CPAC Presents Joey Smallwood on Sunday Night

For anyone interested, CPAC, the Canadian Public Affairs Channel, takes a look at some of the most influential premiers of Canada beginning Sunday night with Newfoundland and Labrador's Joey Smallwood.

According to the creator, "If you want to understand the politics of a province you need to look back to its past, specifically to its most transformative leader."

The Premiers, a 10-part documentary series beginning Sunday on CPAC, looks at the lives and politics of some of the most prominent provincial leaders in Canadian history.

Over the two-year course of making The Premiers, the creator said "the project morphed into something different -- something beyond political biographies. The documentary evolved into a "reflection of political culture."

". . . What the documentary series tries to do is hold a mirror up to each province and show people there, and people in the rest of the country, why they think and act the way they do politically in those regions," said Doan.

"If you wonder why Danny Williams of Newfoundland seems inflexible on his position of protecting his province's resources just go back and see what happened with Smallwood. If you wonder why Alberta always seems dissatisfied with what's coming to them from the centre, just see what happened to them during the Depression and what happened to (William) Aberhart and you'll start to understand why more Albertans think the way they do."

"The Premiers veers off into territory viewers may not expect. Rather than the usual talking heads of historians and political scientists, it is the family, friends, colleges and those who witnessed history, who share their stories about the famous -- and sometimes infamous -- politicians. Friend or foe, those who knew the leaders well provide unique insight that goes beyond common, documented facts."

"Each of the 10 leaders featured in The Premiers made a historical contribution in shaping this country. Having created such an everlasting impact, how do these past leaders compare with the leaders of today?
"Maybe they were still pioneering in those days, but they were really strong . . . and there's not one among them whose strengths compares with the leaders of today," said Doan, pausing briefly to consider the roster of current provincial leaders, "Except maybe Danny Williams."

The first episode about Joey Smallwood, if not all the episodes, might make for some interesting viewing. If for nothing else than to provide some insight into the creator's perspective about this place we all love, Newfoundland and Labrbrador.

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.

Williams Talks Tough on Canada / EU Trade Discussions

A press release was issued by Newfoundland and Labrador premier, Danny Williams, on Friday outlines his province’s concerns with plans for a new Canadian / EU Trade Agreement and withdraws his province’s support for upcoming negotiations by Ottawa.

The release states that, “While Newfoundland and Labrador fully supports improved trade with the European Union, any actions taken in that regard must address priority areas of concern for the province. In particular, the province is extremely hesitant to allow the Federal Government to head these negotiations, given past actions that question their commitment to issues of importance to the province.”

It goes on to say that "At this point, we are not willing to sign on to support the negotiation of a new and comprehensive economic agreement with the European Union.”

“This decision should not be confused with a lack of support for an improved trade relationship between Canada and Europe. Indeed, Newfoundland and Labrador values and respects its trade relations with Europe which have existed with the province for over 5 centuries…However, other concerns prevent the province from giving unqualified support for the Canadian Government’s process as it moves forward

"The Government of Newfoundland and Labrador is unable to support this at this time on the basis of very genuine concerns that our province’s issues may not be safeguarded or dealt with in an appropriate way by the Federal Government.”

“In particular, long standing issues such as custodial management of our fishery, a proposed ban on seal products into the EU and prohibitive tariffs on seafood products entering the EU represent significant issues of concern that have been left unaddressed by the Federal Government for far too long.

Newfoundland and Labrador has not received any assurances that a Canada-EU agreement would include protection for measures such as the Atlantic Accords and Fish Inspection Act. Additionally, a track record of a lack of substantive and inclusive consultation on federal-provincial issues gives Newfoundland and Labrador great cause for concern, particularly in light of the far reaching implications of a possible Canada-EU trade agreement."

The official press release comes at a time when Newfoundland and Labrador is being challenged under NAFTA for the expropriation of provincial timber and hydro leases once held by U.S. registered paper maker Abitibi-Bowater.

It’s difficult to determine whether the province’s position on Canada / EU trade carries any real weight in Ottawa or not since it is the federal government that is ultimately responsible for international trade agreements. However the position taken by the Province serves to highlight a number of important issues for the province on both the national and international stage.

While the federal government does not officially need provincial support to enter into international trade agreements, actually making them work without the support of all the provinces is a problem.

Any agreement signed by Ottawa cannot infringe on provincial jurisdiction or legislative abilities.
A clear example of this can be seen in the case of the Abitibi-Bowater expropriation itself.

Newfoundland and Labrador has the legal right to expropriate the resources in question. It is up to Ottawa to defend the action under the NAFTA agreement and, should Canada lose that challenge, it will ultimately be the federal government, not the province, which is required to pay any penalties imposed.