Basically what you're saying, then, is that if you wish to sell the product, there need to be more rules for the open-net concept, or regulations. We're hearing everything here at this committee, but the truth is that I can see eco-certification making decisions in the fishery around the world, and that's not going to involve governments. They can get involved if they like, but if it's not certified, then it will not be sold.
Down the road, it looks like that's where we're heading. It looks like this certification is going to rule the day, not what governments decide. You're going to decide on sustainability of the stock, whether it's in fish farming, the lobster industry, where I come from, or anything else. It looks to me anyhow that certification and eco-certification are going to make the decisions even on where people can and cannot fish and that type of thing, which I'm not overly big on, but it looks like that's where we're heading.
I would like to ask you if you think there should be more.... I know that obviously there will have to be more regulations if you're going to have the product certified, but do you think there's a need for more rules, more laws, or more regulations within fish farming? There are some presentations—and people—that give the open-net concept a pretty big black eye. It's obvious that you know it's valuable and will continue.
But in order to have a better face on it, do you think there need to be more rules in place as to what they do with the waste and what happens to the property underneath the net? They talk about the land being dead underneath the net and all that. Do you think there should be more rules put in place in order to have a better public view, if I could say that, of the open-net concept?