Madam Speaker, I am somewhat concerned by most of the remarks I heard tonight. They have all be on the moderate livelihood side, and yes, that does need to be addressed. However, there was also another key point in terms of the Marshall decision, and that relates to conservation.
The court stressed the priority of conservation and the responsibility of the minister. I would like to quote the Marshall decision, which states, “The paramount regulatory objective is conservation and responsibility for it is placed squarely on the minister responsible and not on the aboriginal or non-aboriginal users of the resource.” That is a point that is not talked about in the media and has not really been talked about tonight.
Both those issues have to be addressed: the right for a moderate livelihood and the conservation of the resource for both commercial fishermen and aboriginal fishermen. Would the member agree with that?