A CANADIAN PRIME MINISTERS CLUB? THE PUBLIC POLICY FORUM’S 25TH ANNIVERSARY TESTIMONIAL DINNER
The Public Policy Forum is an independent, not-forprofit organization dedicated to improving the quality of government in Canada through enhanced dialogue among the public, private and voluntary sectors. The Forum’s members, drawn from business, federal, provincial and territorial governments, the voluntary sector and organized labour, share a belief that an efficient and effective public service is important in ensuring Canada’s competitiveness abroad and quality of life at home. Established in 1987, the Forum has earned a reputation as a trusted, nonpartisan facilitator, capable of bringing together a wide range of stakeholders in productive dialogue. Its research program provides a neutral base to inform collective decision making. By promoting information sharing and greater links between governments and other sectors, the Forum helps ensure public policy in our country is dynamic, coordinated and responsive to future challenges and opportunities. Editorial assistance provided by Shari Graydon. Research assistance provided by Ryan Conway. Photography by Martin Lipman. Š 2012, Public Policy Forum 1405-130 Albert St. Ottawa, ON K1P 5G4 Tel: (613) 238-7160 Fax: (613) 238-7990 www.ppforum.ca
ISBN: 978-1-927009-40-6
TABLE OF
CONTENTS 1 4 5 7 9 12 15
Introduction, David Mitchell
The Right Hon. John Turner, PC, CC, QC
The Right Hon. Kim Campbell, PC, CC, OBC, QC
The Right Hon. Joe Clark, PC, CC, AOE
The Right Hon. Paul Martin, PC, CC
The Right Hon. Brian Mulroney, PC, CC, GOQ
Sponsors of the Forum’s 25th Anniversary
INTRODUCTION
DAVID MITCHELL
PRESIDENT & CEO, CANADA’S PUBLIC POLICY FORUM When we decided to honour all living former Canadian prime ministers for the Public Policy Forum’s 25th anniversary, we knew we were doing something audacious. Surprisingly, during a quarter century of celebrating the leadership and public service of more than 100 extraordinary Canadians from all walks of life, we had not previously recognized a former PM – although on a number of occasions we had called upon them to provide testimonials for other honourees. We knew that offering one of our annual awards to even a single occupant of the country’s highest office would represent an important departure. But all of them? And, of course, there was also the significant fact that at the time we had a record number of living former prime ministers: six.
our country’s history. Consider this anecdote from the late 19th century: In 1899, former PM Charles Tupper traveled to Brockville, Ontario, to campaign for his old friend, Peter White, the former Speaker of the House, in a by-election. Local Tories put Sir Charles up at a grand place, the best hotel in the area. The landlord, of course, ensured that the former prime minister had the best room. Every weekend, however, and for many years, a traveling salesman had occupied the same room while on his weekly trips through the area. The same night as Tupper’s visit, he simply checked himself in the room. He flopped on the bed, having consumed many drinks that night, and promptly fell asleep. Some time later, Tupper, then nearing 80 years old, returned after wowing the local Tory audience. He let himself in the room, stripped down and approached the bed. He was shocked to find it occupied. He shook the man on his bed and asked him what the heck he was doing there. In a stupor, the man only grunted. Tupper shook him again, asking a second time what the man thought he was doing. ‘Until you arrived, I was sleeping. What the devil do you want?’ ‘I am Sir Charles Tupper, former prime minister,’ an angry Tupper replied. ‘Get out of this room!’ ‘No way,’ the man said “this is my room.’ ‘Well if you don’t get out,’ said Sir Charles, ‘I shall pull you out of bed.’
We faced an intriguing challenge of protocol, politics and practicality. In Canada, we have no tradition of convening our former prime ministers, no role for former prime ministers in Canada. This is a shame, for the experience and perspectives of the few individuals who have served in this often-lonely office could, in fact, prove invaluable in addressing current or future policy challenges. Some believe that the current state of affairs, with intense partisanship and political polarization, might provide an explanation. However, the lack of a role or influence of former Canadian prime ministers isn’t a recent phenomenon; it’s been a constant throughout
1
‘Pull, nonsense,’ was the reply, ‘ex-prime ministers have no pull.’”1
country as special witnesses or in performing elder statesmen-type duties. For instance, several living former Australian PMs were invited to sit in parliament in 2008 to witness the apology to “stolen generations.” Australian prime ministers also take on international duties following their departures from the House, usually with the active support of successor governments. In retirement, former PM Malcolm Fraser served as both Chairman of the UN Panel of Eminent Persons on the Role of Transnational Corporations in South Africa, 1985 and Chairman of the UN Secretary-General’s Expert Group on African Commodity Issues in 1989-90.
An apocryphal story, to be sure, but apparently little has changed since that time. In Canada, former governors-general (and their spouses) are treated much more generously: when they leave Rideau Hall, they are granted taxpayer support for life, including an office, an assistant and a federal government contribution to a designated foundation or trust. Prime ministers, in contrast, receive nothing beyond a security detail for select public events. This rather stark inequity raises some interesting questions about our system of governance.
