Thank you.
I would say, all of the above. It's quite a systemic issue, and the issues arise not the least from a lack of capacity and resources in the department. Even from the natural sciences side, certainly there are a lot of critiques on there needing to be more investment in stock assessment, for example.
Certainly I think capacity and resources to effectively develop a scientific framework, such as the one I described, is necessary, and always a challenging hurdle, but I think there are some fundamental approaches and thinking within the department that underscore culture, if you will, or maybe it's even training around what science is, and even what socio-economic science is. I've had very intelligent, good scientists within the department explain to me that what the department considers a socio-economic analysis, for example, is what I would actually refer to as a very shallow economic analysis. It doesn't go into enough detail on the basic economics around distribution of benefit, coastal community impacts, incomes, for example. I think there's a wholesale need to rebuild, really, the approach to science in DFO.
I'll think about some more clear recommendations around that in my written submission, because I think that's a really good question and I have a team of people who probably would be eager to contribute to it as well.
I should also emphasize the need for independence and transparency in that process.