Letters to the Editor
Telegraph Journal
PO Box 2350
Saint John, N.B. E2L 3V8

Dear Editor:

Re: "Burnt Church woman tucks notes in lobster traps to DFO officials", June 17, 2000

In its Marshall decision, the Supreme Court of Canada did not rule that a 1760 treaty gave New Brunswick natives the right to harvest lobster.

Rather the Court's November 17, 1999 clarification 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.

Courts in New Brunswick have heard two cases involving the Marshall decision this year.

In Bernard, a provincial court judge denied that Miramichi natives had the right to harvest timber and concluded that the treaties of 1761 and 1779 contemplated trade in furs and covered very little else.

In Barlow, the Federal Court of Canada was provided evidence by the Department of Fisheries that New Brunswick natives did not have a history of catching lobster at the time treaties were signed, effectively undermining any claim to a right to harvest lobster for food or commercial purposes.

New Brunswick natives have yet to establish they have a right to harvest lobster for food or commercial purposes.

Yours sincerely,

John Cummins, M.P.
Delta-South Richmond