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