THE FISHERMAN, JUNE 30, 1997
GUNNAR KNAPP ... his market outlook intended to be more conservative.
Fisherman quote lost a phrase
I read with interest your article in the May 26 issue of The Fisherman ("The sky isn't falling over salmon markets") quoting the April 20 Salmon Market Bulletin as stating" The market outlook for frozen sockeye this summer looks pretty good."
Considering my real concern about the possibility of a very unfavourable Japanese market conditions for North American sockeye this season (if harvest projections hold), I wondered how we could have written that. So I went back and checked that issue and found that we had written: "By some indications, the market outlook for sockeyes this summer looks pretty good."
We then talked about several positive factors in the market (strong prices and good sales of Bristol Bay sockeyes over the past year), But then we went on to say: "But Japanese buyers' enthusiasm is likely to be tempered by two factors: the strong yen and a forecast of a big run from B.C."
After discussing these less positive factors, we concluded: "With North American sockeye harvests projected to be up over last year and the yen down 15 per cent in value, look for Japanese importers to be very careful this summer before they start buying."
I think that your selective quoting of just part of the statement did a disservice to your readers by not accurately characterizing the overall tone of what we wrote— which I think comes across as considerably more conservative.
Gunnar Knapp, Director ALASKA SALMON MARKET INFO. SERVICE
CCPFH says Globe editorial insults fishing communities
This letter was sent in response to an June 5 Globe and Mail editorial on the salmon treaty which suggested that the "real work" in the fishery was not to resolve the treaty dispute but to "make viable Canada's bloated, government-supported fleet." The editorial also criticized Premier Glen Clark for using "military escalation, "claiming that the treaty impasse was only a "minor communication breakdown."
The Globe and Mail propagates two fallacies with its sanctimonious editorial on Canadian action and the Pacific Salmon Treaty. The first is that Premier Glen Clark is somehow out of step for wanting Canada to defend its Pacific coast salmon resource with all the vigour and means at its disposal. The second
is that DFO's coast fleet rationalization plan has been a positive step for the resource and the fishery.
For the last four years, Canada has pursued and exhausted every conceivable diplomatic effort—including international mediation (which we won)—in an attempt to reach a fair settlement with the U.S. on Pacific salmon. Fishermen know this and that is why they support Clark's tough stand. Besides, strictly enforcing Coast Guard regulations and defending the country's sovereignty and natural resources is something Americans do all the time as a matter of policy. It's time we started doing the same.
To shilly-shally at this point,
LETTERS
as the Globe suggests, would be an affront to the thousands of British Columbians who rely on Canadian salmon for their livelihood.
Which brings us to DFO's fleet rationalization plan for B.C., a recipe which the Globe endorses. Let's be clear. The Mifflin Plan did nothing to reduce the overall capacity in the
salmon fleet or to conserve B.C. salmon. It was a very deliberate and so far successful gambit to eliminate small producers from the fishery. The plan has strengthened the corporate sector's hold over B.C. salmon fishing at the expense of small independent fishers and the coastal communities that rely on the resource for their livelihood.
To his credit, Premier Clark stood with the fishermen and the coastal communities in that fight as well. Let's hope that David Anderson, the new federal Fisheries Minister, will do the same.
Earle McCurdy, President CANADIAN COUNCIL OF PROFESSIONAL FISH HARVESTERS
'One law../ not Canadian, eh?
We've heard a lot lately about a simple and appealing idea: "One law for all Canadians." This slogan usually appears in two contexts: as an answer to Quebec's demands for distinct status and in response to the settlement of native land claims.
In the first case, the "no special deals" proponents just don't know their Canadian history. Every province in Canada at one time or another has had a special deal within Confederation. Alberta for years enjoyed the benefits of the Crow rate. B.C. demanded as the price of its entrance in Confederation a hugely expensive railroad—paid for largely by the taxpayers in Ontario and Quebec. Prince Edward Island is guaranteed a number of senators roughly equal to its potato output minus its population, a person-to-senator ratio by far the highest of any province.
I don't know if this is a blessing or a curse for PEI but I do know it hasn't done a damn thing to hurt any of the other provinces. And I would argue that all the other special deals that have been part of building Canada have been good for all of Canada as well as the particular province they were aimed at. If the trans-Canada railroad hadn't been built, Prairie grain couldn't have been shipped west, Toyotas couldn't have been shipped east and B.C. would have
joined California in some vast hegemony of laid-back fern bar chic. We'd all be wearing spandex rain gear and undergoing therapy rather than worrying about the Canucks—who really do need therapy.
If my parents had subscribed to Preston Manning's notion of equality, I would have been forced to wear tutus and take ballet lessons and my sisters would have had to swear allegiance to an ovoid leather ball and roll around in the mud. They gave us all equal attention while fulfilling our individual needs. So if Quebec needs special consideration in fulfilling its unique cultural aspirations, I'm not going to worry about it. They never tried to tell B.C. how to organize its culture, so as soon as we get one, we can just give 'er, eh?
What about "one law for all" as it relates to Natives? People forget (conveniently) that if we don't give special consideration to certain groups in society, seniors wouldn't get pensions, women wouldn't get maternity leave, parents wouldn't get the family allowance and corporations would have to pay their income tax.
Should Natives get special consideration? The sad fact is that they've received "special consideration" for years and that's why they're in the economic plight they're in. For years,, certain laws
proscribed their right to own land, to fish, even to vote. To refuse to rectify that under the pretext of "one law for all" is simply refusing to remedy the harm that's already been done.
Imagine Wayne Gretsky on a breakaway. He's hooked from behind and hauled down. Penalty shot. For the next minute or so, we invoke a special set of rules that apply to only one player on the ice,*No. 99. No one is allowed to touch him as he skates in for a shot. Why? Because we're trying to make up for the fact that he was fouled. It's the same rationale that allows Michael Jordan to shoot unimpeded free throws after he's been hacked. And the sad fact is that in the past, under Canadian laws, Native people have suffered a huge economic foul. Land claims settlements are simply a case of Natives stepping up the free throw line and shooting two.
But if M.J. or Gretsky were to
get special treatment for a whole game, other players could rightfully complain. That's why the special economic arrangements needed in the short term shouldn't be constitutionalized. Mind you, if I were a Native I'd be pushing as hard as possible for the most ironclad guarantees I could get. The commitments made to Native people throughout our history have had about as much validity as a whispered promise at closing time in a singles bar.
Can we work our way through this huge and complex problem? Can we redesign confederation so its recognizes the aspirations of different regions of Canada as well as the needs of First Nations people? We can—if we realize that complex problems can't be solved by simplistic solutions, and if we reaffirm our commitment to the principles of honour and justice that we need now more than ever.
Bruce Burrows, SOINTULA
SIMRAD FS925
Raingear, Boots, Gloves, Caulk boots, Polypropylene Wear
ft Raingear Repairs #
7-2ND AVE. WEST, & PRINCE RUPERT B.C. # John F. Lund
Phone (250) 624-4907 Fax (250) 624-4972
TRAWL MONITORING SYSTEM
M-SAT Telephone including ALL equipment needs for your application • Autopilot & Steering Specialists • Marine Navigation & Communications • Professional Sales & Service Available • FREE Proven Consultation & Problem Solving • 24 hours
%NE O
Parmironics
MARINE
LTD
175-6660 Graybar Road, Richmond, B.C. Phone:270-3900       Fax: 2706155