39
submitted 1 year ago by grte@lemmy.ca to c/canada@lemmy.ca
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] snoons@lemmy.ca -5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

“We recognize that fisheries … are of great social, cultural, spiritual and economic importance to many Indigenous peoples, and we remain committed to upholding Indigenous fishing rights, including the treaty right to fish for a moderate livelihood,” department spokesperson Lauren Sankey said.

Then why are you charging them?

“Our approach to enforcing the Fisheries Act is based on respect for conservation, transparent and predictable management and reconciliation.”

Then why are you charging them?

The Supreme Court of Canada’s 1999 Marshall decision said the Mi’kmaq, Maliseet and Passamaquoddy bands in Eastern Canada could hunt, fish and gather to earn a “moderate livelihood,” though the court followed up with a clarification two months later, saying the treaty right was subject to federal regulation to ensure conservation.

In my view, that means the colonial fisheries have a set amount, and any other fisheries are deemed illegal in the name of conservation. Rather, conserving the lobster and fish population for the colonial fisheries.

Just another way the Canadian government handily interprets treaties to it's own benefit and oppresses indigenous people. Classic Canadian Government.

[-] Rodeo@lemmy.ca 13 points 1 year ago

Then why are you charging them?

The charges include violating the conditions of a communal licence, fishing without authorization, fishing during a closed season, obstructing a fishery officer and fishing for elvers — tiny, young eels — in violation of a 2020 order.

In the paragraph immediately following the paragraphs you quoted.

[-] snoons@lemmy.ca -4 points 1 year ago

I was commenting on the irony of seeking reconciliation when laying charges against indigenous people for practising their rights as laid out by their treaties. Sorry that went over your head.

[-] jadero@lemmy.ca 7 points 1 year ago

It should be the other way round, with "Indigenous first" policies.

Determine what sustainability means. Set limits in a way that allows for an actual livelihood without any individual or corporation being able to monopolize the fishery while allowing for a certain amount of noncommercial use, including for subsistence. If there's anything left over, open it up to non-indingenous people using similar guidelines.

[-] snoons@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 year ago

That would be good, but given the Governments track record (regardless of which party is involved) I doubt anything like that will be implemented.

this post was submitted on 15 Oct 2023
39 points (97.6% liked)

Canada

7166 readers
271 users here now

What's going on Canada?



Communities


🍁 Meta


🗺️ Provinces / Territories


🏙️ Cities / Regions


🏒 SportsHockey

Football (NFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Football (CFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer


💻 Universities


💵 Finance / Shopping


🗣️ Politics


🍁 Social & Culture


Rules

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage:

https://lemmy.ca


founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS