That's a good question.
Our sense is that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans actually has done an excellent job of developing regulations in a very short period of time. It was even evident when the court case came down that the ideal situation at that time would have been to go forward with legislation, but the time just wasn't there to allow that. So doing regulations under the Fisheries Act was the only option.
But it's not a good fit and it's been apparent. As Clare mentioned, we've been working closely with the department at various points and meetings along the way. And there are many things that the aquaculture industry does, as other farming industries do, normal farm practices, that really are not appropriate under the Fisheries Act because it's focused on wildlife management and it isn't talking about getting a product from egg to plate. From that perspective it's cumbersome and it doesn't work well for aquaculture.
But more than that, what would be really helpful is to have legislation that specifically addresses aquaculture and gives it the rights and legitimacy that it deserves. Not just that; it would also outline our responsibility. So it's not suggesting a free ticket, but a piece of legislation that outlines all of that and gives the legitimacy and the security to the industry.
We would have a much easier time--I'm sure Clare can support me on this one--getting and attracting investment into this country if we had clear legislation that outlined exactly the legitimacy of aquaculture, the roles and responsibilities. It would add to the common-sense regulations that we have already started with, but it would go further. That's really what we need to attract investment. Other countries have it and they can't believe we don't.
Clare.