Wrinkles (I)

There is, for some reason, a super-abundance of commercials on TV these days which advertise products which don’t make your wrinkles go away.

Oh, at first glance, you might think they make your wrinkles go away.

But they don’t.

They “are said to help diminish the appearance of fine lines”.

They “can reduce the look of what can age you most.”

But they never say “this product, if you use it on your face, will make your wrinkles go away.” And there’s a distinction.

“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,” writes A. Brian Peckford – yes, that one – in Sunday’s Telegram.

In a cursory review of documents I have in my possession, there seems to be some substance to this allegation.

Let me elaborate.

Peckford’s elaboration?

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 De-partment 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.

Brian Peckford, before he entered politics, was a teacher, not a lawyer. And it shows.

Having discussed instances in which fish allocations were used, or suggested to be used, to settle disputes about, well, um, fish allocations, he concludes “…it is fair to suggest, if not maintain… there is a case to be made that the federal government was trading fish off the province… for questionable return… involving other products or issues.”

Brian Peckford does not say “the federal government traded fish quotas for wheat/Hyundai plants/auto sales” or whatever other consideration the latest iteration of the “trade deals” myth would have you believe.

Brian Peckford — let's lay on some emphasis here, in case anyone misses the logical flaw in his concluseion — says “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.”

Brian Peckford, at best, can fight the look of what can age you most.

But Brian Peckford won’t make your wrinkles go away.

Even as a former teacher, he has master the lawyerly use of the weasel-word and compound weasel-phrase. But he has utterly failed to prove his case, whether in his op-ed for the Telegram, or in his appearance this evening on the Fisheries Broadcast.

It is highly suspect, in the court of public opinion, as it would be in the court of law, that neither Peckford, nor, apparently, andy of his wonderful documents, did not answer any of the following questions which would seal, once and for all, the “trade deal” case:

WHO traded fish quotas to foreign countries?

To WHICH foreign countries?

WHAT fish?

In exchange for WHAT trade or foreign policy considerations or concessions?

WHEN did these deals occur?

WHAT was their duration?

WHERE were they signed or otherwise approved, and by WHOM?

WHY did this happen?

HOW, that is, under authority of what domestic or international legal regime, was this fish-for-X practice carried on?

And it is disappointing, that when given the chance, John Furlong didn’t ask.

More on that, later.