In terms of scientific evidence and traditional ecological knowledge—that's what I gather your question is—how can we advance the traditional ecological knowledge of a first nation without having some measure of management agreement? That was part of my comments about the federal government or DFO looking to pursue something with the province, or the potential. I think we need to turn and look to examples that are in Canada, as well as around the globe, where we have co-management in existence.
One organization that I'm aware of is the Skeena Fisheries Commission. They've made great strides in incorporating traditional ecological knowledge. The path they laid out for us can be replicated, and I think that it needs to be supported and continued. But without adequate resourcing, there is always going to be a challenge in terms of getting through any measure of consultation.
I think—not think, I know—that today, with Canada's embracing of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, first nations have a much stronger perspective on how they wish to re-engage with the Canadian government on all manner of topics. This is something that's entirely consistent with the government's commitment to Canadians and to first nations alike.
We need to think outside the box. We need to learn from the past governments' misdeeds, in terms of ignoring the consultative requirement as well as the absence of resourcing for first nations to participate. TEK is something that I know first nations possess. It's something that DFO has stated it wants to hear. I think the burden is to get it through the bureaucracy that this is more than just anecdotal stories about what we understand of our lands and territories.
I hope that answers your question.