Skip to content

Campaigning Wiki

3 min read

lang: en

Summary

From 1999 to 2002, the Mi’Kmaq First Nation in Burnt Church, New Brunswick, Canada, campaigned to defend their treaty rights to fish, following the 1999 Supreme Court Marshall Decision that affirmed those rights. The campaign involved continued fishing, blockades, and petitions, facing opposition from non-Aboriginal fishers and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. An agreement was reached in August 2002 requiring all fishers to have licenses and fish only during the season, but the Mi’Kmaq considered the agreement coercive and a limitation on their rights.

Tactics used

Tactics used

Background

The Mi’Kmaq people of New Brunswick have traditionally fished in the Miramichi Bay and River. On 17 September 1999, the Supreme Court of Canada’s Marshall Decision upheld native fishing rights, causing tension between native and non-native fishers. The Burnt Church First Nation sought to maintain their treaty rights to hunt, fish, and gather, opposing government regulations they saw as infringing on those rights.

What happened

On 3 October 1999, 150 non-native fishing boats protested against native fishers, destroying traps and equipment [source: nv-database]. The Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) minister Herb Dhaliwal met with native leaders, but Burnt Church First Nation refused to accept new fishing rules, developing their own fisheries policy [source: nv-database]. In November 1999, the Supreme Court’s Marshall 2 decision allowed government regulation for conservation, leading the DFO to limit traps and confiscate equipment [source: nv-database]. In late July and early August 2000, native boats were seized and 18 people arrested; other First Nations from British Columbia and Ontario came to support the Mi’Kmaq [source: nv-database]. In late August 2000, native fishermen blocked Highway 11, and fisheries officers continued seizures and arrests [source: nv-database]. In 2001, the federal government issued a temporary license to Burnt Church Mi’Kmaq, but it restricted selling catch and lasted only a week; the Mi’Kmaq then blocked reserve entrances and continued fishing, leading to a new license until October 2001 [source: nv-database]. In April 2002, a federal committee recommended dropping charges and compensating fishermen [source: nv-database]. On 1 August 2002, an agreement required all fishers to have licenses and fish only during the season [source: nv-database]. The Hereditary Chief of the Mi’kmaq Grand Council declared the agreement was made under duress and would not bring lasting peace [source: nv-database].

Key people & organizations

  • Mi’Kmaq First Nations
  • Hereditary Chief of the Mi’kmaq Grand Council
  • Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO)
  • Herb Dhaliwal
  • Canadian First Nations
  • British Columbia First Nations
  • Ontario First Nations
  • Christian Peacemaker Teams

Outcome

Verdict: partial.

The Mi’Kmaq succeeded in keeping their right to fish, but now had to follow new regulations like fishing only during the season and obtaining licenses, which they saw as a limitation on their treaty rights. The campaign gained media attention and support from other First Nations, but the agreement was considered coercive by the Mi’Kmaq leadership. [source: nv-database]

Lessons

  • Continued nonviolent action, such as fishing as protest, can maintain pressure on authorities even without formal negotiation.
  • Building alliances with other communities can amplify a campaign’s reach and support.
  • Media attention can help highlight injustices and build public sympathy.

Sources

Disclaimer: Included as a teaching example of campaign craft, not as endorsement.

Sources & verification

  • nv-database — grounding: primary — license: link-only
  • Rewritten: 2026-06-25 via worker_casestudies_v2.py

Graph View

Backlinks