Letters to the Editor
National Post
300-1450 Don Mills Road
Don Mills, Ontario M3B 3R5

Dear Editor:

Re: "Mi'kmaq threaten to violate off-season lobster restrictions", July 4, 2000

In its Marshall decision, the Supreme Court of Canada did not rule that Mi'kmaq natives have a right to harvest lobster commercially in the off-season.

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. The Court specifically ruled its decision "cannot be generalized to a declaration that licensing restrictions or closed seasons can never be imposed".

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

In Bernard, a provincial court judge denied that Miramichi Mi'kmaq 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 the Mi'kmaq 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.

Mi'kmaq natives have yet to establish they have a right to harvest lobster for food or commercial purposes. Until they do, there is no basis for a native lobster fishery.

Yours sincerely,

 John Cummins, M.P.
Delta-South Richmond