Conference 2021 Film Discussion Recap - "Film Screening and Discussion: Is the Crown at War With Us?"

Photo by Mark Timberlake on Unsplash

In 1993, Mi’kmaq Donald Marshall Jr. was arrested and charged for illegal fishing. He was found guilty on all three charges in provincial court, and the convictions were upheld by the court of appeal. In 1999, the Supreme Court of Canada reversed Marshall’s convictions. In the landmark ruling known as the Marshall case, the highest court upheld the fishing rights of the Mi’kmaq, Wolastoqiyik and Peskotomuhkati people, as established in the Peace and Friendship Treaties of 1760 and 1761. In the powerful documentary Is the Crown at War with us?, Alanis Obomsawin traces the dramatic chain of events that followed Marshall’s arrest, introducing key local and national players, and shedding light on the blatant attacks by the Canadian government against citizens exercising their constitutionally protected rights. Exploring the roots of the conflict that took place at Esgenoopetitj and on the Miramichi Bay in the summer of 2000, Alanis Obomsawin exposes the aggressions carried out by the Federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans and non-Native commercial fishers against Mi’kmaq fishers exercising their newly affirmed rights. Twenty years later, the use of violence, as captured on screen and borne by the people of Esgenoopetitj, continues to permeate the relationship between the government of Canada and First Nations communities.

Reflecting upon the tensions that escalated in the fall of 2020 between the Sipekne'katik First Nation and non-Indigenous lobster fishers in the Digby and Yarmouth counties of Nova Scotia, participants to the post film screening discussion took a critical look at the historical and present-day assimilation of First Nations in the context of fisheries. 

Sherry Pictou, whose younger self appears in the documentary, initiated the conversation by untangling some of the narratives that have arisen through decades of fisheries conflicts. Drawing on the struggles of Mi’kmaq fishers in Nova Scotia, she warned against an overly simplified framing of the tensions as an ‘us versus them’ situation. Instead, she drew attention to one of the roots of the conflict: the state-led assimilation of Indigenous communities into large-scale commercial fisheries. Fishing agreements, by which Indigenous fishers have been forced into commercial fisheries, are one of the instruments of this assimilation policy. As Sherry pointed out, the state and non-Indigenous fishing companies are entirely comfortable with Indigenous fishers who have been successfully assimilated and who do not challenge the consolidation and commodification of fisheries. However, people in grass-root movements who refuse to place their rights, ways of life and livelihood under corporate control, and who seek to enforce their Aboriginal title, rights and Treaty rights face violence, repression and racism.

In light of Sherry’s critical perspective on the issue, participants to the discussion underlined how the key issue of the corporatization of resources had been underemphasized by media reports. Some parallels were also drawn with the agricultural sector, an area where governments have similarly designed regulatory regimes favoring only a handful of large-scale corporate players. For Indigenous communities, however, the corporatization of food systems and barriers for small food producers represent only part of the issue. 

Drawing on her experience as a lawyer at First Peoples Law, Kate Gunn spoke to the issue of the Crown’s ongoing denial of the rights of First Nations and Indigenous peoples. In the context of resource conflicts, as depicted in the documentary, she raised the question of jurisdiction and the rule of law, explaining how the idea that the same law should apply to everyone is deeply problematic. First, because it ignores Indigenous laws and, second, because it turns a blind eye to how state law is applied unevenly and the specific ways it affects Indigenous communities. Turning to the issue of the corporate control of resources, Kate observed how agreements between companies and members of the communities are too often inflated to equate to ‘consent’ by the community. In Sherry’s words, it is, in effect, a way for federal and provincial governments to relinquish their duty to consult onto companies.

Throughout the discussion, Sherry and Kate both made clear that the subsistence versus commercial use distinction cannot properly convey all of the issues at stake. People like Marshall and the Sipekne'katik fishers do not merely seek a right to take part in an activity, to fish, or to do so only for “a moderate livelihood”. They demand the recognition of the relationships between food governance, access to traditional food sources, the protection of the land and resources, as well as the social and communal purposes of food. Ultimately, fisheries conflicts are not merely an issue of Indigenous treaty rights, but are deeply connected to the question of food sovereignty, reducing poverty and creating space for Indigenous communities to define and lead their own economy.

Despite a seemingly endless fight, there is hope. For Sherry, it is carried by the youth, who she knows will not sit by, but who will stand up for themselves and their communities. For Kate, the perseverance that clients and communities have demonstrated leaves no doubt that people will continue leading the battles. Hopefully, they will find more and more allies as people in Canada seriously commit themselves to re-learning the history of this country and challenging its colonial policies.