Among western democracies, the United States likely provides the best example of both celebrating and recognizing former government leaders. American presidents retain the title for life, and have libraries built in their honour, typically at or near their place of birth. These institutions become prominent tourist attractions in their own right and also serve as important national repositories for researchers and students of history. In addition, former U.S. presidents continue to play significant domestic and international roles. Recent examples include the bipartisan efforts requested by George W. Bush when he sent both Bill Clinton and his father, George H.W. Bush, to lead relief efforts for victims of the Asian tsunami in 2004 and Hurricane Katrina in 2005. Similarly, when the devastating earthquake struck Haiti in 2010, President Obama requested George W. Bush and Bill Clinton to serve as presidential envoys, leading fundraising efforts for relief and reconstruction.
How do we compare internationally? It’s a bit of a mixed bag, but generally former leaders of other national governments are treated with more respect, sometimes with reverence. In the United Kingdom, the traditional honour for a former prime minister is to be granted a peerage. For instance, Margaret Thatcher accepted the title of Baroness Thatcher of Kesteven after leaving the Commons in 1992, when she entered the House of Lords. Even former Labour prime ministers Harold Wilson and Jim Callahan were ennobled when stepping down as MPs, in 1983 and 1987, respectively. More recently, former British prime ministers have declined peerages, especially with the advent of the “cash-forpeers” scandal and proposals to reform or even abolish the House of Lords. Nevertheless, other important roles are emerging: former Prime Minister Tony Blair has assumed a number of international assignments, including serving as Middle East Envoy for the UN, EU, US and Russia.
In January 2009, before President-elect Obama assumed office, President Bush hosted a luncheon for him at the White House and included all of the surviving past presidents: Bill Clinton, George Bush Sr. and Jimmy Carter. In fact, in the U.S. an exclusive if informal “Presidents Club” has often helped sustain occupants of the Oval Office, particularly during times of tension or crisis.2 It’s not easy to imagine a similar gesture of political leadership in a Canadian context.
In France, former presidents are generally treated with a high level of respect, with substantial national projects being named for them, such as the Pompidou Museum, designated for its champion, former President Georges Pompidou. The principal honour they’re afforded is a seat on the French Constitutional Council, which ensures that the constitution is followed prior to new statutes being signed into law. All former presidents are entitled to serve on the Council, once they cease political activities.
Following the Testimonial Dinner in Toronto honouring our former prime ministers, a debate ensued about whether or not we need a Canadian Prime Ministers Club. The arguments in favour include a perceived need for more political maturity, less blind partisanship and more experienced support and wise counsel for occupants of the Prime Minister’s Office. The counterarguments include the fact that we have a very different political system than the U.S., where the president is also the head of state, and that ex-prime ministers suffer from a somewhat ambiguous status, serving for varying, sometimes brief, tenures. Our dated parliamentary system and rigid party structures are also
In Australia, former prime ministers are occasionally called upon to play roles in the governance of the 1 This anecdote is provided by Arthur Milnes of Kingston, Canada’s foremost prime ministerial historian. The story is adapted from Fred Cook’s “Giants and Letters” published in The Broadview Book of Canadian Parliamentary Anecdotes, 1988, edited by Marc Bosc, pages 54-55.
2 See: The President’s Club: Inside the World’s Most Exclusive Fraternity by Nancy Gibbs and Michael Duffy, Simon & Schuster, 2012 2
possibly important obstacles, breeding both enduring cross-party enmities and fierce internal competition as well.3
just one modest proposal: What if all former Canadian prime ministers, upon leaving office, were given the option of becoming members of the Senate? They could be non-voting Senators, therefore not altering the partisan composition of the upper chamber, but would be provided with an office and modest support. This would provide former PMs with a platform for occasionally speaking out on matters of national importance. It would also add a certain lustre to an otherwise staid national institution. The idea isn’t wholly original; it has a precedent, previously noted, in the U.K. However, at minimal cost, an innovative Canadian approach might allow the unique experience and perspectives of our ex-prime ministers a useful and important outlet. I believe it would strengthen our democracy in the process.
It’s a useful and constructive debate, a good discussion – and at the Public Policy Forum, this is what we thrive upon. Regardless of one’s views on the question, I believe most would agree it’s curious that we don’t avail ourselves more often of the wisdom and experience of our former prime ministers, who possess insights and observations worth sharing on matters of public policy and good governance. This was plainly evident in the remarks of the prime ministers at our Testimonial Dinner, which are presented here for review in this special publication. In fact, the easy camaraderie and friendly nostalgia among the five ex-prime ministers who participated in this memorable event demonstrates an apparent willingness to work together when called upon to do so. Clearly, they should be convened more than once every 25 years!
