Mi'kmaq
Indigenous ethnic group of eastern North America / From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Dear Wikiwand AI, let's keep it short by simply answering these key questions:
Can you list the top facts and stats about Mi'kmaq?
Summarize this article for a 10 year old
The Mi'kmaq (also Mi'gmaq, Lnu, Miꞌkmaw or Miꞌgmaw; English: /ˈmɪɡmɑː/ MIG-mah; Miꞌkmaq: [miːɡmaɣ])[3][4][5] are a First Nations people of the Northeastern Woodlands, indigenous to the areas of Canada's Atlantic Provinces, primarily Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, and Newfoundland,[6] and the Gaspé Peninsula of Quebec as well as Native Americans in the northeastern region of Maine. The traditional national territory of the Mi'kmaq is named Miꞌkmaꞌki (or Miꞌgmaꞌgi).
Lnu | |
---|---|
Total population | |
66,748 registered members (2023) 168,480 claimed Mi'kmaq ancestry (2016)[2] | |
Regions with significant populations | |
(Mi'kma'ki, Dawnland) Canada, United States | |
Newfoundland and Labrador | 28,282 |
Nova Scotia | 18,814 |
New Brunswick | 9,025 |
Quebec | 7,655 |
Maine | 1,489 |
Prince Edward Island | 1,483 |
Languages | |
English, Miꞌkmaq, French | |
Religion | |
Native American religion, Christianity, others | |
Related ethnic groups | |
Other Algonquian peoples Especially Abenaki, Maliseet, Passamaquoddy, Penobscot |
Person | Lnu |
---|---|
People | Lnu'k (Mi'kmaq) |
Language | Mi'kmawi'simk |
Country | Mi'kma'ki Wabanaki |
There are 66,748 Mi'kmaq people in the region as of 2023, (including 25,182 members in the more recently formed Qalipu First Nation in Newfoundland.[7][8]) According to the Canadian 2021 census, 9,245 people claim to speak Miꞌkmaq, an Eastern Algonquian language.[9] Once written in Miꞌkmaw hieroglyphic writing, it is now written using most letters of the Latin alphabet.
The Mi'kmaq, Maliseet, and Pasamaquoddy nations signed a series of treaties known as the Covenant Chain of Peace and Friendship Treaties with the British Crown throughout the eighteenth century; the first was signed in 1725, and the last in 1779. The Miꞌkmaq maintain that they did not cede or give up their land title or other rights through these Peace and Friendship Treaties.[10] The landmark 1999 Supreme Court of Canada decision in R v Marshall upheld the 1752 Peace and Friendship Treaty "which promised Indigenous Peoples the right to hunt and fish their lands and establish trade."[11]
The Miꞌkmaw Grand Council is the official authority that engages in consultation with the Canadian federal government and the provincial government of Nova Scotia, as established by the historic August 30, 2010 agreement with the Miꞌkmaq Nation, resulting from the Miꞌkmaq–Nova Scotia–Canada Tripartite Forum.[12] This collaborative agreement, which includes all the First Nations within the province of Nova Scotia, was the first in Canadian history.[12]
Historically the Santé Mawiómi, or Grand Council, which was made up of chiefs of the district councils of Miꞌkmaꞌki, was the traditional senior level of government for the Miꞌkmaw people. The 1876 Indian Act disrupted that authority, by requiring First Nations to establish representative elected governments along the Canadian model, and attempting to limit the Council's role to spiritual guidance.[13][14]
On August 30, 2010, the Miꞌkmaw Nation and the Nova Scotia provincial government reached an historic agreement, affirming that the Miꞌkmaw Grand Council was the official consultative authority that engages with the Canadian federal government and the provincial government of Nova Scotia.[12] The Miꞌkmaq–Nova Scotia–Canada Tripartite Forum preceded the agreement.[12] The August 2010 agreement is the first such collaborative agreement in Canadian history; it includes representation for all the First Nations within the entire province of Nova Scotia.[12]
Historically the Santé Mawiómi, or Grand Council, which was made up of chiefs of the district councils of Miꞌkmaꞌki, was the traditional senior level of government for the Miꞌkmaw people. The 1876 Indian Act disrupted that authority, by requiring First Nations to establish representative elected governments and attempting to limit the Council's role to that of spiritual guidance.[15][14]
In addition to the district councils, the Mꞌikmaq have been traditionally governed by a Grand Council or Santé Mawiómi. The Grand Council was composed of Keptinaq ("captains" in English), who were the district chiefs. There were also elders, the putús (wampum belt readers and historians, who also dealt with the treaties with the non-natives and other Native tribes), the women's council, and the grand chief. The grand chief was a title given to one of the district chiefs, who was usually from the Miꞌkmaw district of Unamáki or Cape Breton Island. This title was hereditary within a clan and usually passed on to the grand chief's eldest son.
