Nova Scotia lobster dispute

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Locke

There is only one way to settle this like Canadians...

I want to post this Lobster GIF.

[Firebot]

Wow, the Trudeau government is doubling down on their deflection.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/eme...ters-1.5767602

"We must also recognize that once again, as evidenced by the scenes of violence, Indigenous people have been let down by the police, those who are sworn to protect them," he told a news conference in Ottawa this morning.

"Throughout history, Indigenous peoples have experienced continuous discrimination and to this day still suffer the consequences of colonial practices, but they have shown an extreme resilience and courage in standing up for their rights."

What about the government that chooses not to set guidelines on what moderate livelihood means?

And let's be honest, the RCMP that was at the scene are not indigenous, and likely sided with the non-indigenous on this issue (us versus them mentality). Police are definitely at fault, but so is the government that simply refuses to action and make decisions.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Firebot

What about the government that chooses not to set guidelines on what moderate livelihood means?

In all seriousness what criteria do you expect them to use to define that? Once they set a number, does it increase with inflation since the definition of “moderate” would likely change over time or would it need to later be challenged in court that the arbitrary number they’ve decided on isn’t right?

It’s all well and good to just try and blame everything on our lousy federal government and they do deserve blame on a number of issues but do you have any solutions that are more substantial than vague political taking points that are pretty to easy to acknowledge won’t realistically work, regardless of which governing party were to implement them?

[Leondros]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

In all seriousness what criteria do you expect them to use to define that? Once they set a number, does it increase with inflation since the definition of “moderate” would likely change over time or would it need to later be challenged in court that the arbitrary number they’ve decided on isn’t right?

It’s all well and good to just try and blame everything on our lousy federal government and they do deserve blame on a number of issues but do you have any solutions that are more substantial than vague political taking points that are pretty to easy to acknowledge won’t realistically work, regardless of which governing party were to implement them?

So because its difficult to define we should expect the government just to leave the two factions to 'figure it out'? Thats working well...

The SC determined that the federal government could set the limits and under the auspices of conservation these limits would be set in stone. Isn't this the exact purpose of a government?

[Firebot]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

In all seriousness what criteria do you expect them to use to define that? Once they set a number, does it increase with inflation since the definition of “moderate” would likely change over time or would it need to later be challenged in court that the arbitrary number they’ve decided on isn’t right?

It’s all well and good to just try and blame everything on our lousy federal government and they do deserve blame on a number of issues but do you have any solutions that are more substantial than vague political taking points that are pretty to easy to acknowledge won’t realistically work, regardless of which governing party were to implement them?

...the federal government is 110% to blame for this fiasco. They are the ones that handle the ocean...

How about putting in writing that the Mi'kmaq can fish lobster 12 months of the year, with restrictions on maximum traps allowed per boat for 8 of the 12 months and to not allow fishing of lobster smaller than a set size?

Not that hard. Done, the Mi'kmaq would be pretty happy. The government is weak and does not want to be seen as the government that gives preferential treatment to a minority group against the best interests of the majority. Much like how Trudeau didn't want to have his own Oka earlier.

[OMG!WTF!]

Does the moderate livelihood thing apply to only out of season fishing? Like these guys can fish all they want in the regular season right? So if they already made their moderate living during the season would they have to park it in the off season?



There's a much smaller market for out of season lobster too so I don't understand why you'd even want to fish out of season. The ocean is rougher. There's a 12 month season in Maine and hardly anyone fishes out of season. The entire out of season catch is consumed locally and that alone kind of imposes its own limits.

[Maritime Q-Scout]

Originally Posted by Firebot

...the federal government is 110% to blame for this fiasco. They are the ones that handle the ocean...

How about putting in writing that the Mi'kmaq can fish lobster 12 months of the year, with restrictions on maximum traps allowed per boat for 8 of the 12 months and to not allow fishing of lobster smaller than a set size?

Not that hard. Done, the Mi'kmaq would be pretty happy. The government is weak and does not want to be seen as the government that gives preferential treatment to a minority group against the best interests of the majority. Much like how Trudeau didn't want to have his own Oka earlier.

Technically it is in writing that the Mi'kmaq can fish 12 months a year.