With this grist for the mill of policy dialogue, I invite you to enjoy the texts of the thoughtful remarks delivered at the Public Policy Forum’s 25th Anniversary Testimonial Dinner.4 The intelligence, passion and humour evident in the remarks of former Prime Ministers John Turner, Kim Campbell, Joe Clark, Paul Martin and Brian Mulroney makes a compelling case for hearing from them more often.
We can make this happen in many ways, but permit me 3 The liveliest expression of this debate took place on the op-ed pages of the Ottawa Citizen with L. Ian Macdonald’s “Canada Needs a Prime Ministers Club” July 11, 2012 followed by Jonathan Malloy’s “Why We’ll Never Have a Prime Ministers Club” July 14, 2012.
4 Video versions of the former prime ministers’ remarks can be viewed on the Public Policy Forum website: www.ppforum.ca. 3
THE RIGHT HON.
JOHN TURNER, PC, CC, QC This is quite an evening and I’m proud to be here. I want to speak about something I’ve been talking about since I was first elected almost fifty years ago. As a matter of fact, on June 18th I’m going to be back in Montreal for the 50th anniversary of my first election as a Member of Parliament of St-Lawrence/St-George and some of my old organizers are going to be there.
days only his riding, not her riding. And only after the election, where members were elected riding by riding, with no outside authority, influence, or appointments, when they came to Westminster in London, only then did they choose the Prime Minister. I said in that speech, in 1963, on Sherbrooke Street in Montreal, in my riding, that I believed in free votes in the House of Commons, except for the Throne Speech, which was Government policy, and a budget. Not an omnibus bill like we have now here in the country, but a straight budget relating to taxation. Otherwise, every piece of legislation ought to be subject to the judgement of the Member of Parliament and the feeling of his or her riding. That’s the way Parliament ought to operate.
I’ve watched the parliamentary situation since I was elected and the current situation is a very difficult one to describe. There’s too much control, I’m afraid, out of the Prime Minister’s office, too much party discipline – you can’t get on Question Period without the Party Whip allowing you. You’ve got bills, introduced as an omnibus bill under the budget. The budget used to be related to taxation, but the current omnibus bill has about 150 items in it, which means the Members of Parliament can’t deal with it. Disclosure – the standing committees that used to be a real element of democracy in the House of Commons - no longer have any jurisdiction whatsoever. I suppose it all began with television in the sense that the leaders have the opportunity to appeal over Parliament directly to the people through television. And of course, by reason of television, Question Period became the most important part of the Parliamentary scene. Question Period is featured for half an hour to an hour everyday, but nobody watches the debates, nobody reads the debates.
I remember that the word Parliament came from the Norman word parlée, to speak, freedom of speech. That’s what Parliament used to be. The late Fraser Mustard was a great democrat. I was on his commission for about 20 years crossing the country and we wanted to find out why young people were not becoming involved in public life in this country. The reasons they cited were first, financial sacrifice; second, the pressure of a marriage; third, just recently, the penetration by the media into private lives, and finally that the job of a Member of Parliament wasn’t worth it. That’s what we found.
So on this 50th anniversary coming up, I recall this speech I made to the Kiwanis Club in Montreal a year after I’d been elected. I said, we’ve got to bring Parliament back to Magna Carta, 1215 in Westminster in England where the English restored democracy, took it away from nobility, gave the individual Member of Parliament total authority over his riding, in those
So what I am saying to you tonight in the company of my colleagues who shared the office that I shared for a short time, we Canadians are taking our lives for granted. What we have in this country didn’t happen by accident, democracy doesn’t happen by accident. Let’s fight for the restoration of the supremacy of Parliament in our democratic life.
4
THE RIGHT HON.
KIM CAMPBELL, PC, CC, OBC, QC Thank you and good evening. I’m delighted to be here at this wonderful dinner celebrating the 25th anniversary of the Public Policy Forum (combined with the fitness program of having to repeatedly stand up, because I think that by the end of the evening you’ll all be in better shape!) When I look at this dinner it just kills me that I’m not running for something and this isn’t my fundraiser but if it can’t be for me, what better cause?
it comes to the public you close ranks. And that can often give the impression to your constituents that, in fact, you have “gone Ottawa” - that you’re simply towing the line. I think that there needs to be much more opportunity for Members of Parliament to take a creative and constructive role in developing policy. Obviously, when a party runs on a platform, the party members should be willing to support that, but there are many other issues that arise where we don’t have a prior commitment to any particular point of view.
Being Prime Minister of Canada was an enormous honour and I’ve always been extremely grateful to the people throughout my political career who put themselves on the line, who knocked on doors, who wrote the checks, who made the calls to make it possible for me to go to school in one of the world’s great democracies. We often refer to me as Canada’s first female Prime Minister, and the last - to date the only female Prime Minister - but I had some other firsts as well. I was the first Prime Minister to have been born and raised in British Columbia, and the first to have held elected offices at all three levels of government. It gave me a particular perspective. For example, I was the first Prime Minister to convene a First Minister’s Conference to prepare strategy for the G7 Summit. And I was reminding Bob Rae tonight that when he was Premier of Ontario he refused to come, although everybody else did. But as someone who had served at the Provincial level, I understood how important the jurisdictions and responsibilities at the provincial level were in making these overall economic decisions. It was actually a wonderful gathering, a very useful meeting, and I had hoped to create that as a light motif of what I had hoped would be a much longer administration.
