From a letter published in the Telegram on June 3, 2015
In
his letter to the editor on CETA, Derek Butler of the Association of Seafood
Producers asserts that the market should determine whether or not we export our
fish processed or unprocessed. He makes a comparison with our desire and expected
right as consumers to have access to fresh, unprocessed fruit.
If
it was European consumer demand for unprocessed fish that drove the elimination
of minimum processing requirements, he would have a valid point. But we didn’t give up minimum processing requirements
because European consumers wanted unprocessed fish. We gave it up so that powerful fishing
corporations in European countries could do the processing.
We’re not taking about a free market here with
a level playing field. Instead, it’s a
market that will unfairly disadvantage our workers in favour of theirs, thanks
to massive EU subsidies that remain untouched under CETA.
For
the last couple of years the provincial government has been granting some
limited or temporary exemptions to minimum processing requirements.
As an opponent of CETA, we have no problem with these decisions. Government should have the flexibility to
react to immediate market problems in the fisheries. But CETA takes away that right. Under this trade agreement we will never
again be allowed to implement MPRs no matter how much demand there is for our
fish. That’s the real problem. CETA is an assault on our right to govern.
We find it interesting that our provincial government still doesn’t get that
point. In last week’s announcement they
asserted that CETA was, aside from the MPR debacle, a good deal for the
province. The downside, be it the
straitjacketing of our regulatory capacity, the risk of offshore lawsuits,
the cost increase for drugs, the end of
the right to favour local economies, the expected increase in Canada’s trade
deficit, (and so much more) is never to be acknowledged. Our ruling politicians adhere to the
simplistic idea that trade with the EU has to be good, regardless of the terms. “The Market” apparently
always knows what’s best for us.
We
live in an age where Ideology increasingly trumps rational analysis. To whose benefit is this?
