Doyle to Senate - A player in Harper's Lie Book

Norm Doyle is a nice guy. That is the general consensus of most who know him.

He did in fact do a very honourable thing when he donated a pension to charity. It was also very open and accountable in that where the money went was publicized to his constituents on a regular basis.

Norm was - I believe - a good constituency representative and made himself available. It was my experience that he also was above pure partisan zealotry as I am aware that he assisted people who were not openly conservative.

This is why - unlike with Loyola Hearn - I was shocked and saddened when Doyle sided with Harper - against the better interests of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Norm Doyle - at the end of his political career - chose his party and his leader instead of his province and her people. For this reason - I am not supportive of Mr. Doyle's appointment to the Senate. It is now my assumption that his votes in the Senate will be partisan and can be predicted to be against Newfoundland and Labrador when Harper wants it.

With respect to Harper's Lie Book - this Prime Minister guaranteed he would bring Canada into an elected Senate. He was harping on it for years if not over a decade. I heard some excuses from Steve - that Opposition MP's were delaying it etc. The PM has no problem shoving other legislation through - despite the pounding fists in the House of Commons. He now has a majority - and he could have pushed through a Bill to deal with an unelected, unaccountable, and inequitable Upper Chamber.

This would not suit Steve - so he will hang on to his power base and appoint Conservatives until he is blue in the face. Once he gets the Senate where he wants it - a massive Conservative majority - he might then revive his holier that thou attitude and advise Canadians that we need to move toward an elected body.

Stephen Harper is a liar. He has harmed our province to the tune of tens of billions of dollars and he will continue to do so. Premier Dunderdale has chosen to hold his hand and for pennies on the dollar agree to be his champion here at home.

For these reasons and others - I hoped that Doyle would have declined when the dirtied hand reached out to welcome him in.

The Coalition of 2007 between Harper and Duceppe - yes it was there for that budget!

You want to see a Stephen Harper coalition? Read this post and remember when the Bloc was the best thing since maple syrup. 

Whatever happened to Stephen Harper's promise? The one after the budget in 2007 - when Danny Williams and a population said you lied Prime Minister. When Harper and Conservative MP's from Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia (but one) voted away the promise to remove non-renewable resource revenues from the equalization formula.

For Saskatchewan, Nova Scotia, and Newfoundland and Labrador - it was a devastating blow. For our province and her people it meant the loss of 10 billion dollars.

If we all remember it was a Nova Scotia MP Bill Casey who voted against his own government and budget and was booted from the Conservative caucus. Why? Because Mr. Casey had the integrity and backbone to stand for the people of his province and in fact - all of Atlantic Canada and Saskatchewan.

In case you don't remember - it was the Bloc that voted with Harper and removed this opportunity for our province and her children. This would be the same Bloc that Harper now says is dangerous and bad for the country. Harper and Fabian Manning did not blink when they used the Bloc to remove that "promise" from us and with it - the billions our children will now do without after the oil reserves are exhausted.

That money that would allow us to develop the Lower Churchill properly and without selling out yet another renewable energy asset.

So when it was convenient to use the Bloc to harm our province - Harper said yes - and worked with that coalition to get the budget implementation bill passed.

So when Harper says the Bloc is bad for Canada - and when Fabian Manning warns you at your door about the Big Bad Bloc - understand one thing - these liars and cheats will say and do anything with anyone to get and retain power.

By the way whatever happened to Harper's long since forgotten comment - that he would go to court to rebut critics who said he broke his word? I'm still here Harper - come on - have guts - don't do it in the shadows with your unknown helpers.

Loyola Sullivan, Charlie Power, and the day I resigned instead of shutting-up.

So Loyola Sullivan has thrown his hat in the ring again. The MMSB must be abuzz with all the recycling we are doing with our politicians.

So who is Loyola? Well Loyola and I used to work together. I was Chief of Policy for the PC Opposition for about a year when Loyola was the leader.