The other thing I want to comment about is the fact that I am still the only woman to have been Prime Minister of Canada. I never wanted to make a career of being a former Prime Minister of Canada - you know the tiara that flashes “former PM”. But I have discovered that it is a piece of political capital that enables me to open doors and to accomplish things, and I want to do honour to Canadians in how I use that opportunity to create access for people to advance. I work a lot around the world in democracy promotion and causes of the advancement of women. But I have just come up from Florida, where I attended for the second year in a row, a Wall Street Journal task force on women and the economy. You know, actuarially speaking, I may still be around for the 50th anniversary of the Public Policy Forum but, I am getting older and I am struck by hearing, even in the corporate world, the same kinds of concerns raised about the barriers to women in getting up into that top level of corporations. It’s complex. A lot of it has to do with the way women themselves see their possibilities, a lot of it has to do with the tendency of many organizations to self-replication.
Listening to John Turner speak about his concerns about Parliament reminds me of my own campaign for the leadership. One of the documents that I put out was called Doing Politics Differently and it addressed many of the same things: How I felt that in Canada we had come to use the Whip too much. How one of the most difficult things in the Canadian Parliament is to be a backbencher on the government’s side because all the work you do to promote the interests of your constituents is done behind closed doors. It’s a kind of an etiquette that you don’t criticize the government. You may yell and scream and rail in your caucus meetings or in personal meetings with your Minister, but when
A couple of years ago I was honoured, also here in Toronto, by Equal Voice and I made a proposal then that I think is worth thinking about. I believe it’s time for us to see gender as a basic default definition of our society. In the same way that we would never think of privilege in one province over another in terms of representation, there are many ways in which we see categories of Canadians that are the basis on which we allocate certain resources. But I think it’s time for us to see male and female as that, as well. What I proposed was not proportional representation - I don’t think that fits into our system - but what would probably wind up being a redrawing of electoral boundaries to consolidate some 5
of them, that every constituency in Canada becomes a two-member constituency. Each constituency would elect one man and one woman and we would have instant parity. There would be no competition within a party between the men and women for the nomination, no need to be nasty. As David Mitchell, my fellow British Columbian can tell you, in our province we had twomember constituencies. When I was elected first to the Legislature of the Province of British Columbia from Vancouver Point Gray, I was one of two members that were elected and as it happened we were both women and we were from different parties. It can be done. It would simply, in one swell foop - one fell swoop! (really a swell foop I think), solve the problem.
service, because there is not a government bureaucracy that has the capacity to do the kind of policy analysis, to do the translation of ideas into programs and services that are something that we take so much for granted. And so, this foundation is playing that role, ideally with the idea that someday Ukraine may be able to do it itself. The world is full of countries struggling to create democracies and we have in Canada not a perfect democracy, but a democracy that’s remarkably wellserved if we preserve the disinterested, non-partisan public service; if we preserve the freedom of the press; if we preserve the quality of our research institutions. And particularly if we continue to have organizations like the Public Policy Forum, that bring all of these people together. Because it’s not just enough to have research, you have to test ideas and you have to bring together the people who will live with the results of policy with those who are trying to frame it in the context of what is constitutional or what meets regional interests.
Now it’s also a challenge to women. Women would have to stand up and be counted and be part of this. But I think it would instantly change the sense of what is possible for Canadian women, the sense of what is just for Canadian men and women and I think it would be an example to the rest of the world, that Canada has found an ingenious way to do something fairly, without quotas, without affirmative action, (which Americans get very excited about), to address the gender balance. Finally, I want to say that public policy frames our lives, shapes how we live, because it is the product of governance. And caring about public policy is one of the most important things that any citizen can do, to be engaged in how policy is made, who makes it, what interests are represented. I mentioned that I do a lot of work in democracy promotion. Forty years ago today, I was in Kiev as a graduate student in Soviet Governance with the London School of Economics, as part of a threemonth study trip of the USSR. Four weeks ago, I was in Kiev as Chair of the Foundation for Effective Governance. A foundation that tries to promote economic reform in the Ukraine and, in many ways, acts almost like a public
And that is why tonight we are honouring an important tile in the mosaic of what makes a great democracy in honouring the Public Policy Forum. There are many places in the world that simply do not have that and when I travel to new, struggling democracies - I was in Tunisia a few weeks ago - I am struck by the incredible global lottery that I won, to be born into this mature democracy of Canada. And I want to thank Canadians, in Vancouver or British Columbia and across this country, for all that you have taught me about how democracy ought to work, about how much there is to learn from citizens all over the country. And I want to thank all of you here tonight for your engagement and your caring. And someday, if I ever run again, I hope you’ll turn up for my fundraiser because this is an awesome group. 6
THE RIGHT HON.
