A Man of Parliament: Selected Speeches from Joe Clark 9781553395454
An anthology of poignant and important speeches from Canada’s sixteenth prime minister. An anthology of poignant and i
126 24 5MB
English Pages [871] Year 2019
Recommend Papers
- Author / Uploaded
- Jonathan Rose
- Hugh Mellon (editors)
File loading please wait...
Citation preview
A Man of Parliament Selected Speeches from Joe Clark
Edited by Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
Queen’s Policy Studies Series School of Policy Studies, Queen’s University McGill-Queen’s University Press Montréal & Kingston | London | Ithaca
Copyright © 2019 School of Policy Studies, Queen’s University at Kingston, Canada
School of Policy Studies Publications Program Robert Sutherland Hall 138 Union Street Kingston, ON K7L 3N6 www.queensu.ca/sps/ All rights reserved. The use of any part of this publication for reproduction, transmission in any form, or by any means (electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise), or storage in a retrieval system without the prior written consent of the publisher— or, in case of photocopying or other reprographic copying, a licence from the Canadian Copyright Licensing Agency—is an infringement of the copyright law. Enquiries concerning reproduction should be sent to the School of Policy Studies at the address above.
Library and Archives Canada Cataloguing in Publication Title: A man of Parliament : selected speeches from Joe Clark / edited by Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon. Other titles: Speeches. Selections Names: Clark, Joe, 1939- author. | Rose, Jonathan William, 1964- editor. | Mellon, Hugh, editor. | Queen’s University (Kingston, Ont.). School of Policy Studies, publisher. Series: Queen’s policy studies. Description: Series statement: Queen’s policy studies series | Includes bibliographical references. Identifiers: Canadiana (print) 20190120576 | Canadiana (ebook) 20190120797 | ISBN 9781553395164 (pbk.) | ISBN 9781553395447 (HTML) | ISBN 9781553395454 (PDF) Subjects: LCSH: Clark, Joe, 1939- | LCSH: Canada—Politics and government—1945-1980. | CSH: Canada— Politics and government—1979-1980. Classification: LCC FC625 .C58 2019 | DDC 971.064/5—dc23
Contents Note Acknowledgements Introduction
vii ix 1
Chapter 1 Milestone Speeches
23
First Speech as a Member of Parliament
26
First Speech as Prime Minister
31
Last Speech in the House of Commons
45
Chapter 2 Economic and Energy Policy
55
Energy Supply
57
Energy Policy Security and National Interest
67
Chapter 3 Federal-Provincial Relations
77
Building a Nation (Community of Communities)
80
Federal-Provincial Consultation on Energy Policy
83
The Export Tax
86
iv
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
Jurisdiction around National Parks
92
Regional Identity and Community Newspapers
95
Chapter 4 Parliamentary Supremacy
99
Parliamentary Reform
102
Powers of the Prime Minister’s Office
112
Economic Policy and Parliamentary Supremacy
120
Parliamentary Sovereignty and Powers of the Prime Minister
135
Multiculturalism and Accountability to Parliament
141
Partisan Uses of Public Money
143
Chapter 5 Foreign Affairs
151
Apartheid
154
Canadian Institute for International Peace and Security
158
The Invasion of Kuwait
171
Cambodia and the Khmer Rouge
180
The Aftermath of the Gulf War
184
Tiananmen Square
190
Panama
196
Chapter 6 Indigenous Relations
203
The Indian Act
205
Indigenous Affairs and the Constitution
210
Recognition of Aboriginal Rights
216
Contents v
Chapter 7 Openness
223
Secrecy in Government
225
Access to Information
230
Appointment Process for Civil Servants
231
Chapter 8 The Constitution
235
The Patriation of the Constitution
238
Meech Lake Accord
250
National Unity and the Quebec Referendum
256
Repatriation of the Constitution
263
The Charlottetown Accord
273
Note All author’s royalties earned from the sale of this book will go to King’s University College’s Hugh Mellon Excellence in Research Award. To learn more about it, see https://www.kings.uwo.ca/research/hughmellon-excellence-in-research-award/
Acknowledgements This book began as a conversation between the late Hugh Mellon and me about the ways in which the Conservative Party of Canada (CPC) had abandoned its Red Tory roots since Joe Clark was its leader. Encouraged by Arthur Milnes, a former student of Hugh’s and editor of other volumes of political speeches, we sought to take another look at the at the speeches of Joe Clark, a vocal and clear advocate for a progressive conservatism. Doing so was a bit of a formidable task as Clark’s public service spans more than thirty years. While he was prime minister for only a small part of that, he has been intimately involved in many important debates about Canadian identity, foreign relations, the constitution, the Conservative party and the importance of parliament. The title of this volume, A Man of Parliament, alludes to the significance that Clark placed on parliament as a deliberative body where issues of national importance could be discussed and resolved. There have been many people who have been crucial in seeing this book come to fruition. The driver of the project was Hugh Mellon, whose untimely death in 2014, resulted in an inevitable delay in the project. Hugh was passionate about the book and its importance to marking the evolution of the Conservative party and was eager to chronicle the important voice of Joe Clark in parliament. Since his death I have been fortunate to have the support of many who have helped make this book a reality. Eric Macpherson’s work early on supported the project as a summer research assistant at Queen’s. Eric contributed to the chapter introductions and was important in giving shape to the choice of speeches in this volume. Patricia Mockler’s editing and research skills were helpful in the final stages of the project. Kim Richard Nossal, general editor of the Queen’s Policy Series, has demonstrated infinite patience in seeing the book to its completion through nudging and cajoling in the right balance. I am appreciative of his support throughout. Special thanks to Anne Holley-Hime whose eagle-eyed
x Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
copyediting skills improved the presentation and flow of the text. While the book has benefitted from the guidance of many, none of the above are responsible for any omissions or errors. Many people have given generous financial support to the project. Thanks go to Sean Adams, Bruce and Andrea Alexander, Joan Andre, Ron Atkey, Scott Brison, Jean Charest, Mary Collins, David Crombie, John C. Crosbie, Michel De Salaberry, Paul Evans, Roy Everest, Corinne Fontaine, Paule Gauthier, V. Peter Harder, Thomas Hockin and Arlene Strom, Colin Jackson, Peter Milliken, David Mitchell, Reid Morden, Lowell Murray, William Neville, Roy Norton, John Rae, Alan Sullivan, Scott and Taryn Tanas, William Winegard. Also, special thanks go to Hugh’s siblings, Beth Mellon, James Mellon, and Mark Mellon for their generous support. Most importantly, sincere thanks to the Rt. Hon. Joe Clark and Maureen McTeer for their encouragement and support of this collection.
Introduction This volume is a testament to the steady voice of Charles Joseph Clark on many of the issues that still echo in Canada’s parliament. Through his thirty years on both the opposition and government benches, Clark took on challenging issues and articulated a clear and consistent vision of how Canadian politics should look. He has been one of the few participants who, in his time in parliament, has occupied virtually every role in that chamber. He has been a backbench MP, shadow cabinet critic, cabinet minister and of course prime minister. At the time of his retirement, he was the elder statesman of a party that he nurtured and fed but which had abandoned him and many of the moderate progressive causes for which he fought. The issues that this volume addresses are broad and significant ones that go to the heart of our parliamentary democracy and, indeed, our political community. These include questions about the accountability of government, the appropriate balance between openness and transparency on one hand and national security on the other, and the power of the executive vis-à-vis the role of parliament. As an Albertan from the often-alienated West, Clark maintained that it was important that this “forum of the nation” remain the central institution for the voice of all Canadians and that it address pressing issues of the day. In the face of the expanding power of the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO), Clark sought to ensure that the executive remain accountable to the legislature, in accordance with the principles of responsible government. As parliament was and is the only place from which every region in Canada has the opportunity to voice its concerns, it was imperative to Clark that the increasingly powerful executive branch be held in check. He sought to ensure that the executive could not run roughshod over other branches of government or the people. Clark aimed to decentralize power, from the hands of the few, such as the PMO, to the hands of many, as embodied in parliament. Though an ardent federalist, Clark A Man of Parliament; Selected Speeches from Joe Clark, edited by Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon. Montréal and Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press, Queen’s Policy Studies Series. © 2019 The School of Policy Studies, Queen’s University at Kingston. All rights reserved.
