The Pacific Salmon Foundation and I personally and professionally believe very strongly that there's a scientific basis for that transition.
One thing it would be useful for this committee to appreciate is that the recent findings from the DFO review on the nine risk assessments, which was tied specifically to the Cohen commission, was focused only on Fraser River sockeye. Even with that, there are people in the science community who feel that those nine risk assessments were not fully scoped. The scope didn't include sea lice and did not include a cumulative consideration of all of the elements that were assessed, and there was an error in at least one of the studies, which scientists working with PSF and others pointed out and which I believe would be appropriate for correction.
With all of that and with the state of our Pacific salmon and with the consideration of the risks and the appropriate application of the precautionary approach, it's our view that without question there is a scientific basis demonstrating risk and that it would be appropriate to pursue the transition.
I put this to someone in the finance sector just last week when we were being interviewed for a podcast. I said that when you manage your money and your major capital, you put it into portfolios and you don't expose it all to the same risk. If you look at our wild salmon as our natural capital, however, every salmon swimming past a fish farm on our coast is exposed to that risk. To the Pacific Salmon Foundation, it would seem irresponsible to continue to do that.