It's hard in sort of the abstract to give a lot of examples. Again, I think it goes back to talking through on probably a species by species.... Lobster might be different from shrimp, and various other species might be different, but it's about looking at what are the demands on the fisheries and honestly talking together about what are their conservation issues. It's not about what are the other demands on the fisheries from others. The court did say that Canada can also consider the interests of other fishers, but at the same time, it has to show some priority for the treaty rights.
It's hard to give a rule book, because it's not. It's a conversation, honestly talking to each other and listening and recognizing the Mi'kmaq interest and giving it priority. Also, recognizing the Mi'kmaq management or governance interest in this, too, is really key, because that's what the model for the last 20 years with the aboriginal communal fisheries licences under the fisheries regulations.... I mean, that was never set up to be a response to Marshall in the first place, but because it treated the Mi'kmaq exactly like any other stakeholder, that is a huge part of the problem.