On June 24, 1610, Grand Chief Membertou converted to Catholicism and was baptised. He concluded an alliance with the French Jesuits. The Miꞌkmaq, as trading allies of the French, were amenable to limited French settlement in their midst.
Gabriel Sylliboy (1874 – 1964), a respected Mi'kmaq religious leader and traditional Grand Chief of the Council, was elected as the Council's Grand Chief in 1918. Repeatedly re-elected, he held this position for the rest of his life.[16]
In 1927, Grand Chief Sylliboy was charged by Nova Scotia with hunting muskrat pelts out of season. He was the first to use the rights defined in the Treaty of 1752 in his court defence. He lost his case. In 1985, the Supreme Court of Canada finally recognized the 1752 treaty rights for indigenous hunting and fishing in their ruling on R. v. Simon.[17] On the 50th anniversary of Sylliboy's death, the Grand Council asked the Nova Scotia government for a pardon for the late Grand Chief. Premier Stephen McNeil granted the posthumous pardon in 2017.[16] Lieutenant-Governor of Nova Scotia, John James Grant, McNeil, and the Justice Minister Diana Whalen, pardoned Sylliboy and issued a formal apology: it was the "second posthumous pardon in Nova Scotia's history".[16] His grandson, Andrew Denny, now the Grand Keptin of the Council, said that his grandfather had "commanded respect. Young people who were about to get married would go and ask for his blessing. At the Chapel Island Mission boats would stop if he was crossing."[16]
Traditionally, the Grand Council met on a small island, Mniku, on the Bras d'Or lake in Cape Breton. In the early 21st century, this site is now within the reserve known as Chapel Island or Potlotek. The Grand Council continues to meet at Mniku to discuss current issues within the Miꞌkmaq Nation.
Taqamkuk (Newfoundland) was historically defined as part of Unamaꞌkik territory. (Later the large island was organized as a separate district in the province of Newfoundland and Labrador.)
According to the 2021 census, 9,245 people identified as speakers of the Miꞌkmaq language. 4,910 of which said it was their mother tongue, and 2,595 reported it to be their most often spoken language at home.[9]
Hieroglyphic writing
The Mi'kmaq language was written using Miꞌkmaq hieroglyphic writing. Today it is written mainly using letters of the Latin alphabet.
