I certainly can. One of the things that the Royal Society expert panel was asked to do was to provide broadly based strategic recommendations resulting from the potential consequences of climate change, fisheries, and aquaculture on Canada's marine biodiversity. We had policy experts and legal experts as part of the panel, so this particular element was felt to fall within the purview of the panel's expertise.
To be more specific, and perhaps more helpful, given your perspective, one of the key things that seems to be affecting the respectful, open, and transparent debate that might otherwise exist is a lack of information on disease and pathogens, the frequency with which salmon farms are inspected, and so on. This has tended to polarize the discussion. When the public is not permitted to see the information on disease, it tends to push people to a more polarized perspective. When all information is available to all people who are concerned about a particular situation, it makes for a transparent situation, and probably for a meaningful debate. But when some information is not made publicly available, I think people tend to veer to one polar extreme or the other.