First of all, conservation is the number one priority. That informs how we proceed with our consultations. In areas where there is aboriginal fishing, either food, social, ceremonial, or commercial, we obviously need to consult with them in terms of infringing on their rights, but the justification would be that this is for conservation purposes. Where we have consulted properly, we can use conservation as a reason for restricting all fishing activities.
Once the conservation objectives have been fulfilled, we would proceed in the same policy framework we currently have insofar as the order of priority as it relates to aboriginal rights is concerned, and then of course, non-aboriginal access to a public resource. That's the methodology we use.
For example, if a recreational fishery activity is compatible with the conservation objective, then it can be permitted. But if it isn't, then it isn't. That's how we do it. We use conservation first, because it is within our authority to restrict all activities for conservation purposes. But we do have the honour of the crown and the due diligence that we must follow when it comes to infringing on aboriginal rights.