Mr. Chair, there are a couple of little points here that I think we have to be very conscious about. I fully understand that, and we can argue that when we look at the value of the fishery to the country, we look at the value of the recreational fishery. However, there are two things.
Number one, when we're concerned that there might be too many escapements, if we're going to have a fishery of the future, conservation has to come first. If it happens when we break down who got what.... Our first aim in the fishery is conservation. How many fish do we have to leave in the water to spawn in order to build our stocks? That's first. After that, then we have food, social, ceremonial, and then commercial, recreational, etc. However, conservation has to come first, and if we're going to make a mistake, let's make a mistake by leaving a little bit more rather than less, because we'll pay the price down the road.
In relation to commercial versus recreational fishing, this argument goes on. From a purely personal perspective, I come from a family and a boat where you either caught some fish or you didn't eat; it was as simple as that. So we have the commercial fishermen. You can throw names around of international corporations, etc., but generally for the person in the boat catching the fish, that is his only source of living. In terms of the person who comes in and maybe leaves more money in the local town to catch three salmon than this fisherman makes, that's a greater argument.
Until we can find some way for that fisherman in the boat to be able to sell each salmon for whatever value to somebody else...that's pretty hypothetical at this stage. Commercial fisheries exist because for 500 years people have fished in this country and have made a living. If we're going to take that living away from them, somebody had better come up with some good ideas as to what the fellows in the boat are going to do before we start making major shifts in any other direction.