We have to recognize as well there are various aspects of the fisheries wherein first nations have rights. As I said in my opening comments, there's a direct difference between food, social and ceremonial rights versus moderate livelihood rights.
When we brought the case to the Supreme Court, none of us argued the idea of a moderate livelihood. At the time, both sides argued there were two types of fishing: there's food fishing, and there's commercial fishing. It was the Supreme Court that developed this third form of fisheries called a moderate livelihood.
It did that, because in a food fishery, first nations have certain priorities when it comes to access to the fisheries. That comes from the Sparrow case and others. The Supreme Court was concerned about the fact that if we started talking about rights in the commercial sphere, there were inherent limitations or inherent “parameters”, as I call them, that would be around. That's why it came up with the concept of a moderate livelihood.
What's clear, however, is that the Mi'Kmaq, in this instance, are the only ones that have a section 35 right to a moderate livelihood. That doesn't exist for fishers.