So here goes the story. I was hired by Loyola and caucus and things were going relatively well until "Charlie" happened. You see - while I was Chief of Policy - I could continue to call open-line and participate in policy debate and continue to have direct contact with the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. This was part of the deal - well - until "Charlie". You see here's how this works - if you are a politician or worker from a particular party federal or provincial - then you agree to defend against all absurdity from any politician of the same party. Oh Oh  here comes "Charlie".

So I still called the Open Line Show with Bill Rowe - until "Charlie".

Do you remember when Charlie Power was recycling himself to go from Provincial to Federal politics. Remember the promise he made - like Norm Doyle - to give his provincial pension to charity and "survive" only on his federal pay. Next thing we all knew was that "Charlie" did a recalculation on his finances and determined he could not live up to his promise.

So Bill being Bill wanted to know what everybody thought of this - and I knew the question was coming to me. I think the reader can guess what my position was - so to avoid this little embarrassment to a fellow colleague - Loyola quietly called me to his office and asked me to refrain from the Open Line Program.

I tendered my resignation that same day - and yes I have a copy. I was not fired by the Tories - quite to the contrary - the other MHA's asked me to stay. So the deal is - when something was obviously wrong very wrong - and the person responsible for it happens to be your buddy - the instructions are to staff - shut-up.

I expect therefore - if Loyola Sullivan is elected - we will not hear the real situation in Ottawa - even if it is opposed to Newfoundland and Labrador. Loyola will nod his head and say okay Mr. Prime Minister - I understand what has to be done. That might of been obvious already when Loyola the "champion" of equalization changes turned his back on Williams and joined the ranks of the liar - Harper.

Yes there is no doubt Loyola is going to find his courage the same way he has found the ground stocks as the ambassador for fish.

Are Manning and Sullivan running because they want to - or are they running for Stephen Harper.

Minister Flaherty states the Fed's case on Equalization...

After the last federal budget - the one in which Stephen Harper reneged on his promise to remove non-renewable resource revenues from the equalization formula - I wrote Canada's Minister of Finance to ask a question and to make a few points.

Well lo and behold his response showed up yesterday in my email (only 6 months later).

Contained in my letter to the Minister was the following question:

My question to you is simple - will you honour the written promise made to voters during the last federal election - that is to remove all non-renewable natural resource revenues from the equalization formula?

Here's the Minister's Spin:

September 12, 2007

Dear Ms. Kelland-Dyer:

Thank you for your correspondence of March 8, 2007 regarding Budget 2007 and the Atlantic Accords. Please excuse the delay in replying.

Budget 2007 delivers on the commitment of Canada’s New Government to restore fiscal balance in Canada. A major feature of this commitment is a renewed and strengthened Equalization program that will now help to better ensure that all provinces are able to provide their residents with reasonably comparable levels of services at reasonably comparable levels of taxation.

The Government of Canada’s position has been clear and fair.

First and foremost, the Budget fully protects the Atlantic Accords. They have not been tampered with; they remain intact. Nothing has been taken away from provinces that currently benefit from the Atlantic Accords. Under Budget 2007, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador can operate under the existing Equalization formula for the life of the Atlantic Accords – and receive the same benefits as before, with no fiscal capacity cap on either Equalization or Atlantic Accord payments. This means that Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador will receive every dollar to which they are entitled under the Atlantic Accords.

This also means Nova Scotia keeps the very same arrangement that provides benefits under the 1986 and 2005 Accords, which includes an $830 ­million up-front payment, and Newfoundland and Labrador keeps the arrangement that provides benefits under the 1985 and 2005 Accords, including a $2­billion up-front payment. This arrangement is not available to any other province.

In addition to respecting the Accords, Budget 2007 goes further by offering both provinces a positive choice for the future. At any time over the life of the Accords, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador can choose to opt into the renewed Equalization program, if either province determines this as being advantageous. Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador could therefore receive even higher benefits than under the existing formula, while retaining their right to offset payments under the Accords. This is a choice that is up to each province to make; it will not be imposed upon them.

Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador have also been given even more flexibility beyond what was set out in Budget 2007. The budget legislation passed by Parliament allows both provinces to opt into the new Equalization formula for 2007­08, while preserving their ability to stay in the existing formula for the life of the Accords.

If Nova Scotia or Newfoundland and Labrador choose the new Equalization formula, it is only fair that the whole package would apply, including the fiscal capacity cap that is an integral part of the new Equalization program. It would not be fair to other provinces if only these two provinces were allowed to choose those parts of the new Equalization program that benefit them.

It must not be forgotten that placing the Equalization program on a principled basis going forward was an important, shared goal of the Government of Canada and all the provinces. The report of the Expert Panel on Equalization and Territorial Formula Financing provided an independent, balanced basis to do just that. An important principle was the application of a fiscal capacity cap, which sets a ceiling on Equalization payments based on the fiscal capacity of the highest non-receiving province. As stated in the report, “Equalization…should not result in less wealthy provinces having a greater fiscal capacity than provinces that do not receive Equalization.” The Government of Canada recognized this important principle last fall in Advantage Canada.

The growing prosperity of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador is something to celebrate. The fiscal position of both governments is getting stronger – both provinces are forecasting surpluses for 2006­07 and onward, while providing their residents with general tax relief. With 100­percent protection of the Atlantic Accords, each province can more than ever make sustained improvements to its economic and fiscal situation.

In short, we have delivered on our commitment to the provinces and territories. Our plan to restore fiscal balance ensures that this federation works for the good of all Canadians – including those in Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you for communicating your views.

Sincerely,

James M. Flaherty

I highlighted the last paragraph for emphasis.

You will note the one question asked was not answered.

I also note that Flaherty only used commitments stated after they became government. The Minister is not prepared to address Stephen Harper's promises made to get elected. In this one finds the reason not to vote Conservative based on any promises or commitments made during the next federal election - for they are worthless.

The People's Paradox

Kowtowing to a savior.
Is this what we want from our provincial MHA's or federal MP's?






What the people say they want - what the political parties will tolerate - and our weak 2 party sharing system.

How many times have you heard people express dismay when politicians tow the party line instead of standing for the position widely held by a particular constituency?

When Charlene Johnson - Trevor Taylor - and Harry Harding stood by the party during the RMS fiasco in the fishery - despite the wishes of the fishermen - people were angry and perplexed - it also turned out they were right - but 1 fishing season suffered catastrophic consequences.

When Stephenville lost the paper mill - workers wondered where Joan Burke and Jim Hodder were.

When Loyola Hearn - Fabian Manning - and Norm Doyle did not support this province respecting the broken equalization promise - people were angry and still are.

When John Efford did his song and dance over equalization - while Paul Martin was trying to get out of his promise - people were shocked and upset.

When John Hickey ignored the broken promise of his leader to the Metis Nation - people in Labrador were incensed.

What all these people - some of them long-standing respected politicians - chose to do - was tow the party line.

The people claim they want a representative who will stand by them and their communities - and when a choice has to be made - the member should stand with their constituency not the party line.

The political parties will avoid at all costs - independent thinkers who will do this.

The people of Newfoundland and Labrador will only elect the two traditional parties - and very rarely an independent member - who in short order joins one of the parties anyway.

Our system is weak and the two party system (the NDP never present themselves as government in waiting) we have does absolutely nothing to deliver the representation people say they want.

The two main parties in this province are the Liberals and the PC's who swap power back and forth - usually with one savior leader or another. Then of course the corporations which like to control and run the province - especially resourced based companies and financial institutions fill the coffers of who they think will win.

