I can comment on the first one. I think in terms of the environmental assessment, you'll probably have to look at a joint panel review. That's one way of doing it, because in that particular case communities are provided with resources. I think another situation, in fact, is there could be some basic steps that need to be taken by the federal and provincial governments, depending on jurisdiction, before a decision is made to actually put an aquaculture site in a particular location. One of the ones, as I mentioned earlier, was a proper baseline assessment.
Mr. Easter, if that was done, the process itself and the science involved with that would give everybody a real understanding as to exactly what the ecology is in a particular area, and therefore what the implications might be, including socio-economic. That would be very helpful.
The other side of it, in fact, is to have regulations that have teeth. People talk about costs—and I'm not bashing the private sector, because every one of our lobster fishermen is the private sector. The cost, for example, of doing a baseline assessment should be a cost of doing business for the company. As I indicated earlier, they paid $1,000 to take 200-plus acres of St. Mary's Bay away from the lobster fishermen. It's a cost of doing business, for most other businesses, for a proper baseline assessment to be undertaken. What are the implications of that business on the community? What's the implication on the environment? That's a normal course of business, but it doesn't occur, in fact, in the whole issue of approving leases or the work of the science around approving leases for open fin fish aquaculture. It's the same in terms of monitoring.
