Solidarity, not scapegoating
Bernd Christmas is an advisor to the Union of Nova Scotia Indians. Socialist Worker spoke with him on Saturday, October 9.
We've talked with many non-native fisher groups who say they support aboriginal treaty rights. Has that been your experience as well?
Yes. The Supreme Court has agreed that the Mi'kmaq have this treaty right.
At first, fisher groups expressed a fear that there were thousands of aboriginals going fishing. But when you point out the actual numbers, and the impact of the current native fishery, they realize we're not going to destroy their livelihood.
We're getting the response that people want to support us.
What do you see as government's role in all this?
Government's role is to uphold the law. They have a responsibility to ensure the treaty is upheld.
They have to show the true responsibility and honour of the crown by stepping in and disavowing comments of people who've said things like, "we're calling for the extinction of the Mi'kmaq."
Yes, I heard that quote, the person who said they were going to do to the Mi'kmaqs what they did to the Beothuks in Newfoundland.
Yes. Where's the government in that? Nova Scotia doesn't want to do anything, and the Federal government -- they don't want to do anything.
What's the first thing they do? Chrétien calls for a stay of the court ruling. What they're saying is, we want to stay the rights of Aboriginals because of the effects the rights will have on non-natives.
But there's this guy who said, "fish blood, Indian blood, what's the difference?" And, "I wish I had a gun, and the nerve to use it." Those are very disturbing things.
The governments of the provinces, of Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, Newfoundland, New Brunswick, Quebec -- they should be saying, "we disassociate ourselves from these comments." But they're saying, by keeping silent, they're saying, "yeah, keep saying that stuff, keep up the myth of the cowboy and Indian days."
But when we talk to groups, they say there are extreme elements, but don't paint all our fishermen that way ... and we recognize that it's just a few a hotheads.
We've shared for years. We can sit down and work it out.
I've heard of a proposal from the Aboriginal Policy Convention of First Nations Chiefs, to jointly manage the fishery and other ocean resources with independent fisher organizations.
We want to be involved in all aspects of the fishery: fishing, processing, management of the resource -- we believe the Atlantic Fishery rules and regulations will have to be changed to accommodate aboriginal views.
People should see it as a positive thing. We have a thousand years of experience, and our advice has fallen on deaf ears. We're not just another stakeholder, we're a nation with constitutionally protected rights. Let's take that road, let's see what happens, and we think it'll have a positive ending.
I heard you mention recently, on a TV interview, an interim proposal you proposed to the governments in February, which the government rejected. What was that proposal?
February 18, we tabled that proposal.
We put forward a three phase plan: one, a study of the extent of the Mi'kmaq fishery; two, a communication and consultation phase; three, develop a five year native fishery management plan.
We thought that would have eased the tension, but the province didn't want to go with it. We feel they're in a litigate rather than a negotiate mode. There are a number of outstanding cases ... they want to continue to fight us.
And the fringe element sees that and they think they have support.
We have some fundamental rights even bigger than the fishery. There's an outstanding land claim to the entire Maritimes. Mi'kmaq have title to the land, the water, the resources ... we need a strategy to avoid the current situation in the future. You can't be like an ostrich with your head in the ground.
The proposal asked for fifty thousand dollars for the study. It's cost a hundred times that now. There's damaged property -- all that will need to be compensated. Fifty thousand dollars could have saved all that.
Some fisher leaders have said the racism is a result of a combination of factors, like disorganization, inaction of the government, and pressure from big business. Would you agree?
Probably all that is going on.
We are very strong and very united. We have a few who go against the grain, but we're mostly able to keep united, especially on some basic issues.
But we do have a few, so we understand the difficulties facing fisher groups. There's about 120 fisher groups across the Maritimes; it's hard to be united. Big business works on that, and they and the government try to divide and conquer.
We're able to resist, but big business puts a lot of pressure on the fishing sector. They use purchasing power to fracture communities. For instance they'll buy a snow crab for a particular price in one place, and a different price somewhere else.
I wanted to ask for your take on the moratorium. It was not a capitulation, but it seems to me that it's understandable that the Burnt Church First Nation didn't want to stop fishing, after all that's happened.
Yes. We saw the moratorium not as a capitulation, but as an olive branch. If [DFO and fishers] truly do want to negotiate, we want to do that. And there were also the inflammatory statements being made, so there was a safety issue.
We don't see it as a capitulation. Why not wait another 30 days? Now it's up to the rest of Canada to get to the table. The Mi'kmaq have compromised as much as we could reasonably be expected to. Now we're saying, put your money where your mouth is.
It's time for people to put the honour back in their words. Let's sit down and move forward together.