2
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
also fought to ensure that Canada remained a decentralized democracy in which the federal government remained strong but was held in check by regional centres of power. The collected speeches in this book attempt to highlight Joe Clark’s diverse perspectives through his own words in parliament. While Clark’s fingerprints can be seen on a diverse array of policy areas, we focus on areas where his legacy is most significant. Having said that, this collection does not seek to be comprehensive; it is almost impossible to provide such a collection for a man who has devoted decades to public service. The collection contained herein instead provides a glimpse into Clark’s legacy, his achievements, and his thoughts. It is divided into eight chapters, each of which embody either important policy preoccupations or political ideals that were central to Clark’s vision and career as a politician. Throughout this collection, there is a clear thread that unites Clark’s thought. He has a deeply held passion for parliament and the importance of representative government. Clark’s views stand out in an age of widespread cynicism toward government and the capacity of the state. He has a positive and progressive view of the role of the state and sees the importance of government institutions as a pro-social force in society. Though he is still a conservative at heart, evinced by his belief in smaller government, privatization and government-as-facilitator instead of government-as-planner, Clark saw government as a net positive force in the economic and social lives of Canadians. This fact placed Clark firmly within the “Red Tory” camp on the progressive wing of what was then the Progressive Conservative Party. This orientation would put him at loggerheads with other Canadian conservatives towards the end of his career, when, after a long hiatus from power, Canada’s right began to cast around for new methods to remove Liberals from their perch as the “natural governing party.” Like all of us, Clark is a product of his family life, interests and preoccupations, successes and failures. In this introduction, we introduce Joe Clark and learn about some of these influences. Clark’s Early Life Charles Joseph Clark was born to Grace and Charles Clark on June 5th, 1939 in High River, Alberta. Charles owned the High River Times, a local daily in the small prairie town. Clark Jr. worked for his father at the paper (Humphreys 1978, 19–20) where he gained early mentorship about
Introduction
3
the power of the written word and the importance of the media as a platform for the resolution of public conflict. Journalism would remain important throughout the rest of his life; Clark would go on to be an editor and writer for both his high school and university student newspapers. Clark was also a frequent contributor to national newspapers, like the Globe and Mail, and frequently commented on public issues of the day (Humphreys 1978, 22). This experience would serve him well when he landed a job as a speechwriter for Progressive Conservative leader Robert Stanfield, a role which would be a launching pad for his political career. Though he himself asserts that he was not motivated by dreams of high office as a youth (Humphreys 1978, 22), Clark was politically active. While other teenagers engaged themselves in extracurricular activities like athletics or artistic pursuits, Joe Clark’s favourite pastime was PC party politics, a subject he alludes to in his last speech in parliament (see page 45). Clark continued his involvement with the Progressive Conservatives during his undergraduate years, joining the PC’s student group at the University of Alberta. In addition to this, Clark became involved very early on with the official party’s work; he volunteered as a canvasser and drove candidates to speaking engagements around Alberta. For many people, an attachment to politics is a consequence of a formative event that leaves a significant impression. Clark’s interest in politics was solidified when he won a public speaking contest organized by the Rotary Club branch in High River and was offered a trip to Ottawa to observe a session of the House of Commons. On the trip, Clark had his eyes opened to the rough and tumble that is parliament, which would later be so central to his life. It was the 1950s, the time of the contentious pipeline debate between the Louis St. Laurent Liberal government and John Diefenbaker’s Progressive Conservative Official Opposition. The PCs were worried that the majority involvement of American capital, as well as some of the planned destinations (in, for example, Minnesota) would undermine Canadian sovereignty and control over the pipeline. In response to these concerns, the St. Laurent government decided to invoke closure on subsequent expected debate time in order to force a vote and ensure passage of the bill. The young Clark saw this as a grievous overstep of government authority. It shocked him so much that when he returned home to High River he would declare to his mother “we no longer have democracy in Canada.” (Humphreys 1978, 19). This event would shape Clark’s political activism, demonstrated in his propensity to fight for the underdog, not
4
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
just in government, but in other areas of life as well. This meant fighting for small business against the large, and for restraint in government to ensure a balance between large cities like Toronto or Montreal and the small. This appreciation for small communities, which he said “remain the bedrock of this country” (Humphreys 1978, 244), was a natural consequence of his time growing up in small town Alberta, at “the crossing” of High River. Without overstating its importance, the lessons drawn from this first visit to parliament would resonate throughout Clark’s career. He was constantly fighting for balance, to ensure that smaller or more marginalized parts of society were empowered. The best example of this can be seen in his views on federalism and federal government relations with the provinces. Clark, like many Canadians, saw Canada as a mosaic of peoples and cultures which together were more than the sum of their parts. He was a believer in the principle of subsidiarity before it was a common idea to those interested in federalism. This principle states that local and regional governments should remain powerful vis-à-vis the federal government because they are in a better position to understand a community’s unique needs. This principle requires that the different narratives among provinces or regions be told as part of the bigger story that is Canada. In this way, the varied and diverse groups that make up this nation would not chafe under the pressure of a single narrative imposed on them by a misguided federal government. Allowed their differences and empowered to develop in their own way, the constituent parts of this country would then voluntarily remain part of Confederation and would be less likely to be stifled by an overbearing federal government. Later, in response to the “national unity” debate that was raging during Pierre Trudeau’s era, Clark proposed acceptance and tolerance of differences along with empowering communities so as to ensure equality among them. Given this position, it was then more likely that each would remain an enthusiastic member of Confederation. The idea of differences leading to equality was one of the foundations of Clark’s belief in the virtue of decentralization. In order to live together, we must first accept that we are not all the same. And in accepting that, might begin voluntarily to work together to build Canada. In his words it is evident that though he was a de-centralizer, Clark was also a staunch federalist. The first manifestation of Clark’s interest in party politics occurred when he was a student. As in much of his career, Clark took off like a rocket. Clark became president of the Young Progressive Conser-
Introduction 5
vatives during his time as an undergrad at the University of Alberta. During this time Clark became enamored with the then-leader of the Progressive Conservative Party, John Diefenbaker, who was also the first prime minister of non-English or French heritage. Clark saw “The Chief” as a revivalist, not unlike those evangelists who would occasionally come rolling into High River from across the Prairies. Clark hoped that Diefenbaker’s success could be repeated at the provincial level and lead to a defeat of Earnest Manning’s Social Credit government. Alberta was locked in a long embrace of Social Credit rule, in part because this small-c conservative brand of populist politics suited most Albertans’ views of the world. Though immersed and shaped by this political culture, Clark sought to find a way to challenge the status quo at the provincial level and unseat the permanent fixture that the Social Credit government had become. From this we begin to see an early foreshadowing of Clark’s political beliefs. His was a fight against the long-standing, entrenched authority of the Social Credit government and the abuses that arose from it. Whether it was the fight against the thirty-year Social Credit regime in Alberta, or the Trudeau Liberals who had been in power for eleven years before the federal election of 1979, Clark fought to ensure that governments remained dynamic, attentive to citizens and appreciative of the trust citizens placed in it. Early Parliamentary Career Clark was elected to the House of Commons for the first time in 1973 as member of parliament for the newly created Rocky Mountain riding. It was during this time that he began to develop certain principles that would define him for the rest of his parliamentary career. From his first speech (page 26 of this volume) we see themes that would shape his Red Tory credentials. In it, we see Clark criticize the Trudeau government for programs aimed at employing youth. Clark believed that the problem of youth unemployment was not the fault of young people themselves but was the result of inadequate government programs that failed to assist youth in areas where they actually needed help. Clark was not criticizing the existence of a government assistance program but instead focused on how it was being executed. Not surprisingly, youth would be a common theme on Clark’s road to the Prime Minister’s Office. It would serve him well too, for it was during his first session of parliament that R. L. Stanfield, the leader of the Progressive Conservatives at the time, would appoint Clark the chair of an opposi-
