Sue's Blog

Friday, February 16, 2007

Minister of National Defense Responds

The Minister Responds - and I suggest what Canada needs to do to compensate Newfoundland and Labrador for the collapse of the fishery.


In January I wrote the Minister of National Defence and MP's regarding my concern over the embarrassing event of the navy running out of cash to run ocean patrols off the east coast.

I am pleased to report that I have received a response from the Minister - despite the fact I have not heard from any MP from Newfoundland and Labrador.

Below is the response I received from Minister O'Connor - and below that - my response back to him and copied to all MP's.

Dear Ms. Kelland-Dyer:

Thank you for the copy of your e-mail of 22 January 2007 concerning the protection of Canadian sovereignty

Increasing Canada's presence and our sovereignty is a critical component of the Government's "Canada First" Defence Strategy. Our policy of Canada First will strengthen the Canadian Forces capacity to defend our country and its citizens, assert our sovereignty, and assume a leadership role in international operations.

As you may be aware, the Government provided an additional $5.3 billion to the Department of National Defence (DND) over the next five years in its 2006 budget. This increase will provide the Canadian Forces with the support and resources needed to carry out its important tasks. When added to previous funding commitments, this new money will bring our defence budget to approximately $15.4 billion for fiscal year 2006/2007.

As part of the Government's Canada First commitment to strengthen Canada's multi-role, combat-capable defence force, DND announced in June 2006 that it would be investing approximately:

- $5 billion for strategic and tactical aircraft, with an additional $3.3 billion to be spent over the next 20 years on in-service support, most of which will be done by Canadian industry;
- $2 billion for medium- to heavy-lift helicopters, with an additional $2.7 billion to be spent over the next 20 years on in-service support, which will largely be done by Canadian industry;
- $1.1 billion for medium-sized logistics trucks and associated components; and
- $2.1 billion for three replenishment ships-design, construction, and associated logistical and training support-in a competitive Canadian environment and in accordance with Canadian shipbuilding policy.

The Department is also developing a long-term plan for defence, including guidance on equipment priorities. I hope to have this plan finalized in the near future.

With the possible opening of the Northwest Passage to commercial shipping, and the increasing economic viability of northern natural resource extraction, this strategy will demonstrate to Canadians and the world that we are committed to enhancing Canadian northern sovereignty. As this region becomes more valuable to the national and international economic interests of Canada, we will make substantial investments in those military capabilities that enhance surveillance, reconnaissance and presence in Canada's Arctic Archipelago.

This defence vision consists of a well-equipped three-ocean navy, a robust army, and a revitalized air force. In my visits to the northern territories, I have seen first-hand the resources that are needed to keep watch in this immense part of the country. Now, more than ever, I remain convinced that our arctic sovereignty claims must be backed by, among other things, strong military capabilities. Accordingly, the Government intends to dedicate more people, equipment, and money to the defence of the north.

Of particular importance is establishing a three-ocean navy by increasing our naval presence in the straits leading to the Arctic Ocean. This is especially challenging because the demands of operating in ice and in open water require very different types of naval vessels. Before a decision is made on how to proceed, I have instructed the navy to analyse the various options and to develop an Arctic maritime plan that meets Canada's requirements. In addition, before any equipment is purchased, we will ensure that any future capital purchases for the northern navy are procured in a fair and competitive process benefiting the Canadian taxpayer.

As we move closer to implementing this Canada First vision for sovereignty, the Department of National Defence will continue, in concert with other local and federal departments and agencies, to assess the potential future threats to Canadian sovereignty.

I trust this information is of assistance and thank you again for writing.

Sincerely,


The Honourable Gordon J. O'Connor, PC, MP
Minister of National Defence


My Response

Minister of National Defence
The Honourable Gordon J. O'Connor

February 16-07

Dear Minister O'Connor,

Thank you for your response.

Newfoundland and Labrador exists in a geography which is critical to the protection of North America. Our province is located between many nations and Canada. Since we joined Confederation in 1949 - the strategic importance was evident to both Canada and the United States during periods of global conflict. More recently during the 911 event in New York - Newfoundland and Labrador was utilized as a safe place for landing many commercial aircraft.

There has also been a complete lack of importance placed on our jurisdiction in times of relative peace and various infrastructure utilized in the past by Canada - Great Britain - and USA during war time have been diminished if not eliminated over the past 30 years. This loss of presence and the failure to diversify these assets to Canada's benefit has harmed this province - and in my opinion our country.

Further there has been a catastrophe in our local fishery which is comparable to 100 times the current potential loss of 2000 auto jobs in Central Canada. It must also be said the fishery off the east coast was one of the most valuable renewable resources in the world. There are two definite contributors to this ecological and economic disasters:

The first is the failure of the federal government to manage the stocks and the second is the failure of the federal government to protect our waters from foreign plundering of the breeding stocks.

