Usefulness outlived

On October 29, 2004, The Telegram ran a letter from some dude named Brian Peckford, writing from Qualicum Beach, B.C.:

I support Premier Danny Williams' actions on Tuesday. [i.e., walking out of a first ministers' meeting before actually walking in - ed.]

As I understand from media reports, Prime Minister Paul Martin promised Newfoundland and Labrador during the election campaign 100 per cent of offshore resource revenues. Now I understand there are conditions being attached to this commitment.

Federal Liberals never supported the pro-provincial provisions in the Atlantic Accord but, of course, had to accept what is the law of Parliament of Canada and the law of Newfoundland and Labrador, agreed to and supported by the Mulroney administration.

Deja vu all over again

These actions by the federal Liberals are nothing new. Both former energy ministers, Marc LaLonde and Jean Chretien of the Trudeau administration, failed to deliver on statements made regarding this same issue years ago.

On June 20 in a press release, I warned the province about accepting verbal assurances from any federal party, and particularly pointed out the abysmal record of the federal Liberals in earlier talks on the offshore issue. I urged the province to get a clear, written assurance.

Given the recent history of clawback, long after the Atlantic Accord was the law, the federal Liberals are once again up to their old tricks.

Brian Peckford
Qualicum Beach, B.C.

An A. Brian Peckford, also writing from the same town in B.C., previously had a letter in the Western Star, on June 23, 2004, this time identified as the former Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador:

The three major political party leaders want to let Newfoundland and Labrador keep more of its resource revenues. Well it would seem elections are good for something.

But hold on a minute! These are just verbal commitments - should I say promises. And we have seen many broken ones over the years and lately some really big ones in Ontario.

And I must note:

1. That the federal Liberals were against many of the positive pro-provincial provisions that are presently in the Atlantic Accord and are the ones that introduced clawback of provincial revenues in the 1990s. This party would not sign what we presently have when they were in government

2. The Conservative Party is a new party and the leaders of the old PC party who supported the accord are no longer around. So some questions there.

3. The New Democrats have never formed the Federal Government so who knows with them.

Therefore, it is extremely important that the province:

1. Get in writing before election day , in clear, unambiguous language what each of the parties mean by the verbal promises they have made.

2. A commitment in writing that the changes once made, if they are really better, will be enshrined in legislation in Ottawa and St. John's and that Section 64 of the Accord will be honored - i.e. that if the province gets the requisite support among the other provinces for the constitutional entrenchment of the accord that it (government of Canada) would introduce a mutually agreeable resolution into Parliament.

3. And that this would include the fiscal measures now being promised which would involve all resource revenues .

The problem is not the Atlantic Accord itself but rather the fiscal arrangements between the federal government and the province.

The Atlantic Accord should not be re-opened. The province would do so at its peril. The risk that there would be a quid pro quo is too great with the probability of dilution to some of the important pro province provisions especially as it relates to management (Sections 21 to 32 and Section 33 (a) and revenue sharing (Sections 36 to 39 inclusive).

Certain forces who are obviously against many of the pro-provincial provisions of the accord have cunningly persuaded many that the Accord is the problem. Some have already suggested the outrageous notion that the two offshore boards be combined - obvious dilution of provincial power would be inevitable.

We must not put at risk the gains the province has already made. Remember the Supreme Court ruled the offshore federal, yet we have powers (management, revenue sharing and equalization offset) in the offshore through the accord that contradict this decision. If only in the Voisey's Bay Project (dare I also introduce Churchill Falls, iron ore , the fishery) where we had and have all the power, we were and would be so vigilant.

The problem is the fiscal arrangements between the federal government and the provinces over the treatment of resource revenues in the overall - all resource revenues - the equalization formula, clawback and the overall federal power.

We need to keep more of all our resource revenues through a new federal provincial arrangements agreement that is in legislation of both Parliaments and in the constitution so that it is beyond Federal unilateral change.

We already have all the provincial powers and revenues under the Accord, i.e. principal beneficiary (some objective observers even say we may have more than if we had won in the Supreme Court), it is the retention of our revenues and will undoubtedly entail a countrywide agreement.

Go after it - yes - but let's not be hoodwinked by those who are trying to find solutions in erroneous places and deny us, for one of the few times in our history, the recapture of a resource that was snatched from us.

On May 15, 2005, an A. Brian Peckford, same address, had a missive in The Telegram, with the delicious opening paras:

I read with interest your coverage of the federal fisheries minister and his cohorts suddenly holding press conferences about alleged illegal fishing on our continental shelf and the boarding of a number of Portuguese boats.

Is this some sort of cruel joke? How many humiliations must the people of Newfoundland and Labrador endure from their federal government?

And back on July 12, 2003, same dude, same address, same biographical notice about being a former premier, wrote to The Telegram:

Dropping any link between the Upper and Lower Churchill rivers is a disaster and belittles and demeans the enormity of the fiscal challenge the commission admitted the province is facing. Saying goodbye to somewhere between $500 million and $1 billion a year is irresponsible.

...

Dropping the Upper Churchill and trying to squeeze more from the Atlantic Accord when the province has not enforced present provisions reeks of politics, not independent rational policy assessment.

Same paper, same guy, same address, same bio, on May 13, 2003:

It was bad timing and a poor approach.Premier Roger Grimes is a desperate man.If, in fact, he was serious about joint jurisdiction of the fisheries, from a policy perspective he should have done this earlier and then the desperate political taint would have smelled just a little, and not a whole lot as is now the case.

I had the agreement of all the provinces during the patriation process in the early 1980s for shared jurisdiction and the federal government said no.Where was the Liberal Party of Newfoundland then? The approach is wrong. Grimes should know that this is just not a Terms of Union issue.It will require a constitutional change involving seven out of 10 provinces and 50 per cent of the population.If this was a serious propositionthe province would have prepared adetailed proposal and looked for allies,especially other coastal provinces. There should be a new shared arrangement regarding the management of the fishery. My book, The past in the present, outlines how the division of powers could be done but the timing and approach here smacks of political opportunism rather than innovative policy-making.

Very convenient things for the former premier to be saying, what, with his successor in the leadership of his party in the middle of the pre-election campaign with the former Liberal government.

Brian Peckford has never been known as shy.

And his epistles from Qualicum Beach, his speaking engagements back in his home province, his ex-cathedra pronouncements on everything from Voisey's Bay to the abortive Lower Churchill to the fishery to offshore petroleum were always welcomed by Danny And The Minions, and used to great partisan political effect...

...when they were in opposition.

But now, they're not.

Which is why now, but not then, you hear provincial cabinet ministers saying truly incredible things like:

you know, to live out there and then come in here and tell us we're doing it all wrong is a bit much.

Or:

Well I must remind you that actually Brian Peckford is not in government number one, number two is that he's not a resident of Newfoundland and Labrador.

"Not in government"?

Like John Crosbie, right?

Only people "in government" are allowed to say anything about anything. Anyone else is just being negative. Non-constructive. Silly.

Of course, Danny Williams and his enablers have never been terribly consistent in the application of the Shut-Up-And-Stay-Retired rule. As long as the retiree supports Our Dear Premier, or serves His purposes, or, at very least, doesn't contradict him, the retiree is useful.

But if the retiree, or anyone else, contradict Him? Then they join the ranks of the Unpersons.

Oh, to be a fly tonight on the wall of some of the old-stock Peckford Tories around Town.