Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary defines “duress” as forcible restraint or restriction, compulsion by threat; specifically: unlawful constraint or coercion.
I am a Hereditary Chief of the Mi’kmaq Grand Council. I am also a member of Esgenoopetitj community. Non-natives know us as Burnt Church First Nation. There was recently an agreement signed concerning lobster fishing, between the federal government of Canada and the Band Council appointed under the Indian Act to act as Indian Agents on our reserve.
The Mi’kmaq have been exercising the right to fish, hunt, gather and harvest since time immemorial. What the Euro-Canadian have failed to see is that these rights were not based on the covenant chain of treaties that were made between the Crown, Mi’kmaq, and other nations, but rather, the peace and friendship treaties. These treaties identified the inherent right to fish, gather, and harvest. They identified and clarified boundaries for the foreigners, specifically their involvement with Indians, in order to maintain peace. The Crown and its subjects were forbidden to interfere with Indians in their natural habitat. Belchers Proclamation on May 4, 1762, and the Royal Proclamation of 1763 restated this fact.
Before the ink dried the Crown started violating these treaties. The Mi’kmaq continued to honor the treaties that were made in the name of peace, and at no time surrendered or ceded territory, government, or the inherent right to sustain themselves. However, the occupiers/squatters have done nothing but to try to starve the Indian out of his existence by denying him what is rightfully his.
To keep peace, when denied our inherent right, we took it to Euro-Canadian courts to find a solution. This turned out to be one of the biggest mistakes my people ever made. For those making the judgments were more than willing to change the laws and turn them against my people.
One example is the Donald Marshall ruling which was made by the Supreme Court of Canada in 1999. This ruling affirmed the Mi’kmaq right to fish, hunt, gather, and harvest. The judgment came down as if it were a treaty right when in all reality it was and is an inherent right. After the court had made the ruling, we once again came under attack when we tried to exercise our rights. The first assault by non-native fishermen and then by the government agents themselves under the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. As the pressure began mounting from these attacks, Mi’kmaq and Maliseet communities started signing agreements with the government. These agreements deny the Mi’kmaq the right to make a living, or provide for their families.
My community of Burnt Church felt that this right was meant not just for the individual, but for the entire Mi’kmaq Nation and especially for our community. We decided to develop our own community-based management plan in harvesting fish. This plan was reviewed and highly supported by conservation and environmentalist groups.
Violence began as soon as we decided not to sign away our rights. Our gear was cut out in the waters; costing my community over $200,000. The government began seizing traps, ramming our boats, and assaulting my people in the waters. Charges were brought up against my people for obstruction, assault, and once again illegal fishing. No charges were ever laid against those who destroyed and seized our traps, assaulted our people, and rammed our boats.
The government utilized an addendum to the ruling by doing a study on what might threaten conservation. They went to the courts and lied, stating that according to their study any additional fishing would jeopardize the stock. Thus, conservation became a just cause to stop Indians from exercising the right to fish. What they deliberately failed to mention to the courts was that within our management plan we would have only had 2 percent of what the non-natives were already currently fishing. They also didn’t mention that the Indian fishery did not cause some of the increase in the lobster fishery, but rather non-natives poaching the lobster with no regard for undersized or berried lobster.
The DFO started buying out licenses from the non-native fishermen to make room for the Indians. A specified amount was set aside for my community. We declined these licenses and went with our plan, a plan based on conservation to protect the species for the seventh generation of yet unborn. We refused to subject ourselves to a fisheries act with a bad conservation track record. For example, depletion of the cod and salmon industry and placing over 300 other species at risk. Since we did not accept the licenses, they sat idle, so in no way did lobster fishery increase. With our management plan we realized that with what had been allotted to our community, only 75 percent would have been utilized. Instead of going with the maximum usage the way the DFO proposed, we would have conserved 25 percent.
The government’s approach, as before, has been to “negotiate” agreements with poverty stricken Indian communities and by carefully wording the agreements and offering monies, they devised a way to deceitfully take away the rights of the Mi’kmaq people. The latest agreement was signed by a small number of Band Council people, its Indian Agents, in a room without even a lawyer present to advise them. This new fishery agreement is already being represented as a historic breakthrough.
The agreement was entered into under duress. The government of Canada used our hunger and poverty, violence against us, our vulnerable position, the threats of the Crown, the charges against all of our people who were defending our rights, as coercion against us. All this was used to get our people to “agree” to a fishery agreement that the community did not want.
The United Nations Human Rights Committee has ruled that the extinguishment of our aboriginal and treaty rights is violation of fundamental human rights. History will show this present injustice and it will be said that the Mi’kmaq people signed under great duress. Peace cannot arise out of injustice and no “certainty” can result from the imposing of an unequal agreement. The Crown, and Canadians, will get no lasting benefit from these “deals” involving the annihilation of our rights, except the despair and resentment of generations of our children and people.