Thank you.
Mr. Lapointe, you've talked about some salmon issues. Look, I'm a hunter. I'm a fisherman. Since my younger days, it's been my passion. Every time I have time, I go out.
You've talked about the state of the salmon population right now in Canada and probably also in the U.S. Of course, the Fisheries Act itself—the piece of paper, the legislation—can certainly do things to protect those species at risk.
Beyond that—before going back to what's in the act—you talked about fish passage and things like that. Don't you also think that there's some overfishing in some areas? For example, Greenland still has a quota of, I think, 25 tonnes. I know that the government did some great negotiation with them a couple of years ago. What will we need in the Fisheries Act to make sure that those species can rebound? Fish passage is all good. Look, fish habitat protection, of course.... I'm putting that out there because this is what we are here for.
You talk about first nations. Of course they have a right for food, social and ceremonial purposes. I have a first nation community in my riding that does very well when it comes to protecting the habitat and everything. However, when the state of a population like salmon is in danger, do you also think that first nations, for example, should be able to still fish for food, social and ceremonial purposes, or should the resources be the number one priority?
I'll go back to my other question: Can we do something else? Can we put something into the act that will satisfy a group like you, making sure that salmon, other species at risk and other species can rebound from what we're seeing right now?