I know that just today I told everyone I wouldn't be posting anything new until after the provincial election, but I just found something in my own web site statistics that is too curious to overlook. It may mean nothing but then again...
You see I sometimes check my site's statistics to see how many visitors have come by, what part of the Country they hail from and so on. Don't worry, the statistics don't tell me who you are, just a few general facts that are somtimes interesting, especially today.
With Stephen Harper posturing for a federal election rumors surfaced last week in Nova Scotia that Bill Casey, the Conservative castaway who had the cubes to stand up to the PM over the Atlantic Accord, might run for the party again, if they are willing to make amends over the issue.
Of course we all know the Harper government has about as much support in Atlantic Canada as a spanish trawler on the Grand Banks, so with an election looking more and more likely the question is if the Conservatives taking another look at the Atlantic Accord debacle in the hopes of regaining some ground.
Maybe they are.
Today in my statistics I found two very interesting entries.
The first was the recording of a visitor who came to us via the parliamentary server and stayed on for nearly 3 hours. This isn't that odd since Big Brother usually stops by for a visit, but the length of the visit was a little out of the ordinary.
What was a even stranger was the following entry.
As you can see, some industrious little beaver at the Federal Finance Department also paid Web Talk a visit and interestingly they stumbled on the site while searching Google for: Cost Wade Locke Equalization Cap.
Go ahead and perform that search for yourself and see what you get. Essentially, for the most part, it's a bunch of material on economist Wade Locke's assessment of the damage done thanks to Ottawa's callous actions on the Atlantic Accord.
It would seem that months after side stepping its obligations on the Atlantic Accord and dismissing the concerns of the provinces involved, with an election looming, someone at the Department of Finance is, for whatever reason, clearly interested in the situation and the numbers.
It may mean nothing but it certainly falls into the category of -
Things that make you go Hmmmmm......
I'm led to believe that in the past, N&L fishing rights were traded away in the interests of other Canadians to sundry other trading counterparties(foreign). I've never seen or been able to find any factual information to support this 'theory'. I'd love to have some solid ammo on this subject to lob back at the next ignoramus from Upper, Lower or Outer Canada that needs to be straightened out on exactly who it is that's been on the teat for going on 59 years. Can you post an item or suggest an item that maybe you have archived or provide the location of any reliable sources on the subject?
ReplyDeleteThanks,
EJSe (a.k.a. A Big Black Dog with Two Tails)
Leduc County AB ex St. John's
October 08, 2007 4:35 AM
ReplyDeleteMyles ,if you would like some help with this just let me know.I love a good search engine.;)
I would love too show people this 'theory'.
The now Federal Minister of Fisheries mentioned when he was Opposition Fisheries Critic that Canada uses fish quotas for international trade once when he appeared in an interview on Radio in this province. I have heard Senator George Baker talk in terms of it as well when he was an MP.
ReplyDeleteAnd all one has to do is harken back to when there were just a few close European Nations fishing in Newfoundland and Labrador's offshore waters, countries like England, Spain, Portugal and France, and the fact that now from time to time, countries from all over whole world have quotas granted and fish in those same waters that are adjacent to Newfoundland and Labrador's shores. You will find Japan and Korea there, and many, many other countries that never appeared in our waters before free global trade appeared on the scene.
Now why would Canada allow the invasion of its coastal waters from such far away foreign nations, when Canada has been fighting with its closest and largest trading partner the United States for a decade over the softwood lumber dispute? Wouldn't such nations cause a state of alert if they appeared there without Canada's assent?
Canada would not allow such a thing to happen with the fish quotas which it holds so dearly in its hands. Fish is the most coveted and sought after protein source of the world. Why would Canada allow such a coveted resource to be pilfered without it having knowledge or it getting some sort of trade in return and consequently foreign affairs clout.
Now you don't think Ottawa is going to overtly admit to that, do you? Sure they would be hung out to dry for admitting that they allowed it to happen. But happen it did and now we have to live with the fact that most of that protein source has been taken to such a low bio-mass level that it might never return.
Just give us autonomy and control of our continental shelf, water, floor and underneath.
ReplyDeleteHi calvin (et al) please feel free to send in any information you have that might assist in answering the Anon's question. I too have heard Baker, Hearn and others (including current NL First Party leader, Tom Hickey) talk of this and of specific instances. As far as anything firm in writing, not so much, but that isn't surprising as this is the sort of thing that would more likely get worked out behind closed doors.
