Canadian Politics Today
Federal Politics => Canadian Politics => Topic started by: Squidward von Squidderson on October 14, 2020, 06:47:12 pm
-
There’s a big fight between the legal commercial lobster fishery and the other legal commercial lobster fishery that involves indigenous fishers.
https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.5761468
Commercial fishermen began gathering Tuesday afternoon in Digby County and made their way to a lobster pound in New Edinburgh, where, by nightfall, a van was set ablaze, lobsters were stolen and the facility was damaged.
A similar raid also took place in Middle West Pubnico, in the neighbouring county of Yarmouth, where Mi'kmaw fisherman Jason Marr was forced to barricade himself inside a lobster pound while outside a mob vandalized his vehicle and called for him to relinquish the lobster he had harvested from the waters of St. Marys Bay.
By morning, hundreds of dead lobster were strewn across the pavement outside the pound, and confrontations continued on the ground throughout the day.
The two raids come after weeks of unrest in the province's southwest, sparked by the launch of a "moderate livelihood" lobster fishery by the Sipekne'katik band outside the federally mandated commercial season.
I understand that commercial lobstermen are concerned about their livelihood (aren’t the Mi’kmaw fishermen trying to earn a livelihood too?), but this is getting close to domestic terrorism... raiding legally caught lobsters, torching vehicles....
-
A couple more fisherfolk... does it matter ? And this is a treaty right that they have anyway.
-
I believe that indigenous peoples are guaranteed the right to hunt and fish for food and spiritual reasons, but I'm not certain that the right to a commercial fishery is guaranteed.
-k
-
I believe that indigenous peoples are guaranteed the right to hunt and fish for food and spiritual reasons, but I'm not certain that the right to a commercial fishery is guaranteed.
-k
As far as I understand, that's been decided in a court case:
In 1999, the Supreme Court of Canada (SCOC) released the Marshall Decision. The court did not give the Mi’kmaq the right to fish – but recognized and upheld that right enshrined in the Treaties.
The judges created the term Moderate Livelihood so the Mi’kmaq can make money, but not get rich. Then the court issued a second decision with a clarification that this right can be regulated by Canada.
https://www.aptnnews.ca/national-news/the-facts-behind-mikmaw-fishing-rights/
-
I believe that indigenous peoples are guaranteed the right to hunt and fish for food and spiritual reasons, but I'm not certain that the right to a commercial fishery is guaranteed.
-k
This particular nation has a right to a “moderate living”. If this makes too many commercial harvesters, the feds can buy out the non-indigenous commercial lobstermen.
-
"moderate living" remains broadly undefined through 2 decades+ of assorted governments. Not sure what "regulatory mechanism/process" allows the indigenous to assign their own fishing licenses... notwithstanding it appears, if the waldo interprets correctly, they've extended upon that to also issue their own buyers licenses to allow their catches to go to market.
as the waldo reads: In the past year or so, the Trudeau government has reached "moderate livelihood" agreements with three bands — one in Quebec and two in New Brunswick.
Federal Minister of Fisheries Bernadette Jordan said earlier this month that another rights and reconciliation agreement, as they are known, is near in New Brunswick, but that there are no deals close in Nova Scotia, despite optimism earlier this year that an agreement would be reached.
-
"moderate living" remains broadly undefined through 2 decades+ of assorted governments.
The fault for that doesn't rest with the Mi'kmaq.
-
The fault for that doesn't rest with the Mi'kmaq.
tripartite negotiations... 3 participant bodies. For whatever reasons it appears the negotiations between Canada, Nova Scotia and the Mi'kmaq have not progressed (with formal updates, notifications, etc..) beyond 2010
(https://i.imgur.com/Op3Vj5F.png)
the waldo's crack research team hasn't been able to find details of past/ongoing negotiations to suggest status... or to presumptuously assign... fault.
-
tripartite negotiations... 3 participant bodies. For whatever reasons it appears the negotiations between Canada, Nova Scotia and the Mi'kmaq have not progressed (with formal updates, notifications, etc..) beyond 2010
the waldo's crack research team hasn't been able to find details of past/ongoing negotiations to suggest status... or to presumptuously assign... fault.
Here is my guess, based on years of experience with similar groups, of what is happening.
The government is scared of making a decision and kicks the can down the road.
The indigenous folks don’t want ANY restrictions or regulation.
The commercial harvesters want it all for themselves.
But regardless of all that, domestic terrorism because you’re not getting your way can’t be tolerated.