6
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
tion caucus committee on youth. Clark’s Albertan roots would have a profound impact on his politics, specifically in his fight to ensure that provinces were well heard in their relations with the federal government. For Clark, influenced by his days working at his father’s newspaper, local institutions were of paramount importance. This was because Clark saw small businesses, service groups, and other institutions as intimately connected to the people. Though this most often manifested in advocating for the rights of the provinces and territories, Clark did not forget the municipalities and towns for which he felt an affinity. For example, his Rocky Mountain riding contained within it both Jasper and Banff national parks, both of which contained “townsites”—small towns that were permitted in the park subject to more extensive development restrictions because of their locations. Interestingly, because of their location within a national park, these townsites were under the direct jurisdiction of the federal government, to which the residents had to appeal if they had a problem (Nolan 1978, 91). This is unlike every other town in this country, which has a municipal government chartered by their respective provincial government. This means that if residents of Jasper or Banff have grievances, they must take them to the federal government, which in the local sense was represented entirely by Clark in his constituency office. Knowing this, he fought tirelessly to ensure that his constituents were not ignored or lost in the bureaucratic web of federal departments in Ottawa. This form of intra-federal representation was not something that Clark reserved for his own riding and province. Such was his belief in the local, and the dignity of Canada’s subnational political units that he often spoke in defence of the powers of such units and groups in relation to the federal government. Clark’s belief in the necessity of equal federal-provincial relations made it a common theme of his speeches during his tenure as a member of parliament. This volume contains several speeches that touch on this theme. The vigour and youthful voice that characterized Clark’s speeches caught the ear of the party establishment. It would be less than three years from his first speech in the House of Commons that he would be elected leader of the Progressive Conservative Party and step into the limelight to take on the juggernaut that was “Trudeaumania” in its twilight years. Party Leader and Opposition Leader From his first election victory in 1973 to being sworn in as prime min-
Introduction
7
ister in 1979, Clark’s political ascendency was impressive by any measure. A mere six years had passed from the time he made his first speech as a backbench MP from Alberta on July 23, 1973 to his first speech as prime minister on October 10, 1979. In this short time, Clark rose from the bottom to the apex of Canadian federal politics. This rapid ascent had its downside as well though. Clark reached the summit so quickly that he was largely unknown to a large portion of the Canadian electorate, something the Canadian media exploited mercilessly. Emerging from the backrooms of the party and suddenly catapulted into the national limelight, Joe Clark became known, rather derisively, as “Joe Who?” It would also be inevitable that Clark was compared to Trudeau whose presence had dominated the national stage for so long that Canadians may have come to expect their politicians to dazzle in front of the television cameras and socialize with movie stars. Clark may have appeared stolid and dependable but lacked in charisma when compared to Trudeau. It was no longer enough to be a party apparatchik who could control the diverse elements of the political and parliamentary party in order to ensure political success. If one wanted to be successful, one had to win over the mass media and public opinion. It is, then, perhaps most fitting that this era of Canadian politics was named for its flashiest of practitioners. Into this never-ending spotlight would step Clark, who despite his young age would have to command the presence necessary for the country to be able to see him as prime minister. This was especially important, as this was the time when the twenty-four-hour news cycle was beginning. Leadership changed when television was introduced in the House of Commons Question Period debates in October 1977 (Nolan 1978, 91). From then on, everything parliamentarians said would not only be recorded into Hansard, but also by the unblinking eye of the TV camera and then reproduced on the nightly newscast. This was the beginning of the era of sound bites and constant analysis that is a staple of life today. It then makes sense that the Conservatives, needing to maintain relevance among new Canadians and non-traditional supporters, would lean on a young up-and-comer to widen their party’s appeal among younger voters. Who better to foster support among youth than the man from High River, who had been fighting for youth issues since his very first speech in the House of Commons? Joe Clark was elected leader of the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada on February 22, 1976. Like his elevation to the office of prime minister, Clark, at 36, was the youngest person ever elected as the lead-
8
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
er of a major federal party. His leadership victory came as something of a surprise as he was widely considered “everyone’s second choice.” Being palatable to other candidates’ supporters would prove to be a significant advantage for him. When other candidates (notably Flora MacDonald) did not perform as expected in early ballots, they threw their support behind Clark. By the fourth ballot, the contest stood between Clark from the Red Tory wing of the party and Claude Wagner, a former Liberal minister who nonetheless was a favourite of the party’s right. This victory came at a watershed moment in the Progressive Conservative Party. Having been out of power for thirteen years at the time of Clark’s election, the PCs needed to find a way to stay relevant as an alternative government to the Liberal Party. In choosing the young westerner with Red Tory leanings over the French-Canadian Wagner, the party was angling to beat the Liberals at their own game, narrowing the already thin ideological differences. Noting a truism known to students of Canada’s brokerage politics, Clark once admitted that the Liberal and Progressive Conservative Parties were more similar than different. Viewed in hindsight, Clark’s victory allows us to examine how far Canada’s current brand of conservative party has moved away from its Red Tory roots. The term “Red Tory” connotes someone who was conservative on fiscal issues while holding progressive social views and believes in a positive role for the state in national life. Some examples of this include Clark’s views on the rights of Indigenous peoples in Canada or his progressive views on gender and politics. Being labelled as such was not without risk. Throughout his campaign to become the leader of the Progressive Conservative Party, Clark and his campaign staff often had to field questions about whether or not “Red” actually meant Communist (Nolan 1978, 63–71). This was especially true in his home province of Alberta. Though it may seem odd for us today to imagine a conservative leader having to address charges of latent communism, it does help to illustrate the political context within which Clark was working to prepare his party to form a government. As any good Opposition leader does, Clark immediately began prepping his party to take over the reins of power. As his experience was primarily in the backroom organizational aspects of the party, he used his newfound power to reorganize the party to better reflect his commitments to diffuse power (to a point) and create greater openness in government. This notably included several novel innovations to allow for more open and robust caucus meetings to better facilitate internal
Introduction
9
party debate. He also expanded his staff in the Opposition office to better prepare both himself and his caucus for their new role as Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition. This was again illustrative of the general current of change that was occurring in the organizational aspects of Canadian parliamentary politics across the board. While Robert Stanfield, Clark’s predecessor, had a staff of fifteen people during his time as opposition leader, Clark surrounded himself with a staff of forty people, which was comparable to the size of the PMO during the Pearson government. This, however, paled in comparison to the eighty-six people who worked in the Prime Minister’s Office during the Trudeau years (Nolan 1978, 63). Clark would regularly use his allotted time in Question Period to remind Canadians of the Trudeau government’s increasingly centralized practices regarding the power of the PMO. For Clark, Question Period is one of the most important parts of the parliamentary calendar and integral to responsible government. As he is fond of saying, parliament is the only place where the entire nation gathers to discuss the business of the day. For him, the daily Question Period in parliament provides one of the only occasions when elected representatives can directly question the government and hold it to account. Parliament, as the supreme political institution in Canada has the right and obligation to question the executive. In that role, Clark was very effective in Question Period earning the grudging admiration of opponents throughout his parliamentary career (see the tributes to Clark on the occasion of his last speech, in the next chapter). While in Opposition, he would use his time and questions to ensure that the Trudeau government was held accountable and responsible to parliament, a tradition that he continued to respect while on the other side of the House. Prime Minister Clark’s victory in 1979 may have come as something of a surprise to many Canadians. Reflecting a truism in politics, Warner Troyer writes in his Two Hundred Days: Joe Clark in Power, that “the Liberals had not been defeated, but the Tories had been elected” (Troyer 1980, 7). Despite their victory, the Conservative’s new place at the centre of power had not unseated the Liberals from their status as a national preoccupation. As is often the case with governments that had been in power a long time, it was not so much as an endorsement of the new government as a repudiation of the old. After all, it had been eleven years since the
