Call for Federal Inquiry Falls on Deaf Ears

On Monday federal MP, Ryan Cleary, announced plans to introduce a private members bill during the next sitting of the House of Commons. The bill would call on government to begin an official inquiry into fisheries management off the East Coast.


In 1992, under Prime Minister Brian Mulroney, the federal government enacted a complete moratorium on the fishing of northern cod. The region, long recognized as having the best fishing grounds in the world, was dramatically impacted by the collapse of the stocks and the decision to shut down the industry. The fishery there had been the biggest in Canada and the mainstay of the local economy for centuries.

Nearly 20 years after the collapse of the cod stocks very little recovery has been seen and many questions remain unanswered.

Cleary, the NDP representative in the federal district of St. John’s South-Mount Pearl, championed the cause of the Newfoundland and Labrador fishery long before entering the political arena and during the most recent federal election made the call for an inquiry a central part of his campaign message.

When speaking with reporters this week Cleary said he believes the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) is responsible for mismanagement of stocks and for political pandering. Cleary said quotas have been issued based on political agendas rather than sound science.

He indicated that he has had off the record conversations with DFO staff who say the science branch of the agency has been reduced to a skeleton crew, morale is horrible and science vessels are aging and in disrepair.

"Our future is threatened. It is threatened by a lack of vision. It is threatened by the absence of a rebuilding plan. It is threatened by apathy in all quarters” Cleary said.

The rookie MP is calling for a commission of inquiry to investigate the effectiveness of current management processes, the state of fisheries science, quota allocation practices and regulation enforcement.

The closure of the northern cod fishery came just 40 years after the federal government assumed control of the industry. That collapse put thousands of people out of work effectively destroying a way of life that had existed in the province for nearly 500 years. It decimated small towns and villages and sent the provincial economy into a downward spiral. In the end it was the biggest single loss of employment ever seen in Canada.

What followed was the largest out-migration from any province in Canadian history. Ten’s of thousands of residents left to seek employment, essentially crippling the economy of rural Newfoundland and Labrador, a blow from which it has never fully recovered. To this day, even as oil revenues boost the overall economy, unemployment rates in the province stubbornly remain the highest in the Country.

Fisheries activists from around the province are applauding Mr. Cleary’s demand for an inquiry saying it’s necessary and long overdue.

During his press conference Cleary pointed to a similar inquiry called by the Harper Conservatives into the decline of BC salmon stocks. He questioned why, after nearly 20 years and with little sign of recovery, a similar inquiry into the East Coast fishery cannot be undertaken.

Local speculation abounds about the reasons for this inaction by officials. Although most suspicions have never been proven, it’s widely believed that the North Atlantic Fisheries Organization (NAFO) which includes Canada, Russia, Spain, Portugal and others has too much influence on Canadian decisions affecting the industry. It is also broadly believed that there are far too many “skeletons” in the closet of the federal bureaucracy and of elected representatives, both past and present, to ever allow the facts to be become public.

Evidence of mismanagement and political interference will be difficult to uncover without a full inquiry.

Mr. Cleary, when working as a journalist during his pre-political career, indicated many times that requests for information, especially regarding foreign fishing in Canadian waters, were consistently blocked by officials. The reason often given for withholding this information from Canadian citizens was that it might prove “embarrassing” to the nations involved and could have a negative impact on foreign relations and trade.

Even though fish stocks have not rebounded and the effects are still being felt throughout Newfoundland and Labrador a full inquiry has never been held and it doesn’t appear that Mr. Cleary’s attempt to force one will be successful either.

Without an inquiry it’s unlikely the truth will ever be known and the recovery of stocks could forever remain in doubt.

In a press release issued immediately after Cleary’s press conference Conservative Fisheries Minister, Keith Ashfield, quickly dismissed the announcement saying there will be, “…no inquiry…(because)…a judicial inquiry represents a costly and duplicative exercise into decisions made over 20 years ago”.

When informed of the Minster’s quick and dismissive response Cleary said he couldn’t believe the reaction.

The MP cannot understand how the federal government can investigate management policies in one end of the country through the BC inquiry and not at the other end when they have so clearly failed everywhere. He said he sees Ashfield’s reaction as evidence that the Conservative government has written off the Newfoundland and Labrador fishery.

As an example of continued mismanagement Cleary said he believes the reason DFO has not publicized the issuing of nine fishing citations to foreign vessels in the past year alone is because Ottawa doesn’t want to jeopardize ongoing Free Trade talks with the European Union. Talks that have the potential to lead to even further European influence on fisheries decisions in Canada.