In order to change up the 2 party system - people need to find the courage and the sense to vote another way - they have to be open to and support new parties and independents federally and provincially - and become more involved in the NDP. The latter is more difficult as the NDPas similar to the PC's and Liberals have their long-standing members who tend to dominate the party executive and control the party message. We need to look at proportional representation and public funding of elections - so new parties or even the NDP can get some money in the bank for votes they receive. (The same as the new federal system)

Understand this clearly - it is unlikely that until we do this - anybody you vote in under the traditional party system will ever choose you the constituent over a party position. It is also unlikely that new leadership will come from within - as the parties tend to seek names and personality types that appear to be knights on a horse with all the answers from outside.

That's why Tom Rideout did not last long - Bill Rowe gained leadership but not government - Ed Roberts was rejected - Don Jamieson did not get the nod. Loyola Sullivan - Ed Byrne - Lynn Verge - and Len Simms could not take government either. That is why Roger Grimes never had a chance. Instead we had a long list of saviors riding in and carrying their parties to victory.

This also causes another problem. The people who choose to run when a new savior presents are more opportunistic than anything else. They do not have to be strong in their own right - and they fully expect to get a well paying job with great benefits because their leader has the population spellbound. Unfortunately this means they are too grateful to their boss to do anything but nod in agreement. They are lead around by the nose - and despite their claims of protestations from within - they fail in changing policy which they know is bad for their constituents. Look at the numbers of people who sought PC nominations - then look at the other two and their candidate rosters.

Newfoundland and Labrador could use a couple of minority governments to shake up the status-quo - and members feelings of entitlement. In order to do this at least 3 strong parties must be present - and sadly as I write this today - we only have one.

Freedom of speech and independent thinking is not permitted in our two party system - unless you are the leader - and there is no fear that the populous will turn on that leader for the weak members he/she is stuck with.

Governments and Oppositions need more than one strong - articulate - and educated person - they need many people who can get in there and voice new - creative - and progressive policy. They do not need a bunch of bobbing heads calling open-line programs and saying I am part of so-and-so's team and that person is great. When is the last time you heard Wally Young call open-line and say this new policy initiative is something I have researched and proudly put forth to my colleagues?

Now the party system also protects itself - they will weed out any voices who may call it as they really see it - and stick to either weak or partisan fanatics who cannot see anything good in the other party's platform. Parties also discourage independents by telling us that if you are an independent - you will not be heard and you will be placed in the wilderness. This is of course not true - and some of the best work done by Yvonne Jones is when she sat as an independent - after the party system chose Danny Dumeresque and not the real choice of the people of Cartwright - L'Anse Au Clair.

Quebec is a good jurisdiction to look at - and examine how the wishes of Quebecers do come first and they are prepared to cross the floor - sit on their own - create a new party if they are forced to tow a party line contrary to interest of Quebecers.

Most other provinces have a strong 3 party system and some of them more to ensure that no one party or two become complacent and arrogant toward the needs of their constituents.

So when I hear some people lambaste Fabian or John or Loyola or Joan or Charlene - I can only conclude they don't really mean it. There are no consequences to these people because either - the party they represent have a savior as their leader (meaning they will get re-elected anyway) or the party will convince the particular member that the party will take care of them if their voters boot them out.

It is time for the voters of Newfoundland and Labrador to get more savvy when it comes to elections and political parties - and it's time for those parties to worry that the same old system won't protect their entitlements.

Just a little backbone - could have saved Canada from...

...right wing fundamentalists like Harper and other Reformers. Make no mistake that's what they are - eerily similar to Bush and the gang south of us.

They will lie through their teeth - sell out their principles in a heartbeat if that meant power and the ability to control a country while gaining favour with the corporate elite. These people are puppets - as evidenced by Harper's lies during the last federal campaign. Lies that cost people billions of dollars. Lies that threatened the retirement of seniors and the budgets of entire provinces.

You see their holier than thou attitude with respect to things like same sex marriage - abortion - and troubled youth are simply that - attitudes - designed to evangelize the people - get the vote - and let the trouble begin.

Harper sold out his "judgemental" followers who are against abortion et al - those without tolerance - the minute he gained "power". The "progressive" part of conservative was gone the minute Harper became leader of the hostile "takeover".

