There were two streams of thought going forward. The first was to look at it from a predominantly legal perspective. As you point out, the decision was focused on salmon farming because that was the nature of the judicial review that was sought and brought to the court. So in the opinion of the court, the focus was on the finfish aspects, and so on. But we couldn't see anything in the court decision that wouldn't logically apply, had they been asked to specifically look at shellfish.
One can't speculate on what a court would say, given a different set of facts, circumstances, and so on, but it seemed that many of the principles at play panned across the full range of fish. So it made sense from a legal perspective to consider the possibility that shellfish were probably captured as well.
At the same time, to go back to the nature of the relationship we have with the province, when we sat down and looked at this from a good public policy perspective, we couldn't think of a real rationale for transferring 80% or 85% of the provincial responsibility to the federal government and maintaining a separate and continuing licensing regime, inspection regime, etc., for shellfish. We felt that from a single taxpayer point of view it made no sense. So it was good public policy to create a single harmonized approach to the management of aquaculture in the province, and the same logic flowed with respect to freshwater aquaculture.