At the Kejimkujik National Park and National Historic Site, petroglyphs of "life-ways of the Mi'kmaq", include written hieroglyphics, human figures, Mi'kmaq houses and lodges, decorations including crosses, sailing vessels, and animals, etched into slate rocks. These are attributed to the Mi'kmaq, who have continuously inhabited the area since prehistoric times.[18]: 1 The petroglyphs date from the late prehistoric period through the nineteenth century.[18]: 32
Jerry Lonecloud (1854 – 1930, Mi'kmaq) is considered the "ethnographer of the Mi'kmaq nation". In 1912, he transcribed some of the Kejimkujik petroglyphs, and donated his works to the Nova Scotia Museum.[18]: 6 He is credited with the first Mi'kmaq memoir, which was recorded from his oral history in the 1920s.[19]
In the late 1670s, French missionary Chrestien Le Clercq, who was working in the Gaspé Peninsula, was inspired by hieroglyphics made by a young Mi'kmaq using charcoal on birchbark. Leclercq adopted the use of Mi'kmaq hieroglyphs to teach Catholic prayers and hymns to the people in their own form of language.[20]
Christian Kauder was a missionary in Miꞌkmaꞌki from 1856 to 1871. He included samples of Mi'kmaq hieroglyphic writing, such as the Holy Mary Rosary prayer and the Lord's Prayer, in his German Christian catechism published in 1866.[21]
David L. Schmidt and Murdena Marshall published some of the prayers, narratives, and liturgies represented in hieroglyphs—pictographic symbols in a 1995 book. As noted, the pre-contact Mi'kmaq developed these hieroglyphs. French Jesuit missionaries adopted their use to teach Catholic prayers and religion to the Mi'kmaq.[22] Schmidt and Marshall showed that these hieroglyphics served as a fully functional writing system.[22] They assert it is the oldest writing system for an indigenous language in North America north of Mexico.[22]
Etymology of the word Miꞌkmaq
By the 1980s, the spelling of the ethnonym Miꞌkmaq, which is preferred by the Miꞌkmaq people, was widely adopted by scholarly publications and the media. It replaced the previous spelling Micmac.[23]: 3 [Notes 1] Although this older spelling is still in use, the Miꞌkmaq consider the spelling "Micmac" to be "tainted" by colonialism.[24] The "q" ending is used in the plural form of the noun, and Miꞌkmaw is used as singular of Miꞌkmaq. It is also used as an adjective, for example, "the Miꞌkmaw nation".[25]
The Miꞌkmaq prefer to use one of the three current Miꞌkmaq orthographies when writing the language.[26][Notes 2] Spellings used by Mi'kmaq people include Miꞌkmaq (singular Miꞌkmaw) in Prince Edward Island (Epekw'itk), Nova Scotia (Mi'kma'ki-Unama'ki), and Newfoundland (K'taqamkuk); Miigmaq (Miigmao) in New Brunswick (Sipekni'katik); Miꞌgmaq by the Listuguj Council in Quebec (Kespek); and Mìgmaq (Mìgmaw) in some native literature.[24]
Lnu (the adjectival and singular noun, previously spelled "L'nu"; the plural is Lnúk, Lnuꞌk, Lnuꞌg, or Lnùg) is the term the Miꞌkmaq use for themselves, their autonym, meaning "human being" or "the people".[27] Members of the Miꞌkmaq historically referred to themselves as Lnu, but used the term níkmaq (my kin) as a greeting.[28]
The French initially referred to the Miꞌkmaq as Souriquois and later as Gaspesiens. Adopting a term from the English, they referred to them as Mickmakis. The British originally referred to the people as Tarrantines, which appears to have a French basis.[29]
Various explanations exist for the rise of the term Miꞌkmaq. The Miꞌkmaw Resource Guide says that "Miꞌkmaq" means "the family".[30][Notes 3] The Anishinaabe refer to the Miꞌkmaq as Miijimaa(g), meaning "The Brother(s)/Ally(ies)", with the use of the nX prefix m-, opposed to the use of n1 prefix n- (i.e. Niijimaa(g), "my brother(s)/comrade(s)") or the n3 prefix w- (i.e., Wiijimaa(g), "brother(s)/compatriot(s)/comrade(s)").[31]
Charles Aubert de La Chesnaye was documented as the first European to record the term "Mi'kmaq" for the people, using it in his 1676 memoir. Marion Robertson stated this in the book Red Earth: Tales of the Mi'kmaq (1960s), published by the Nova Scotia Museum,[32]: 5 Robertson cites Professor Ganong, who suggested that "Mi'kmaq" was derived from the Mi'kmaq word megamingo (earth). Marc Lescarbot had also suggested this.[32]: 5
The Mi'kmaq may have identified as "the Red Earth People, or the People of the Red Earth".[32] Megumaagee, the name the Mi'kmaq used to describe their land, and Megumawaach, what they called themselves, were linked to the words megwaak, which refers to the colour red, and magumegek, "on the earth".[32]: 5 Rand translated megakumegek as "red on the earth", "red ground", or "red earth".[32]: 5 Other suggestions from Robertson include its origin in nigumaach, which means "my brother" or "my friend", or a term of endearment.[32] Stansbury Hagar suggested in Mi'kmaq Magic and Medicine that the word megumawaach is from megumoowesoo, in reference to magic.[32]
Miꞌkmaw Country, known as Miꞌkmaꞌki, is traditionally divided into seven districts. Prior to the imposition of the Indian Act, each district had its own independent government and boundaries. The independent governments had a district chief and a council. The council members were band chiefs, elders, and other worthy community leaders. The district council was charged with performing all the duties of any independent and free government by enacting laws, justice, apportioning fishing and hunting grounds, making war and suing for peace.