-
More damage by the domestic terrorists on the east coast.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/lobster-facility-nova-scotia-fire-1.5765665
(https://i.cbc.ca/1.5766705.1602948979!/fileImage/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/original_780/lobster-pound-fire.jpg) The lobster pound was completely destroyed by fire early Saturday. The blaze broke out at one of two facilities raided by commercial fishermen earlier this week protesting the 'moderate livelihood' fishery launched by Sipekne'katik First Nation last month. Mi'kmaw fishers were storing their catches at the facilities. (Taryn Grant/CBC)
-
More damage by the domestic terrorists on the east coast.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/lobster-facility-nova-scotia-fire-1.5765665
(https://i.cbc.ca/1.5766705.1602948979!/fileImage/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/original_780/lobster-pound-fire.jpg) The lobster pound was completely destroyed by fire early Saturday. The blaze broke out at one of two facilities raided by commercial fishermen earlier this week protesting the 'moderate livelihood' fishery launched by Sipekne'katik First Nation last month. Mi'kmaw fishers were storing their catches at the facilities. (Taryn Grant/CBC)
#1 story on CBC right now...
-
There’s a big fight between the legal commercial lobster fishery and the other legal commercial lobster fishery that involves indigenous fishers.
I understand that commercial lobstermen are concerned about their livelihood (aren’t the Mi’kmaw fishermen trying to earn a livelihood too?), but this is getting close to domestic terrorism... raiding legally caught lobsters, torching vehicles....
Well first off, it's obvious the violence can't be tolerated, and the RCMP didn't do their jobs. This is domestic terrorism. This is the result of a breakdown in democracy, where voices are not being heard because the federal government isn't listening nor doing anything about it. And so the commercial fishers take the law into their own hands, out of rage and frustration.
This is the same thing that happened in the US with the race riots. It is domestic terrorism there too. Because people aren't being listened to by the government, and so people become frustrated and angry and take the law into their own hands when the government won't act.
-
Here is my guess, based on years of experience with similar groups, of what is happening.
The government is scared of making a decision and kicks the can down the road.
The indigenous folks don’t want ANY restrictions or regulation.
The commercial harvesters want it all for themselves.
The first is correct. They're cowards, the gov isn't doing their job. It's a disservice to both groups, and has now caused conflict.
I think the last 2 may be slight exaggerations, or applicable to some but not all. The indigenous want the right to fish, but at least the reasonable ones don't want to harvest all the lobster during mating season so there's few left in future years. The commercial harvesters don't want that either.
The indigenous fishers get to start early. They want lots of lobsters before the commercial guys start catching a lot of them. The commercial fishers are PO'd because the indigenous are scooping a lot of them up early, making the commercial fishers lose out AND it also hurts the health of the industry since the indigenous are catching a bunch of the pregnant/spawning lobsters during spawn season when they aren't allowed to fish. The commercial guys then yell "hey this isn't fair!", and then try and contact the gov, and they won't even respond. And then they get fed up and get violent.
You get these disagreements when there's 2 different sets of rules for 2 different groups and then one thinks the other is being treated better than they are.
-
You get these disagreements when there's 2 different sets of rules for 2 different groups and then one thinks the other is being treated better than they are.
One is a right, the other is a privilege, so of course there are “different rules”. However, the right is to a “modest living”, while the commercial privilege doesn’t restrict how much money one can make from their catch.
The solution is to take capacity out of the commercial side to ensure the right while maintaining conservation and sustainability. And if you take enough capacity out, you can compensate for any issues with mortality on spawning and soft lobsters that might occur from the Mi’kmaw fishery.
The only politician with the cajones to call this domestic terrorism has been Jaghmeet Singh.
-
One is a right, the other is a privilege, so of course there are “different rules”. However, the right is to a “modest living”, while the commercial privilege doesn’t restrict how much money one can make from their catch.
The solution is to take capacity out of the commercial side to ensure the right while maintaining conservation and sustainability. And if you take enough capacity out, you can compensate for any issues with mortality on spawning and soft lobsters that might occur from the Mi’kmaw fishery.
The only politician with the cajones to call this domestic terrorism has been Jaghmeet Singh.
I'm no expert on all their rules and how much they each catch etc. We can all read some news articles, it doesn't make us experts. Both the commercial catchers and the indigenous need to sit down with the gov at the table and sort it out so everyone's needs are met. Not everyone's wants will be met, which is called compromise. These 2 guys are doing it the right way:
https://www.facebook.com/510806916/videos/10157806074871917/
-
One is a right, the other is a privilege, so of course there are “different rules”.
good on ya member squiggy, good on ya! Thanks for succinctly explaining the issue: as you state, the indigenous have an all-year/all-season right while the non-indigenous fishers have a partial-year/only in-season privilege. Good on ya!
