from the Fisheries Act to salmon science. Let me try to cover it briefly. With respect to the salmon science, Trevor or others might add some precision.
I hear what you're saying. We've had this conversation at this table before. I think you and I have, in many cases, more of a common understanding than perhaps people would imagine.
We don't see restoring loss protections in the Fisheries Act as the best instrument to cancel country and western music shows. There may be other reasons to cancel country and western music festivals, but the Fisheries Act isn't the best one.
We've all heard the horror stories, but some of them may be fake news and some may not be. It doesn't really matter, other than that it reminds us to be conscious that small rural farming communities, including some that I represent in my own riding, will not want to see what is a legitimate exercise that we committed to Canadians in the election to undertake.... We made a precise commitment in the campaign that we would restore these loss protections, so we will do that, with your help and with the help of Parliament, obviously. In no way is it intended to traumatize people who are conducting otherwise responsible and sustainable agriculture or rural community development.
However, we do believe—and this is where we may differ—that the changes made some time ago had a negative impact or an unfortunate impact. I don't want to characterize it, because it will then engage a conversation between us. One reason we think it was hard to get quantitative analysis is that there had been a significant reduction in scientific assets, so we think the conversation around what the impact in fact is will be a lot better if we have transparent, open, robust, and globally credible scientific evidence.
That's a perfect bridge to your specific question around Atlantic salmon. I share your view that this has to be a priority, and I salute the work your committee did on it. It's critically important for a number of communities.
You asked a specific question about a specific, dedicated science asset. You also recognized that we won't respond at a committee on estimates to a report that we will be thoroughly and properly responding to in the parliamentary process.
Trevor may want to add a specific comment on the scientific—