Thank you, Minister.
I find it odd. I've heard the Conservative members opposite talk to you about have they read the Marshall decisions. As a former professor of Mi'kmaq studies, I'm wondering sometimes what Marshall case they're alluding to. Both Marshall I and Marshall II said that Donald Marshall Jr., someone who grew up 30 minutes away from me, someone I knew in my life and thanked for his efforts.... Not once but twice he went in front of the Supreme Court. He fished for eels, sold those eels out of season both times, and both times the Supreme Court ruled that his treaties were protected by section 35 of the Constitution and also by section 52 of the Constitution, which says that the Constitution of Canada is the supreme law of Canada and that any law that is inconsistent with that provision of the Constitution is to the extent of the inconsistency of no force and effect.
I'm wondering how much that weighs into Canada's judgment when we're dealing with Mi'kmaq rights that have been upheld twice in the Supreme Court of Canada and that are recognized by the Constitution, the supreme law of this Canada. How much weight do we give to that when we're actually considering putting any kind of regulations in place that would be of no force and effect legally?