Did anybody catch the political panel on CBC Here and Now tonight?
If you did you were probably scratching your head.
First question - did CBC choose the panelists?
PC representative - Ross Reid Current Campaign Chair Forever Tory
NDP representative - Lana Payne active with current and ongoing ties to the NDP
Liberal representative - Bill Matthews the Liberal/PC with no obvious current ties to the Liberals
This was an obvious problem from the get go. First Matthews has not always been Liberal - rather for a significant period of his political career he was Tory. Second - he has not been obviously involved with the Party during this election or over the past number of years. Third - he seemed disconnected with what's current in the Libs organization and campaign.
This contrasts completely with the other two individuals who are stalwarts of their respective parties and are obviously current and involved.
The first question revolved around the ongoing battle in St. John's Centre and the battle between Gerry Rogers NDP and the incumbent Shawn Skinner PC. Really there was nothing left to do but agree for Bill.
Then we got into the polls and the expectation of seats. Ross Reid just had to sit back and let Bill Matthews do the hacking for him. Lana predicted 5 for the NDP and then predicted 4-5 for the Liberals. Ross just sat there smug as Bill agreed with Lana and was unable to talk about any seats outside the overpass. Ross sat there again letting them split 7 or 8 seats.
Regardless of the types of polls done - accurate or inaccurate - when you remove the greater St. John's areas and a few strong Tory seats in other areas of the province - the numbers for a significant number of rural seats would probably show a very close split between the Liberals and Tories.
Let's look at this:
Yvonne Jones - does anybody believe she is at 16%?
Andrew Parsons?
Eddie Joyce?
Dwight Ball?
Kevin Aylward?
Neil Ward?
Joanna Guy Ryan?
Danny Dumderesque?
Wayne Morris?
Eric Skinner?
Merv Wiseman?
Chris Montague?
Randy Edmunds?
Todd Squires?
Leanne Hussey?
Jim Bennett?
Marshall Dean?
Barry Snow?
Ryan Lane?
I could carry on. Anybody like to take a crack at the popular vote in these districts before the election?
Despite the continued attack on the Liberals by certain anti-liberal media it will be interesting to check these polls on election day.
I have to say CBC - the panel on tonight was the worst demonstration of balance I have ever seen. That is unless the Liberal party sent Matthews. If that's the case - something worse is on the go.
Showing posts with label bill matthews. Show all posts
Showing posts with label bill matthews. Show all posts
Friday, October 07, 2011
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
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
Friday, February 09, 2007
Ship Building may take big hit - if ship owners get their way!!!
Wake-up Politicians - Canada may kill our ship building sector before we launch...
Our important but still relatively small ship building sector may be in for a major setback if Canadian ship owners get their way.
Canada is currently in free trade talks with some European Nations and South Korea - proposals on the table include the elimination of the 25% tariff places on foreign vessels sold into our market.
Canadian flagged ship-owners are claiming that Canadian shipyards can't deliver the vessels they need - and even with the 25% tariff the foreign built vessels are still cheaper.
First - Canada's ship building policy has not been the greatest and in Newfoundland and Labrador anything we do have - has failed miserably. We get very little in the way of federal contracts - in fact it's hard to keep our own work here. For Marystown and other potentials in the province would be severely if not irreparably harmed if this tariff was removed.
We are just now thinking ships - and being where we are - geographically - the right investments could make this sector boom in the future.
If the Tories scrap the tariff for Norway, Switzerland, Iceland and Liechtenstein - we will not have the opportunity to start let alone survive.
The Canadian Shipowners Association is willing to let the 25% remain on refit on foreign turf but they want the building out.
I wonder - with so much future potential at stake - are we "all over this". The bigger more established yards in Canada may survive the hit - Newfoundland and Labrador will be blown out of the water before we even launch.
Although military contracts are not included in the proposal - all civilian work would be.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)