Letters to the Editor
Lighthouse Publishing
353 York Street
Bridgewater, Nova Scotia
B4V 3K2

Dear Editor:

Re: Gerald Keddy's M.P. Comments, Lighthouse Log, June 12, 2000

The September 17, 1999 Marshall decision of the Supreme Court of Canada was interpreted as giving natives a priority right to fish for commercial purposes to the extent of a moderate livelihood.

One week after the decision I advised 700 fishermen, at a meeting in Yarmouth, to return to court and seek a stay of judgement and a rehearing of the case. The purpose of this request was to seek a cooling off period and a clarification of the court's intention in its decision.

The advice was also given the federal government and governments of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward island. South Shore M.P. Gerald Keddy sided with them and roundly criticized me in Parliament for my suggestion. He advised accepting the Court decision as delivered and supported negotiations with natives from the weak position afforded by the Supreme Court's original opinion.

Fortunately the West Nova Fishermen's Coalition saw it differently. In response to their application, the Supreme Court on November 17th made it clear that its original decision was nothing more than a ruling on a small scale commercial eel fishery and that nothing more should be read into it.

To date both Mr. Keddy and his friend the Minister of Fisheries have ignored this decision and the Minister has proceeded apace transferring boats and licences to natives without fear of admonishment by the Member from South Shore.

The native food fishery for lobster will soon be in full swing in many parts of the Maritimes. Research of government documents, and court records and decisions have led me to the substantial conclusion that an aboriginal right to harvest lobster for food does not exist.

Nevertheless, the federal government has been providing natives hundreds of thousands of pounds of lobster under the pretence of a food fishery. The Court said an aboriginal right to a food fishery would only be available to natives if they could show that the activity was central to their culture, prior to contact with Europeans.

To date natives have been unable to provide evidence of a traditional lobster fishery prior to contact. In fact the government provided evidence to the Federal Court this year that the Mi'kmaq did not have a history of catching lobster that would afford them a lobster food fishery.

Nevertheless, I have yet to hear Mr. Keddy demand that the government stop the lobster food fishery.

At issue in the discussion is my insistence that the committee demand, and take all means at its disposal, to get the federal negotiators on Marshall before the committee to explain their mandate and to produce for the committee's scrutiny, as signed, the agreements with native bands. I have also requested the legal opinion on which the Minister is basing his policy of transferring licences, vessels and gear to native bands.

Without the testimony and documentation requested, it is impossible for committee members to understand and evaluate the government's response to Marshall and its impact on fishermen and fishing communities.

Why the Member from South Shore and his NDP and Liberal friends on the committee won't stand up for their constituents and call the Minister to account for his failure to respond to my legitimate requests is baffling.

My quarrel with Mr. Keddy is not about how many times he spoke in Parliament or in Fisheries Committee but about what he had to say when he did speak. I am happy to let fishermen decide who is most effectively speaking on their behalf and would welcome the opportunity to come to the South Shore and to engage Mr. Keddy in a public discussion on the issues at hand.

Yours sincerely,

John Cummins, M.P.
Delta-south Richmond