-
The only politician with the cajones to call this domestic terrorism has been Jaghmeet Singh.
He doesn't have balls. He just plays identity politics. Did he ever call the US race riots "domestic terrorism", and would he ever dare? How did he respond to the Air India terrorism? Oh but he then tried to backtrack. A dangerous snake of a politician.
-
good on ya member squiggy, good on ya! Thanks for succinctly explaining the issue: as you state, the indigenous have an all-year/all-season right while the non-indigenous fishers have a partial-year/only in-season privilege. Good on ya!
People criticizing the Liberal Party? Time for Waldo to put on them fighting gloves!
-
good on ya member squiggy, good on ya! Thanks for succinctly explaining the issue: as you state, the indigenous have an all-year/all-season right while the non-indigenous fishers have a partial-year/only in-season privilege. Good on ya!
I didn’t say the right was an unfettered year-round right. The courts have ruled that restrictions can be put in place by the feds for conservation reasons. But, being a right, any infringements have to be justified.
That’s why I said that, in lieu of the same restrictions, enough lobsters should be removed from the commercial fishery to satisfy the right so it doesn’t compromise conservation.
... known as Marshall 2. In it, the court clarified that the federal government, through DFO, could still regulate Mi'kmaw harvesting for the purposes of conservation, if it consulted with the First Nation and could justify the regulations.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/indigenous/mi-kmaq-self-regulated-moderate-livelihood-fishery-1.5727622
-
It doesn't make much sense to me to give the original stewards of our environment the right to hunt and fish during spawning seasons. It would make a lot more sense to hunt and fish when everyone else does to protect the environment and then just freeze the meat for all-year consumption and sale like everyone else does.
-
It doesn't make much sense to me to give the original stewards of our environment the right to hunt and fish during spawning seasons. It would make a lot more sense to hunt and fish when everyone else does to protect the environment and then just freeze the meat for all-year consumption and sale like everyone else does.
The real fight that must come sooner or later is going to be in limiting their food fishery and sustenance hunting to just that. That challenge to their aboriginal rights at least stands a chance of succeeding in Canada's courts.
All that's lacking now is a government that is willing to risk the loss of their votes. On our plus side, there are fewer and fewer who are willinig to get blood on their hands for the sake of sustenance fishing or hunting.
-
It doesn't make much sense to me to give the original stewards of our environment the right to hunt and fish during spawning seasons. It would make a lot more sense to hunt and fish when everyone else does to protect the environment and then just freeze the meat for all-year consumption and sale like everyone else does.
If it were an conservation concern, you might have a point.
-
You get these disagreements when there's 2 different sets of rules for 2 different groups and then one thinks the other is being treated better than they are.
Until non indigenous people accept that '2 different sets of rules' is the legal basis for the existence of this country, we're going to have a bad time.
-
Until non indigenous people accept that '2 different sets of rules' is the legal basis for the existence of this country, we're going to have a bad time.
If only it was that easy. There are much bigger issues than that to solve and they can't wait much longer to be addresses. But when you make the issue into just understanding that, you're showing that you probably don't understand the impact of allowing aboriginals to completely close off a river with a gillnet that spans shore to shore, for one simple example.
-
If only it was that easy. There are much bigger issues than that to solve and they can't wait much longer to be addresses. But when you make the issue into just understanding that, you're showing that you probably don't understand the impact of allowing aboriginals to completely close off a river with a gillnet that spans shore to shore, for one simple example.
Nice straw man.
-
In LFA 34, the regulatory name for the body of water near St Mary's Bay, where the indigenous lobster fishery is located, there are 979 lobster licences, and each licence is allowed to carry about 375-400 traps during the season. The Sipekne'katik fishery has issued 11 licences, with the right to carry 50 traps each.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-54472604
-
Until non indigenous people accept that '2 different sets of rules' is the legal basis for the existence of this country, we're going to have a bad time.
And these different sets of rules have worked out horrendously bad and have created the main schisms in this country throughout its entire existence going back to when Europeans first arrived.
-
If it were an conservation concern, you might have a point.
It's obviously part of it. Both sides have said so.
-
It's obviously part of it. Both sides have said so.
It’s literally not a conservation concern. Experts from the region and on the issue have already weighed in.
-
And these different sets of rules have worked out horrendously bad and have created the main schisms in this country throughout its entire existence going back to when Europeans first arrived.
Well, if we want to keep existing as a country, we’d better find a way to accept reality.
-
Well, if we want to keep existing as a country, we’d better find a way to accept reality.
I agree. Those laws aren't going to change. The crux of the issue is the politicians who won't deal with it.
