As a Canadian citizen we have rights that are given to us by the federal government. But what happens when these rights are threatened by the very government, which granted us these rights for merely being citizens? Now I know that I am proud to be Canadian, but if I were to trace back my heritage somewhere along the line my ancestors were immigrants. It is those immigrants who were welcomed to this country by the First Nations. They exchanged rights in the form of treaties to use the resources on the land and waters including hunting and fishing. These treaties were signed by agreements of peace and friendship over 250 years ago. The First Nations of Burnt Church were merely exercising their right to fish and had their rights revoked by the federal government.
The Dorsey Model of Conflict will be used to determine the conflicts surrounding the Mi'kmaq First Nations from the Burnt Church reserve and their fight for the rights to fish freely. There are four causes of conflict that must be addressed.
1. Differences in knowledge and understanding.
There was a difference in knowledge and understanding of the treaty rights between the First Nations and Non Natives as well as between the First Nations and the Federal Government. The Non Natives do not know what the treaties mean and they believe all Canadians should have the same rights. The First Nations know that they have a right to fish and that this right was in the original treaty in 1752 and has since been reconfirmed in subsequent documents thereafter. The government does know the rights stated in the treaty but they believe these should be put into a modern context. The government needs to take on a more understanding role.
2. Differences in Values
The First Nations have their own set of values they live off the land and waters and use the resources to provide for their family. They have been fishing, hunting and gathering sustainably for 11,000 years in efforts to conserve the stocks for future generations. The First Nations of Burnt Church have hunted and fished for years and it is these traditions that are passed on to their children. The Non Natives believe that they have fished for years and that commercial fishing is a livelihood that their parents and grandparents have passed on to them. For the Mi'kmaq people fishing isn’t a livelihood it is a way of life. It is a necessity to provide food and income for their families.
The federal government was at odds with the First Nations because it is their responsibility to enforce government policies. If someone fishes out of season or out of bounds or without a license it is considered a federal offense, and therefore legal action must be taken. The government was only doing what they thought was the law, and that all Canadians should be subject to the same laws.
3. Differences in the distribution of benefits and costs.
The Mi'kmaq did not have licenses to fish, but they did have permits that were granted in the 1752 treaty. Some Natives decided to give this up, or to stop fishing after the cod collapse in order to help conserve the fish stocks. The Federal Government actually bought back the First Nations permits and licenses. The First Nations did not get their permits back and were forced to get licenses if they wanted to continue to fish. These licenses cost $ 50,000 before the Marshall incident and the prices went up there after.
The First Nations are the only group in Canada with a recognized inherent right to fish, but these rights do not always guarantee access. The majority of the Mi’kmaq are on social assistance and cannot afford such high costs.
The Non-Native commercial fishermen were making more income from fishing and could afford licenses. However after the cod collapse, they were forced to chose other species to focus on, which included lobster and were granted the majority of the licenses to a fishery previously dominated by the First Nations. The Non Native Fishermen had substantially more vessels and more traps. The First Nations were only allowed to have 4 traps per individual. Communal licenses were awarded to the Mi’kamaq.
When the government pressed charges on the First Nations, they could not afford the legal costs, the government then provided them the funding for their legal costs. This right was not continued in the next fishing season.
4. Differences due to personalities and circumstances of interested parties
The First Nations, Non Natives, DFO and RCMP are all at odds with each other, or at war as the movies states. The First Nations wanted to exercise their legal right to fish freely. The Non Natives did not really believe that this was about their rights but to compete for fishing with them. This caused hatred, racism and even protests against the First Nations in a community which was formerly very friendly with one another. The Mi’kmaq and the commercial fishermen used to fish the waters together as brothers and were very understanding to one another they were united as Fishermen. After the Burnt Church crisis they were very negative towards the Mi’Kmaq even aggressive bringing guns on to the waters.
The DFO and RCMP were now monitoring the fishery very closely, but they were not doing so fairly. They watched as the Non Natives and Natives were at war on the waters. The Peace Rangers of Burnt Church were called to intervene between the two groups. When they did, the RCMPs went after the Peace Rangers and attacked the natives, tipped boats, seized traps and used physical violence. Then charged them with assault instead of fishing charges. This was not right, the government and RCMPs were abusing their positions of power.
Conclusion
To be honest this is the first time I have really analyzed this situation and I am really ashamed at the Federal Government of Canada. I cannot believe that it not only allowed this but actually were the cause of the Burnt Church Crisis. In the movie it was said that the First Nations need to take action and initiative in order to have their say in their fisheries.
What Burnt Church needs is Community-management for the fishery this already exists in the in-shore ground fishery in parts of southwestern Nova Scotia. DFO allocates quotas to designated areas, but locally created fishing organizations work together to guide and coordinate the fisheries management for natives and non natives alike (1). The Fishermen of Southwest Nova Scotia took a different approach, instead of violence native and non-native fishing leaders in sat down face-to-face to deal with the issues facing the groundfish fishery, as well as their differences (1). After coming together both the Natives and the Non Natives of Southwest Nova Scotia Fishery realized they both wanted the same thing “ecologically sound, community management of the fisheries, based on democratic self-governance or in the case of First Nations, self-government” (1). The community of Burnt Church needs to take this sort of initiative in order to keep the peace, and protect the resources.
1.
Stiegman, Martha. United we Fish The fight against the privatization of the fisheries is creating new alliances between native and non-native fishing communities in southwest Nova Scotia. 2003. Adapted from an article that originally appeared in Alternatives Journal: Canadian Environmental Ideas and Action, 29:4 (2003). http://www.alternativesjournal.ca
No comments:
Post a Comment