  |
||
        |
 |
Other Responses to First Nation Activities in Burnt Church (E-mail responses taken and adapted from the CBC site Indepth: Fishing Fury /Your Space) Thank you CBC for allowing us to sound off a bit on the web and let our collective voices be heard. I suppose if one were to scroll through this list of letters you would find two letters written by me in support of a peaceful solution to this problem. As well, you would probably note my "interpretation" of the Marshall decision and its subsequent "unprecedented" clarification recognized the native treaty under section 35 of the Constititution. The only issue here is "conservation" and that is the law according to the Supreme Court of Canada. However, Mr. Dhaliwal has the responsibility to justify that conservation over native regulations before the courts. Which is very possible, it would just take time! However, he is misrepresenting this obligation to Canada and not using the court system. What I do want to say, however, is that I feel the pain in the letters of the non-native fishermen which is the same to me as that of the native woman trying to make a living. And I have to wonder who is to blame here for the mismanagement of a resource. If this government, meaning us folks, really cared about people and not making a tax dollar or buying a vote this industry would be more highly regulated. That seems clear. I have worked in the fishing industry on the west coast for nine years. I watched as ineffective regulations and DFO ministers allowed the salmon, heering, halibut and ground fish all be overfished into oblivion on the west coast. I also watched families die because they did not have a livelihood. This is not because they were lazy or simple. It was because they believed that the government knew better and would make the right decision, not the easy one. Well they didn't. I hope that we don't blame the natives for taking the lobster as some people seem to want to blame someone other than ourselves. For clearly they are only a small percentage of the users of this resource.
Media release from DFO April 18,2000: Mr. Dhaliwal is not acting beyond the will of the Prime Minister, that is clear with Mr. Chretien clearly backing his minister in "upholding the law." The question here is does he care about the east coast fishermen or west coast fishermen or natives or any minority group? I would suggest that he does not. He only cares about central Canada's image and those voters. He does not want to share the wealth with anyone over 500 miles North, East, South or West of Ottawa, Toronto, Montreal. Let us really call a spade a spade. This is not about natives, it is all about who is going to elect the next Prime Minister. And Chretien wants to look like the tough, capable leader who is not going to bow down to anyone. That incudes the Supreme Court of Canada, the Atlantic provinces, the Western provinces and god forbid those pesky natives who want to stop us from getting to our cottages by blocking a road. A bit tired of an arrogant Prime Minister. (I once thought this guy was humble!)
Edward Garbitt
Yes, as it has been observed, the first nations did have a poor immigration policy, they did sign treaties and the treaties may (I haven't read may of them) extend unencumbered rights to fish and hunt. The "white" fishing communities have been extended rights by governments and natives do feel excluded. The conflict is both cultural and socio-economic in so far as these concepts can be isolated. But, if any or all sides in this dispute can focus – just for a bit – the issue of conservation is not unimportant. It is not a government issue, it is a collective survival issue regardless of ancestry. At the level of the individual fisherman/person (native/non-native) food on the table may truly be important. However, the main argument – once clear of the fog of retoric – is about money, and that's not good for the lobster stock, any more than it has been for the cod stock or the Atlantic and Pacific salmon stocks, or than it will be for the snow crab stock. People fish to make a living, and in our society, it seems that more money is far and away better than less money. So, if everyone is going to fish all year round, may I suggest that some of the money be put into RRSPs, not for personal benefit, but for the kids and grandchildren. That way something will be left for them. There sure won't be lobsters.
John Sherbino
At the end of the day, when all the "outsiders" have gone home the Mi'kmaq and the local non-natives have got to live together. It will take years to restore relations, I hope both sides are keeping this in mind. Also, I'm not impressed with the DFO's tactics but I realize this is a resource that has been built up through years of hard work. I hope it won't be destroyed. Vicki Robichaud
The longer WE find ourselves fighting over a resource that is disappearing at a dangerously alarming rate for the sake of greed, the harder it is for cultures to come together for a mutual understanding. Traditional gatherers (for livelyhood sake) are long gone, the same driving force has changed to money. How will it possible for one culture to get their true treaty rights met by a force who is able to change the rules as needed to better their interests? The longer WE are unable to come together for mutually beneficial reasons with an eye on the environment, the longer this type of escalating conflict will continue. What type of future are WE creating for our children? I ask "those" in charge of these growing pains to leave out their personal feelings to better reach an understanding beneficial for all involved. Thanx,