The need to write about this today comes from a news story last night - about Scott Brison and his longtime partner Maxime Saint-Pierre getting married. Among the attendees were Paul Martin, Joe Clark and Frank McKenna - all progressive - all successful - and all believe in the Charter.

Scott bailed on the new "Conservatives" presumably after determining that leopards don't change their spots. Brison showed guts while Loyola Hearn and Peter MacKay stood silent - gutless as the remains of their party (PC) was eviscerated and tossed in the non-recyclable bin.

The PC's of old would not have us in Afghanistan - fighting a civil war between people and poppies. They would not have our men and women in uniform battling in a country where the rights of women or those of different faiths continue to be violated even by the "new" leadership.

Loyola and Peter - both of whom take some credit in creating this monster - Loyola by playing a key role in the merger (takeover) - and Peter by stabbing a fellow PC to allow Harper to rise to the top - sit back and take it all.

Canada will not be Canada under Stephen Harper and his right wing fanatics - it will be a poor take-off of the Republicans. Hearn and McKay know this but yet they do nothing - fear of admitting they were wrong - or loving the scraps Harper and the corporate gang throw to them. They would rather see Canada dragged into a world of intolerance and fear - dragged into conflicts which have more to do with protecting oil supply than protecting democracies - dragged into the conservative world of evangelistic moral values and legalized mob activities - than stand up - be men - admit they were wrong - and leave Harper dangling in his jungle of puppetry.

The PC's are gone and due to people like Harper and Hearn it will be a long time before the Progressive Conservatives will come back. I'm sure they will in time - as Canadians reject the war mongering - money loving - hypocrisy of these right wingers. Harper will not get a majority - unfortunately it will not be on the strength and courage of a Hearn or a MacKay. They are satisfied to sell out their own people and repeat messages spun by the likes of a Timothy Powers. You see there are Liberals and Progressive Conservatives who will be chameleons if it means a good government or corporate contract. They have money in their ass pockets - be damned with everybody else.

What will destroy Harper is the Quebecers and possibly Ontarians who will not trust their country or provinces to the ilk of Stephen Harper. They are smart though - they will get every last copper out of the feds - because they know Harper wants power at any price. They are filling their coffers while they have the chance and then they will vote Liberal or NDP or Bloc.

Norm Doyle knew better and just ducked his head and moved forward to his own retirement - guilty of inaction costing Newfoundland and Labrador billions of dollars - Loyola Hearn lacking courage to admit a mistake took shelter under Harper's wing and finds it easier to take mocking from his own people than face the ire of Harper - and poor Fabian Manning - he's just along for any ride (as short as it might be) and therefore will follow the crowd that accepts him. Remember the day - he sat along side the PM in the House of Commons - that's all it took for Harper to convince him that selling out his own people was okay. For those of you who may have thought Manning showed guts when he was booted out of the Williams caucus for speaking his mind on RMS - think again - Manning just did not believe he would be kicked out - else he would not have done it to begin with. A mistake which made him look courageous.

I can't wait for the next federal election - I can't wait to get rid of Harper and the boys in his back-room. The federation is fragile enough without these liars hiding behind a Bush.

For my part - because I stood behind Hearn in the last election as I felt that the PC's in the new party would keep Harper in check while possibly correcting regional disparities - I must work twice as hard to ensure these people never see a majority. As I said then - we will get a chance to kick the tires of this new minority - well I've kicked them and the rubber is flawed and the air is leaking out - they are going flat. I wonder were they made in China?

One final note - congratulations to Scott and Maxime - may they live a long and healthy life together.

Punishment by Premier - Select and Inconsistent

This anything but conservative (ABC) campaign by Premier Danny Williams is apparently limited and a matter of convenience.

It apparently applies to votes but not money.

You see while Danny says we must punish Loyola Hearn - Norman Doyle - and Fabain Manning - he turns his head and ignores our province paying a lobbyist who feels the Prime Minister keeps his promises to Canadians.