Districts
The eight Miꞌkmaw districts (including Ktaqmkuk which is often not counted) are Epekwitk aq Piktuk (Epegwitg aq Pigtug), Eskikewaꞌkik (Esgeꞌgewaꞌgi), Kespek (Gespeꞌgewaꞌgi), Kespukwitk (Gespugwitg), Siknikt (Signigtewaꞌgi), Sipekniꞌkatik (Sugapuneꞌgati), Ktaqmkuk (Gtaqamg), and Unamaꞌkik (Unamaꞌgi). The orthography between parentheses is the Listuguj orthography used in the Gespeꞌgewaꞌgi area.
Tripartite Forum
In 1997, the Miꞌkmaq–Nova Scotia–Canada Tripartite Forum was established. On August 31, 2010, the governments of Canada and Nova Scotia signed a historic agreement with the Miꞌkmaw Nation, establishing a process whereby the federal government must consult with the Miꞌkmaw Grand Council before engaging in any activities or projects that affect the Miꞌkmaq in Nova Scotia. This covers most, if not all, actions these governments might take within that jurisdiction. This is the first such collaborative agreement in Canadian history including all the First Nations within an entire province.[12]
Marshall Decision
On September 17, 1999, the Supreme Court of Canada upheld the treaty rights of Miꞌkmaw Donald Marshall Jr. its landmark R v Marshall ruling, which "affirmed a treaty right to hunt, fish and gather in pursuit of a 'moderate livelihood'."[34] The Supreme Court also cited Section 35 of the 1982 Constitution Act in their 1999 ruling that resulted in Mi'kmaq, Maliseet, and Peskotomuhkati people the "right to hunt, fish and gather in pursuit of a 'moderate livelihood' from the resources of the land and waters."[35] The legal precedent had previously been established in the Treaty of 1752, one in a series of treaties known as the Peace and Friendship Treaties,[34] but was not being respected prior to R v Marshall.[34] This resulted in the 1993 charges laid against Marshall Jr. for "fishing eels out of season, fishing without a licence, and fishing with an illegal net".[36] In the 2018 publication, Truth and conviction: Donald Marshall Jr. and the Mi'kmaq quest for justice, Marshall was quoted as saying, "I don't need a licence. I have the 1752 Treaty."[37] The 1989 Royal Commission on the Donald Marshall, Jr. Prosecution resulted in a compensation to Marshall of a lifetime pension of $1.5 million.[38][37] Marshall used the financial compensation to finance the lengthy and costly Supreme Court case.[35] When Marshall won, 34 Mi'kmaq and Maliseet First Nations bands were affected in the provinces of New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, and the Gaspé region of Quebec.[34] The West Nova Fishermen's Coalition submitted an appeal asking for the Marshall decision to be set aside.[36] In November 17, 1999, released a new ruling (Marshall 2) to clarify that the DFO had the power to regulate the fishery for conservation purposes if it "consulted with the First Nation and could justify the regulations".[39][Notes 4]
Soon after the September 17 decision, Miramichi Bay—"one of Canada's most lucrative lobster fisheries"—[citation needed]became the site of a violent conflict between Mi'kmaq fishers and non-Mi'kmaq commercial fishers. Immediately after the ruling, Mi'kmaq fishers began to lay lobster traps out of season. Incidents such as the Burnt Church Crisis were widely covered by the media from 1999 and 2002.[35] On October 3, 1999, non-Indigenous commercial fishers in 150 boats destroyed hundreds of Mi'kmaq lobster traps, then returned to shore and vandalized fishing equipment, as well as three fish plants.[40] This was captured and documented in the 2002 National Film Board feature-length documentary Is the Crown at war with us? by Alanis Obomsawin. The documentary also described how Ocean and Fisheries department officials seemed to "wage a war" on the Mi'kmaq fishermen of Burnt Church, New Brunswick with "helicopters, patrol boats, guns, with observation by airplanes and dozens of RCMP officers".[41] The documentary asks why the fishers were being harassed for "exercising rights that had been affirmed by the highest court in the land."