Also the federal government has as much authority to dictate exact limits on the Mi'kmaq people as they do to set exact limits on American fishers.

So it isn't that simple.

However, the federal government getting together with the Council of Mi'kmaq Chiefs to define "moderate living" would be reasonable.

At the same time it's hard to argue what the Mi'kmaq are currently fishing isn't reasonable.

https://twitter.com/user/status/1307344693462790144

[Mayo]

Originally Posted by Maritime Q-Scout

https://twitter.com/user/status/1307344693462790144

That's just a dumb tweet with zero foresight. What happens when that 250 multiplies by 100.


I agree with everyone who has said the fishermen should be able to fish 12 months of the year as per said treaty, but Trudeau needs to grow a set, define the rules so they are fair and be done with it.

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by Firebot

...the federal government is 110% to blame for this fiasco. They are the ones that handle the ocean...

How about putting in writing that the Mi'kmaq can fish lobster 12 months of the year, with restrictions on maximum traps allowed per boat for 8 of the 12 months and to not allow fishing of lobster smaller than a set size?

Not that hard. Done, the Mi'kmaq would be pretty happy. The government is weak and does not want to be seen as the government that gives preferential treatment to a minority group against the best interests of the majority. Much like how Trudeau didn't want to have his own Oka earlier.

That probably quells the issue for a little while, but every year as stocks likely lessen it will just boil over again.

[White Out 403]

Who are settlers? Do they mean Canadians? If so, piss off with that divisive garbage.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

In all seriousness what criteria do you expect them to use to define that? Once they set a number, does it increase with inflation since the definition of “moderate” would likely change over time or would it need to later be challenged in court that the arbitrary number they’ve decided on isn’t right?

It’s all well and good to just try and blame everything on our lousy federal government and they do deserve blame on a number of issues but do you have any solutions that are more substantial than vague political taking points that are pretty to easy to acknowledge won’t realistically work, regardless of which governing party were to implement them?

Moderate -> provide median income in Canada
Moderate -> provide average income in Canada
Moderate -> provide 1st or 3rd quartile income in Canada
Moderate -> provide average income of lobster fisherman.

Federal government come to an agreement with the bands and litigate if required to get the definition defined. It’s one of the above.

[CaptainCrunch]

That tweet isn't being shown as accurate. She's combining all Indigenous licenses not Mi'kmaq and licenses for non indigenous into one pot.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Leondros

So because its difficult to define we should expect the government just to leave the two factions to 'figure it out'? Thats working well...

One faction isn’t doing anything illegal, there’s already supposed to be a system in place to deal with these types of situations. There’s nothing to figure out. Are you seriously advocating for the government to introduce some favourable legislation to appease a group that has been resorting to the actions the fisherman have? Seems like a slippery slope.

The SC determined that the federal government could set the limits and under the auspices of conservation these limits would be set in stone. Isn't this the exact purpose of a government?

That doesn’t mean the government should just implement something under the guise of conservation when there is no merit to it. Frankly I think it’s a horrible thing to even consider.

Originally Posted by Firebot

...the federal government is 110% to blame for this fiasco. They are the ones that handle the ocean...

How about putting in writing that the Mi'kmaq can fish lobster 12 months of the year, with restrictions on maximum traps allowed per boat for 8 of the 12 months and to not allow fishing of lobster smaller than a set size?

Not that hard. Done, the Mi'kmaq would be pretty happy. The government is weak and does not want to be seen as the government that gives preferential treatment to a minority group against the best interests of the majority. Much like how Trudeau didn't want to have his own Oka earlier.

Why do they need to put limits on how much they fish if there is currently no risk to the industry’s sustainability? Just because?

If you’re really that concerned about making them happy, the Mi’kmaq seem like they’re ok with the current deal so long as people stop illegally destroying their property(which as I understand it was not part of the deal) so why not just stick with that?

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by GGG

Moderate -> provide median income in Canada
Moderate -> provide average income in Canada
Moderate -> provide 1st or 3rd quartile income in Canada
Moderate -> provide average income of lobster fisherman.

Federal government come to an agreement with the bands and litigate if required to get the definition defined. It’s one of the above.