JOE CLARK, PC, CC, AOE I will speak tonight about a way in which Canadians – our governments, our businesses, our citizens – can lead in this changing world.
Many of these deadly, growing conflicts are rooted in the fear that vital values or identities are under siege. Such fears are as old as humankind, but they are more easily inflamed in an age when information travels so fast and so far, challenging sacred assumptions, creating new aspirations, stimulating anger or envy or extremism.
Power among nations is shifting dramatically. Goldman Sachs has projected that, by 2050, the seven largest economies in the world will contain only one western nation – the U.S.A., which will rank second in economic power, well behind china. Next in order would be India, Brazil, Mexico, Russia, Indonesia. Canada would rank 16th, a little behind Vietnam, a little ahead of the Philippines.
The critical talents, in such a world, are the ability to respect and bridge conflicting identities -- and different values -- and patiently seek enough common ground to build trust and respect and, then, collaboration. No country in the world is better at that than Canada. And our capacity increases as our population diversifies, making us more like the world. So the habit of common
That trajectory is not about anyone’s decline, but rather about the rise and assertion of new strengths. The shift is not just economic, but also political, military, diplomatic – and, most significant, it is cultural – what languages, which values, what sense of community will characterize the future?
purpose – the sense of with whom we might empathize or co-operate – is larger than it was before. That is a significant asset.
Consider two dimensions of these changes. First, where does conflict come from in the modern world? -- not much now from ideology, as in the cold war, -- and not simply from poverty and inequality -- but instead, so often, from culture and identity and faith.
The second change is that the shift in power is not only between nation-states, but from nation-states to nonstate actors – such as the environmental movement, non-governmental organizations, multi-national corporations, foundations…. and organized crime, and terrorists.
How might we respond? The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan demonstrate clearly that these conflicts cannot be resolved by mere military power, or simply by “the magic of the market.”
Today, Greenpeace has more influence on public policy than most national governments. The gates foundation is more innovative. The Red Cross/Red Crescent employ more than 300,000 people. Of the world’s ten biggest
7
multinational companies in 2011, ranked by “Fortune Global 500”, only five -- Walmart, three Chinese state companies and Toyota motors -- employ more people internationally than Red Cross/Red Crescent. And that is just the beginning of the non-state list. World Vision is in 97 countries, with over 40,000 staff, and more than 100,000 volunteers. The N.G.O. “BRAC”, rooted in Bangladesh, is the largest non-governmental organization in the world. Amnesty International has offices in eighty countries—more national offices than most countries have embassies.
the agreement on blood diamonds, and several other initiatives pursued by liberal and progressive conservative governments of Canada. Of course, these capacities to manage diversity and build partnerships are not a whole foreign policy. We have vital economic and trade and environmental and security interests to pursue. But these are all in jeopardy if conflict thrives. Our skill at building partnerships and respect could be a distinguishing Canadian credential. They speak to the most challenging issues of the future. And they are capacities where we are not sixteenth in the world. Our place is among the leaders. Ironically, governments and publics pay more attention now to the world’s “new threats” than to the world’s “new solutions”. The disproportion is enormous between the money and attention which western governments spend on defence and “homeland” security, compared to their investment in the growing capacity to achieve co-operation, understanding and tangible improvements in the conditions which give rise to violence and crime and terrorism. Canada’s foreign policy has never been static. It always evolves -- from Robert Borden’s steady assertion of sovereignty, to Lester Pearson’s creation of peacekeeping, to the trade initiatives of the 1980s. So being innovative is nothing new for Canada. There is abundant experience in this very room. Some of you may recall a recent controversy in the United States, about whether foreign military assistance in Libya would be led by France and Britain, rather than by the U.S.A. A “white house advisor” supported that very sensible proposition, but was careless enough to describe it as “leading from behind”. American hawks went wild, and that description was disowned.
These groups have more than numbers and reach. They are innovators -- on the ground, able to act directly, not bound by a formal protocol which a state may have signed, or an informal protocol requiring the approval of some official thousands of miles away. They invent new instruments – look at micro-credit. They build personal trust, which is the basis of creative partnerships. They are not hog-tied by a veto in the Security Council.
But, as power disperses in the world, so does the capacity to lead – and, in almost every case, the most effective leadership will have to be shared, not only among states, but with other entities and, often, with citizens. The model now should be “leadership from beside”. That is highly relevant to Canada and Canadians– it is what we have often done –and it helps make the world more stable -- so our citizens, and enterprises and values might be more secure. It also defines a collaborative, respectful, innovative world in which Canadians’ role – our governments, our people, our organizations --could be more important than it ever was before.
But what they don’t have is the authority to change the rules. Non-state organizations often have the imagination the world needs. But only states have the mandate and the power to change laws and regulations and obligations. We need to marry mandate and imagination. Again, Canada is one of a handful of countries which, in the past, has been able, willing and trusted enough to establish strong purpose-specific partnerships with nonstate organizations -- witness the international treaty to ban landmines, the campaign against apartheid, 8
THE RIGHT HON.