I have had many thoughts on this issue, and it was summed up very well for me by a another person who in simple idle casual conversation passed a comment when I was describing the running down of human people in a boat as an example of a breakdown of the judicial system (no charges) and people in trust (officers ramming boats) made a statement that really made me think. My reaction was yes, he is very right on this entire problem. The entire scenario can be blamed on our "Supreme Court Of Canada" for not CLEARLY defining in simple language definitions that can be interpreted without further definition by the parties directly concerned. They haven't made clear decisive statements or rulings without further extensive interpretation decisions that really can go many different directions depending on who is interpreting. This is an example of the "biggest failure in Canadian justice" by the highest court in Canada. The lack of participation by the Prime Minister is the second "Major" breakdown by the government itself. Leadership/management has failed in the Canadian legal system and Canadian government. In the real world, the CEO of a company must take responsibility. On the seas, the captain of the ship must take responsibility. In the Legal system...??? In government??? Glenn Reid-Dorchester
Over 140 letters and counting on this one issue. I have been able to read at least half of them and then I became discouraged with repeated themes. I find it interesting that while Canada is sending our military (and many others in NGOs) to places like Bosnia to try to help many ethnic groups learn to live together that we find ourselves in this situation with our fellow (native) Canadians. Now our PM has declared (at the UN Millenium gathering) that Canada will lead in determining when and how the UN can enter into sovereign countries to deal with essentially humanitarian issues. It seems we are trying to help others when we cannot help ourselves. Now I know the comparision is not really fair, rather extreme really. The low burning embers of mass killings, abuse, destruction over centuries stirred to flames by a few wackos. Hatred and feelings of self over others maintained from generation to generation. Sound familiar? I think that things will not be resolved until someone is willing to put others before self – in this case, the greater Canadian society willing to lay down its self-centred interest to engage and resolve the issues. I do not know if this will ever happen. It seems to be the human condition. One side dominating the other until circumstances change. It is not in our nature to give up any advantage. I struggle with it myself. I am, however, absolutely convinced that only by taking the example of Jesus who gave himself up for the world and following it ourselves will we allow ourselves to put our interests aside for others. I hope my thoughts are productive to everyone's consideration of this issue. Peter Ball
The more things appear to change, the more they stay the same. It should come as no surprise a "dual legal system" is alive and well. In fact this double standard is not restricted to fisheries alone. Examples of double standards are everywhere from medical care access to education to business opportunities and, most definitely, to the legal system. Canadians need only open their eyes to clearly see there is one law and set of standards for those people and corporations with money, power and influence and another harsher legal reality for ordinary citizens and/or minorities. Have a look at the demographics of prison populations, the facts speak for themselves. Minorities are by far the majority per capita population. You will not find many corporate executives or political power elites sitting in prisons no matter how high the embezzlement, fraud, or theft convictions are. For them, the law says they are "accounting irregularities," for the rest of the population it is "stealing." Convictions for felonies and crimes of violence are all relative to financial resources, the ability to pay for a powerful influential legal dream team. Treaty Fishing Rights are smoke and mirrors. What we have here is a struggle for economic benefits for "everyone" from a beleaguered fishery already brought to its knees by "Corporate Fishing." Being swept up in the emotionalism of race minority issues is exactly what the power-elite status quo "managers" want, in doing so nothing changes. The powerful continue to manipulate the system to their advantage, where true justice is outlawed. Let's see this for what it is: another example of The Double Standard, this time in the lobster patch. Who will benefit from this multi-million dollar resource, providing fancy big-city restaurants, their lobster catch of the day? If you look at who can afford to pay the price for a fancy restaurant lobster dinner, you have the answer. Rest assured, tons of lobster is consumed in Ottawa. James Lake
I was sickened to see the clip of the native protesters in eastern Ontario on the August 31 edition of The National. I live near the area where this protest occurred. I am not going to say whether the natives in Burnt Church have the right to fish or not; that's not what I'm upset about. These protesters were shown blockading a road, using abusive and intimidating language to a driver who refused to give them money, and then chasing after that driver and kicking his vehicle hard which could have caused an accident. I know that we have the right to protest but it is not appropriate to bully people and/or try to extort money from them. I understand that these people have a disagreement with the Department of Fisheries, but it's not the fault of the average Ontarian. People have the right to drive to work in the morning without being surrounded by a crowd of angry people who are demanding money, yelling and resorting to physical violence when they are not satisified with the reaction they get. Being outspoken is essential to a protest but you can be outspoken without harassing people. Furthermore, I doubt this was an effective method of protest; attacking people is not how you get them to see things your way. Laurel Seybold
You seem to present the story (N.B. natives want attempted murder charges laid) as unbiasedly as possible. I would have had a problem holding back from blasting the Fisheries department for their callous approach to the situation. This act of violence has, I'm sure, galvanized public opinion against their department. If Chretien backs his minister on this issue now, he will probably lose favour in the polls. I foresee the dismissal (or reappointment) of the current minister of fisheries. That's the way I see it.