[41] Following lengthy negotiations with the Mi'kmaq, the DFO developed the $160 million Marshall Response Initiative, which operated until 2007, through which the DFO offered to purchase over 1,000 commercial fishing licences, including boats and gear, to support the expansion of the Mi'kmaq lobster fishery. By mid-2000, about 1,400 commercial fishermen stated their intention to retire over 5,000 licences.[40] On August 20, 2001, the DFO issued a temporary license to Burnt Church Mi'kmaq fishers while negotiations for a more permanent agreement were underway.[40] The DFO license had restrictions that some Burnt Church fishers refused: the fishers could not sell their lobsters, they could only use them for food, social, and ceremonial (FSC) purposes.[40] The "Aboriginal right to fish for food, social and ceremonial purposes (FSC)" was confirmed in the landmark 1990 R. v. Sparrow Supreme Court case which cited section 35 of the 1982 Constitution Act, 1982.[Notes 5] In May 2003, the House of Commons' Standing Committee On Fisheries And Oceans chaired by MP Tom Wappel, submitted its report on fisheries issues, which "recommended that all charges stemming from the [confrontation over the lobster fisheries]" be dropped and that the fishers should be compensated by federal government for "their lost traps and boats."[42] The report said that Mi'kmaq fishers have the "same season as non-native fishermen" and could not therefore, fish in the fall. It recommended that "native bands be issued licences, which they would distribute to native fishermen."[42]
On the tenth anniversary of the benchmark decision, CBC News reported that "Maritime waters" were "calm a decade after Marshall decision."[36]
However, by 2020, the Fish Buyers' Licensing and Enforcement Regulations, under the 1996 N.S. Fisheries and Coastal Resources Act, remains in effect—as it does in other Atlantic provinces.[43][44] These regulations do not mention the Mi'kmaq or the Marshall decision. These regulations prevent Mi'kmaq lobster fishers from selling their lobster to non-Mi'kmaq. Mi'kmaq fishers say that this does not align with the Marshall decision.[45] In 2019, the government of the Listuguj First Nation in the Bay of Chaleur developed their own self-regulated lobster fisheries management plan and opened their own lobster fishery in the fall of 2020.[45] Under the existing Fish Buyers' Licensing Regulations the self-regulated Listuguj fisheries can harvest, but can only use the lobster for "food, social and ceremonial purposes".[45]
According to Chief Terry Paul of Membertou First Nation, early in 2020, a negotiator for the DFO had offered Nova Scotia First Nations nearly $87 million for boats, gear, and training, with the condition that the First Nations would not practice their treaty right to earn a moderate livelihood fishing (ie out of the DFO season) for a period of 10 years. The proposal did not define "moderate livelihood", and was rejected.[46]
On November 9, 2020, a group of Miꞌkmaq First Nations and Premium Brands Holdings Corporation announced their $1 billion purchase of Clearwater Seafoods, which was finalised on January 25, 2021. The group of First Nations includes Sipekne'katik, We'koqma'q, Potlotek, Pictou Landing, and Paqtnkek First Nations, and is led by Membertou and Miapukek First Nations.[47] The purchase represents the "largest investment in the seafood industry by a Canadian Indigenous group". The harvest of non-Indigenous fishermen in the region will now be purchased by Clearwater Seafoods' Miꞌkmaq part owners.[48]
Dispute over rights-based inshore lobster fishery (2020–present)
Dispute over rights-based inshore lobster fishery | |||
---|---|---|---|
Date | September 2020 - ongoing | ||
Location | |||
Caused by | Miꞌkmaq exercising their treaty rights to fish | ||
Status | ongoing | ||
Parties | |||
| |||
Casualties | |||
Charged | 23 |
Since September 2020, there has been an ongoing lobster fishing dispute between Sipekne'katik First Nation[49] members of the Mi'kmaq and non-Indigenous lobster fishers mainly in Digby County and Yarmouth County, Nova Scotia.
