Some Day the Sun Will Shine and Have Not Will Be No More

by Brian Peckford

  Seeming to want to capture attention and looking surprised at my attendance, he exclaimed, “Oh, Mr. Peckford, you are here, what a surprise! I was thinking the other day that I should visit Newfoundland soon. Would I need a passport?”

  This sudden verbal thrust caught me off guard momentarily. There was a silence in the group (since it was clear to all that this wasn’t just some humorous verbal action) and a sudden unease permeated the group.

  “Well, Mr. Prime Minister,” I said, recuperating, “you know, now that you have informed me of your intentions, I will later this evening contact our immigration people and inform them of your intentions. I am sure that a speedy approval process will ensure that your visit will be a smooth one.”

  Abruptly as he had entered the group, the prime minister took a speedy exit to another part of the room.

  Most are familiar with the more public encounter at the nationally televised First Ministers Conference on the Constitution when the prime minister tried to associate me with the Quebec Separatists movement as a result of my support for a general social policy/ measure that the Quebec government had introduced. This was the unseemly aspect of the man. So quick to try to make an association of his adversary on erroneous information. Effective repartee is more elevated than this! Of course, the press and some apologists lapped up this supposed brilliant wit!

  The prime minister later pursued this in his book Memoirs in which he says on page 248: “I recall Premier Brian Peckford saying that his view of Canada was closer to Lévesque’s than it was to Trudeau’s.”

  And later on page 325 he says: “I suggested out of a sense of irony—lost, I think, on the Newfoundland Premier—that Brian Peckford should read out the terms of the agreement because he was the one who had said he was closest to Lévesque’s view of Canada.”

  Of course, he forgot to mention that the reason for him asking me to read the terms was the fact that he was aware that I had a proposal to present that was endorsed by most of the provinces, who had also supported my presenting it to the conference, and which later formed the basis for the agreement which he, himself, later acknowledged to the press.

  Blinded by anyone suggesting that they agreed with parts of someone else’s vision of Canada, especially views of his arch-enemy (it was Quebec’s insistence like Alberta and Saskatchewan’s insistence on the importance of the division of powers versus Trudeau’s unilateralism that I was supporting, as well as a non-constitutional Quebec program), one can almost understand why he would continue to remember that part of my comments and why they were what stayed in his mind later when he was writing. He could not be wrong.

  Allan Gotlieb, who worked for Trudeau in Washington as our ambassador, says this about Trudeau in his book The Washington Diaries on page 13: “. . . he holds to all his opinions with absolute conviction. He can never be wrong, so he defends them all to the considerable limit of his intellectual powers.”

  Gordon Robertson, a colleague of Trudeau’s in his early years in Ottawa, later a clerk of the Cabinet in Trudeau’s time, says tellingly in his book Memories of a Very Civil Servant on page 378: “Trudeau was philosophically and temperamentally less suited than Pearson, or King, or St. Laurent to the Federal system of Government with its constant need for agreement and compromise.” Later, Robertson muses: “It is amazing really that a man of rigidity could carry on as PM of a country built on flexibility and compromise.”

  Perhaps the most galling of all the few encounters I had with the man concerned the fishery. Like economics, this was an area with which the prime minister had little understanding. I had been trying for years to sit down with the man and have a one-on-one talk about the Atlantic ground fishery: how the Europeans were over-fishing and that the toothless North Atlantic Fishery Organization (NAFO) was doing a disservice to fishery science and how the federal government was not doing its part to defend this fishery. I was convinced that if I had an hour or so I could show him through maps and facts how reasonable our position really was.

  Finally a meeting was arranged. There were four people in attendance: the prime minister and his adviser, Michael Kirby, later to be appointed to the Senate, and myself and my adviser, Cyril Abery, now deceased, my deputy minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. Unfortunately, the meeting came on the heels of one of the prime minister’s international trips. After the pleasantries were over, I was eager to provide an overview of the North Atlantic ground fishery and the present crucial issues. The prime minister was really not with us that day. He proceeded to describe his recent tour and seemed eager to talk of his meetings with the presidents of France and Germany. He seemed pleased at having walked with the high priests of Europe. Obviously, I was unimpressed as I could see the precious minutes roll by, subtracting from the allotted sixty minutes that were available and still no fishery issues bring discussed. So, characteristically and not without some risk, I interrupted the prime minister and told him that while I appreciated the importance of his trip and its many interesting dimensions, I was really eager to discuss the purpose of the meeting, the fishery. With his reluctant co-operation I proceeded to explain the complexities of the North Atlantic ground fishery in less than thirty minutes. Mr. Kirby was trying to be helpful and understanding of my dilemma and interjected profitably on a number of occasions to elucidate a particular point that I had made. But with such a time frame and the obvious disinterest of the prime minister, little was accomplished. I uttered a few inoffensive platitudes to the press afterwards and that was that.

