CBC Radio's fisheries broadcast has been carrying some commentary over the past couple weeks repeating the commonly held view that the federal government traded various fish quotas for favourable trade arrangements on commodities from other parts of Canada.
The old argument, favoured by the local nationalists, is supposedly proof that Ottawa screws Newfoundland at every opportunity, that Confederation isn't working or that Newfoundland is just exploited by the evil crew in Ottawa for the gain of everyone else.
But is there any evidence to support the argument?
Not so, say a great many people. The subject was studied for federal fisheries a few years ago and not a single example could be found of any trade deal for, say wheat or cars, that featured a consideration for fish. In other words, there was no sign of a Hyundai for flounder arrangement or durham for turbot.
The story persists, nonetheless, repeated by a great many others.
It persists to the point that former premier Brian Peckford penned an opinion piece for the Sunday Telegram on 02 December. it doesn't seem to be online, so there's a typed version of it below. Peckford turned up on the fish cast on Monday afternoon with host John Furlong, followed by former federal cabinet representative John Crosbie.
Peckford repeated the basic story, claiming he had various documents to prove his claims. Crosbie dismissed the notion, with the exception of the one obvious case of the 5,000 tonnes of northern cod that formed part of an arrangement with France in order to get the St. Pierre boundary into an arbitration.
If Peckford has documents, it would be nice to see them. All he has presented in the article below are a series of letters he wrote in which he makes certain claims. There is no evidence, such as a specific example of one such deal. Rather, one sees merely a statement of the claim as if that alone was evidence of the existence of the fish trade-offs. it isn't.
What's more curious than merely the presentation of a claim as if it were fact is Peckford's characterization of the 1987 agreement with France:
"The Government of Canada offers this non-surplus fish without any commitment from France to stop overfishing in 3PS. ... You expect this Province to sacrifice alone for a national boundary question"
Peckford presents the boundary dispute as if it had little, if anything, to do with Newfoundland and Labrador. Peckford attempts to disconnect the issue of alleged French overfishing in 3PS, a fisheries management zone adjacent to St. Pierre, from the boundary question. Peckford's position, of course, is as disingenuous on this point today as it was at the time.
French fishing was based upon the argument that the waters in 3PS were French. Since the boundary was undefined, French fishermen had every right to fish to their heart's content. There was no legal means by which Canada could enforce its view on the French, any more than fishermen from Newfoundland and Labrador would have rejected any efforts by French fisheries officers to stop them from fishing waters they viewed as being Canadian.
The mechanism to stop the French "overfishing" Peckford referred to was the boundary arbitration. The price of that arbitration was, in part, 5000 tonnes of northern cod. Beyond that, resolving the boundary also paved the way for exploration and then development of oil and gas resources on the Grand Banks.
How odd that the archetypical Newfoundland nationalist - supposedly ever vigilant in defence of Newfoundland's interests - would argue against an agreement between Canada and France that worked in the interest of Newfoundland and Labrador directly.
Perhaps if Peckford has some evidence on that one, he'll present it as well. The debate stirred up on the fisheries broadcast will be useful if only to determine if there is any evidence at all to support the arguments Peckford and others have been making over the years. If, as it appears, the whole thing is nothing more than a myth, perhaps the fables can finally be labelled for what they are.
-srbp-
The Telegram, December 2, 2007, Page A7
A. Brian Peckford
Were fish stocks used as bargaining chips?; Communiqués from the 1980s show it was an ongoing concern for the province
Apparently there has been discussion in recent times as to whether historically the federal government used fish stocks off the province as a bargaining chip or whether they pursued such policies.
In a cursory review of documents I have in my possession, there seems to be some substance to this allegation.
Let me elaborate.
In October 1980, I wrote a letter to then prime minister Pierre Trudeau in which I highlighted three policies by the federal government that were harmful to the province. One was the matter of including part of Newfoundland in the Department if Fisheries and Oceans Gulf Region, another was a proposed new licensing system and a third was "... the directions being taken regarding the allocation of offshore fish stocks, principally northern cod, to foreign nations in return for trade concessions of dubious value." Also in that letter, I advised the prime minister that I had already written to two of his ministers, [Herb] Gray and [Mark] MacGuigan, about this last matter. In June 1982, in a paper issued by the government of Newfoundland and Labrador under the name of the then minister of Fisheries James Morgan entitled "The Fishery: A Business and a Way of Life," the following statement was made:
"The Government of Newfoundland has serious reservations regarding the entire 'commensurate benefits' policy as followed by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. ... The bilateral fishing agreements should not be used to seek concessions of market access in return for allocations of stocks within our zone which are of commercial benefit to the Canadian fishing industry."
In May 1983, the government of Newfoundland, under my name, issued a document entitled "Restructuring the Fishery" which was a presentation to the federal government. On page 12 of that document, the following statement was made: "The Province takes the position that Canada should not trade access to fish in return for market access. By eliminating foreign allocations we would improve the market for our fish products."
In September 1984. in a Government of Newfoundland document entitled "Major Bilateral Issues, Canada-Newfoundland," the following statement was made on page 15: "Trade opportunities for fish products must not be pursued at the price of foreign allocations from fishery resources ..."
In 1987, I sent a written communication to the then minister of Transport and Newfoundland's representative in the federal cabinet, John Crosbie. This was at the time when the Canada/France boundary matter was being discussed between the two nations. In that communication, among other things, I said the following:
"The Government of Canada has offered non surplus 2J3KL cod to France.
"The Government of Canada offers this non-surplus fish without any commitment from France to stop overfishing in 3PS.
"You expect this Province to sacrifice alone for a national boundary question.
"You are part of a Government that continues to trade with France in other areas and refuses to use these other levers to help solve the boundary issue. ..."
In this last case, I do not know what else Canada had on the table in these talks, but this communication was sent using the best information the provincial government had at the time. I do not remember if any or all this communication was proven to be false.
I think it is fair to suggest, if not maintain, that based upon these documents, there is a case to be made that the federal government was trading fish off the province for questionable return, either in the form of so-called market access or involving other products or issues.
A. Brian Peckford was premier of Newfoundland from 1979-1989.