10
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
election of the first Trudeau government and sixteen years since the last Conservative government under John Diefenbaker from 1957 to 1963. If a week is a long time in politics, it had been a veritable lifetime since the last Conservative government. After twenty-two years of Liberal rule, it was not a surprise that change was in the air. It would turn out that this was more of a time out for the Liberals than a vote of confidence in the Progressive Conservatives. The composition of the House reflected this. On the government side were 136 Progressive Conservative members compared to the Opposition which would have spilled over on the government side with 114 Liberals, 26 New Democrats and six members from Clark’s old provincial rivals, Social Credit. In order to maintain confidence of the House, the new prime minister would have to court at least one other opposition party to support its government. The most obvious allies were Social Credit MPs, who shared both Clark’s Western roots and small-c conservative sensibilities. This, however, was a case of easier said than done, as Clark would enter a parliament in October that was not willing to extend the new government a traditional honeymoon period. The fledgling minority government had to prove itself quickly, but it did have one thing on its side. Clark and the PCs were presented with a golden opportunity because Trudeau announced his retirement as Liberal leader. This meant that the new government would have known that the Opposition would be in the throes of a leadership contest and have their attention elsewhere. The common wisdom said that the Liberals would not risk defeating the government and contesting an election without a leader, so it was full steam ahead, or so it seemed. Clark and his cabinet used the summer break to plan what they assumed would be a long-term government and sweeping policy changes. After the election, Clark invited his presumptive cabinet to Jasper to begin planning how they would approach the coming parliamentary session and to introduce his style of leadership to his neophyte cabinet. Given his view on the centrality of parliament to Canadian political life, it made sense that Clark was going to ensure that they would take the time necessary to ensure a well-forged sense of Cabinet solidarity. The speech from the throne would chart the ambitions of his government, focusing on reforming parliament, shrinking government but also making it more transparent through more liberal access to information law and for all that to happen the newly minted two-tiered Clark Cabinet retreated from the battle lines of Ottawa to Jasper, Alberta to plan the government’s campaign.
Introduction 11
One of the first issues that the government would have to wrestle with was determining what kind of conservatives they were. The PC caucus comprised business conservatives who wanted the state out of the pockets of citizens, Red Tories who believed in a positive role for the state, and western populists who were skeptical of the influence that central Canada had in the federation. This was at the time of Margaret Thatcher’s conservatism and while it was clear that the newly installed PC government would not be the same, it was not clear how to communicate that. The privatization of the state-owned oil and gas company, Petro-Canada provided an opportunity to tell Canadians what kind of conservatives they were. Clark knew he needed make some sort of gesture to his home province, where “Petro-Can” was seen as a symbol of Trudeau era excess and government regulation. Additionally, Clark, though still a Red Tory, saw this Crown corporation as an overreach by the federal government into what should be a provincial matter. Therefore, Clark was on the hook to, at the very least, attempt to dismantle Petro-Canada to demonstrate his commitment to a campaign promise. Oddly though, with his Cabinet now safely away from Ottawa, the symbolism of the policy became the primary issue (i.e., what word should be used to describe the process of privatization). Though of course wanting to privatize the corporation, Clark was concerned with appearing too heavy handed. A Cabinet debate ensued and it was decided that it would be better not to mince words. Privatization was what was being pushed for so privatization was the word that would be used (Troyer 1980). Politicians in an electoral democracy must at times do things that keep the party base happy and committed. This becomes especially difficult in Canada as the two major parties are brokerage parties and as such, have bases that include very diverse and often conflicting interests. Clark, as a conservative politician, had a base that included conservative religious voters. As a play to his more religious pro-Israeli base, Clark believed that moving the Canadian embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem would be a clear way to show his commitment to a promise made on the campaign trail (Flicker 2002). In addition, it was a way to solidify his base in the run up to the next election. Canada’s Jewish population has historically favoured the Liberal Party. As a Red Tory on the left of the party, Clark needed to carve some of this support off for his own party and demonstrate his conservative bona fides in his ardent support for the state of Israel. Unfortunately, it was a plan that would backfire with grave consequences.
12
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
From the first day after being appointed prime minister, Clark experienced pressure from both pro-Israel and pro-Palestine groups. The Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) dubbed the move “an act of aggression.” The Canada-Arab Federation called the policy “a declaration of war” against the world’s 900 million Muslims (Flicker 2002). As well, Canada’s business community was up in arms over the export business they were likely to lose in the face of a pro-Palestinian boycott of Canadian products as well as damage to the value of the Canadian dollar. The senior civil service also expressed strong reservations. Notwithstanding all of this, Israeli Premier Menacham Begin, looking to confer increased international recognition of the post-1967 status quo, pushed Clark to stay the course. This pressure resonated with Clark in his determination to not be labelled weak. His new Foreign Affairs minister Flora MacDonald restated to the press that the embassy would be moved. This imprimatur by the minister meant that the issue was front-and-centre in public debate from the time that Clark took office when parliament resumed in October. Clark, seeking legitimacy of the policy, enlisted the respected former leader, Robert Stanfield, to recommend one path or the other. Hoping to buy some time and bring in the policy when the Liberals were selecting a new leader, Clark set a timeline for Stanfield to deliver the report sometime in 1980. Upon his return from the Middle East, Stanfield urged the prime minister to decide now, as the Arab states would not discuss anything else until the embassy question was put to rest. Bowing to public pressure and with the recommendations in hand, Clark backtracked on his original position when asked by Leader of the Opposition Trudeau about the fate of the embassy. Clark stated, “the Canadian embassy will stay in Tel Aviv” (Flicker 2002). While it may have made good policy sense, the optics around this were terrible. He was forced to backtrack on a committed policy, which was seen as purely vote-seeking in the first place and his reluctance to make good on the issue did not help create the “open” government Clark wanted to create. Moreover, it reinforced the belief that the new government did not have a steady hand on the levers of policy. The Opposition smelled blood and were willing to take advantage of what they perceived to be a government that could be defeated with impunity. The long recess of parliament and the stumbles that occurred while away encouraged New Democratic Party (NDP) leader Ed Broadbent to bring a motion of non-confidence before the House of Commons. A proposed gas tax of 18 cents per gallon gave the NDP the
Introduction
13
perfect cover and they knew they could count on the five Social Credit MPs to not support the government. Two days after Finance Minister John Crosbie delivered his first budget in December 1979, the government was defeated in parliament on a vote of 139 to 133. Ever the parliamentarian, Clark rose in the House to say, “The government has lost a vote on a matter on which we have no alternative but to regard as a question of confidence. I simply want to advise the House that I will be seeing his Excellency, the Governor General tomorrow morning.” And, with that, seven months into a new government and a House that had only sat for two months, the Clark government went from governing to campaigning for a second chance. The short-lived Clark government and thirty-first parliament of Canada leads one to question what might have been if Clark had been able to maintain the confidence of the House of Commons. Hindsight lends a sort of fatalistic view in some of the analysis of Clark’s time in office. For example, the first chapter of Troyer’s account is called “Jasper: Seeds of Destruction” which gives a sense of the way that some viewed the fate of the government. Troyer gives the impression of a hapless or “blind” prime minister who was careening towards destruction without knowledge. While an easy argument to make, it demeans the accomplishments of the new government. Viewing Clark’s career through the lens of his time as prime minister distracts from his many other accomplishments during his subsequent two decades of leadership outside of the PMO. Though defeated in the 1980 election, Clark would remain in parliament for four additional years as leader of the Opposition before returning to Cabinet as part of the Mulroney government. In this, Clark joins Arthur Meighen as the only prime minister to return to the Cabinet table as a minister after being defeated as prime minister. It’s a hallmark of his tenacity. Clark picked himself up, dusted himself off, and went back to work. Cabinet and the Transition from Wunderkind to Elder Statesman Though political historians may debate whether Clark’s time as prime minister left any lasting legacies, few would deny the significant impact of his work in Cabinet under Brian Mulroney. Clark would represent Canada at international events with authority and domestically he would provide leadership on some of the most fractious and deep issues affecting the federation. When Brian Mulroney won a massive majority in 1984, he knew he would need the voice of moderation and
