I'll try to give a brief answer to that, Mr. Arnold.
Yes, it would be useful, but it should also be understood that the one thing that hasn't been done, the main thing that hasn't been done out of the four phases that were planned, was the challenge study, whereby essentially fish would be exposed to pathogens and then potential effects from that exposure would be tested in a contained facility. The reason that wasn't done was that a facility could not be arranged to do that.
In the meantime, the science that has been learned from the SSHI—the strategic salmon health initiative—and other science occurring both within B.C. and globally is indicating that we're past the point of needing to understand whether there's a science basis for risk in the effect of open-net pen aquaculture on wild salmon. With the transition announcement of 2025 already established, I think that while there's value in the science, we would need to put that into the context of what we hope to achieve from it. I want to emphasize that the utility of carrying on with the science does not at all change our view that it is appropriate, and we are fully supportive to undertake this transition.