I would say we should separate DFO science and species at risk from DFO management, and I think this is a reiteration; I can't remember who, but someone else mentioned it. Quite often there's a sense....
I've lived through the CSAS process around interior Fraser steelhead, in which it appeared that after we went through a peer review process, the ADMO's office changed the wording in the document. That illustrates the why. There seems to be a culture around hiding some of the science and the recommendations.
I think there needs to be a separation between state and church inside of DFO, in the sense that science tells you what's available for harvest and what you should do or shouldn't do. That should be public information. After that, management can make a decision, but hiding these documents and hiding the paper trail that science provides is not, I think, in the public interest, and it's certainly not in the interest of wild salmon.
That's why I would make that reference, for sure.