As to the cost of an inquiry, Cleary asked the public to consider how much the economy of Newfoundland and Labrador has lost and will continue to lose in the future as a result of mismanagement in the fishery.

Mr. Cleary indicated that regardless of the expected outcome in the Commons, or the position taken by the Harper government and the Minister of Fisheries, he will proceed with the presentation of his bill during the fall session.

NAFO Approves Higher North Atlantic Cod Quota for Spanish Fleet

Here we go again. International relations and politics once more trump good conservation and science as the North West Atlantic Fisheries Organization (NAFO) approves an increased quota for the Spanish fleet just days after fisheries scientists announce that there has been a small increase in cod stocks after nearly 20 years of a moratorium on the species.

In 1992 the cod fishery in Newfoundland and Labrador collapsed as a result of overfishing, both illegal and legally managed (or more accurately "mis-managed"). The fishery closure devastated the provincial economy throwing 15% of the employable population out of work overnight. Many more would lose their jobs in the months and years that followed as secondary industries dependent on the fishery also suffered.

The closure led to a mass outmigration of people. In the years following the collapse of the cod fishery the population of the province fell by a staggering 20% and is only now, like the cod itself, beginning to show some tentative signs of recovery.

Now, instead of staying the course, with stocks finally beginning to show some increase, the powers that be have decided its time once again to start raping the ocean.

At its meeting in Halifax last week NAFO increased catch quotas assigned to Spanish ships for the next year, with regards to two species: cod and Greenland halibut.

The quantity of cod which Spanish fleets will be able to catch will increase by almost 180 per cent, from 796 tonnes to 1,447 tonnes.

At the meeting, it was confirmed that cod stocks had recovered - though scientific evidence shows the recovery is small and stocks are still a mere fraction of what they were during the 1970's - in Newfoundland waters, so it was decided to increase the total allowable catch (TAC).

Participants in the meeting and ultimate decision to increase the quota included representatives from the European Union, Canada, United States, Cuba, Russia, Norway, Japan, Iceland, Korea, Ukraine, France, Faroe Islands, Denmark and Greenland.

Once again we see greed trumping common sense when it comes to all matters fisheries related. It's a sad day to be a lonely cod fish in the Grand Banks of Newfoundland and Labrador. The question now becomes, how long before the last one is finally wiped from the face of the planet?

Fisheries Minister Rocks Boat

I never thought it would come to this but it has. Here I was enjoying a nice summer hiatus and today I find myself suddenly back in front of the keyboard writing in defense of actions taken by the Federal government of Canada in Newfoundland and Labrador.

That’s right folks, your’s truly has not only broken his summer respite but I’ve also been reduced to defending the actions of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO), a federal agency that has all but destroyed the outport way of life and ruined Newfoundland and Labrador’s economy with their utter mismanagement of the North Atlantic fishery.

It’s not something I enjoy doing but when the situation calls for it what options do I have?

The reason for my inability to sit idly by (which I was doing quite happily) comes after the recent announcement of this year’s commercial cod quota by Federal Fisheries Minister, Gail Shea.

It seems the Minister (who is well known for a number of politically motivated and underhanded decisions since taking office) has left this year’s northern cod quota largely unchanged from the previous year. According to the Fish, Food and Allied Workers Union (FFAW), “…quota increases are almost non-existent” and this, so it would seem, has fishermen across the Province very, very angry.

According to the FFAW’s David Decker, Minister Shea and her officials “either have no idea about their own science data, or are choosing to ignore it. (this is) another crippling blow" for the industry.

Clearly the words of someone who is angry with the current situation, but for what its worth, I’ll tell you what makes me angry and, at least in this case, it certainly isn’t the Fisheries Minister or DFO.

What gets under my skin, and the reason I find myself sitting at my keyboard today is the absolute unmitigated gall of the fishermen and the FFAW leadership who are once again screaming for an increased cod quota when they know full well that the cod stocks are in such poor shape.

Yes, the science shows that inshore stocks are showing signs of an increase, in fact rather encouraging signs. That said, the hope now is that as inshore stocks continue to grow they will help repopulate the offshore which where the species is still teetering on the brink of extinction, even 17 years into a moratorium.

Yes, the offshore fleets that are illegally fishing need to be stopped and Canada is not doing enough to fix that problem.

Yes, foreign ships skirting international waters on the nose and tail of the Grand Banks or Flemish Cap need to be stopped (blown out of the water would be my approach) and again the fed is doing nothing to fix the problem.