14
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
experience of Joe Clark and so Clark was at the Cabinet table in both Mulroney governments serving with distinction until 1993. As minister responsible for constitutional affairs, Clark was involved in both the Meech Lake and Charlottetown Accords as the Mulroney government attempted to bring Quebec into the fold through an era marked by contentious mega-constitutional politics. Internationally, Clark represented Canada during some of the most important geo-political events of the latter half of the twentieth century. As secretary of state for external affairs—as Canada’s foreign minister was known before 1993—Clark spoke on behalf of the government on events such as the end of apartheid in South Africa, the Gulf War, and the Tiananmen Square massacre. Following the Tiananmen Square massacre, Clark spoke in support of the student protestors in the need for government institutions to primarily serve and be responsible to the people and their needs, not the other way around (page 190 in this volume). As China continues its global ascendency and questions are being raised about the increased power under Xi Jinping, Clark’s words remain vital and relevant today. Clark’s work in apartheid South Africa to end a racist segregation regime is also reflective of his stance on Indigenous peoples within Canada. Clark, in his own way, was a fierce representative of the right of Indigenous peoples to self-determination, and the need for recognition of that by the Canadian government and society as a whole. The speeches on Indigenous politics (chapter 6 in this volume) are in line with Clark’s desire to represent and strengthen other Indigenous forms of representation. Throughout his involvement on the international stage, Clark understood that Canada had a role to play in international politics despite its relatively small size. Later reflecting on this time, Clark wrote “some countries have much more influence than others … Those are the nations to which others turn when there are difficult problems or challenging issues. Canada—a whole Canada—is one of those countries” (Clark 1997, 186). Clark belonged to what he called an “activist tradition” (Clark 1997, 539) of Canadian international diplomacy. As the “first international country,” Clark believed that Canada had a positive role to play in modern international diplomatic matters because of its positive international reputation and influence in shaping events. This, he believed, was more important and still vital in a world where the economic is seen as more important than overtly “political” action on the international stage. Further, as demonstrated by his speech about the United Nations Security Council resolution that led to the Gulf War (The Af-
Introduction 15
termath of the Gulf War in this volume), Clark was a firm supporter of Canada’s involvement in international organizations such as the United Nations. As he stated in parliament, “[w]hen we look for a noble and far-sighted vision for managing world affairs in what will be a difficult decade and century to come, we can hardly do better than to draw on the vision of the United Nations charter.” At the time of this speech, the Cold War was thawing, and Clark’s speech represented the hope among many that the UN charter would be transformed from a “dead letter” to the collective foundation for international cooperation to meet the challenges of the post-Cold War era. Clark was keen to emphasize Canada’s long involvement in, and building of, the United Nations. From drafting the charter to Lester Pearson and peacekeeping, Canada’s post-war international policy as a “middle power” has been tightly intertwined with the UN. Clark proposed that, at this new step in the evolution of the United Nations, Canada must again be present and strongly involved to create a “renewed United Nations” that was ready for the twenty-first century. What is perhaps most interesting though is how said speech reflects the changes which we have seen in Canadian foreign policy (and mainstream Canadian conservatism in general) since Clark’s era. In other words, Canadian foreign policy has shifted away from support for, and action through, international institutions, to a more bilateral or multilateral approach enacted outside of the UN framework. This shift has included a move away from an emphasis on peacekeeping to more traditional military operations, such as Canada’s involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan. Clark’s speeches, made decades ago, are an important reminder today of a Canadian foreign policy that was more idealistic and perhaps more effective in engagement with the wider world. Closer to home, and no less significantly, Clark was also intimately involved in two of the defining political developments in modern Canadian history. First, was the patriation of the constitution in 1982, an issue he followed and debated since the 1970s. Chapter 8 of this volume has a selection of speeches that detail his views on the constitution and its reform. They span multiple eras and roles for Clark, from his time as Opposition leader, when he debated with Trudeau on the exact structure of our new constitution, to his time in the Mulroney Cabinet, where he worked to convince Quebec to ratify the new constitution. His foresight and vision are again demonstrated in a speech to the House of Commons found on page 238, The Patriation of the Constitution in chapter 8. In it, Clark advocates that the House accept what
16
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
is known as the “Vancouver formula.” This formula contained within it the “7/50 rule” which would eventually become the amending formula that makes up one of the three pillars of the Canadian constitution. In the process of this debate, Clark renews his commitment to a decentralized government, railing against the Trudeau government for their attempts to bypass the provinces and ensure the passage and repatriation of the constitution without their consent or participation. Though Trudeau would be persuaded otherwise, and would eventually include the provinces in the process, a Supreme Court reference was required. In the end, the constitution was brought home in 1982 but the work in making it the unifying symbol it is had not yet been done. The stand of those opposed to the new formula (best exemplified by the dissenting voice of Elijah Harper in the Manitoba Legislative Assembly) would necessitate further work that would outlast the Trudeau government. After his election in September 1984, Brian Mulroney immediately set about finishing the process of constitutional reform begun by the Trudeau Liberals. Mulroney had his hands full in attempting to balance the wishes of the provinces and their diverse interests. Such was the importance of this process to his government that Mulroney appointed Clark to his Cabinet as minister responsible for constitutional affairs. The position needed someone who had authority, experience at intergovernmental negotiation, and who was widely respected. Clark, who at the time had a higher approval rating than Prime Minister Mulroney, was the ideal candidate to be an honest broker between the federal and provincial governments. The final chapter in this volume documents five speeches where Clark, both as Mulroney’s constitutional minister and prior, articulates a strong view of the role that the constitution should play in our political community. Return to Politics Clark left electoral politics in 1993 but returned five years later to lead the Progressive Conservative Party until just prior to its dissolution in 2003. He assumed the leadership of the party after its disastrous electoral showing in the 1993 election in which the PCs won just two seats. Clark’s main political opponents in this era had shifted from the Liberal/NDP-dominated left to newly ascendant parties which were coming from the right of the PC party. These parties, such as the Reform Party/ Canadian Alliance were those that uneasily coalesced within the PC Party but were invigorated by the neo-liberal stream of populist, right
Introduction
17