ReplyDeleteAs always, it's the comments and input of the readers that make Web Talk so dynamic. Fill your boots.
A Fishy Business: The Abuse of American Trade Law in the Atlantic Groundfish Case of 1985-1986
ReplyDeleteAlan M. Rugman, Andrew Anderson
Canadian Public Policy / Analyse de Politiques, Vol. 13, No. 2 (Jun., 1987), pp. 152-164
doi:10.2307/3550636
This article consists of 13 page(s).
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0317-0861(198706)13%3A2%3C152%3AAFBTAO%3E2.0.CO%3B2-5
http://weber.ucsd.edu/~carsonvs/papers/440.pdf
http://muse.jhu.edu/demo/brookings_trade_forum/v2000/2000.1baldwin.pdf
The Marine Fisheries: A Problem in International Cooperation
James Crutchfield
The American Economic Review, Vol. 54, No. 3, Papers and Proceedings of the Seventy-sixth Annual Meeting of the American Economic Association (May, 1964), pp. 207-218
This article consists of 12 page(s)
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0002-8282(196405)54%3A3%3C207%3ATMFAPI%3E2.0.CO%3B2-U
Well as they say ,there is nothing better then a good read.From what I can take of thease writings Myles,the general impression is given that yes Canada has used the North Atlantic fish stocks in certain trade deals with nations around the world.
When asking a specific question to what trade deals i kept getting URL's that pointed to certain Governement web-sites that needed a user name and password.
So the conclusion that i have come to is that there is information out there,you just need the right permissions to get to the juicey stuff.Sorry i couldnt be more specific.But,I do think the information given by myself shows what certain people are saying is true.
Calvin Thanks. If you dig deep enough you will find the information, but as with any covert activities carried out by governments, such affairs are buried under several levels and one has to use ones precious times to find the supporting information.
ReplyDeleteIn a case such such as fish quotas doled out for International Trade and Foreign Affairs, all we have to do is use our logic. What country in its right mind would allow foreign nations a world away to come to its waters and fish away until the biomass of the fish is taken to such a low level that it is quite possible the resources will never again replenish itself? And besides Ottawa has those fish quotas under its wings.
ReplyDeleteThen, of course, there is the security factor. Can nobody remember Canada's air force off our coast chasing off planes supposedly which were Russian? I can I heard on the news sever times where Canada's air force scrambled to rendezvous such missions. Go figure.
Foreign fishing nations would never appear in Canadian waters without Canada's consent. Let us not be stupid?
And why would Canada give away such a resource as fish which is coveted for protein around the world. Again that is another world class resource the province of Newfoundland and Labrador passed over to Canada which if were administered properly could last the life of the world.
It is sad how we never get any thanks for what we have passed over to Ottawa/Canada.
Thank you Calvin for the leads; I'm going to check them out. A few comments: I expect that Wheat Board sales to the Soviets would have been one sort of transaction that involved trawler access to the Grand Banks. I expect the Auto Pact/FTA was somehow linked also to trade in Grand Banks resources. And I expect in the 80s that the Japanese traded low-priced manufactured goods (e.g machinery) for the right to dump half their caplin catch (the male half) in their zealous quest for high quality roe. But to date, all of this is hearsay and can only be backed up by mere speculation, not hard facts. Disclosure - I've come to ADORE salmon sashimi; it's raw fish carved up in the Japanese sushi way and IT'S A TREAT, even if it is farmed. Not taking the tuna sashimi any more though - moral reasons.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteFollow the textile trade
ReplyDeleteThe international trade happened and the footprints are there, nevertheless they appear covertly. The different nations which have fished off the Grand Banks for more than 30 years that were never there before, and the agriculture products and manufactured goods, which by whatever design have been traded for the same number of years to the same nations, is too big a coincidence to be ignored.
ReplyDeleteWe know damn well that Canada is not going to have the bills of lading and shipping receipts in full view. This is and was meant to be a covert activity. The ones who orchestrated this type of trade, of course our politicians, would have bit the dust to have let their consitutents know that their precious fish and their livlihood would be thrown to the wind as fodder to trade other Canadian goods and services in this way. We know who the Masters of the Global Free Trade Movement in Canada were and what can we do about it?
I guess we can demand that the fish be taken out of the equation at this point, after all we passed that resources over to Ottawa/Canada to be sustained and maintained. So we could do it on the basis of that argument.