Does the Atlantic Gateway Really Exist?

In October of 2007 the federal Conservative government announced a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the Atlantic Provinces. The agreement was hailed as a landmark partnership that would allow for the creation of an Atlantic Gateway helping to ensure improved trade, economic growth and prosperity for the entire region.

The Atlantic Gateway Initiative, it was said, would allow for, “…leveraging our most important transportation systems to better connect Canada with the world”.

Four years later, how much do any of us know about what’s been done to make the Atlantic Gateway a reality and what economic benefits have we seen as a result of the initiative?

A few months after the agreement was signed, a handful of official announcements were made touting the importance of the MOU and boasting of a $2.1 billion national fund. It was said that a portion of that fund could be leveraged to finance partner projects as part of the Atlantic Gateway. The exact proportion of funds available in Atlantic Canada was not identified.

After the initial media blitz the Atlantic Gateway website reveals no further press releases or announcements for an extended period of time.

The next public statements out of Ottawa regarding the Atlantic Gateway don’t appear until February of 2011, more than two and a half years after the MOU was signed.

At that time, and for a few short weeks, releases again began to appear. These identified a hodgepodge of funding for small projects under the Atlantic Gateway banner, everything from small wharf improvements to airport lighting. The announced projects had a combined value of less than $50 million dollars, were spread across the four Atlantic Provinces and came in the 3 months leading up to the last federal election.

Since the election last May silence has once again descended on the Gateway.

The Atlantic Gateway site shows no comprehensive list of project funding and no accounting of the money spent. No identification of Gateway related policies or planning activities can be found there either. In fact the site provides little substance beyond the posting of the handful of intermittent political press releases previously identified.

Compare this with the official site for the Pacific Gateway, a similar program on the West Coast of Canada, which was initiated just 12 months prior to the Atlantic MOU being signed.

A visit to that site reveals a number of informational links on everything from federal investments to security activity, marine and air policies, environmental information and more. Visitors can even access an interactive map identifying exactly where and how much funding has been provided and what was accomplished with the dollars spent.

The map shows that nearly a billion dollars has been spent in Lower BC alone. That figure is in addition to more than $600 million allocated to other projects throughout the West, all tagged as part of the Pacific Gateway initiative.

Since the Atlantic Gateway, like its Pacific counterpart, is intended to boost trade by enhancing transportation infrastructure it might be expected that the Harper government would try to “brand” any and all federal funding for air, sea or ground transportation projects as part of the Atlantic Gateway Initiative. No doubt that tactic accounts for at least a portion of the funding identified out West but when compared to the low level of spending in the Atlantic region the numbers are no less staggering.

It would be easy to announce funding for bridge work, highways or even the new ferries for Marine Atlantic in Newfoundland and Labrador as a part of the initiative, even though they are all part of the normal activities of government. It’s exactly the sort of thing politicians are so efficient at doing but in this case they don’t even appear interested enough in the Atlantic Gateway concept to muddy the waters that way.

When it comes to the dollars specifically identified for Gateway initiatives in Canada it appears that the Atlantic Initiative has garnered only 3% of the funds spent on the Pacific coast, hardly indicative of a federal priority.

Granted Canada’s largest trading partner, the U.S. is easily accessible overland or through the Great Lakes. Granted as well, a high volume of trade between Canada and China is a valid reason to improve transport infrastructure in BC. That said, an enormous trade deal is about to be signed with the European Union. It seems rather short sighted that more emphasis has not been placed on ensuring Europe’s closest ports of call, in Atlantic Canada, are able to fully take advantage of that reality.

If the Atlantic Gateway Initiative is intended to improve transportation infrastructure for trade imports and exports the jury is still out on how effective it will be. If the intent is to promote a gateway for Atlantic Canadian workers to head west in search of employment the concept may be very effective.

Is Ottawa Party to a Cover Up?

Over the past few days several individuals and news agencies have been questioning the validity of a conspiracy theory making the rounds.

The theory speculates that perhaps someone onboard may have intentionally scuttled (sank) the Spanish Trawler, Monte Galineiro, which went down near the Flemish Cap off Newfoundland earlier this week.

According to media reports the vessel was being closely tracked by a Canadian Coast Guard patrol vessel, with the intention of conducting a fisheries inspection once the weather cleared, when she suddenly issued a distress call. The vessel sank minutes later.

All hands onboard were plucked from the frigid North Atlantic but questions have since arisen about the incident and whether the sinking might have been intentional.