wing politics that had become increasingly popular in the West at this time. These parties were largely seen as socially conservative, pro-West, and anti-Quebec in their views. At the end of the twentieth century, the right wing of Canadian party politics was fragmenting as two new parties emerged out of dissatisfaction with the governing Mulroney-led PCs. Mulroney had been elected in a landslide victory in 1984, forming the largest majority government in Canadian history (winning 211 of 282 seats). He promised fiscal conservatism, the end of the National Energy Program, and a renewed round of constitutional talks designed to get Quebec to ratify the repatriated constitution. This strategy would prove unstable as westerners became angry at what they thought was too much time and attention given to Quebec. At the same time, many Quebec MPs within the PC caucus felt that Quebec was not being given enough attention. This paradox had reverberations both in and outside of parliament. The growing sentiment of western alienation led to the creation of the Reform Party, a new, more right-wing party under the leadership of Preston Manning and former prime minister, Stephen Harper. Two of its major platform points were the end of the NEP and the creation of a “Triple-E (Equal, Elected, and Effective) Senate.” Within parliament, disgruntled Quebec MPs formed the Bloc Québécois, a sovereigntist party made up of former PC and Liberal MPs under Lucien Bouchard. The Bloc was (and is) devoted to Quebec’s independence. These new parties effectively split the uneasy coalition within the PC party and caused its implosion in the 1993 election when, as mentioned earlier, its seat count plunged to two. The Canadian political landscape had drastically changed. Where there were once two major parties that traded turns in government and a third, social democratic party with little chance of forming government, Canada now had the makings of a true multi-party system. Canada had five major parties spread across the spectrum that represented a diversity of opinions relative to the previous party system. On the right was the Reform Party, supported primarily by western socially and fiscally conservative voters who disagreed with the NEP and the attention given to Quebec. Occupying the centre-right were the Progressive Conservatives, which was at this time lead by Red Tories such as Clark. The centre-left and left of the political spectrum was now occupied by the Liberals, the Bloc, and the NDP (which all advocated social democratic principles but were distinguished by their views on Quebec sovereignty). The Reform Party, though good at translating votes
18
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
into seats because of its regional concentration in the western provinces and the nature of Canada’s first past the post electoral system, found it tough to garner votes east of Manitoba where conservative voters tended to favour the Progressive Conservatives, who dominated the Atlantic provinces, as well as Ontario and Quebec. This base would be destroyed in the next election as Quebec voters would largely swing to the Bloc, giving them fifty-four seats in the 1993 election. The main reason for the Reform Party’s apparent lack of success east of Manitoba was that Canadians from central Canada (Ontario and Quebec) and Atlantic Canada often saw them as too extreme in their social conservatism, preferring the relatively more “progressive” of the two conservative parties (Belanger and Godbout 2009). Recognizing this difficulty and attempting to distance themselves from their negatively perceived image, Reform party leadership attempted a rebranding. This process culminated in electing a new leader and changing the name of the party to the Canadian Alliance. With the Reform/Canadian Alliance and PC parties now splitting the Canadian right, talks of a merger began in earnest in order to avoid vote-splitting and ensure electoral success. Clark was a leader of the anti-merger caucus within the Progressive Conservative Party that supported the Red Tory tradition. Clark believed that a merger with the Reform Party would shift the ideological centre too far to the right for Red Tories such as himself to be welcome. His argument was not successful and the parties merged to form the Conservative Party of Canada. The newly unified Conservative Party formed government at the federal level from 2006 to 2015, after which they were succeeded by a Liberal government led by Justin Trudeau. Stephen Harper’s nine years in office demonstrated that the pro-merger camp was correct about the electoral chances of a merged party. But Clark was also right in that it was not a party that he and the few Red Tories who remained could call home. They sat as Progressive Conservatives until the dissolution of parliament in 2003. When parliament dissolved in 2003, Clark resigned as party leader to be replaced by Peter MacKay, the former minister of justice, who immediately entered into merger talks with the leaders of the newly renamed Canadian Alliance party. The reasons for this merger include political rebranding, access to new political resources and greater opportunity to transform votes into seats in the house. In essence, both parties sought to get away from what they perceived as a tainted brand, viz., Reform being too extreme and PC being not able to deliver the electoral goods. Both parties
Introduction
19
wanted electoral access to regions and voters currently dominated by the other. (The PCs dominated in provinces east of Manitoba as did Reform in the West and BC). Finally, both wanted to ensure that votes received in elections would be easily transferable into seats in the House of Commons. Neither wanted to stay small and with new campaign finance laws now in effect they had the chance to pool their resources. The outcome was the creation of a new brokerage party on the Canadian right that proposed to speak for all Canadians who identify with the moniker “conservative.” The success of this merger at least in electoral terms is undisputed; the new Conservative Party of Canada (CPC) went on to win three consecutive election campaigns. It has also held onto power quite successfully. Under Prime Minister Stephen Harper, the CPC created the longest serving minority government in the history of Canada. This was then rewarded in 2011 with the first Conservative majority government since the Mulroney era. Sensing the profound ideological shift within the Canadian right, Clark took this opportunity to gracefully bow out of electoral politics, deciding not to run for re-election in 2004. Clark’s experience and principled stand as well as his years of service to the Red Tory tradition, that is well enumerated in this collection, serves to illustrate just how far Conservative Party politics had shifted rightward since Clark’s time. Many of the speeches collected here do not fit in the same ideological mold as current Conservatives. Their place in this volume serves as a reminder of a party that may bear the same name but have little in common with the present Conservative party. As Clark said as he exited parliament as an MP the last time, “I’m very troubled by the disappearance of my party.” Conclusion Though only having served as prime minister for about a year (with only two months of that sitting in his beloved parliament) Clark’s political career was foundational in establishing some of the political issues and topics of debate that resonate today. In his brief time as prime minister, his signature achievement was creating the legal blueprint for the Access to Information Act that would be passed by Trudeau early on in his second term. Though his version of Bill C-15 was killed on the order paper with the fall of his government, Trudeau would revive it in essentially the same form when he took part in the grand Liberal tradition of borrowing legislative ideas of those parties not in power. Access
20
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
to information is one of the fundamental tools that Canadians can use to hold their governments to account. While this is a significant policy, Clark’s legacy includes the broad and varied policies he shaped after his term as prime minister. This volume is a testament to that legacy and a kind of conservatism that is no longer evident at the federal level. Clark’s contribution to Canadian political life is broad and deep. He fought for political goals and reforms that we as Canadians are either still debating or (as in the case of Access to Information) take for granted as an essential element of our Canadian political system. His twenty-three years of public service outside of being prime minister are a testament to a man intensely committed to parliamentary debate and the unequivocal importance of the House of Commons. As a conservative, Clark spent his career ensuring that the government remained restrained. Along with his work to ensure representation of lesser heard regions, the equality of the provinces in relation to the federal government, Clark was a stalwart supporter of Canada’s principle of responsible government. Throughout his time as leader of the Opposition, Clark used his position to ensure that the government remained accountable to the people who elected it. He worked tirelessly to counter the concentration of power within the Prime Minister’s Office, as is discussed throughout this volume. Clark worked to ensure that power to deliberate and discuss national issues reside in the parliament which he loved so much as the only “forum of the nation.” This struggle to ensure the diffusion of power among many different nodes is admirable, for as he himself so often recognized, “small is good and worth preserving” (Humphreys 1978). Clark was both our youngest prime minister and one who held power for a very short amount of time. Yet, Clark achieved great things during his years of public service and was involved in the events and debates which shaped politics as we know it today. Despite certain limitations and failures, Clark was still able to accomplish policy and political goals that have become permanent parts of our Confederation, such as the amending formula of our constitution. As we move away from his time in parliament, his reputation has been widely recognized as a voice of reason and compassionate conservatism. This collection is a legacy and reminder of those policies and goals by giving a fresh look at some key speeches of a great Canadian parliamentarian. It also highlights the personal attributes of a public servant who was dogged in perseverance, modest in touting his successes, and
Introduction
21
saw politics as conciliation; some might say hallmarks of a quintessential Canadian. We have compiled some of his words here but perhaps the best way to understand Joe Clark is to listen to him speak. Additional Reading Belanger, Eric and Jean-Francois Godbout. “Why do Parties Merge? The Case of the Conservative Party of Canada.” Parliamentary Affairs (December 2009): 1–25. Clark, Joe. “The First International Country.” International Journal 52 (4) (Autumn, 1997): 539–545. Clark, Joe. How We Lead: Canada in a Century of Change. Toronto: Random House, 2013. Flicker, Charles. “Next Year in Jerusalem: Joe Clark and the Jerusalem Embassy Affair.” International Journal 58 (1) (Winter, 2002/2003): 115–138. Humphreys, David L. Joe Clark: A Portrait. Canada: Deneau and Greenberg Publishers Ltd., 1978. Nolan, Michael. Joe Clark: The Emerging Leader. Don Mills: Fitzhenry & Whiteside, 1978. Troyer, Warner. 200 Days Joe Clark in Power: The Anatomy of the Rise and Fall of the 21st Government. Toronto: Personal Library, Publishers, 1980.
