HALIFAX--"Expecting the federal government to protect fish stocks or fishermen in the wake of the Marshall decision is akin to relying on the fox to protect the chickens. If Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island are concerned about the future of the fishery then they must force the federal government back to court," said John Cummins, M.P. (Delta-South Richmond).

The federal government failed to put forward the best legal case because of a fear of offending native interests. They failed to properly inform the court of the legal environment in which the treaty was signed. In addition they failed to advise the court of the impact of an open ended native fishery right on fishery management, the fishermen, their families and their communities. Without these facts the majority had no basis or context on which to anchor their decision. A careful reading of the dissent makes this short coming all too clear.

Unfortuantely Nova Scotia failed to even appear before the Supreme Court of Canada as an intervenor. It would be a fatal mistake to assume that on their own either the federal Minister of Fisheries or Indian Affairs is going to fix the problem they helped create.

The provinces must force the federal government to return to court so that the court can be asked:

• How this new-found native right to the fishery can be infringed so as to protect non-native participants and ensure their livelihoods are not undermined?

• What rights non-native fishermen have to a moderate livelihood from the resource? In the Gladstone fishery decision the court found that native rights to sell fish exist alongside the rights of others who depend on the fishery for their livelihood.

• What does the native right to a moderate living from the fishery mean? Do the special benefits already available to natives constitute part of that moderate living?