PAUL MARTIN, PC, CC Thank you David, and let me also thank everyone who is responsible for putting together tonight’s celebration.
I worked hard. I saved money for school. I grew just a tremendous beard. I also made friends with a number of people my own age, all of whom were either First Nations, Métis Nation or Inuit. They were hardworking and smart, and each of them was every bit as eager as I was to raise a bit of Cain when in port.
Let me as well, congratulate the Public Policy Forum on the silver anniversary of its annual tributes to Canada’s Public Servants. Depuis un quart de siècle le forum a honoré ceux et celles qui se dévouent au service de la gouvernance publique du Canada et je vous en félicite.
As young men at the beginning of our adult lives, we had much in common. But when we talked about the future, I found there was a deep difference between what they expected from life and what I expected. I, as did my friends back home – looked forward to the years ahead with excitement and hope. But too many of the young Aboriginal men I worked with, saw little reason for excitement and even less for hope.
I remember so many years ago, walking into my Dad’s study after a day at school. He was then the Minister of Health and Welfare, and he was holding a meeting at home with the senior officials of his department. Not wanting to interrupt, I turned to leave – but my father stopped me and he called me in. He said: “Paul, I want you to meet some of the finest people Canada has ever produced. It has been such a privilege for me to work with them.”
They had grown up watching parents suffer, friends and families suffer, whole communities suffer in the shadow of discrimination, neglect and need.
Well, looking around this room tonight, I see a number of public servants with whom I worked during my time in government. If my father were here, I would remind him of that day in his study – and then I’d say, “Dad, I now know exactly what you meant.”
Leur Canada n’était pas celui que je connaissais – leur pays était aveuglé par les conséquences de la colonisation, gêné: par des années d’indifférence, par la pauvreté et le désespoir injustifiable que vivaient leurs parents.
I am also honoured to share tonight a group of Canadians – the former Prime Ministers who contributed so much in service to their country. We didn’t always agree (now there’s an understatement). But together, we share a bond of experience and a deep pride in having been entrusted to serve the people of Canada.
In the early years that followed, I’d check in with my friends. Some had found success. More had not. Some were in jail. Others battled addiction. Two had committed suicide. If I have any regrets today with my political career behind me, the greatest is that for Aboriginal Canada: Too little has changed. Too little progress has been made. The unfairness continues.
We have also shared the challenge of finding a new pursuit, a new passion, for life after politics. Truth be told, in my case, I have long known what that would be. As a young man in university, I got a summer job as a deckhand on a tug-barge in the Northwest Territories. We travelled the length of the Mackenzie River carrying cargo between Great Slave Lake and the Beaufort Sea.
But time marches on – we cannot mourn our dreams – we can only strive to fulfill them for the future. Ours is the privilege of living in a country that is fair and decent to its core. As a society, we’ve laboured for
9
justice – and, in large measure, we’ve succeeded.
But we are too numb – too familiar perhaps to be shocked by the misery in our midst. And so, for too long, we have chosen complacency. We have let languish, generation after generation of untapped potential, and we have watched history repeat itself before our eyes.
But when we look at Aboriginal Canada, we are blighted, by our blind spots, by years of attempted assimilation, by unjustifiable poverty within our borders and on the margins of our common life. As long as that remains – as long as Aboriginal Canadians feel the stifling melancholy of dreams undreamt – our work will be unfinished, our potential unfulfilled, the full promise of Canada un-kept.
This doesn’t have to be. Over 20 years in public life, I saw Canadians at their best and their proudest. I saw our country in moments of triumph and in times of loss. I know what we are capable of. I have seen the power of our quiet patriotism. I know the sense of determination and the spirit of fairness that beats within the Canadian heart.
Aussi longtemps que cela perdurera – aussi longtemps que les Canadiens autochtones ressentiront cette mélancolie étouffante de voir leurs ambitions limitées et leurs rêves s’éteindre, notre travail sera inachevé, notre potentiel ne sera pas réalisé et le Canada n’aura pas su garder sa promesse.
To the men and women of our country, to the young Canadians today – Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal – who will lead us tomorrow, I would say we have accomplished much, but working together in a “real” partnership, one of true respect and understanding, we can accomplish so much more.
None of us in this room needs to hear the statistics – disease, infant mortality, incarceration rates, suicide. We know the reality. Many of us have seen it firsthand. And yet too few Aboriginal leaders have found in us the partners they need as they seek to scale the heights of indifference which confront them. We are a kind nation and Canadians are good people. It is not out of malice that we allow these conditions to continue. It is not out of cruelty that we turn away from the images of squalor, racism and the voices of those in need.
This is certainly the right thing to do morally, as it is in terms of the values we proclaim to the world. But it is also the right thing to do in terms of our economic future, and it is the responsibility of all of us in this room to work with Canadians to change what for too many is a given, recognizing that if we continue to ignore the education and the potential of the youngest and fastest growing segment of our population, we do so at the expense of the hopes and dreams of every Canadian
10
not yet born, they who will face a global competition the likes of which we have never seen.
