I think that statement is correct. If, at some point, a group of fishers wanted to take money out of their own pocket to contribute to the costs of an activity in partnership with the government, whether scientific in nature or something else, in my opinion, this would not run counter to the judgment in the Larocque case. However, I do not think that is what we said here this morning.
Provided the contribution is voluntary—The problem arises when the contribution is forced or determined based on a quota. If it is called a voluntary contribution and the fishers are told that if they do not pay, they will lose 4,000 tonnes of quota, is that really a voluntary contribution? We have to understand the subtle distinctions.
I am not sure whether you understand what I mean.