The First Sign (I)

The First Sign is the vagueness, the lack of details.

The Independent, in its risible “Cost-Benefit Analysis“ from 2004, says

There are many other variables that could have been factored into the assessment — the federal government’s trade off of fish quotas, the thousands of jobs and untold economic activity created throughout Canada from NL resources.

Provincial politicians don’t do much better. Here’s former Liberal leader Gerry Reid in 1998:

As for foreign overfishing, the federal government did not want to upset foreign countries, afraid that we might not be able to sell wheat or other products to them.

And, a few days later, current MHA Tom Osborne:

The federal government are the people who manage the groundfishery, they are the people who destroyed the groundfishery by making promises to foreign countries of fish quotas in place of purchasing wheat and grain and whatever else in this country.

One Ches Loughlin, in a February, 10, 2000 letter to the Corner Brook Western Star, says, using the passive voice:

It is generally recognized that our fish stocks have been traded off to protect foreign trade with the rest of Canada.

Same paper, Captain Wilfred Bartlett, on July 6 of the same year:

I doubt very much if Ramea, Burgeo, Trepassey, Twillingate, Makkovik, Black Tickle and all the rest of the communities that have been devastated by the destruction of the fisheries off our coast by mismanagement by Ottawa and the trade off of our fisheries to foreign countries so that they buy products made in central Canada, are happy to give away anymore.

Mr. Paul Hunt writes in the St. John’s Telegram of October 19, 2000:

Yet when we look at the jurisdictional control of the Grand Banks, we can easily see that large portions of the fish resource were traded to foreign countries in return for markets for Canadian goods.

John Efford told the House of Commons Fisheries Committee in 2002:

I’ve proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that the will is not there for Canada to take the necessary action for the best interests of the fishing industry, which includes the best interests of the Newfoundland and Labradorians. I believe strongly that it’s because of trade relations. I believe very strongly that it’s because of what the loss may be to other provinces and on other products in this country.

Interesting, how some things he says he has proven... but others, he merely believes. And, same place and time, former MHA and NDP leader, Jack Harris:

There’s been mention of Confederation and the fact that with Confederation came this resource. We didn’t bring it for Canada to trade away, or trade its willingness to protect this resource away, for other advantages for central Canada or other parts of Canada. It is not a resource we brought to this country to see destroyed for other interests of the government and people of Canada.

Former MHA and provincial cabinet minister Loyola Sullivan – now the Ambassador to Fishistan or something – told the House of Assembly in 2002:

Confederation hasn’t served us very well in terms of protecting our resources. We have been used as pawns on the chessboard of international affairs. That is what our fishery has been used as, as a pawn, a pawn to look at trade, to look at other areas, whether it is access to wheat, or whatever it is. That is pretty sad, when our Province has been used by the bigger parts of this country to achieve the result they want. Then the apathy that is shown by federal ministers and the federal government in addressing those concerns is even more appalling.

Roland Card claimed in 2003:

Under federal jurisdiction our once rich groundfish resources have been mismanaged to the brink of extinction and were even bartered away, at various times over the years, in the interest of other national trade initiatives considered to be of higher importance.

Cyril Goodyear, in the April 21, 2003 Western Star, writes:

What a chance to ask pointed questions about how many foreigners are out there, what they are catching, what quota they have, and what discussions were held with these countries vis a vis trade with Canada prior to agreement. Where were our government ministers? Where was the opposition? After 54 years in Canada, haven’t we learned anything?

Very good questions, indeed, Mr. Goodyear! He continues, in a strange Charlie Farquharson voice:

So, in one area Canada has a Do-mess-tic/Foreign policy. That is to trade fish quota in ‘our’ offshore for concessions benefiting Ontario and Quebec.

Later in the same year, Gary Gale claims, in the same paper:

My own view is that the federal government has been turning a blind to foreign over-fishing because of the lucrative trade agreements they have with these countries. They sacrifice the needs of the ordinary Newfoundlander for trade deals which benefit the richer province’s like Ontario or Quebec.

Operative word: “view”.

Again Roland Card, this time in The Telegram of May 20, 2003, points to the existence of “overwhelming evidence” – though not evidence of that thing that it would really be nice to have evidence of:

Because the federal government is directly responsible for managing our fisheries, it is required to act in our best interest. However, there is overwhelming evidence to show it has failed to do so over a long period. Under federal jurisdiction our once rich groundfish resources have been mismanaged to the brink of extinction and were even bartered away, at various times over the years in the interest of other national trade initiatives.

Later in the same month, Liam O’Brien writes:

The federal government saw to it that a city of trawlers was allowed to park itself within sight of the Newfoundland shoreline for 20 years. Foreigners, maritime fishermen and Central Canadian industries either directly or indirectly milked our resource.

In August of that year, in The Telegram, Ward Samson poses the customary when-did-you-stop-beating-your-wife question:

Ask the commercial fishermen about hi-grading catches. Ask why the Canadian government traded off our cod stocks so foreign companies could set up car plants in Ontario and Quebec.

