Originally published in the Independent, Dec. 15th, 2014
http://theindependent.ca/2014/12/15/ceta-time-to-admit-its-an-oversold-underhanded-deal/
Surprise!
Surprise! Our premier is now suggesting the federal government has deliberately
duped our province over the $280 million CETA package we were promised for
giving up minimum processing requirements (MPRs).
“He can’t
be trusted,” Paul Davis said following his meeting with Stephen Harper in
Ottawa last Friday. “They’re moving the goal posts. They’ve moved them so far
that the fund is going to be unreachable.”
MPRs are
now gone. We can’t go back and renegotiate them out of CETA (Canada and the
European Union’s Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement). We could,
however, stand up and be the first province to say “No” to this trade
agreement. Our premier has already hinted at the possibility.
Defying
the vindictive Harper Government would clearly be a heroic gesture. But, even
more significantly, it could also be the beginning of a domino effect among the
provinces, given many are facing opposition to CETA from their own cities and
towns. More than 50 municipalities across the country have
disliked or distrusted CETA so much that they have asked their provinces to
exempt them. Their requests, of course, were denied.
Some
provincial governments might also be swayed by the mounting civil opposition to
CETA. Over the past two months more than one million Europeans
have signed a petiCtion stating that the European Union should not ratify either
CETA or the TTIP (Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, with the
United States).
What’s
more — the sense that CETA is a very bad treaty for ordinary wage earners and
small businesses is starting to trickle into public consciousness on both sides
of the Atlantic.
As for
Newfoundland and Labrador, anger and a feeling of betrayal about the now iffy
nature of the federal fund are not sufficient reasons for our province to
reject CETA. Newfoundland and Labrador should have compelling constitutional
and economic reasons to take that step. In that pursuit, they might want to
consider more seriously what Gus Etchegary, former CEO of Fishery Products
International, meant when he said “the $280 million
compensation for job loss and negative impact on the industry will be
comparable to the size of a flea on the rump of an elephant.”
Etchegary,
with decades of experience in the fisheries, remembers how well minimum
processing requirements have worked in the past and the perspective to know that
they could in the future. As for the present, if they are not working well at
this particular moment in time, government has the flexibility to adjust — as
it did two years ago when Ocean Choice International was granted a 15 year
reprieve from MPRs at its Fortune plant.
CETA’s uncaring, unforgiving nature
That
flexibility disappears with CETA, because CETA forbids us to ever use MPRs no
matter how our circumstances might change.
And
circumstances can change, even dramatically.
Imagine a
future scenario where fish stocks are healthy and the shellfish are bountiful.
Imagine also a strong demand from Europe for our resource. Then factor in
something unexpected like the closure of the Alberta tar sands for economic or
environmental reasons. The displacement of workers would cause a huge
unemployment problem for our province. There we would be, sitting on a rich
resource that is wholly ours, but unable to insist that our own workers do the
processing.
Our
government is complacent about this scenario because it believes our processing
sector will be able to compete with European fish plants. If there was a level
playing field this would probably be true, but the EU gives massive subsidies
to its fisheries sector. A 2011 study reported that in
13 European countries the value of the subsidies was actually greater than the
value of their fish catch.
How do we
compete with that?
A benefit for all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians,
or just a few?
In return
for the abolition of MPRs the Europeans lowered the tariffs on shellfish. Was
this as much of a sacrifice for them as losing MPRs was for us? I doubt it.
This was not a clear question of our fish competing with their fish. The
Europeans actually import 60 per cent of the
fish they consume, and because fish stocks are declining around the world their
tariffs have been steadily going down.
According
to a 2013 report by the Canadian
Centre for Policy Alternatives, tariffs would have likely reached zero
within a few years. In reality, they weren’t giving up very much at all.
On the
other hand, trading away the democratic rights of future governments to act in
the interest of local economies, workers and communities was an enormous
concession to make. It’s all being justified by the immediate increase in
export sales that will come from the elimination of tariffs on shellfish. The
economic growth that will come with those increased sales is supposed to
benefit Newfoundlanders and Labradorians in all sorts of ways, we’ve been told
by both the provincial and federal governments: It will strengthen us.
Canadian
farmers have a precautionary story to tell us about that kind of reasoning. In
the 10 years following the signing of NAFTA (North American Free Trade
Agreement), Canadian farm exports increased by 300 per cent. Those figures
sound impressive until you learn that farm debt also increased by 300 per
cent. Even more startling, the income of Mexican farmers—many of
whom were already living well below the poverty line—declined by 40 per cent.
Trading
away the democratic rights of future governments to act in the interest of
local economies, workers and communities was an enormous concession to make.
NAFTA
increased Canadian exports but impoverished family farmers. Meanwhile, the
middlemen—the big agribusiness corporations—did extremely well. If this example
teaches us anything, it is that we need to be asking where the money will go
from increased shellfish exports.
Will it
evenly benefit people working in the fisheries of Newfoundland and Labrador? Or
is it more likely that a few people will do very well out of increased sales
while the great majority will be excluded? I think I know what the farmers
would say.
The
Newfoundland and Labrador government has finally found out what Citizens against CETA and
the Council of Canadians have been saying in this province for a long
time: You can’t trust what the federal government tells us about CETA.
They’ve
wildly misrepresented the benefits of this deal from the very start, and when
challenged, their strategy is to resort to even greater exaggeration. In his
interview on the Fisheries Broadcast last week, federal minister Rob Moore
managed to use the word “fantastic” five times to describe what a good deal
CETA is for Newfoundland and Labrador.
As for
the “middlemen” in our province, it’s time to insist they clarify their vague
assertions.
“It is an
agreement that will provide benefits and economic growth and jobs—good-paying
jobs for Newfoundland and Labrador—for decades to come,” Richard Alexander,
executive director with the NL Employers’ Council, said in an interview with The
Telegram.
What kind
of jobs, Mr. Alexander? How many? Who is going to get them? And who is going to
be left out?
It’s time
to finally allow a real discussion about CETA. The deal isn’t ratified yet.
