 |
|
|
|
Native Rights: The Aftermath of the Marshall Decision What
are Treaty Rights? Long before Europeans arrived in “Turtle
Island” (North America) the Aboriginal peoples had been living in their
own distinct societies with their own laws, customs and economies for
thousands of years. When the
British government felt the need to legitimize their settlement claims in
the Americas they began to negotiate with the various indigenous nations.
The results of these negotiations were treaties, contracts signed
by two parties to legalize agreements between nations. When these treaties were made the indigenous peoples owned and
occupied these American territories and when they entered into the
agreements with the British Crown, they signed as independent nations and
not as subjects of the British Crown.
Had the British perceived them as subjects, the making of the
treaty between the two nations would not have been necessary. In 1760 the Peace and Friendship Treaty was
signed between the Mi’kmaq, Maliseet and Passamaquoddy and the British
Crown. It was recognized as
an international treaty between two sovereign nations and is upheld by the
Supreme Court of Canada as being legitimate. The SCC has ruled that the
provision within section 35(1) “did not create aboriginal rights;
rather, it accorded constitutional status to those rights that were
already existing.” This
means that Aboriginal rights and treaty rights are not something that can
be granted to Aboriginals from Canadians but are already present and are
based on historical fact. What is the
Marshall Decision? On September 17, 1999 the Supreme Court of Canada acquitted Mi’kmaq Donald Marshall Jr. of three charges relating to federal fishing regulations: selling eels without a license, fishing out of season, and using illegal nets. The SCC accepted his argument that the treaties gave him the right to fish for a living. The key question
arising from this decision is what the 1760 treaty means today.
The treaty gave the Mi’kmaqs the right to trade the products of
their hunting, fishing and gathering for “necessaries”.
The SCC interpreted this to mean the right to earn a “moderate
livelihood” through trading fish and game. The Canadian
government later opposed the SCC’s decision and asked them to review the
case after problems between the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO)
and Native fishermen arose. The
SCC then claimed that they never intended the decision to mean that
Native’s could regulate their own industry and fish whenever and
wherever they wanted. At
issue is the question of resource regulation.
Did the SCC mean Natives have the right to fish with no
regulations, under DFO regulations, or under their own regulations?
Because of the confusion involved in interpreting the treaty, many
issues have begun to surface. The
government and the courts need to clarify what these treaties really mean
for today’s First Nations peoples. Consequences of the Marshall Decision On-going disputes between the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and Maritime Native fishermen have been developing since the Supreme Court of Canada released the Marshall Decision in September of 1999. A number of native reserves in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick have been the site of controversies between Native and non-Native fishermen over the last year. A policy drawn up on September 29, 1999 by the Mi’kmaq, Maliseet and Passaquoddy describes “a commitment to conservation” as the first priority for the Aboriginal fishery. The policy also specifies a commitment to education and peaceful co-existence with Canadians. It is as follows:
Twenty-seven of the 34 First Nations
affected by the Marshall decision have come to agreements with the
government concerning their fishing practices. To accommodate these
natives affected by the decision, the government implemented a $160
million plan to help them establish a commercial fishing industry. The
money being distributed to the reserves is in the form of boats,
equipment, licenses, training and fishing facilities.
Many natives believe that the program is not necessarily about
native access to the commercial industry but is a way to reduce the
economic hardship on the reserves. Many
of the First Nation reserves have signed the one-year agreement, hoping it
will make a difference in the future of their band members. Burnt Church, a native reserve in
northeastern New Brunswick was one of the reserves apposed to the plan and
did not sign the deal with the government. They were part of on-going
negotiations with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans throughout the
year 2000, and had still not reached an agreement as of August 2000.
Burnt Church band members are sticking by their beliefs that they
have the right to regulate their own fisheries as indicated to them by the
Supreme Court of Canada. The
Department of Fisheries and Oceans has stepped in, seizing lobster traps
and making arrests, stating that they must abide by the regulations set up
by the DFO. Confrontations have arisen throughout the summer months and
many more are likely to ensue. Both the government and the Native
fishermen are refusing to back down, creating tension throughout
northeastern New Brunswick. To read more on the Marshall Decision and
native rights, visit this website: |
||
 |
|