Yes, Canadian quotas for offshore fleets (of any species) need to be better controlled, bottom dragging needs to be done away with and so much more needs to happen, none of which is on Ottawa’s radar.

In short there are many things Ottawa can be blamed for when it comes to the fishery, including allowing the stocks to collapse in the first place, but when it comes being conservative when issuing quotas for rebounding inshore stocks the only blame I see in all this rests squarely with the fishermen and the union, not with Ottawa.

We all know it’s been a hard year in the fishery but is that an excuse to increase quotas and make a quick cash grab at the expense of the future viability of the fishery itself?

The FFAW is often the first to complain about fisheries mismanagement but they’re also the first to scream to high heaven when quotas are managed with the future of the stocks in mind.

Grab a buck today and to hell with tomorrow should be the motto in the fishery these days.

That’s an attitude that boils my blood.

Between endless federal governments and provincial governments, the fishermen and their union and the plant operators as well the fishery has devolved into a mess of monumental proportions. It’s a quagmire of muck and slime so twisted and convoluted that it would take a nuclear bomb dropped into the middle of it to disassemble it and untangle the individual components so they could be rearranged into anything even resembling a viable industry.

Fishermen consider themselves “independent business owners” yet they have no product (the fish is a public resource), they have union representation and they collect EI for more than half the year. What kind of independent business owners do any of us know who fit that description?

The fisheries union (FFAW) represents both the suppliers (the fishermen) and the plant workers. This means that in practice the FFAW is supposed to fight for the best per pound price for the fishermen when dealing with plan owners, and also fight for the best wages for plant workers, wages that can only come from the plant owners if they get a lower price from the fishermen. Add to this the fact that the FFAW itself has its own fish quota and operates a handful of fishing boats and the level of conflict becomes staggering.

Ottawa has always put political expediency ahead of fisheries protection or management (perhaps with the exclusion of this current quota which is why I’m really ticked at the FFAW). DFO has been negligent and corrupt in their management practices for decades and the state of the stocks is all the evidence of this anyone needs to see.

Consider as well that countless political leaders in Newfoundland and Labrador have made a career out of parlaying fish plants for rural areas into election wins and the blame for the overall mess in the industry casts wide net over everyone involved.

Believe me, if the verbal diarrhea flowing from the FFAW’s David Decker hadn’t raised my hackles today I’d be out enjoying a great summer day (thanks again by the way) but there comes a time in each person’s life when there is only so much B.S. you can put up with and this my friends is one of those times.

For (pick your divinity) sake, the cod fishery was decimated nearly 20 years ago and in all likelihood the crab, lobster and many other commercial species are headed in the same direction. It’s time for all the stakeholders to do what needs to be done. Let the chips fall where they may.

For starters quotas should only ever be set based on the most conservative science, as was apparently the case this week, never ever for political reasons, which is usually what’s done.

Yes there is no doubt fish caught in off of Newfoundland and Labrador’s shore should be processed in the Province but plant owners need to be given the freedom, with that parameter, to run their business as they see fit. If they want to close down most of their plants so the remaining ones will provide meaningful and full time work and so they can make a real profit for the investors they should be able to do so. In other words fish plants need to become an actual place of business that produce fish products not EI stamps.

Fishermen need to make a decision. Either they want to be employees of a fish producer or they want to run independent business enterprises. They can’t be both. If they are independent business owners then they should have their EI access cut off and lose their unionized status. If they want to be employees of the plants then the plants can buy their boats and licenses and give them a decent wage for fishing.

Yes, this will all mean great hardship in many places across the Province but at least it will finally bring some order to the chaos. What kind of life is it for people who spend year after year watching the industry decline all the while realizing their only real goal is to get enough stamps to make it to your next season of EI?

It’s time for some leadership and backbone, something clearly lacking among all the generally recognized stakeholders in this industry, with the exception of the one forgotten stakeholder.

Far too often forgotten with all the flapping mouths are the silent stakeholders, the public, you and me.

The fish stocks, if they belong to anyone belong to all citizens, not just the fishermen.
The seemingly endless tax dollars thrown at the industry (usually into a large empty and bottomless money pit) comes from the pockets of John’ and Judy Public. This means we all have a right to intercede in what’s happening. In fact we have more than a right, we have an obligation. Perhaps its time the silent stakeholders took a stand.

