Thank you for the question.
Let's go back a couple of years. A couple of years ago, we had young people who couldn't find jobs in and around our community, and it wasn't just Akwesasne Mohawks. In that whole area, there's very high unemployment. Because of the unemployment, skilled, educated people who were involved in the transportation of tobacco products across the St. Lawrence and elsewhere were getting caught. These were people who would otherwise have jobs. If they had been provided an opportunity to secure a job that was long term, that had security for their families, they probably would not have been on the river at all. There's a counter-argument that can be made here, that maybe the solution to this is economic development.
Where I was going with the other argument is if Bill C-10 has the impact of increasing the risk of that particular activity, those people who have a lot to lose, in terms of their investment in education, in terms of their position and social structure, the family they have, probably won't get involved in that activity, which is probably good. The flip side of the coin is that it leaves a vacuum. Who will get involved in that kind of activity? It will not be the people who have a lot to lose. It will be the people who don't have anything to lose, and those are the hardened criminals, who are members of these criminal families. Where are we going to find them? We're going to find them back on the St. Lawrence.
At least we had something that was manageable the last time around. This time around we could end up with a war out in the river. What we're concerned about is the safety and security of our community. That's the backlash, the adverse impact with Bill C-10.
Does that answer your question, sir?