In 2004, Telegram fish correspondent Joe Walsh poses, but doesn’t answer, the question:

Regardless of a very strong and vocal lobby from this province, past federal fisheries ministers have argued it is better to work within NAFO than to attempt to unilaterally impose custodial management. But is the real reason that the diplomats in External Affairs don’t want to step on anyone toes, particularly countries that buy goods from central Canada?

Back on the west coast, in August 2004, Leo Quilty tells the Star, “Politicians traded off our fish to European countries to procure markets for private wealth.”

On January 8, 2005, Edward Riche sneaks a Newfoundland nationalist letter past the Anti-Newfoundland Censorship Board at Toronto’s National Newspaper, the One Without National In Its Title, stating:

Newfoundland accepted that, for the greater good, rights to the stocks of the Grand Banks had to be bartered for Canadian access to overseas markets. Newfoundland had to play its part in lubricating the country’s economic engine. “Lubricate” figuratively, they naively thought.

Same day, but back in the holy land, John Steele claims in The Telegram, “Trading off our fish has been of direct benefit to other industries in other parts of Canada.”

Same page, next day, Jim Hand claims, “This multibillion-dollar industry was left to be raped by foreign trawlers due in large part to fear of trade reprisals on other Canadian products from European nations.”

“Raped.” Ugh.

A few days later, Ted Shears, Western Star:

We have had two types of Liberal governments in this country during the last 50 years. A provincial kind that has given away our resources, and a federal version in Ottawa that has taken our revenue and bartered our fishery to foreign countries to benefit Quebec, Ontario and the Prairie provinces.

Cussid Librils.

And, the day after that, Joe Walsh, again in The Telegram, says, “In exchange for our fish, the Canadian government created jobs in Central Canada where voters usually decide who forms the government.”

(The Canadian government gave away fish, and then made jobs? That’s almost, but not quite, as nonsensical as the French, Spanish, and Portuguese being interested in – hoo, boy, this doesn’t stop being funny – Canadian wine.)

In July, Liam O’Brien claims on the Fair Deal blog:

I think it’s the heights of arrogance to assume to worst of fishermen while defending the government that, upon the day it got its precious 200 mile limit, not only increased quotas for Non-NL Canadian fishing interests in areas normall nowhere near theirs (3000% from 1976 to 1987) but also signed a series of Trade deals that helped regions OTHER than ours in order to get VOTES in regions OTHER than ours…. a practice that informally went on even earlier that that!

Last year, Sue Kelland-Dyer claim on her now, again, shuttered blog, “If we look at it from an economic perspective, our fish were used for Britain in the same way Canada has used and abused the resource for trade in other goods and services.”

Around the same time, Greg Byrne contends, over at FreeNewfoundlandLabrador:

Why do you think Canada has neer ratified the United Nations Law of the Sea article 76 which would make the Continental shelf fall under our control? Because that would mean Ontario’s manufacturing industry would lose it’s barganing chip in world trade.

On August 11, 2006, Provincial Court Judge Bruce Short says, in court:

One could only conclude, it seems to me, that the trade-off is that the country is getting something else that it considers more valuable and I think that’s sad. It shows disrespect to the province to trade fish for things that presumably benefit other provinces.

In January of this year, Myles Higgins, in the Canada Free Press, whatever that is, writes:

Fisheries protection has never been a priority for Ottawa, neither has the protection of the east coast of the Country. When it comes to fisheries issues the government of Canada sees the resource as nothing more than a way to broker trade deals with nations around the globe.

In its February 19, 2007, editorial, the Gander Beacon claims, “Newfoundland fish is being used as a trade-off to benefit Canada.”

Father Aidan Devine, who, judging by his honorific, like Father Des, should know a thing or two about how The Big Guy likes his truth, writes in The Telegram of February 19, “Ottawa maintains international trade balances as foreign countries strip away whatever fish are left”, and in the Northern Pen a few weeks later on March 5, “But above all Canada maintains the international trade balance gets to sell wheat in exchange for other countries being allowed to strip away whatever fish are left.”

Bill Rowe tells his afternoon radio audience on April 20, 2007, “Our fishery was used as a barter to help in trade negotiations with other countries.”

And Ralph Morris, on the now-defunct and cyber-squatted fisheriesforum.com, “Its also time for the politicians in Ottawa to stop trading prairie wheat for the right of foreign trawlers to rape our east coast fisheries.”

Again, with the “rape”.

Again, with the “ugh”.

The first sign is the vagueness, the lack of details. None of the trade-deal proponents, at least not in the instances cited above, can answer any of The Big Questions.

Who? What? When? Where? Why? How?

Not even someone with access to the files, a legal mind who can prove a case, and a flair for communicating his argument, even if it is nonsenical and flexible with the facts.

But that’s for the second part of this discussion of The First Sign.