I believe that the DFO should have gone about things in a more civilized manner, but if Canadians, regardless of colour, do in the future as they have done in the past, there will be no fish, lobster, moose, or anything else left to fight over. When are we going to wake up and smell the coffee? When it's too late like we do most times? Ray Fox
I find it not acceptable that such force is being used to "subdue" the native fishermen in Burnt Church. Some clarity about what their rights are needs to be addressed. However, rights are always coupled with responsibilities. We cannot all fish out our waters as we have heard that the west coast reports that stock has not recovered in several years, as anticipated. Some education of Native Canadians, and all Canadians, is vital in this matter if we are to have a healthy balance of ocean life. Thanks
As a non-native with an income of zero, I dream of one day eating fresh lobster. To this end, I'm hoping both sides can work this out, since I think it is easier to fish with a boat than without. Let's get this straight: the lobster should be in the water, not the fishermen. Bruce Conway
It is true that natives were treated in a horrible and unfair way. Their land was stolen, their culture was demeaned, and their children taken away from them. This is true. It is also true that they have treaty rights to fish year round. Well, the white man has screwed up again. We have overfished the stocks. This is true. Now, the issue is depleted stocks. The cod has not come back from our over-fishing. We thought it would take two years, and it has been way longer. Now, there are two separate issues here that should be addressed separately. The stocks are being over-fished. How can we prevent another "cod-like disaster?" How can we compensate the natives for our mistreatment of them? We need to come to a win-win outcome. Or, let's let anger run us into the ground yet again. We need to come to the table and talk out these issues and come to an agreement. It is wrong to dismiss the treaty rights. It is wrong to over-fish an industry. How can we make this right? Both issues need to be addressed. We have treated the earth as an endless supply, and we are learning quite rapidly that it is not. This needs to be addressed, and we need to work together. Louida R. Selgensen
Living and working in the Neguac-Burnt Church area, I feel a long-term deal is the sollution. The Neguac fishemen will have to give ground to the native by intergrating them in the fishing. But it has to be the same rule for everybody. Everybody has to fish in the spring because they already tried fall fishing 50 years ago and after 5 years the fishermen were only bringing in a bucket full of lobster for their catch. It is crucial that they agree on a solution for both parties. This confrontation is tearing apart two communities that used to be close, at "what price?" Thanks,
Some opinions on terminology used in these discussions. First Nations — How many people regard the First Nations as "nations?" How many regard them as cultures within a national framework something like, say, Ukrainian-Canadians or Italian-Canadians? Whenever you suggest that natives go buy a fishing licence, simply submit to DFO regulations, or just do what other non-native people do, just ask yourself why they are called First Nations. Ask yourself what happens when one of these First Nations doesn't conveniently lie on one side or other of the Canada-US border. Treaties — Related to the "nations" comment. Some in this and other forums have suggested scrapping treaties. They question why irrelevant, ancient documents should apply to modern day people using new technology. Why is a document like the 1760 treaty not viewed by all with the same matter-of-fact respect as other legal documents like, say, the U.S. Constitution, the British North America Act, the Canadian Constitution, or the NAFTA? Technology — Must all legal documents be interpreted in the context of the technology available at the time of signing? How would the good people at the NRA (National Rifle Association) react to such a suggestion? Reserves — Remember how the Canadian government restricted Chinese immigration to "male" labourers only so that "we" wouldn't be over-run by wildly breeding yellow hordes? Remember that government policy, mentality, and formal structure have momentum? Establishment of ever-shrinking postage stamp reserves served the twin purposes of limiting the growth of native nations and giving "us" eternal legal claim to a lot of very valuable land. Matthew Davidchuk
1) Did the Mi'qmac trap and consume lobster traditionally, before the Europeans came? Is this a proper question? The answer is "no," because we cannot freeze-dry the past. 2) Has the federal government looked at or commented upon the Mi'qmac lobster conservation plan? Why not? 3) Commentators have argued that we cannot have one fisheries regime for one group, and another regime for another group, especially a regime that is based on race. The simple question is, why not? We already have already played the race card by setting up reserves for people of native blood — setting aside separate regimes for resource harvesting is not that different from what we have already done. The fact is that we "newer Canadians" have to make an accomodation with the original inhabitants. This responsibility can never be extinguished, it has to be continuously updated, like any other policy. This is and will be difficult, but it is, or rather should be, an integral part of "the Canadian way." We are a nation IN WHICH LEADERS SHARE POWER (in this case, the power to regulate fisheries). Thanks,
I have been following the daily stories regarding the dispute over fishing between government and native peoples. I would like to offer some thoughts regarding the issue and to solve the problem. In the past, there weren't as many people to require or need to feed off the lobster, therefore there were plenty. As time went on, people's numbers increased as did their desire for the lobster. Now we have more fishing for them. Is there not a danger that the elastic could be stretched to the point where there would be too much fishing and not enough fish? Will everyone be sitting there someday scratching their heads wondering what happen to all the lobster? The only way any dispute can be resolved is if the parties agree to deal specifically in the present moment and address the issue at hand. They must agree to the intention of coming together for the purpose of resolution and not to antagonize or promote violent reactions. Have them state their intentions so both sides know what they are moving towards. The power to change anything is only ever in the present moment. The whites are always trying to control and impose laws and rulings, the native's are always claiming injustice and lost rights. The purpose is to work together to find a solution. The only way this can be achieved is to detach each other from any personal emotional attachments or outcomes, both sides already suspect how the other is going to respond. Try to understand each other's position, be prepared to compromise and then put forth ideas to be considered and discussed. By the way, has anyone asked what the lobsters think about all this? Have you ever stood beside a boiling pot of water and heard the screams and squeals of them boiling alive? It'd probably be pretty similar to a person burning alive in a house or vehicle, wouldn't you think? What makes anyone think a person's life is any more valuable than an animal, bird or other wildlife? To kill for the purpose of survival to eat, honestly, how many are constantly at that state these days? Janet Birch
|