We have a future to deliver – promises, inscribed on the parchment of treaties and in the words of the constitution but also etched in the hearts of so many young people who have been touched by the experience of their elders. Their lives will be our legacy.
J’éprouve une grande fierté dans tout ce que nous avons accompli comme pays. Mais l’embarras de la réalité autochtone au Canada nous rabaisse. Ce n’est pas seulement la sincérité de nos intentions ou encore l’éloquence de notre rhétorique qui importe, mais plutôt les améliorations réelles, tangibles et durables que nous pourrions accomplir ensemble – Canadiens non autochtones et Canadiens autochtones – ces derniers, hommes et femmes, trop longtemps ignorés malgré leur grand désir de profiter des avantages de notre pays que beaucoup d’entre nous prenons pour acquis.
With all the passion I can muster, with all the faith I feel, with all the confidence I hold in the country we share, I have but one hope tonight. It is that the next generation of Aboriginal Canadians, becomes the generation that stays in school; that breaks the cycle of poverty and despair; la génération qui prospère sur le marché du travail et qui crée les grandes entreprises; the generation of First Nations, Métis Nation and Inuit that discovers the new truths of science; that paints the great paintings, that plays the great music and that brings into this world their own generation of children, who grow up to view life with excitement and hope, full of promise, the bounty of Canada theirs to share at long last.
What matters is not just the sincerity of our intent or the eloquence of our rhetoric. What matters is the real, tangible and lasting improvements that are made in the lives of Aboriginal Canadians throughout the land – our fellow countrymen and women, too long ignored, and so eager to experience the benefits of the prosperity many of us take for granted.
Thank you.
11
THE RIGHT HON.
BRIAN MULRONEY, PC, CC, GOQ As I look over this great crowd, I’d have to tell you, I’d love to be Prime Minister again. The truth is I miss the adulation. God those supportive editorials every morning in the Toronto Star, those magnificent words everyday from the CBC. And I really miss some of those off the record, private and confidential conversations with some members of the Ottawa Press Gallery, like Peter C. Newman. It would be interesting if you could hear some of the things I told him. But he agreed in writing never to repeat any of the contents, so I can’t tell you what was said but I can tell you that Newman turned out to be pretty God-damned profane.
case with Sir John A.” The journalist went on, “Anyone familiar with the history of Canada knows that Sir John was the opponent of every single measure of reform and that he has held power by a set of the most rascally acts that ever disgraced the statutes of a free country.” Some things never change! I’m sorry to see that Jean Chrétien’s not here tonight because I was looking for an opportunity to thank him. You know after I retired I went into complete and absolute hibernation for a decade. I didn’t read a newspaper, I never watched TV, I didn’t listen to radio, I didn’t have a clue what was going on. So I want to thank Jean, for getting rid of the GST. Jean, I’ll tell you, when you said in the 1993 campaign that you were going to axe the tax, I almost voted for you myself. I mean, I mean how the hell would you like to have the GST as your legacy? There are a lot of historians here tonight, and I think that in the interest of accuracy and history, you should know the truth. The truth is that Michael Wilson, you know he’s a wonderful guy, principled, honest guy, but the truth of the matter is, is that he snuck the GST past me one day in Cabinet, while I, I was out there in Cabinet pleading with the other Ministers for more money for Katimavik. That’s how we got the GST.
Well you know, I was flipping through my morning copy of the Globe and Mail of February 28th, 1890, and wouldn’t you know I came across a report on the unveiling of Sir John A. MacDonald’s Prime Ministerial portrait. The Globe reported that Sir John, and I quote, “told his admiring followers that he was the father of responsible government in Canada, he was the joint father of Confederation and that the peace, progress and prosperity that Canada had known for a quarter of a century was wholly and entirely due to the Conservative Party” unquote, and some of you thought I was guilty of hyperbole! But then the Globe, in a tradition that has fortunately survived to this day, introduced some measure of balance into the report. They went on, “Someone has said that the chief business of old men is to tell stories which nobody believes and this is pretty much the
I want to move to something and someone that I think will be of interest to you because as Richard Wynn has persuasively and elegantly established, Canada’s greatest Prime Minister, by far, was Sir John A.
