An awful lot of people who have read all of three paragraphs in Marshall 2 now consider themselves to be experts in the most complex and rapidly changing area of law.

It’s interesting watching all of these witnesses for the fisherman’s unions arguing that the lobster industry is extremely lucrative, but then argue they couldn’t possible share any more of the resource with the Mi’kmaq because “conservation”.

It’s actually pretty sickening because some of these guys are misrepresenting the law, and testifying about negotiations they clearly know absolutely nothing about.

In other words, they are giving false testimony.

The closest Sproule came to telling the truth is when he briefly admitted that seasons were really about pricing and economic return. Then he contradicted himself and tried to claim they were really about conservation again.

Also really interesting that certain people use words like “conflict” and “chaos” to describe violence by white fishers against Indigenous fishers, in order to avoid describing what actually happened.

Some of those people are in Parliament. Some of them are testifying as “experts” in the field.