Put any figure as your “moderate” living amount, then try and argue that $500 more than that isn’t a moderate living, now try arguing that $500 more isn’t a moderate living because of your heritage. Setting an arbitrary limit is much more complicated than people are trying to make it out to be, especially assuming you would want the implementation of such limits to be upheld by the courts as it would almost certainly be challenged.

In any event I don’t think the solution to this problem is to implement more racist legislation.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

Put any figure as your “moderate” living amount, then try and argue that $500 more than that isn’t a moderate living, now try arguing that $500 more isn’t a moderate living because of your heritage. Setting an arbitrary limit is much more complicated than people are trying to make it out to be, especially assuming you would want the implementation of such limits to be upheld by the courts as it would almost certainly be challenged.

In any event I don’t think the solution to this problem is to implement more racist legislation.

actually moderate living is a pretty easy ruling to deal with, it precludes a native 'company' making hundreds of thousands, pretty much limits individual fishermen making an average wage, anything over that couldnt be seen as 'moderate'

[GGG]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

Put any figure as your “moderate” living amount, then try and argue that $500 more than that isn’t a moderate living, now try arguing that $500 more isn’t a moderate living because of your heritage. Setting an arbitrary limit is much more complicated than people are trying to make it out to be, especially assuming you would want the implementation of such limits to be upheld by the courts as it would almost certainly be challenged.

In any event I don’t think the solution to this problem is to implement more racist legislation.

What do you mean by racist legislation?

The government of Canada has an obligation to the First Nations people it made in the treaty it signed. It is not racist to fulfill this contract.

And you are correct you could add $500 to any number and it would still be moderate. However you couldn’t at 50k to it. Like any legal ruling the actual number whether it be divorce or insurance or breach of contract the actual value given to the parties is never perfect and both sides likely disagree which direction it needs to move to make it right. But that is why we have a court system.

Either the federal government declares what a moderate living is or the First Nations bands do and if one side disagrees it ends up in court. That’s fine, it can be settled there.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

actually moderate living is a pretty easy ruling to deal with, it precludes a native 'company' making hundreds of thousands, pretty much limits individual fishermen making an average wage, anything over that couldnt be seen as 'moderate'

I just don’t see any way that the government can set a limit based on the average wage and have it not be successfully challenged in most cases based on the SC ruling. The fact that GGG provided multiple examples/options for what could be considered as a “moderate” living shows just how subjective determining the definition can be.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by GGG

What do you mean by racist legislation?

You don’t think limiting someone’s earnings based on their heritage is racist?

The government of Canada has an obligation to the First Nations people it made in the treaty it signed. It is not racist to fulfill this contract.

In your view, which part of the treaty relating to this matter has the government of Canada not fulfilled? Honest question. Besides maybe not doing enough to stop people from engaging in criminal acts against people who aren’t doing anything illegal, but I think that should probably be left up to law enforcement to deal with.

And you are correct you could add $500 to any number and it would still be moderate. However you couldn’t at 50k to it. Like any legal ruling the actual number whether it be divorce or insurance or breach of contract the actual value given to the parties is never perfect and both sides likely disagree which direction it needs to move to make it right. But that is why we have a court system.

If I’m understanding you correctly you’re basically saying you’re ok with them making above what is defined as a “moderate” living so long as they fight for it in court.

Either the federal government declares what a moderate living is or the First Nations bands do and if one side disagrees it ends up in court. That’s fine, it can be settled there.

In the meantime the government would not be able to enforce this without taking on a potentially very costly legal battle that they would IMO probably lose.

[OMG!WTF!]

The government determines how much and for how long people get ei all the time. It's not hard. The wording around modest livelihood is enough to pay housing, food and living costs but not enough to contribute to a savings account. Figure out costs of living and voila. If it's off by a few bucks either way, make a case and see what the judge says.



I can still only assume this limit on income is only for out of season fishing. These guys could make as much as possible if they operated along with the rest of the fleet right?

[Harry Lime]

Originally Posted by White Out 403

Who are settlers? Do they mean Canadians? If so, piss off with that divisive garbage.

I noticed this recently as well. Historically, non-Europeans are really poor at creating racial slurs, but that one is pretty good. Kudos.