-
It’s literally not a conservation concern. Experts from the region and on the issue have already weighed in.
I know that much of the crux of the issue is economic competition, but these indigenous and white commercial lobster catchers mention the conservation issues:
https://www.facebook.com/510806916/videos/10157806074871917/
-
I know that much of the crux of the issue is economic competition, but these indigenous and white commercial lobster catchers mention the conservation issues:
https://www.facebook.com/510806916/videos/10157806074871917/
Did you read the BBC article I posted?
-
I know that much of the crux of the issue is economic competition, but these indigenous and white commercial lobster catchers mention the conservation issues:
https://www.facebook.com/510806916/videos/10157806074871917/
I'm not reading anything from the natives or the non-natives on this but waiting for an in-depth discussion of the issues.
Anyone have anything good ?
-
Nice straw man.
The net across the entire river is an example of how we can't rely on some particular aboriginals to be the stewards of our environment in B.C. in this case.
I suspect that other areas or provinces will have similar examples of greed that can't continue to be allowed to be so destructive.
As for the straw man, that's the best argument there is for the behaviour we can't continue to condone.
-
And these different sets of rules have worked out horrendously bad and have created the main schisms in this country throughout its entire existence going back to when Europeans first arrived.
Both rules and laws too. But I sense that those who aren't understanding that are not very well informed. That is, on the overall problems and not just on this isolated incident.
-
Both rules and laws too. But I sense that those who aren't understanding that are not very well informed. That is, on the overall problems and not just on this isolated incident.
Glossing over the reality of indigenous title is a good place to start the misinformation.
-
Glossing over the reality of indigenous title is a good place to start the misinformation.
I personally don't see anything to gain by glossing over the fact that Canada's courts have consistently upheld indigineous titles. But I see some hope in the fact that two sets of laws must somehow coexist together.
And so I'll go back to my example of the gillnet strung across the entire river and say that their indigenous titles doesn't give them the right to wipe out endangered salmon runs for profit. Especially when it's being done on the faked excuse of it being done in the name of their food fishery.
What is your dog in this fight? Do you not understand that what I'm saying is completely true and is happening right now on some B.C. rivers?
It's certainly my opinion that anybody who supports this willful **** of the environment must be motivated by more profit and greed.
I have to keep my comments to my local issue that I can claim to understand very well. If that's off-topic for you as a general discussion then so be it, we'll be done.
-
I personally don't see anything to gain by glossing over the fact that Canada's courts have consistently upheld indigineous titles. But I see some hope in the fact that two sets of laws must somehow coexist together.
And so I'll go back to my example of the gillnet strung across the entire river and say that their indigenous titles doesn't give them the right to wipe out endangered salmon runs for profit. Especially when it's being done on the faked excuse of it being done in the name of their food fishery.
What is your dog in this fight? Do you not understand that what I'm saying is completely true and is happening right now on some B.C. rivers?
It's certainly my opinion that anybody who supports this willful **** of the environment must be motivated by more profit and greed.
I have to keep my comments to my local issue that I can claim to understand very well. If that's off-topic for you as a general discussion then so be it, we'll be done.
What you’re talking about is a straw-man and has absolutely zero to do with the topic of this thread. Individual cases of groups behaving badly can be found everywhere. It has no bearing on whether or not the east coast nations have commercial fishing rights on lobsters and the violence being perpetrated by some commercial lobstermen.
-
What you’re talking about is a straw-man and has absolutely zero to do with the topic of this thread. Individual cases of groups behaving badly can be found everywhere. It has no bearing on whether or not the east coast nations have commercial fishing rights on lobsters and the violence being perpetrated by some commercial lobstermen.
That which I'm talking about isn't a strawman but I had already told JMT that I had to confine my comments to my example that I am qualified to discuss here. If you or he don't wish to discuss my example or take it into consideration then that's fine with me. I'll let it go if nobody else is interested.
-
I don't understand why I got a 'dumb' for my post, squid ?
I only get surface-level points from the articles I have read on Global, CBC, and APTN.
-Treaty rights were upheld
-Nova Scotian fishers are angry and some are doing violence
-Depot got burned down
-Police aren't doing much
-Small number of natives fishing, restricted by the treaty itself
-NS Fishers concerned about environmental impact
-
This particular nation has a right to a “moderate living”. If this makes too many commercial harvesters, the feds can buy out the non-indigenous commercial lobstermen.
Yes but first they need to drive the cost of the buy-out down, starting with driving the value of limited-entry commercial-licences down. Its why taxi owners don't like new un-licenced entrants.
