That's a very astute perspective, Mr. Weston. Welcome to my job.
I have a couple of points, if I may. I'm not exactly sure how to answer your question. It is frustrating. There appear to be two different stories, but I think that's largely because the silent majority, the credible scientists who bring a modicum of objectivity to this entire topic, don't appear in the newspaper or on the Internet. They publish their articles, which are factual, and the average Canadian citizen doesn't read them. It's very technical information. So communication is one problem. I think there needs to be better communication from the industry and better communication in lay terms from the scientific community and from the provincial and federal governments.
Instead what we hear is the vocal minority who, quite frankly, are not aquaculture specialists. Rather, they are anti-aquaculture specialists. They're very good at what they do. They're very intelligent people, very passionate people, and they're very good at communicating to the media and to the Internet. That's what the majority of Canadians hear. Of course, that's what they will believe, because they're only hearing one side of the story.
The next step, apples to apples, is that there is a tremendous amount of collaboration on the go in British Columbia right now between the industry, fish farmers, and the ENGOs who, of course, want things to improve, as do the farmers, as does the province. There's always room for improvement, but there is a tremendous amount of collaboration that is happening. There is joint funding and joint projects. They are both looking at the same things, comparing notes. There is an awful lot of transparency and communication between those groups.
But that's the helpful group. There is another faction that is quite simply anti-aquaculture, and that's where the transparency stops. That's where the information is not generally forthcoming, because, in many cases, the information is abused.
Does that answer your question?