So you would know that in Badger, it said that in order to infringe an aboriginal treaty right, you first have to justify it through either safety or conservation. However, Mikisew Cree, in 2006, also stated that before you can even get to infringement based on safety and conservation, you have to show that the honour of the Crown is met.
I'm wondering if you scrolled down to section 45 of the Marshall decision, five clauses after the one you mentioned, which says:
The existing aboriginal and treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada are hereby recognized and affirmed. It is the obligation of the courts to give effect to that national commitment. No useful purpose would be served by a rehearing of this appeal to revisit such fundamental and incontrovertible principles.
I'm wondering why you keep saying that it's clear that conservation and regulations can come from the minister.