Your report four said that it's “beyond the scope of the Committee to define what would constitute a moderate livelihood.” My comment to that would be that no one can do that and you shouldn't even try. It's a bad idea. Let it go. There's a lot of that sort of thing, where you're inviting or asking the Government of Canada in your report number four to work out what that is, to help define it and so on, but it's a discriminatory requirement and it shouldn't be there.
The reason the Supreme Court of Canada put that in was because of a very particular issue arising from the way Mr. Marshall was prosecuted. It's more detail than I can go into now—I can write to you about it later—but I think the point is that the two Marshall cases were peculiar because the Crown was beating up on Mr. Marshall for a very tiny amount of fish and the court wanted to see him acquitted—