  It is sad that a prime minister who had the support of so many Newfoundlanders was so disengaged in the province’s most important industry of the time. It is ironic that in his early years he could talk so eloquently of foreign domination and forgot it now on the Atlantic fishery. In a speech to l’Institut Canadien des Affaires Publiques in the early 1950s, he said, “The meaning to these figures is obvious: in key sectors of the Canadian economy, non-residents are in a position to take decisions quite foreign to the welfare of Canadians.”

  The disinterest of the prime minister and the federal government to take meaningful action during these years led over time, with other factors, to the almost complete shutdown of the province’s ground fishery, putting tens of thousands out of work and causing the federal government to spend hundreds of millions on financial support to families and retraining and dislocating whole communities.

  RENÉ LÉVESQUE

  Lévesque was a different quintal of fish. Although hopelessly misguided on the Constitutional issue as it related to Quebec’s place in the federal family, he was an engaging individual, worldly wise, amusing, and possessed of a lively mind. He bridged the world of ideas and the practical political waters with ease. It was this singular characteristic that kept Trudeau uneasy in his presence. I remember a number of dinners of first ministers where Trudeau and Lévesque would spar, a sort of ping-pong dialogue. The striking thing I remember is how upset Trudeau would become with Lévesque as a result of some very pertinent point Lévesque had just made that Trudeau found difficult to handle, all the while Lévesque seemed very much at ease, with that impish grin in full view.

  I had an interesting encounter with Lévesque at one of the Eastern Premiers New England Governors’ conferences. This was in Vermont. Of course, Quebec and Newfoundland were in that on again–off again mode of tackling the Churchill Falls issues: Quebec eager to become involved with Newfoundland in the Lower Churchill project and Newfoundland insisting that changes to the Upper Churchill contract must precede, or be a part of, any new arrangement with Quebec regarding Churchill River developments. We had both been involved before so we were not new to the issues, and we both got along personally notwithstanding our views on the nature of Canada and our past differences on the Churchill issue. Unlike many politicians, Lévesque could agree to disagree and you could still have a relationship.

  Almost inevitably at these gatherings, the Churchill Falls issue arose, especially with the press, which needed fodder for thei
r papers unlikely to be found from the mundane subjects of such meetings and to justify their presence. This being a much smaller stage where interaction with the press was closer and contact with the first ministers was easier than at the larger gatherings, this subject was a natural target for them.

  Both Lévesque and I were eager to see if we could break the impasse and so we agreed to stay over an extra day after the formal part of the conference was completed. Lévesque invited me to spend an afternoon with him and his female partner aboard a yacht on Lake Champlain, which was adjacent to where the conference was being held. He thought that a pleasant casual afternoon away from the confines of a room would be more conducive to our talks.

  And so I joined Lévesque for the afternoon, meandering around the lake under the watchful eye of two security boats. Lévesque liked to swim. No sooner were we out in the middle of the lake when he donned his bathing suit, insisted I do the same, and before I knew it, we were both overboard in the cool waters of Lake Champlain. A succession of on the boat–in the water episodes ensued, and then a relaxing time musing, interspersed with some fine scotch. It was then that we got to the subject of Churchill Falls and we both expressed the view that there must be some way to solve this disagreement between the provinces and move ahead. We undertook to revisit our files when we returned home and try to creatively find ways to a solution. Several weeks later I wrote Lévesque, and although some talks occurred, little had really changed. Like the Constitution, Lévesque (although musing about flexibility) seemed incapable of seeing it through. One could argue that the ideologues of Morin and Parizeau blocked any Constitutional flexibility, and a similar hard-line bent at Hydro Quebec prevented anything on that front from being realized. A more sinister view is that the crafty Lévesque was just trying to see if he could lure me into another negotiating exercise in the hopes of wearing me down and, with a few concessions on the margins, get substantially the deal he wanted.

  One other incident I remember involved the eight provinces (the Gang of Eight) during the tumultuous Constitutional struggles of the early eighties. We were meeting at a hotel in Montreal and of course we were deeply engaged in debating various elements of Constitutional change and what our common position would be. Premier Lougheed and Premier Lévesque became involved in a heated exchange over some specific issue; Lougheed, in responding to a particular point Lévesque had made, used language that upset Lévesque. He became very agitated, as did Lougheed, and the incident almost came to blows but was quickly diffused by a number of us and civility was restored. It was the only time I saw either of them really lose their cool.

  BRIAN MULRONEY

  Mr. Mulroney became president of the Iron Ore Company of Canada in 1977 when I was minister of Mines and Energy. One of the company’s main assets was the large iron ore mine and pellet plant in Labrador City, Labrador. It was inevitable, then, that we would have involvement one with the other.