Well, this taxpayer has reached the end of his rope and is willing to say loud and clear for everyone to hear, “Enough is enough. Either fix it or shut it down completely”.

Meanwhile, back to my reason for writing today, Minister Shea and the quota she set this year (sorry for going off on a tangent but anything to do with fisheries issues tends to cause mass confusion), all I can say is, “good job” Ms. Minister. If you only performed as efficiently, properly and non-politically with regard to the numerous other aspects of your portfolio we might finally get somewhere with this mess.

The Butcher, Baker and Candlestick Maker

Much has been made of Senator George Baker’s recent comments identifying a growing discontent in Newfoundland and Labrador and the potential for a new “bloc” style federal party to emerge in the province.

The federalists, most notably the Harper Conservatives, jumped on his comment as a promotion of separation. I believe they even came perilously close to calling the Senator a “traitor”.

Never mind that Mr. Baker spoke of a party that would defend Newfoundland and Labrador’s interests in Ottawa and never said anything about separation. Why would he in the federal context? After all only a provincial party, not a federal one, can make such a move. This is why the Bloc Quebecois never held a referendum on separation, the provincial party in Quebec has done so in the past, but not the federal one. It can’t

In this case, once again, political expediency and the automatic attack instincts of the PMO took over and when that happens everyone knows that reality takes a back seat.

A week after Senator Baker’s comment perhaps it’s time to take a step back, put aside the rhetoric and political hyperbole for a moment, look at the facts behind his belief that there is growing unrest in his home province and what the situation may lead to.

Most Newfoundlanders and Labradorians don’t need to be reminded of the long list of reasons for their discontent but for the benefit of Canadians living outside the province here is a short and by no means complete, list of grievances.

1 - Questions still linger, even after 60 years, about whether or not the referendum that led to NL’s confederation with Canada was valid or not.

When Newfoundland and Labrador ceded power to Britain in the 1930’s the people were told they would one day be given back their autonomy as an independent Dominion. This was never done. Many believe it should have been done before the people were called upon to take part in a referendum on becoming part of another Country.

Most people don’t realize it but there were actually two votes held on Confederation.

In the first vote three options were presented on the ballot and Confederation with Canada DID NOT win that vote. As a result a second vote was undertaken the following year that offered only two options. In that vote Confederation won but by the narrowest of margins, just over 50%. A number that would never pass muster today if NL were to hold a referendum to exit Canada.

Also, as a side note, when NL entered Confederation it may not have been in the best fiscal or economic position but it had a financial surplus. Now, 60 years later it struggles under the highest per capita debt in the Country.

2 - In the late 1960’s Newfoundland and Labrador undertook development of the massive Upper Churchill hydro facility. Canada’s constitution guarantees the free flow of goods across provincial territories. In this case however Quebec refused to allow the province to wheel power across their territory and Ottawa refused to enforce their Constitutional duty by making them permit it.

As a result, Newfoundland and Labrador was forced into signing a ridiculous long term contract to sell the power to Quebec. Although NL still owns and runs the Upper Churchill power system it has made just a few million dollars in all the years that followed. Quebec, last year alone, made $2 Billion in revenues from Newfoundland and Labrador’s power and will make this or more every year from now until 2041.

3 - For 500 years visitors and settlers in Newfoundland and Labrador depended on the Atlantic Cod fishery as the mainstay of the economy. When NL joined Canada in 1949 Ottawa assumed control of fisheries management. By 1992 that 500 year old fishery had been mismanaged to the point of total collapse. This resulted in 15 – 20 percent of the province’s population being thrown out of work.

The fishery has still not recovered and is showing no signs of doing so. Foreign trawlers are still plying the spawning areas and Ottawa refuses to enact custodial management actions to protect them.

4 - The massive oil and gas reserves off the coast of Newfoundland and Labrador are not controlled by the province but by Ottawa.

When NL entered Confederation 60 years ago it was standard practice for nations to have a 50 mile limit in the oceans around them (remember, NL was once a separate state), years later Countries around the world began adopting a 200 mile zone.

This means that had Newfoundland and Labrador not entered Canada the people of the province, not Canada, would control those reserves and receive all the benefits from them.

Essentially NL brought those reserves into Canada yet, unlike Alberta or Saskatchewan who control the oil beneath their soil, NL does not control the oil beneath its waters.

For clarification, recent battles related to the Atlantic Accord have nothing to do with equalization. They have everything to do with whether Ottawa or NL receives the most benefit from those oil and gas resources, not all the benefits, just the majority of them.