Background
After Mi'kmaq chiefs declared a state of emergency in October 2020,[50] the Federal Government appointed Allister Surette as Federal Special Representative to investigate.[51]
In the March 2021 report's backgrounder, Surette cited Macdonald-Laurier Institute's Ken Coates who said that Mik'maq communities had benefitted from improvements resulting from the Marshall decision, as the Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) granted access to Mi'kmaq fishers to the "commercial fishery through communal licences operated by the bands". Macdonald-Laurier Institute's Ken Coates said that the commercial fishing industry had not suffered because of this.[51][52] Others disagreed, saying that Canada had never fully implemented the Marshall Decision, and that, over the decades, various levels of government and authorities mishandled and neglected local concerns related to the implementation of the Marshall decision.[50]
In September 2020, the Sipekne'katik First Nation developed a fishing plan based on their right to fish in pursuit of a moderate livelihood.[51] They issued seven lobster licenses to band members; each license has 50 tags, representing a combined total of 350 tags. One commercial lobster license represents 350 tags.[53] The lobster fishery they initiated was located "outside of the regulated commercial season in Lobster Fishing Area 34[51]in St. Marys Bay, Nova Scotia—the Kespukwitk (also spelled Gespogoitnag) district of Mi'kma'ki.
The inshore fishery is the last small-scale fishery in Nova Scotia.[citation needed] St. Marys Bay is part of Lobster Fishing Area (LFA) 34, making it the "largest lobster fishing area in Canada with more than 900 licensed commercial fishermen harvesting from the southern tip of Nova Scotia up to Digby in the Bay of Fundy."[54] It is also "one of the most lucrative fishing areas in Canada".[53] DFO reported that as of December 2019, there were 979 commercial lobster licenses in LFA 34.[53]
The Sipekneꞌkatik fishing plan "became a flash point" resulting in violent highly-charged conflict pitting non-Miꞌkmaw lobster fishers in the adjacent coastal communities and Miꞌkmaw fishers those carrying out the moderate livelihood fishery.[51]
Violence
On September 11, Sipekne'katik First Nation Chief Michael Sack sent a letter to Premier Stephen McNeil, DFO Minister Bernadette Jordan and Nova Scotia RCMP Commanding Officer Lee Bergerman, calling for them "to uphold the rule of law amid ongoing violence, threats, human rights discrimination and ongoing failure to uphold the 1999 Supreme Court of Canada decision in R. v. Marshall, recognizing the Mi'kmaq right to fish and trade." By that point, vehicles and property belonging to members of the Sipekne'katik First Nation had already been damaged and stolen, including boats being burned. There were already planned protests by non-Indigenous fishers to block the Mi'kmaq fishers' access to several wharves.[55] One such protest took place on September 15 at Saulnierville and Weymouth wharves.[56]
On September 17, Sipekne'katik launched a "moderate livelihood fishery" with a ceremony at the Saulnierville wharf, the first lobster fishery regulated by Miꞌkmaq in Nova Scotia. On September 18, the Assembly of Nova Scotia Miꞌkmaw Chiefs declared a province-wide state of emergency in response to threats by commercial and non-indigenous fishers, including some that had cut the Miꞌkmaw lobster traps.[50] On September 25, the Sipekne'katik fishery released its proposed regulations allowing the legal sale of seafood harvested under the fishery to Indigenous and non-Indigenous consumers and wholesalers. However, at the time of the announcement, Nova Scotia's Fisheries and Coastal Resources Act prohibited anyone in Nova Scotia from purchasing fish from "a person who does not hold a valid commercial fishing license issued by Fisheries and Oceans Canada," which would include the fishery.[45]
On October 1, Potlotek First Nation and Eskasoni First Nation[57] launched their own moderate livelihood fishery in a celebration at Battery Provincial Park that coincided with Mi'kmaq Treaty Day. The management plan behind this fishery had been in development for three months, prompted by the seizure of lobster traps by DFO officials. Community licenses issued through this fishery will entitle fishers to 70 tags, and boats will be allowed to carry up to 200 lobster traps each. At the time of the launch of the Potlotek fishery, Membertou was also planning on launching their own fishery, following a similar plan.[46] After the launch of this fishery, DFO officers continued to seize Mi'kmaq traps.[57]
