Thank you for the question.
As I mentioned in my opening statement, the risk assessments that were done had several, what I consider, fatal flaws. In the case of sea lice and the cumulative effects of the other pathogens that were considered, there was no risk assessment done. It's mind-boggling, to be honest, because sea lice are such a high-profile example of a risk coming from salmon farming.
There is a great deal of new evidence that could have been considered at the time of the risk assessments to gauge the risk from sea lice. In particular, there is DFO science that says that sockeye salmon are at extreme risk from sea lice, relative to Atlantic salmon on the farms. There is what I would consider a degree of damning evidence with regard to sea lice that was actively ignored by the policy decision of choosing not to perform a sea lice risk assessment.