Here's an example - as we already know - Conservative strategist and Summa VP Tim Powers has been hired as a lobbyist for Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro on the Lower Churchill development and an east-west energy grid. CLICK HERE

Tim Powers was commenting to a CTV reporter in March - after the federal budget - on a poll showing Harper was making gains in Quebec. That is the budget which seen our province take a big hit on equalization based on the pre-election promises by Harper.

The CTV Story included the following:

Conservative party strategist Tim Powers says that while Quebecers, like many other Canadians, might not be enthralled with Harper personally, they appreciate what he's accomplished.

"You're seeing that reflected in the polls," Powers said. "They see that Harper's kept his promises to them."

Tell me something Danny - why is it we have hired this fellow to lobby for us on such a significant file - the Lower Churchill?

Why is Danny punishing our Conservative MP's but not the strategists that spin their message?

Why is your punishment select and inconsistent?

Why does your ABC strategy not extend to Conservative Lobbyists?

Saving Private Hearn

is not something Harper appears anxious to do. Today in the Globe and Mail Online Private Hearn appears to be left on the political battlefield while Harper spends his time saving his regional lieutenant Peter MacKay.

The federal Conservatives are holding their annual summer caucus in PEI. The Prime Minister will make a special side visit to New Brunswick and a quick trip to Nova Scotia - but no time available for Newfoundland and Labrador.

Here's an interesting quote from the Globe Story:

"In Nova Scotia you can try to stop the bleeding, but the leg is cut off in Newfoundland," said a senior Atlantic Canadian Conservative. "New Brunswick is really the only place where he can show potential pickup."

Another 4 Years of Destruction....

I watched David Cochrane of CBC explain some time ago how the Greene Report and recommendations would allow media to catch the self-serving politicians if they attempted to hide or otherwise sneak legislation through that increased or changed the nature of their allowances. So much for that - as it was a blogger - I believe who caught the crowd as they all postponed the changes until after the election.

The fact that the media did not catch it is no surprise - they had that opportunity when legislation was amended to boot the Auditor General (Beth Marshall) at the time - out of the books. They should have done the job they are really meant to do. That is to protect our democracy when all political parties are in it together. They dropped the ball - and the rest as they say is history.

Then there is Loyola - the 30 million dollar big spender - while more influential MP's and federal cabinet colleagues are passing out Billions!!!

The man who so willingly takes pot shots at Gus Etchegary - while using him as a human campaign poster for the last election. It's not as if the fellow did not know Etchegary's position on the fishery. It is not as if they had ever met. The fact is Gus did not change - the metamorphosis occurred in Hearn after he won the election.

We have Manning and Doyle backing up the Minister by talking about the Atlantic Accord. They saved the Accord - funny the Accord was not a discussion during the election. Harper promised to remove non-renewable resource revenues from the equalization formula. That would have eliminated the need for the Accord and would have been a universal amendment not geared to any province specifically but representative of a change in economic thinking - which promotes long term financial health of jurisdictions exploiting non-renewable resources.

At the same time we have the provincial Liberals seeking Joey for policy - the Tories doing what they want with whom they want - whenever they want - including very significant decisions made on the fishery (FPI) - energy with no plan yet unveiled including wind development - privatization of energy resources - the Lower Churchill etc. - business deals with buddies - and tourism services provided out of Quebec. But Gerry et al will not make a dent - and the media is on the BBQ circuit with them. Danny Dumeresque as part of the Efford - Dumeresque team with leader Reid will not be effective in building the party - however will achieve Effords objective - the one he demonstrated after he lost the leadership race to Grimes. All Liberals left out there should really think about what that was.

There is no obvious movement in the provincial NDP - with most identifiable labour reps choosing to seek nominations for the other parties.

There is no doubt we have a mess - and one we will have to suffer through for the next 4 years.

The only people who have a chance are Labradorians under the Labrador Party. Continued luck to them - and I hope they take the lead and protect those extremely valuable resources.

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