No, I think the same issue is at play. Under the Fisheries Act, I think I'm right in saying, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans has the right to close fisheries to everybody for conservation reasons. The wrinkle that appeared in the case of RCAs is that you protect an RCA because it's an area of high abundance. Clearly, to define that as an area where first nations cannot harvest is tricky to do, because you're running up against their constitutional right. That said, I think one needs to make a clear distinction between protecting an area, whether it's done by treaty or otherwise, in order to protect first nations' rights and creating marine protected areas, which are designed for a different purpose, and which, therefore, ideally should have rules that apply generally.
On May 16th, 2017. See this statement in context.