  It should be noted that I had recently supported his rival, Joe Clark, for the leadership of the federal Progressive Conservative Party, which Mr. Clark won. However, this seemed to be firmly behind him in his relationship with me as minister; at no time could I detect, either directly or indirectly, any action that would have led me to believe that my opposition to his leadership bid in any way impaired our dealings. In this regard, he was one of the very few I had met who could act so magnanimously in such circumstances.

  My first contact was when Mr. Mulroney, as president of IOC, requested a meeting to review the status of the company’s operation in the province. He wanted to brief Cabinet, the premier, and the minister on present operations and future plans. I arranged for this presentation and we were all very impressed by his performance; his grasp of the issues and understanding of the operation was exceptional, especially since we were all well aware that he was not a geologist and had little mining or mine processing experience.

  Not long after this initial contact, labour issues at Labrador City reached a critical stage. Mr. Mulroney decided to become personally involved and I accompanied him to Labrador City for meetings with the management and a hostile union leadership. He was successful in lessening the tensions in meeting with the union leadership, highlighting the financial position of the company and showing that he was not playing games with the union but that the facts demanded some responsibility on all sides for a peaceful solution. This was achieved as a result of this intervention and impressively showcased an able negotiator and leader.

  It was in these visits to Labrador City that I first became aware of Mr. Mulroney’s fondness for alcohol, having on one occasion literally put him to bed one evening. He was up at the crack of dawn the next morning, alert and ready for the business of the day. What was most amazing for those of us who were aware of this problem was how scrupulously disciplined he became later as prime minister in completely conquering this.

  We were both big sports fans and had occasion to attend hockey and American football games together on my visits to IOC headquarters in Montreal and to Cleveland, Ohio, where some of the ownership group of the company were headquartered. It was during such visits that I met Mila Mulroney, truly a lady of commitment and class.

  It wasn’t long before the leadership of the federal Progressive Conservative Party was once again a hot topic, given the problems of the short-lived Clark government. Once again, I would not be a supporter of Mr. Mulroney as he again sought the leadership. Under ordinary circumstances I would have supported this second effort, but Newfoundlander John Crosbie was also running and of course my allegiance was first and foremost to one of our own. However, I was a vocal and ardent supporter of him and his government in two elections.

  But we did have one significant disagreement and this one was over the fishery. The federal bureaucracy and most of the federal ministers in both Liberal and Progressive Conservative governments were entrenched—as they are to this day—in the mistaken notion that some better sharing of fishery powers between the federal and provincial governments would somehow be injurious to the stability of the country. Mr. Mulroney was unable to change.

  Two large national issues, to which he directed his attention, displayed his prowess and skill. On the constitutional front, Mr. Mulroney was masterful, open, and genuinely attempted to bring the country together. Tragically, this was sabotaged by a jealous and vindictive Pierre Elliott Trudeau and others of his ilk, manufacturing false fears on a weary population. The Meech Lake Accord, history has proven, would have been a reasonable accommodation.

  On the economic front, Mr. Mulroney’s free-trade initiative, which led to the Canada/U. S. Free Trade Agreement was truly a remarkable achievement. In this his government had frequent and extensive consultation with all the provinces and industry and is one of the most important bilateral arrangements of the century. Mountains of empirical evidence have accumulated demonstrating the significant positive effect that it has had on both countries. The false nationals of the day (the Liberal opportunists who promised to tear up the agreement when elected) and the New Democratic Party have all been silenced by the results. People forget that Mr. Mulroney was loudly and falsely attacked as a traitor to his country because of his passionate advocacy of this milestone.

  But for me, Mr. Mulroney will go down in history as Newfoundland’s best friend. He understood the place. Bill Marshall says it was Mulroney’s understanding of the Churchill Falls issue that made him support the offshore:

  I believe that his knowledge of that plight cemented his resolve to see that we were treated fairly in the offshore settlement. Certainly, he took a marked personal interest in the matter and his resolve to see an agreement that was fair to Newfoundland and Labrador without compromising legitimate national interests was evident at each meeting.

  Without Brian Mulroney there would be no Atlantic Accord, and without the Accord Newfoundland and Labrador would not be a “have” province today. And this book would have been much different.

  Sadly, if a poll was taken today as
king who had the greatest positive impact upon Newfoundland and Labrador’s fortunes, the majority would likely say Mr. Trudeau.

  Perhaps this book will help to change that view.

  THE ATLANTIC ACCORD

  MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE GOVERNMENT OF

  CANADA AND THE GOVERNMENT OF NEWFOUNDLAND AND

  LABRADOR ON OFFSHORE OIL AND GAS RESOURCE

  MANAGEMENT AND REVENUE SHARING

  THE ATLANTIC ACCORD

  The Government of Canada and the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador have reached an Accord on joint management of the offshore oil and gas resources off Newfoundland and Labrador and the sharing of revenues from the exploitation of these resources. The Accord will be implemented, to the extent possible, through mutual and parallel legislation to be introduced by both governments into the Parliament of Canada and the Legislature of Newfoundland and Labrador.