DFO are experts at keeping fishermen divided and at odds with one another, especially where the intent is to cause public opinion to sour against whoever it is that's no longer in Ottawa's good graces. This is how natives were displaced in the first place after all.
Of course the very last thing DFO and Ottawa care about are the lobsters.
-
The fault for that doesn't rest with the Mi'kmaq.
No, it rests entirely with Ottawa and of course Canadians who fall for the impression that if anyone is at fault it's probably those greedy angry commercial fishermen.
Out on the LaPerouse Bank this summer a growing fleet of indigenous fishermen with licences issued by their nation were catching 400 - 500 salmon a day. The shrinking fleet of non-indigenous fishermen that our nation licences were fishing right alongside them and were only able to catch 15 or so a day. The reason is that the former fleet is pretty much unrestricted in the type of gear that's allowed and of course they can keep every species of salmon they can hook. Non-indigenous are, probably by rights, only allowed one type of gear and one can only keep one species of salmon which is probably more than the greedy bastards deserve.
Just as well that years of similar treatment by our nation has left them so worn out and beaten down they couldn't resist if they wanted too. Having been there themselves not so long ago I'm pretty sure a lot of the native guys actually feel sorry for them.
-
Ottawa is responsible for almost 3 thousand commercial lobster licences. They're worth up to a million dollars and increasing. Probably driven in part by speculators hoping for a buy-out. Do the math.
The lobster are as doomed as salmon, letting too much money chase them is even more dangerous than letting too many boats go after them.
-
Allowing resale of licenses seems to be a real problem with managed systems, we see the same thing with supply management quotas. The licenses and quota become commodities in themselves, sometimes worth more than the commodity or service they are intended to control.
-
Allowing resale of licenses seems to be a real problem with managed systems, we see the same thing with supply management quotas. The licenses and quota become commodities in themselves, sometimes worth more than the commodity or service they are intended to control.
That’s true... but there are upsides as well. Fisherman can use their licence as collateral for loans to get better boats and equipment, which makes the industry safer in general and they can get financing for other licences, to earn more money, etc, etc.
However, the gov’t still sees fishing licences as a privilege. Unfortunately, they kept creating more and more licences on the east coast over the decades. Yes, that spreads the wealth, but it also can spread it too thin.
-
Did you read the BBC article I posted?
Yes. Throughout much of the article its discussing issues around sustainability and controversies around off-season fishing. See below. And it comes down to the size of the lobster population on a yearly basis because people want to make money. Commercial guys say the off-season catches hurt the lobsters and their living, others say the offseason indigenous catches don't really make much effect. They have complex problems that need to be dealt with without burning stuff down.
Derek Thomas, a commercial fisherman for over 25 years, condemns the violence. But he says the government needs to step in and enforce off-season rules for the sake of the lobster population.
"I don't think anybody likes the violence, and I don't think anybody denies their rights. But enough is enough already," he told the BBC.
"Regulations are designed to prevent over-harvesting and to maintain a sustainable fishery, it is all we want for our communities."
...
Mr Thomas says fishermen have "frustration boiling over" after years of deteriorating stocks. Between 2016-2018, lobster caches declined about 10% in the province, although there's no clear indication of why. The pandemic has also cut into lobster exports to the lucrative Chinese market.
This is not the first time indigenous fishermen have clashed with non-indigenous commercial fishers. Shortly after the R v Marshall decision, many indigenous fishermen took to the water in the off-season and fights broke out along wharfs in Quebec, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia.
Like now, the non-indigenous fishermen said they were concerned about the effect that off-season fishing would have on the lobster population.
-
I don't understand why I got a 'dumb' for my post, squid ?
Ignore it. It's called trolling.
-
That’s true... but there are upsides as well. Fisherman can use their licence as collateral for loans to get better boats and equipment, which makes the industry safer in general and they can get financing for other licences, to earn more money, etc, etc.
However, the gov’t still sees fishing licences as a privilege. Unfortunately, they kept creating more and more licences on the east coast over the decades. Yes, that spreads the wealth, but it also can spread it too thin.
Yes but the only reason they can use it as collateral is because of its inflated value. It's OK if you got it cheap but if you are trying to get into an industry or expand, it makes it way too expensive for normal mortals. If you are a fisher or farmer who has millions in debt for quota or a license, that is a huge drag on your ability to compete or make a living.
-
In B.C. the fed fisheries fear the aboriginals and I suspect it would be the same in any other province with any particular natural resource. They don't consider it their job to protect natural resources or the environment. And also fwiw, in B.C. the fed fisheries officers are toothless when it comes to pursuing fines or jail time in most cases.
We will need to deal with this problem some day if it doesn't just naturally go away with time, as they are hoping it will.