Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks for the opportunity to appear before the Standing Committee on International Trade.
We are here, representing the Fisheries Community Alliance of Newfoundland, to discuss CETA and its impact on the Newfoundland and Labrador fishery and its participants.
Our organization was formed in 1992 to bring to public attention the negative impact of the moratorium that was imposed on the Canadian fishing industry off the east coast. It was a two-year moratorium that has lasted 21 years because of mismanagement by the Canadian government and overfishing by the European Union nations.
When we entered Confederation, the Newfoundland and Labrador fishery was huge and diversified, one of the largest in the world. It elevated Canada from 14th to 6th place in the world as a fish-exporting nation. That's when we joined in 1949.
Now, with the limited information we have, we can agree there's great benefit for the country with the CETA agreement, but it can be detrimental to others, and in the specific case of Newfoundland, it really is detrimental. It has a terrible negative impact. I hope sometime we'll have time enough to explain exactly how this will occur.
On the basis of what we know and our long and bitter experience with the disruptive European Union fishing nations, we are really concerned about the agreement. We understand clearly the benefit of the tariffs, and we can understand specifically Nova Scotia gaining great benefit from it, but that is not the case in Newfoundland.
We know one of the conditions of the CETA agreement is the removal of the minimum processing regulations. This has been well publicized by our Newfoundland government. That's a major victory for the European Union, and it's something they have been trying to gain access to and get agreement on because they lost a substantial portion of their participation in our fisheries in 1978 when our jurisdiction was extended.
Please understand that the tariff on seafood was applied with the understanding by the European nations.... They had one objective in mind, and that was to use it at some later date to regain entry into the fisheries adjacent to Newfoundland and Labrador. That's all part of the plan, and it has been aided and abetted by some of our own politicians and bureaucrats in order to reach an agreement.
In 2007 at the North Atlantic Fisheries Organization annual meeting in Spain, which included, incidentally, prominent Canadians, the European Union introduced three amendments to that organization that have played a real role in these negotiations. That actually started the process of their regaining access and re-entry into our fisheries. These three amendments raised concerns at the time, to such an extent that we were able to present our concerns to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Fisheries and the Senate Committee on Fisheries, and both committees condemned the amendments as being detrimental to the Canadian fisheries, particularly in Newfoundland.
After the discussion between these two committees, they were able to bring it to the House of Commons, and at that time there was a four-hour debate, at the end of which there was a vote. The vote was 147 to 142 by the elected members of the House of Commons from B.C. to Newfoundland condemning and defeating the amendments. The following day the Prime Minister and the Minister of Fisheries ratified the same amendments on behalf of Canada. True democracy at work. This irresponsible action by both was noted and applauded in the free trade negotiations that were going on at the time.
Mr. Chairman, if CETA is approved as is, with the MPRs or minimum processing regulations removed, the European fishing nations will have reached their goal through CETA. It is inexplicable that a Canadian would offer up the future of the Newfoundland and Labrador fishery to achieve an agreement. Who is responsible for this reprehensible act?
The removal of the MPRs will easily provide access—and this is important—for the European factory freezer trawlers fishing the Grand Banks at the present time, allowing them to come to Newfoundland ports and purchase unprocessed fish directly from the fishermen. More especially, it will result in Canadians and foreign-owned factory vessels harvesting Canadian fish quotas and selling them in an unprocessed state directly to European Union plant operators, who will process them and sell directly into the EU market, thereby eliminating thousands of primary and secondary jobs in Newfoundland and, in the process, completely removing us from contact with the EU seafood market, which we have had for 60 years.
Our Newfoundland government is trying to shed responsibility for this. Their justification is that they have accepted advice and direction from the Newfoundland Association of Seafood Producers Inc., including the FFAW, a union that is determined to limit and reduce the Newfoundland fisheries to only offshore factory freezer operations. Those who support this ill-advised removal of the MPRs are motivated by their own narrow and short-term objectives and it will be very detrimental to the ailing industry. In addition to losing contact with the market, we will lose thousands of jobs. Further, that will prevent any hope of a real recovery of the resource to the level that we delivered to Canada in 1949.
The veil of secrecy on this whole CETA deal as far as the Newfoundland people are concerned is unacceptable. We, and others with us, will continue to do all possible to expose the truth to Canadians. May I remind you that in 1950, shortly after the Great War ended, the Europeans assembled the largest fishing armada in history. It totalled 1,400 ships and 60,000 seamen. They descended on the Newfoundland and Labrador fishery, overfished it in an unrestricted and uncontrolled manner for over 40 years. It caused the collapse of the fishery.
Fortunately, it's a renewable resource and so important in a world where a million people are dying of starvation these days. If given the chance, the resource will recover, but it will never recover if we permit them to get back into our fisheries through CETA, with their unrestricted fisheries, and to get free access to unprocessed fish at the expense of thousands of jobs for people.
By the way, they're out there today on the Grand Banks, outside 200 miles, overfishing the same species that are migrating from inside the 200 miles to outside. I hope somebody has a question on that point because I'd like to add to it.
How can Canadian negotiators justify agreement with CETA, acceding to European demands, presenting them with free access to our badly needed resources? Having struggled so hard as we have for the last 50 years to rid ourselves of those marauders, we find the government of our country, and particularly our own government in Newfoundland, who've got another agenda, behind our backs presenting this gift on a silver platter.
Our negotiators are presenting renewed access to our fishery to the same EU nations who have destroyed our fishery and thousands of jobs, and caused the loss of 15% of our population—that's what the collapse of the fishery meant. They imposed unreasonable tariffs on us and then used their influence at the UN to prevent Canada from extending fisheries jurisdiction over the total continental shelf. Had Canada done it, we would never be here this morning with this message.
Anyway, Mr. Chairman, CETA, with MPRs removed, is unacceptable to our people. In the days ahead, you can rest assured that we will be doing everything possible to make this story and its impact known to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, and also to the people of Canada.
Thank you very much for the opportunity of speaking.