Harassment around the Sipekne'katik fishery continued through October. On October 5, Sipekne'katik fisher Robert Syliboy, a holder of one of the moderate livelihood fishery's licenses, found his boat at the Comeauville wharf destroyed in a suspicious fire.[58] On the evening of October 13, several hundred non-Indigenous fishers and their supporters raided two storage facilities in New Edinburgh and Middle West Pubnico that were being used by Miꞌkmaw fishers to store lobsters. During the raids, a van was set aflame, another vehicle was defaced and damaged, lobsters being stored in the facilities were destroyed, and the New Edinburgh facility was damaged, while a Miꞌkmaw fisher was forced to barricade himself inside the facility in Middle West Pubnico. Indigenous leaders called the raids racist hate crimes and called on the RCMP to intervene, citing their slow response on the evening and lack of arrests even a day after the police claimed they "witnessed criminal activity". Social media posts from the commercial fishers and their supporters claimed that the lobsters taken in the raids were removed as they represented "bad fishing practices" on the part of the Miꞌkmaq, but Sipekne'katik Chief Mike Sack and a worker at the Middle West Pubnico facility claimed the lobsters that were stored there were caught by the commercial fishers, not Miꞌkmaw. Assembly of First Nations national chief Perry Bellegarde, federal Fisheries minister Bernadette Jordan, and Colin Sproul, president of the Bay of Fundy Inshore Fishermen's Association, all condemned the violence. Nova Scotia Premier Stephen McNeil maintained his position that this issue must be solved federally when asked about it at a press conference.[59] Several months later, in January 2021, the manager of the Middle West Pubnico facility, James Muise, made a public post in a Facebook group for commercial fishers, claiming that he gave the people involved in the raids permission to enter the facility and take the lobsters. Muise offered to work with people charged with offenses connected to the raids and try to get those charges dropped.[60]
Chief Mike Sack was sucker punched while trying to give a press conference on October 14.[61] Also during the violence, an elder had sage knocked out of her hand while smudging, and a woman was grabbed by the neck.[62]
On October 15, the Miꞌkmaq Warrior Peacekeepers arrived at the Saulnierville wharf with the intention of providing protection to Miꞌkmaq who were continuing to fish amid the violence.[62]
On Friday, October 16, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said that his government was "extremely active" in trying to de-escalate the situation. He also stated that he expected the police to be keeping people safe, and acknowledged concerns that the police had not been doing so.[62]
Three days after the initial raids on the storage facilities, on the evening of October 16, the Middle West Pubnico facility was destroyed in a large fire, deemed "suspicious" by the RCMP. One man was taken to hospital with life-threatening injuries after the fire, but the RCMP did not provide details regarding the man's association to the lobster pound, other than that he was not an employee.[61] The destruction led to further calls from Chief Sack for increased police presence, as well as an appeal from the Maritime Fisherman's Union for the federal government to appoint an independent mediator.[63][61]
On October 16, Mi'kmaq lobster fishers from the Sipekne'katik First Nation quickly sold all their lobsters after setting up shop in front of the Province House in Halifax with potential customers lined up around the block.[64] The fishers said they were putting pressure on Premier McNeil to act.[64]
On October 17, Nova Scotia Premier Stephen McNeil, released a Twitter statement requesting that the federal government define "what constitutes legal harvesting in a "moderate livelihood" fishery.[11]
On October 21, Sipekne'katik managed to secure an interim injunction against the restriction of band members' access to the Saulnierville and Weymouth wharves, as well as the New Edinburgh lobster pound. The motion for the injunction was filed ex parte due to the urgency of the situation, as the band was struggling to sell any of their catch in the midst of the violence and protests. The injunction will remain in place until December 15, 2020.[65]