1
Milestone Speeches This book is arranged by theme based on policy areas, but in this chapter we have chosen to highlight three of Clark’s important speeches that were delivered at important benchmarks in his career. The first speech is Clark’s maiden speech to the House of Commons, given on July 23, 1973. Second, is Clark’s first speech to the House as prime minister of Canada, which took place on December 10, 1979. And finally, we have included the last speech Clark gave to parliament on May 13, 2004. Despite the fact that almost thirty-one years separate Clark’s first and last speech, they include remarkably consistent themes. And therefore, more than any other set contained herein, the speeches serve as a fitting overview, and bookends, to the public life of Joe Clark. Clark’s first speech is full of youth, both his relative youth as well as the subject of speech itself. In the early 1970s, hoping to test the talents of their new MP, and wanting to avoid the image of being a party of and for older Canadians, then-leader Robert Stanfield appointed Clark to head youth issues in his shadow cabinet. Wasting no time, Clark got right to work in demonstrating his party’s commitment to youth. At the time of his first speech, youth accounted for half of all those who were unemployed in Canada; youth unemployment was at crisis levels. This first speech established Clark’s Red Tory principles and belief in the capacity of citizens. Read from a contemporary perspective, it was a breath of fresh air to hear to hear a youthful MP extol the virtues of young Canadians. Clark argues that the government’s responses to the crisis of youth unemployment were insubstantial and ill-suited to the problem at hand. He noted that the energies and abilities of Canada’s young were not being harnessed effectively as a consequence of insufficient job opportunities or programs to address unemployment. Clark argued that new programs must be created if worthwhile opportunities were to be made available to channel the eagerness and energy of youth. A Man of Parliament; Selected Speeches from Joe Clark, edited by Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon. Montréal and Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press, Queen’s Policy Studies Series. © 2019 The School of Policy Studies, Queen’s University at Kingston. All rights reserved.
24
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
Fast-forward a mere six years and the fresh-faced youth shadow minister had most definitely stepped from the shadows of those who came before. Addressing the House of Commons following the Speech from the Throne in his first speech as prime minister, Clark laid out the priorities that his government would seek to achieve during its tenure. Speaking of parliament, Clark felt that “this Parliament is not now as strong as it needs to be because too much power rests with the executive of Parliament.” To combat this, Clark proposed several measures that would increase the power of both private members and committees, vis-à-vis the Cabinet. Going so far as to create conditions that “will provide a latitude to private Members of the House of Commons that can be used, if the Members choose, to obstruct all progress here.” In proposing these measures, Clark demonstrated a concern with transparency that would remain consistent throughout his career (this is taken up more fully in chapter 7) Clark hoped these measures would create an atmosphere of openness and accountability, but he would later see what happens when a parliament in a position of power gets “in a mood” as he described the actions of parliament in bringing down his government. Looking beyond the confines of parliament, Clark also proposed a plan of “spending restraint” and privatization that would set the course of federal governments up to the present day. However, this would not be an imposed austerity. Instead, Clark sought an “easing” of federal-provincial relations through such measures as giving coastal provinces access to off-shore natural resources and other agreements. Raising the spectre of the federal-provincial jurisdictional split, Clark set the stage for one of the central parts of what was then and would be on-going constitutional debates about federal-provincial jurisdiction. These debates would not be his to guide from the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO). However, he would remain engaged on the issue for close to twenty-five years after his minority government was defeated. And in a subsequent defeat, Clark demonstrated another worthy aspect of his character. Rising for the last time to address his beloved parliament in 2004, Clark’s last speech to the House of Commons was, in his words, his “least controversial.” However, the context in which he was speaking was certainly not. Five months had passed since the Canadian Alliance Party (formerly known as Reform) and the Progressive Conservative Party had merged to form the new Conservative Party of Canada (CPC). Wary of the direction that this new party was going under the
Milestone Speeches 25
leadership of Stephen Harper, Clark elected, along with two other MPs to sit as under the banner of “Progressive Conservative” for the remainder of the session. Despite having lost his party and place in the political landscape Clark, ever graceful, maintained good humour (at least in this case) and joked of the party’s demise to the assembled members. Perhaps it was the good feelings brought on by nostalgia, tribute and reflection but in spite of all the controversy and political infighting Clark, as seen above and throughout, spoke for parliament one last time. That given the sheer size and diversity of Canada, without strong places in which we could gather, our geographic distance can create social distance. Clark illustrated the importance of gathering places perfectly because for him, parliamentary life was a door to communities and realities he might not have known otherwise. But perhaps most importantly, Clark used his last minutes in parliament to call for a unity of purpose. In his words “Parliament is more than a school. It is the place where everyone in the Canadian community can take action together.” His last speech in this volume follows a different path from the rest of the book. Rather than focus exclusively on his words, Clark’s speech is put in context of the tributes from all parties in the House. In this speech, in terms of presentation and form, Clark’s speech should be understood as a response to the others which precede it but also to highlight the way his long-time adversaries viewed him and his legacy. Having been involved in all aspects of Canadian political life, the high and lows, the harmony and discord, the best and the worst, Clark’s words resonate. Having been a member of parliament in almost all possible capacities in which one could sit in that House, the wisdom he provided was profound. And this is perhaps the usefulness of this chapter. While the remainder of the book goes into more granular detail about the specifics of Clark’s political vision, this chapter allows us to view in broad strokes the vision of a man who devoted his life to building Canada into a strong and unified, yet diverse, imperfect and diverse community.
