Thank you.
Yes. The purpose of the focus area report--and I should say that, as you know, there are six or seven countries around the table--was that NASCO wanted to be able, when the reports were produced, to bring them together and to basically get from the reports some guidelines or some directions. So member countries decided that the reports should be done in a format that is comparable from one country to the next; otherwise we could end up with a 20-page report and a 200-page report--impossible to compare.
So we had a fairly strict format that we followed for each of the three focus area reports: fish management, habitat, and aquaculture. The process was that after the reports were written, committees were established to critique those reports. Basically these committees were composed of representatives from NASCO member countries and also NGOs. The criticisms of the reports really were the points of view of those committees, which were brought to the NASCO general council in 2010.
I think if you read other reports as well you would find the same conclusion. Our report addressed very clearly how in Canada we deal with issues like sea lice or escapes and all the elements that you find in the table on page 5, which are the main elements NASCO is dealing with. Partly because of the format and length of the report we can go into a lot of details. So in my view, the committee that was established to examine the reports found that maybe the reports were lacking in terms of details that they wanted to see in the report. As I said, we haven't had that conversation at the NASCO council so far. We have provided a response to the criticism that the ad hoc committee has provided, and we have provided further details. Right now NASCO has the focused area report, it has the criticism from the ad hoc committee, and it has Canada's response to those criticisms.
Overall as a package, if we wanted to get from these three documents one document that was really showing what we do in Canada and other countries to prevent the negative impact of aquaculture, we'd get a good product.