In January 2021, 23 people were charged in connection to the violence at the lobster storage facilities on October 13, 2020: 15 for break-and-enter and 8 for break-and-enter and mischief.[60] Their court date is set for March 29, 2021.[66]
Intimidation over the fishery dispute has continued into 2021. In mid-January, lobster harvester and Sipekne'katik citizen Jolene Marr, whose brother was surrounded in the West Pubnico lobster pound on October 13, was sent a seven second-long close-up video of a man's face that included what "sounds like a racial slur and six gunshots in the background."[66]
Legal action
On March 26, 2021, 43 Mi'kmaq lobster fishers from the Sipekne'katik First Nation filed a statement of claim against the attorney general of Canada, the RCMP, the DFO, and 29 non-Indigenous fishers including the Bay of Fundy Inshore Fishermen's Association (BFIFA). The claim alleges that the non-Indigenous fishers named as defendants took the law into their own hands and engaged in violence against the moderate livelihood fishery, that they were encouraged to do so by BFIFA, and that the DFO and RCMP contributed to the harm by not intervening in the foreseeable violence.[67]
Talks with DFO
On October 23, 2020 the Mi'kmaq Rights Initiative (known as the KMKNO for "Kwilmu'kw Maw-klusuaqn Negotiation Office") announced that talks with the DFO over defining "moderate livelihood" had broken down. The following Wednesday (October 28), Terry Paul, chief of Membertou First Nation, stepped down from his position with KMKNO and the Assembly of Nova Scotia Mi'kmaq Chiefs, saying "[his] confidence in the operations of the organization [sic] have weakened over time," citing issues of transparency, and preferring to pursue treaty rights negotiations outside of the Assembly.[57] Membertou's withdrawal follows Sipekne'katik's own withdrawal earlier in the month on October 6, leaving the Assembly as a representative of 10 of the 13 Mi'kmaq First Nation bands (Millbrook having also withdrawn earlier). According to Paul, when he talked with the other ANSMC Chiefs about his decision, there seemed to be a willingness to deal with the issues he had identified in the negotiation process, so that he could rejoin shortly.[68]
Fisheries Minister Bernadette Jordan sent a letter to Chief Mike Sack on March 3, 2021, outlining the terms under which a moderate livelihood fishery could be negotiated, and what the federal government would be "prepared" to allow; the letter proposed balancing "additional First Nations access through already available licences" and stated that "these fisheries will operate within established seasons." These terms were rejected by Chief Sack, who stated that "we have a management plan that is better for conservation than theirs is, so we're going to follow our own plan."[69]
Truth and Reconciliation Commission
In 2005, Nova Scotian Miꞌkmaw Nora Bernard led the largest class-action lawsuit in Canadian history, representing an estimated 79,000 survivors of the Canadian Indian residential school system. The Government of Canada settled the lawsuit for upwards of CA$5 billion.[70][71]: 190
In autumn 2011, there was an Indian Residential Schools Truth and Reconciliation Commission that travelled to various communities in Atlantic Canada, who were all served by the Shubenacadie Indian Residential School, the sole residential school for the region. In his 2004 book entitled Legacies of the Shubenacadie Residential School, journalist Chris Benjamin wrote about the "raw wounds" of Miꞌkmaw children who attended the Shubenacadie institution in the period spanning over three decades, from 1930 to 1967.[71]: 195
Miꞌkmaq Kinaꞌ matnewey
The first Miꞌkmaq-operated school in Nova Scotia—the Miꞌkmaq Kinaꞌ matnewey—[71]: 208 was established in 1982 he result of a collaboration between the Miꞌkmaw community and the Nova Scotia government. The school is the most successful First Nation Education Program in Canada, according to Benjamin.[71]
By 1997, all Miꞌkmaq on reserves were given the responsibility for their own education.[71]: 210 By 2014, there were 11 band-run schools in Nova Scotia,[71]: 211 and the province has the highest rate of retention of aboriginal students in schools in Canada.[71]: 211 More than half the teachers are Miꞌkmaq.[71]: 211 From 2011 to 2012 there was a 25% increase in Miꞌkmaw students going to university. Atlantic Canada has the highest rate of aboriginal students attending university in the country.[71]: 214 [72]