In your letter you make this statement:

"With the possible opening of the Northwest Passage to commercial shipping, and the increasing economic viability of northern natural resource extraction, this strategy will demonstrate to Canadians and the world that we are committed to enhancing Canadian northern sovereignty. As this region becomes more valuable to the national and international economic interests of Canada, we will make substantial investments in those military capabilities that enhance surveillance, reconnaissance and presence in Canada's Arctic Archipelago."

I would agree with your objectives for that region and can only ask why the same concern to protect the economic sovereignty off the coast of Newfoundland and Labrador is not as essential. It is an important part of global shipping lanes between the east and the west. I add that our ocean continues to be damaged by ships passing through bilging and just plain dumping oil and gas pollution.

It is necessary for the federal government to accomplish the following objectives.

A short-term - medium-term - and long-term plan to recover the fishery while compensating the rural communities for the decimation caused by mismanagement. That compensation must consist of income replacement - income stabilization - meaningful employment opportunity in the science and recovery efforts - early retirement funds - industry diversification - increased Coast Guard presence - increased military presence - new initiatives for environmental disaster response and accident prevention - and a significant increase in federal jobs and crown agency headquarters in all segments of federal government jurisdiction. This compensation must equal the ongoing damage to our province on an annual basis - until such a time as the fishery recovers to levels comparable to the the level at confederation. For our province of 500,000 people with alarming outmigration numbers and an aging population greater than the national average - living up to your constitutional responsibilities is not an option - it is the honourable thing to do. We cannot withstand a 200-500 million loss in our revenue on an annual basis. Increasing the harvest of our crab and shrimp in an attempt to mitigate the loss from groundfish collapse - is not only too little it is extremely irresponsible.

When I ask the MP's of our country to speak up - this is certainly what I mean. This is a disgrace to all Canadians - and causes extreme tension between the nation and our province. I would suggest it is difficult for you to progress on the Arctic front when the Government of Canada has left this atrocity to fester without proper response.

I further ask that MP's take a long look at the proposed new Fisheries Act and ask the important questions. This Act while needing amendments - is not ready for a Parliament that is too ignorant to debate it. Many thanks to MP Sackville--Eastern Shore, Nova Scotia, Peter Stoffer who is giving a valiant effort to protect this resource and through that the survival of rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

For any MP to ignore this situation places our federation in a precarious state and fails to demonstrate any real sovereignty on the East Coast of our country.

Best Regards,
Sue Kelland-Dyer

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

Sue, it's not going to happen. The feds will simply laugh off any suggestion that they pay compensation for damages they've inflicted on Newfoundland. They see this as funny, like a sheep confronting a farmer and demanding compensation for its having been fleeced without its consent. Newfoundland and Labrador was seen, and is still seen, as a place that exists solely for the purpose of being fleeced. And we go all too willingly to the sharers.

Danny is losing it. That's , plain to see, and that's a great pity in some ways because he does have some exceptional strengths. The trouble is there's nothing to replace him and his troupe of idolizers. The old guard, Grimes, Reid, Dumeresque, Efford, et al., are standing in the way of any Liberal comeback and Newfoundlanders are not ready yet (or are afraid) for any radical change.

Nothing short of a complete cleaning out of the House will suffice. Other than that we remain stuck where we are. But, like "belling the cat", who is going to do that. Therein lies our real problem: lack of leadership. Leadership is like a chicken or egg issue. Which comes first? I, personally, believe that leadership is a response to a demand, but - if I can use another metaphor- a river can't rise above its source. As long as our people remain passive and indifferent we will never get anything better than what we got.

A sign of a society wanting reform is a vigorous, dedicated and informed media. Except for a couple of blogs, Sue's particularly, what do we have? At the Telegram there is occasionally evidence that some spark remains alive, though barely. As for the Independent, that journal intended to be an objective and independent voice of the people , it has turned out to be anything but, and has lost all credibility. A recent incident in which some very questionable comments, in my opinion, made by the President of the Newfoundland Aquaculture Association in support of the Cooke Inc. Fortune Bay salmon farming enterprise went unchallenged, illustrates my point. We need another city tabloid like we need a hole in the head.

Remember the part played by Cite Libra in the germination of Quebec's "Quiet Revolution"! Similarly , Newfounland-Labrador needs some such vehicle to touch off its rebellion against injustice. History has shown that real change for the better does not occur in any other way. There is great discontent amongst our people. What it needs are a few strong voices , like Sue's, to kindle the flame. Soon, unless we make a move, it will be too late for us.