The Atlantic Accord was an agreement intended to ensure that the people who brought those resources into Canada would benefit the most from them. Recent unilateral moves by the Harper government have ensured that the agreement was watered down the point where it is practically worthless and that the benefits to Newfoundland and Labrador are severely limited.

5 - Newfoundland and Labrador, with less than 2% of Canada’s population has consistently provided about 10% of Canada’s military forces yet even with it’s strategically important geographical location (covering most of the nation’s Atlantic Coast) there is no appreciable military presence (or related jobs) in the Province.

As previously noted, the preceding list is by no means complete but it serves to show that although Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are often labeled as “whiners” or “malcontents” in the national media there are valid reasons for discontent to exist and grow.

So, the next question is what can be done about it?

This brings us back to Senator Baker’s comments.

Whether or not specific individuals in the province would or would not support a “bloc” style party just about everyone knows the situation as it currently exists. That situation is as follows:

Newfoundland and Labrador has no voice in Ottawa and nowhere to turn when serious concerns, like those identified above, come to pass. Under the status quo the province is essentially impotent.

Newfoundland and Labrador has only 7 federal seats out of the 308 in Parliament.

The vast majority of federal seats exist within Ontario, Quebec, Alberta, etc. As a result any federal action must, for purely political reasons, ensure that the voters of the larger provinces are served first, last and always even if that means harming smaller provinces like Newfoundland and Labrador.

Whether it’s a question of wheeling power across another’s provincial jurisdiction, finding more money for vote rich areas, keeping peace with foreign fishing nations so not to upset trade deals that benefit central Canadian auto, textile, aerospace or candlestick makers, or any number of other issues, Newfoundland and Labrador has been, and always will be, less important to federal political parties than central Canada.

The senate, which has problems on so many fronts it would take volume of books to recite, is neither equal nor effective. If it were then each province would have an equal number of senators and the senate would have the ability to do more than rubber stamp legislation. They do not.

The senate, as it was intended, is supposed to be the chamber of “sober second thought”.

Thanks to their long term appointments (remaining in office until the age of 75) senators are supposed to be immune from having to concern themselves with how their decisions might impact on their personal or party political futures. After all, if you don’t have to run for election you don’t need to pander to popular positions and are free to ensure that things are done fairly.

That may work in theory but unfortunately it’s not the case in practice.

It’s common practice, and considered quite acceptable in political circles, for elected party leaders to pressure and control the actions of senators who are members of their party. How often have you heard Stephen Harper, Michael Ignatief and others say something like, “He can’t even control his Senators”.

How independent and immune to political games can the senate really be if comments like those are considered appropriate?

With all of this in mind one can easily see why discontent is growing every day in Newfoundland and Labrador and why Senator Baker (though it took some guts to do it) said what he did.

The facts are clear. With all the problems the province has experienced, and continues to experience in Canada, the people of Newfoundland and Labrador have four options in front of them and only one that has any potential to provide some relief.

They can either:

Stay in Canada and sit quietly by as abuse after abuse is heaped upon them with no hope things will ever change. This is not an option anyone should be faced with or should even consider accepting in a democracy.

Or

Stay in Canada and desperately try to change the federal system, knowing full well that there is no political will in Ottawa to do so because the system works pretty well for highly populated and vote rich areas that politicians need to win elections. In other words Newfoundlanders are faced with another option that offers no hope of improving the situation.

Or

Determine, through an independent feasibility study, if separation really is a truly viable and reasonable alternative. Since a study would require provincial government approval, perhaps even assistance in gathering information from Ottawa and would likely take quite some time to conduct if it were ever undertaken, this options does nothing to help in the short term if ever.

Or there is the option put forward by Senator Baker.

Support a “bloc” style party that can voice Newfoundland and Labrador’s concerns in Parliament without concern for the political interests of MPs from other provinces. Those “bloc” style MPs would hold 7 votes that might be important enough during a string of minority Parliaments that old fashioned horse trading could very well serve to see at least some of the province’s concerns addressed going forward.

It’s really the only option that has any merit.

Since he made his now infamous comments Senator Baker has been butchered in the mainstream media across Canada and ridiculed as a dottering fool.

I wonder who the fools really are?

Straddling Stocks Report – Post Moratorium (1992)

In 1992 the government of Canada introduced a moratorium to protect cod stocks that were teetering on the brink of extinction.

This action, directly and indirectly, put over 10% of Newfoundland and Labrador's population out of work in the blink of an eye.