12
MacDonald. He died in 1891, no more eloquent tribute to MacDonald was ever spoke than that delivered to a hushed House of Commons by his legendary Liberal opponent, Sir Wilfred Laurier. Laurier said that when considering the supreme art of governing men, Sir John was gifted as few men in any land or any age were ever gifted. All Prime Ministers of Canada, including all of the remarkable people who are with you earlier tonight, have followed and stood in MacDonald’s shadow. Like the giants of the world stage, Sir John fought big and long term. “Depend on it,” he once said, “the long gain is the true one”.
during the just completed US civil war and with stirrings of manifest destiny on the lips of many important US leaders, prospects for this new, fragile union, of four Canadian provinces so tiny, so tiny in comparison and hugging the US border, were bleak. Between Ontario and the Pacific lay the vast emptiness of Rupert’s Land, coveted by many Americans and all but forgotten by London. And who was this John MacDonald who faced these challenges? He was a Kingston lawyer who had entered politics at the age of 29. His first wife had died a slow and lingering death, finally succumbing to a mysterious and debilitating illness at Christmas, just a decade before Confederation. He and his wife had lost a child. As a boy, MacDonald had watched his own brother beaten to death by a drunken man on the streets of Kingston. As an adult, and like his father before him, this immigrant from afar faced a life-long battle with alcohol. After Confederation, he and his second wife Agnes would be forced to watch helplessly as their beloved only child Mary was stricken with hydrocephalus. But in that first term in office MacDonald moved quickly. Though Canada couldn’t afford it, his government purchased Rupert’s Land. He then promised British Columbia a 3,000 mile band of steel, the CPR, if they entered the Confederation and then by God, he proceeded to build it. Only seven years after the celebrations of July 1, 1867, MacDonald was removed from office and absolutely crushed, by the Liberals in the next election.
All Prime Ministers encounter challenge, moments of sorrow and sadness and defeat but consider the situation MacDonald had to deal with at the end of celebrations on July 1, 1867. Once the Governor General returned to Rideau Hall and the revellers grew quiet, MacDonald faced a situation the next morning that would have completely intimidated, if not destroyed, lesser men. The nation he had formed with his courage and bare hands had fewer than four million citizens. The great republic to the south had 10 score more and Canadians were divided by region and race and religion. Our governing structures were new and the rookie Prime Minister had, in fact, to invent many of them on the fly every day. Most alarmingly, the grand army of the Potomac that had marched through Georgia under Sherman and defeated Lee at Gettysburg was still under arms. Due to British support of confederate raiders 13
In 1878, the same Canadians who had tossed him out of office returned him to power with a majority. Through the years of blistering personal attacks, unremitting and cruel media criticism, allegations of scandal and periods of deep family sorrow, he never looked back, he never whined, he never quit. He was a leader.
priorities, and most of all, in ensuring at all times that a Prime Minister receives honest and unvarnished advice irrespective of the sensitivities of the files before him and the complexity of the international negotiation that is at hand, these unsung heroes of the government are more than essential. The public service also ensures that the best ideas from business, labour and our great universities also find their way to the Prime Minister’s desk for ultimate consideration in policies around the Cabinet table. In the 1880s our first Prime Minister turned to a young man in the Public Service of Canada to assist him. His name was Joseph Pope. In inviting Pope to join his office, Sir John MacDonald said to this bright young find from the Department of the Interior, as it was then called, “come down to Earnscliffe tomorrow morning, you’re gonna have plenty to do, and by the way remember, I shall require all of your time.” History records that upon taking office years later, Laurier ensured that Joseph Pope was there by his side. Thus began the strictly nonpartisan nature of the Canadian public service, one of the most admired in the world, which provides skilled, thoughtful and highly competent advice and council to whichever political party has gained the confidence of the Canadian people and been elected to form a national government.
He fought his last campaign during the winter of 1891. The crowds who gathered before him sensed that every appearance might be his last. “Sir John, you’ll never die!” they shouted and how right they were. When MacDonald’s weary body finally gave out, shortly after that last victory, a nation mourned. Despite his trials and tribulations, his mistakes and failures, both human and political, Canada, MacDonald’s Canada, was a transcontinental nation that truly stretched from sea to shining sea. The four provinces that he had brilliantly persuaded to come together in 1867 under his guidance were now seven and the groundwork had been laid for one of the world’s most magnificent and successful nations. As a Canadian columnist recently wrote, it is one thing for a leader to aspire high and fail, it is another for a leader to aim low and succeed. He might temporarily triumph but the country loses. Well MacDonald aimed for the skies and every single Canadian for the 145 years since has been the direct beneficiary of his vision and courage.
I say to you all that this important dimension of our citizenship, honoured and unsullied, must remain that way as a vital and indispensible part of our collective governance. In my day, brilliant public servants like Derek Burney and Paul Tellier and Marc Lortie and Paul Heinbecker and Bob Fowler and countless others answered the same call. As Prime Minister of Canada for nine years, I benefited directly and daily, as did my government, from their remarkable talents. But much more importantly, Canada benefited every day that they held office in the Public Service of Canada.
But even MacDonald didn’t accomplish this all alone. In order for a Prime Minister to do big things for Canada, he or she must have a strong and able Cabinet from all parts of the country in place; a diverse and talented group of MPs in caucus and Senators to ensure that the voices of all Canadians are heard in the National Caucus Room. Third requirement - and by no means the least - is that a Prime Minister must draw men and women from the public service to the national agenda. In policy development, implementation of government
14
SPONSORS
OF THE FORUM’S 25TH ANNIVERSARY
ppforum.ca