The theory itself is deeply flawed but there are never the less a lot of valid questions that should, and likely never will be, answered.

For a fairly large vessel to sink as quickly as this one did it would need to take on a lot of water very rapidly.

The most likely reason for such a sinking would be a large hole in the hull. The other likely possibility is that the “sea cocks”, which allow water to be taken in for ballast, were opened, either intentionally or not, thus the conspiracy theory.

Since the ship did not impact with a foreign object like an ice berg, the concern over why a four year old vessel took on water and sank so rapidly is a real one.

Another question is what she was doing on the very edge of Canada’s 200 mile limit when she sank? Some estimates put her at about 214 nautical miles from shore.

It would be of value to know what direction she was traveling in when observed by the Canadian Coast Guard. Was she heading toward Canadian waters? Was she heading away from them? Did the vessel appear to be attempting to evade or outrun the patrol vessel?

The captain of the Monte Galineiro claimed he heard an explosion in the engine room and reported a fire onboard. Why wasn’t there smoke visible before the Monte Galineiro went down and why did some crew members claim to be wakened from their sleep by an emergency alarm, not an explosion as claimed by the ship’s Captain?

These are valid questions. Unfortunately the Canadian government, under the auspices of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, has said it will not be conducting any investigation into the incident. Preferring instead to leave that to the ship’s Country of origin, Spain.

Personally I doubt very much that anyone would intentionally sink their own vessel during February in the North Atlantic while sailing in 10 foot waves.

If they did, the majority of the 22 member crew, some of whom were rescued in their underwear, could not have been informed. To do so before putting them in such a frightening life and death situation would almost ensure that they would want to get their revenge on the perpetrator by telling authorities.

Indeed the crew knew a Coast Guard vessel was in the area but in reality, would anyone, other than a total psychopath, throw himself and more than 20 others into a situation where mere minutes mean the difference between life and death?

What could the motive be?

Would someone take that gamble simply to avoid the slap on the wrist that would be waiting for them even if they were found to have tons of illegal cod onboard?

I doubt it.

Perhaps the most sensible statement regarding the conspiracy theory came from St. John’s Maritime Lawyer, Owen Myers, in a “Sou’Wester” article, when he said the Monte Galineiro wouldn't face serious fines under "toothless" North Atlantic Fisheries Organization (NAFO) rules, even if it was convicted of illegal fishing. "It seems very unlikely to scuttle a $20-million vessel in order to escape a Canadian fisheries inspection," Myers said. "It's kind of like getting a traffic ticket. You're not going to blow up your Ferrari sports car because you've been given a parking ticket. I think it's really well-known that that is the problem with the NAFO convention - there are just no penalties in it."

There’s a lot of truth in those words.

It seems that nobody really knows what happened out there on the high seas but isn’t that the problem?

Shouldn’t somebody be trying to find out?

Putting aside the conspiracy theory itself for a moment, since it only clouds the issue, the question of exactly why this ship sank and what she was doing in the area prior to the sinking should not be cavalierly brushed aside, as is being done by Canadian authorities.

Late last week Newfoundland and Labrador premier, Danny Williams, issued a press release saying his government would not sign onto, or support, the latest trade discussions between Ottawa and the EU because of a number of ongoing issues, including NAFO’s lack of control over illegal fishing, the EU’s continued flouting of fisheries law and Canada’s lack of concern for protecting Newfoundland and Labrador’s interests.

The federal government’s lack of interest in finding answers to the questions being asked only serve to prove Mr. Williams point.

With trade talks taking place between Ottawa and the EU, with the premier’s position publicly known and with the lingering questions about this particular vessel left unanswered there is ample reason for the Newfoundland and Labrador premier and the people of the province to have concerns.

Was the vessel so loaded down with illegal fish that she ripped her engines apart, causing a fire, by pushing the ship to her limits in an effort to avoid inspection?

Were her fishing trawls in the water or onboard when the incident happened? Knowing this, or even if they were in neither place (had been cut) would add valuable information to the situation.

Was the crew of the Monte Galineiro doing nothing illegal at all? If so, an independent investigation would help clear the crew’s reputations, and that of their home nation.

Was there a design flaw in the ship, perhaps allowing the sea cocks to accidentally open or water to enter around the propeller shaft? If so, knowing the answer might save lives in future.

There are a lot of important questions left unanswered, not the least of which is why the government of Canada is doing nothing to find those answers.