In the 17 years since this supposed ban on cod fishing was introduced the stocks have failed to make any real progress in growing their numbers and are still in dire peril of total collapse.

The following numbers may shed some light on why this is the case.

All the numbers presented below are based on North West Atlantic Fisheries Organization (NAFO) reported catches up to, and including, 2004.

Numbers after that point are not as easily accessible but are being gathered for potential future reports.

No data is available on the level of “under reported” or “non-reported” catches in these areas so the following only includes what has been officially reported to NAFO.

For those who are unfamiliar with the location of specific NAFO fishing zones, the nose and tail of the Grand Banks and the Flemish Cap, which are considered to be crucial breeding grounds or nurseries for Atlantic Cod, fall almost entirely within NAFO Zones 3M and 3N.

Note: The last set of numbers are some of the most interesting.

If you assume an average weight of 7 pounds per fish, which is probably generous due to the state of current stocks, these numbers represent about 200 million Atlantic Cod reported as caught after the 1992 moratorium was introduced and up to 2004.

As large as that number appears, nobody knows how many more cod have actually been caught and sold on world markets.

Life Lessons - The Price of Progress

This past weekend my last surviving Aunt, my Father’s sister, Rita Dwyer, passed away in the town of Norris Arm at the age of 89. She will be sorely missed.

Aunt Rita (we always called her “Reet”) was a wonderful woman, salt of the earth as they say, and she will not be forgotten.

I bring her passing to your attention not because you may have known her personally but because many of us have known someone just like her over the years. A solid and dependable woman who married (twice in her case having lost her first husband at an early age), raised a family and ended a long and full existence in the same small town in which she was born.

With out-migration, labor mobility and all the other forms of rural exodus we are so used to these days, Rita’s style of life has become somewhat of a rarity, one that most of us will never know.

When I first heard of my Aunt’s passing my thoughts were not of her death so much as about her life. I found myself pondering all the things she must have witnessed in her nearly 90 years in that small town.

Born just after the end of World War I she would have grown up during the great depression and lived through the tuberculosis epidemic that ravaged Newfoundland’s people.

No doubt there were days when most things were in short supply. A time when not living, but survival itself, was the order of the day.

Being raised in a small community there may not have been much, but her family (my family really), grew their own vegetables and had a ready supply of milk from the family goat, both of which could always be supplemented with fish, caribou, rabbit and a variety of other wild game.

As she grew Rita would have had a front row seat to Newfoundland’s era as an independent dominion. She would have seen first hand the financial collapse that led to the commission of government and she knew full well the painful and often corrupt campaigns that brought her once sovereign homeland into confederation with Canada. A campaign that fostered heated battles and life long divides not only among neighbors and friends but even among members of the same family.

Aunt Rita well remembered the trains and how they carried thousands of American service men to the town regularly during World War II. How the soldiers would spend a few days at camp before moving on once again to far off destinations, perhaps never to return.

After having raised a family just mere feet from that railway track, she would later look out her window and witness the dismantling of the rail line in the 1980’s. All that remains running past her house these days is a gravel trail and a near constant cloud of dust kicked up by all terrain vehicles.

Aunt Rita grew up in a time when the fishery was indeed the backbone of Newfoundland and Labrador. Her second husband, Bill Dwyer, who like her first also predeceased her, was a small boat fisherman and as my Father often calls him, “a hard nosed sealer”. Aunt Rita often saw him go out to the ice in the Spring and no doubt she wondered if he would return. He always did.

During her early days the harbor at Norris Arm was alive with boats of every description. Wharves dotted the shore line and the water’s edge, like the local train station, was always a beehive of activity. That was the sort of life she grew up with.

In the 1990’s she, like all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians witnessed the collapse of the cod stocks and along with it saw most of the young people move away leaving only the older generation to continue on.

Today the one remaining wharf in the community is the so called government wharf. All the small family ones are long gone, as are the fishing boats. Now, even the odd pleasure boat entering the harbor is an oddity.

During my Aunt's lifetime nations have risen and fallen. Men have visited the moon and returned to tell about it. Communications technology has advanced from large, crackly radio sets to high speed internet and cell phones. Horses and oxen have given way to trucks and quads.

Cities have grown and prospered yet towns just like the one where my Aunt was born, married, raised a family and died continue to disappear every day.

It makes me wonder if “progress” is the right word under the circumstances and at what price progress simply becomes too expensive.

Thankfully my Aunt, God rest her soul, won’t be around to see how it all turns out.

God speed Aunt Rita.