Chippewas support Burnt Church struggle

Page 5

Dear Editor:

Images of Department of Fisheries patrol boats ramming and swamping the smaller Mi'kmaq fishermen's boats sear the hearts of every Native person in Canada. We all feel great sympathy for the Native peoples of the East Coast in their struggle and we stand in support because we have experienced the same kind of hate ourselves. For once it was shown for all to see on national TV.

In 1993, an Ontario court recognized the rights of the Chippewas of Nawash and the Chippewas of Saugeen on the Bruce Peninsula in Ontario to fish for trade and commerce. It took the Ontario and federal governments until this year to sign an agreement with us that recognizes our rights and admits us as equal partners in the management of the commercial fishery. In the seven years between the court decision and the agreement, our people suffered cut nets, nets forcibly removed from the waters of Georgian Bay by government agents, boats damaged, and physical attacks. As Francis Nadjiwon, a fishermen, said on a show aired by the CBC's 5th Estate, "It's racism. It's not just here. It's all over. No one wants to see us get a resource back."

I am heartened to see that the Canadian Fisheries minister is willing to negotiate an agreement through a mediator. Here in Ontario, we found that such negotiations were the only way we could get beyond positions made harder by confrontation. I am heartened that the Assembly of First Nations is working there in support of the First Nations. The dispute that has focused on Burnt Church is a dispute concerning all peoples in Canada-Natives and non-Natives.

It is useful to look at how the management of resources has been worked out in other areas. Here, in the Bruce Peninsula, the Ontario government finally bought out non-Native commercial licenses to make room for our people. The agreement we signed with Ontario and Canada clearly establishes us as partners in the management of the commercial fishery. Under the agreement, we oversee our own fishermen.

"Troubles" similar to ours in 1995, and those in Burnt Church in 2000, plagued the recognition of the resource rights of Chippewa tribes in American states adjacent to the Great Lakes, and of tribes in Washington State. In both those states, as in Canada, landmark court decisions recognized tribal rights to fish commercially. In the U.S., as in Canada, a vicious backlash boiled over (which continues to simmer). In the U.S., things finally quieted down when state and federal governments partnered with tribes to manage fish and wildlife harvests. One big difference is, however, that the U.S. federal government supported the tribes' bid for recognition of their rights and, later, their bid to be included in the management of the fisheries.

How can we not be included? How else can we be assured we will enjoy our rights unless we have an equal say in how they are managed? The federal government has said it recognizes self-government as a right protected by the Constitution. Are we to preside only over our poverty? Are we not to help manage a resource that will restore our self-sufficiency?

The United Nation's draft charter on Indigenous rights calls for self-government and the sharing of management responsibilities. So does the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples. And the Convention on Biological Diversity-an international agreement which Canada has signed and ratified -enjoins the signing countries to embrace the traditional knowledge that Indigenous peoples possess and accept them as full partners in the management of natural resources.

The path for governments is clearly marked. All they have to do is walk it.

Chief Ralph Akiwenzie

Chippewas of Nawash