Canada's supreme court refuses to re-visit the Marshall case

The Supreme Court of Canada won't re-visit the Donald Marshall case but it says governments have the right to regulate the native fishery. Now that the supreme court has clarified its earlier ruling, both sides seem happy.

Back in September, the court ruled that the Mi'kmaq have the right to fish commercially year round without a licence. The decision was followed by protests, angry confrontations and finally an uneasy truce.

The West Nova Fishermen's Association wanted the Supreme Court to spell out what power Ottawa has to regulate the Native fishery under the treaty right. The group asked the high court to consider revisiting the Marshall case and granting a stay of the decision.

The Supreme Court refused to hear it, saying the Marshall decision clearly says the government has the right to regulate the exercise of a treaty right where justified and that responsibility for it is placed squarely on the Minister responsible.

Despite losing, the fishermen's association is happy, because it feels the Court provides more details on things such as whether seasons and licences apply to the Native fishery.

Mi'kmaq groups are also pleased with the ruling. They say while the court ruled the government has the right to regulate the native fishery, it sets limits. "If governments are going to legislate and regulate our treaty right to fish, hunt and gather, then they must do so in a way that they can justify. We haven't questioned that right by the governments to regulate. We are only saying to them there are limitations to their regulation."

The Supreme Court ruling also re-affirms that governments MUST consult with the Mi'kmaq before imposing restrictions.

That's something that Nova Scotia premier, John Hamm, appears to be willing to do. He says "there are issues to be solved and those issues have been around along time and I believe it behooves all of us to sit down and solve those issues."