26
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
First Speech as a Member of Parliament House of Commons Debates 26 February 1973 29th Parliament, 1st Session: Volume 2, 1662–1664 Mr. Joe Clark (Rocky Mountain): Mr. Speaker, it is a great privilege for me to rise in this House. This is virtually my first chance to speak in the House of Commons, although I have had the opportunity to ask one or two questions even though I am not a parliamentary secretary. I have also had the opportunity once to speak briefly in the late show at a time when the House was slightly less full than it is now, if that could be imagined. When one takes his place in this chamber it is with some feeling of trepidation. One cannot help but be aware of the traditions of this chamber, and one cannot help either but be aware that this is one of the few institutions in the country that is capable of drawing together citizens from across a wide and varied land. I just wanted to note in passing how appropriate it seemed to me the other day to hear the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) talking about dinosaurs. That is obviously a subject of natural interest to his party. Indeed, it is difficult to think of any other group in this House which has a greater philosophic affinity to that era, or a better prospect of becoming extinct. It is a remarkable coincidence that whenever the leadership of the NDP encounters a crisis of conscience at home, they suddenly perceive some greater evil at another hand. Faced with the challenge of principle embodied in the Waffle, their leadership conjured up the corporate bum, whom they have now embraced. And now, caught in an alliance, which they consider a lesser treachery than electoral defeat, their leadership has decided that we are dinosaurs. They remind me of the itinerant evangelists we used to get, from time to time, in the towns on the Prairies. They would come in the night, usually having just created their own theology, and proceed to bilk the wealthy widows of the town with promises either of a new cathedral or a new Jerusalem, and when suspicion grew about their purposes, they would suddenly be seized of the great dangers of fluoridation, or Argentina, or some other scare. They usually lasted about five months, these prophets of phony fear, and then were never heard of again. So, in every particular, they remind one of the NDP. On February 15, I asked the Prime Minister what plans his government had to find jobs for young Canadians. He replied with charac-
Milestone Speeches 27
teristic boldness and foresight and said his plan was to wait for the budget. Now, we have the budget and presumably the government’s answer—which is that it intends to do nothing at all to break the pattern which has made Canadians under 24 the chief victims of unemployment in Canada throughout the life of the Trudeau government. The most recent figures for January this year, indicate that a total of 688,000 Canadians were unemployed. Fully 300,000 of those were under the age of 24—almost half of the total number of unemployed in the country and one in nine of the people in that age group who wanted to work. That figure is appalling enough on its own. What is worse is that it is part of a clear and evident pattern that even the government has recognized. The proportion of unemployed in that age group has been rising gradually for several years. But in recent years it has been nearly 45 per cent of the total, despite the fact that many people of that age who might have been looking for work have been drained off into technical schools or CEGEPS, or colleges and universities. There is some indication now that this safety valve is closing, because young people who go into training for better jobs are finding too often that they graduate into unemployment. The result of their diversion is just that they have better skills to waste. That pattern has been clear throughout the life of this ministry. They were warned by the Economic Council of Canada. They were warned by the Canadian Council on Social Development, by the Committee on Youth of their own Secretary of State (Mr. Faulkner), and frequently by editorialists and by spokesmen of this party. Their only answer has been to fake a response. They claim that Opportunities for Youth was created to meet this problem. But Opportunities for Youth last year employed about 3,000 non-students for the summer. If applied today to the January figures, that would amount to the stirring figure of one per cent—a one per cent response—except that OFY does not work in the winter. That is about the only thing that program has in common with the young people it is supposed to help. The government’s only other response to unemployment in Canada, the LIP program, works less well among the young than among other age groups of the unemployed. In 1971–72, 41 per cent of LIP workers were under age 24 but 46 per cent to 47 per cent of the unemployed were under that age. In hard figures, LIP that year created only 37,000 temporary jobs for Canadians under 24 and there are 300,000 out of work today. The more serious fault of the LIP and OFY programs in relation to
28
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
youth employment is that they provide the government with an excuse for doing nothing effective about the problem. LIP and OFY embody a potential for innovation and involvement which is as important now as it was when that principle was introduced into Canadian legislation in the ARDA program. They are important programs. But they are not youth employment programs. Yet every time the statistics are cited in this House which prove that this government’s economic programs are victimizing the young, the government answers by pointing to LIP and OFY. The most innovative aspect of these programs is the use the government makes of them to avoid meeting their responsibility to young Canadians who want to work. In so far as youth employment is concerned, LIP and OFY have been used principally not to innovate action but to avoid it. It is very easy when discussing unemployment statistics to lose sight of the human consequence involved, and forget that each one of these 300,000 young Canadians is a single case of need. One way to gain perspective on the youth employment problem is to realize there are about twice as many young Canadians out of work today as there were in the great depression. Now, if you treat people as statistics, you can say that is not significant, because the work force has grown but if you regard people as people, you might remember the record of personal hardship and bitterness spawned in that period when so many people started what should have been their working lives without work to do. What is particularly cruel about unemployment among the young is that so many young people have no other resources to fall back on and no real preparation for being unwanted as workers. And what is particularly dangerous about unemployment among the young is that the experience and attitudes which young Canadians develop now will last their lifetime. If they are herded into welfare or if they are taught that their energies are unwanted, that will shape their lives and could deprive our nation and themselves of their creative participation. There is another aspect of this question. It is a myth that has grown up, the myth that kids in Canada are lazy. I think that the existence of that myth protects the government against its clear responsibility to take action to end the high and unacceptable rates of unemployment among the young. One of the tragic aspects of this is that the Prime Minister himself has contributed, perhaps not deliberately, to the view that kids in Canada do not want to work when he made his offhand remarks that anyone who wanted work in Canada should go to Thompson, Manitoba or some other distant spot. The people who suffer most
Milestone Speeches 29
from this misleading suggestion are the young people in the country. Prior to those comments, there was some substantial sympathy for the problems of the unemployed young, but that sympathy evaporated when the Prime Minister casually entered the fray. In fact, Mr. Speaker, while the work ethic may not recommend itself to a barefoot boy from Outremont, a study by the Canadian Council on Social Development of young Canadians who applied for social assistance in November, 1971 indicated: The young social assistance applicants who were interviewed have by no means rejected the concept of work and its central importance to their development and self-fulfillment. They do not reject work, they just cannot find any. So long as the government caters or contributes to the opinion that they do not want work, their problems will continue to be ignored.
We are dealing here with a budget, which will do much less than it pretends. It is the budget of a parlour magician, relying on illusion, trying to trick the people who are watching. The minister held out the illusion of using tax cuts to put more purchasing power into the economy, yet in reality the total revenues of the government will be $1.7 billion higher this year than last. He talks buoyantly of creating 300,000 new jobs as he has talked before and failed, yet in reality is accepting unnecessarily high levels of unemployment. He talks about expansion, yet under-stimulates. He worries about inflation, yet has no response except a so-called contingency plan which he proposes to produce like a rabbit from a hat. What is wrong with this budget is its purpose. At a time when the government should be preoccupied with providing jobs and growth and some stability, it is instead preoccupied with its own political survival. So, instead of introducing measures which are bold enough to work, the government relies instead on measures which seem safe enough to serve. Other speakers in this debate have indicated how far short the minister will fall of his stated goals. My particular concern today is to underline the urgency of a goal he did not state, the goal of helping young Canadians put their energies to work and to review some of the steps which the government’s own advisers have urged as a means to break the shackling pattern of high unemployment among the young. The Hunter Committee on Youth published its report 19 months ago,
30
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
and it was heralded with that special enthusiasm this government reserves for reports it proposes to ignore. One simple, but highly valuable, recommendation of that report was that the government at least recognize that youth unemployment constitutes a special problem in Canada. At the moment, we have virtually no hard information about the special causes of high youth unemployment, about its relation to the education system, about the effectiveness of counselling or manpower, about the need and scope for new kinds and definitions of work. The Hunter Committee recommended establishing a Canadian youth employment directorate, and generally we in this party approve of that initiative, at least as an interim measure. The government has done nothing about the directorate. The report of the Canadian Council on Social Development, entitled “A Right to Opportunity” reveals a chaos in the counselling and social assistance services available to young Canadians out of work. They recommend an early federal-provincial conference, to bring some order and equity to that field. The government has done nothing. This party has suggested that LIP and OFY be given statutory authority, so that their purposes can be debated and understood in parliament and so that they can assume some permanent place in the program structure of various government and voluntary agencies, instead of being expensive itinerants whose present status prohibits integrated national programming. The government declines that commitment as, indeed, it declines any commitment to do anything at all about the continuing crisis of youth unemployment. The government has been running away from the problem and the running has to stop. We cannot afford the enormous human cost of training hundreds of thousands of young people to be out of work and on welfare. We are wasting lives and wasting potential. The problem of youth employment would be less acute in an economy performing nearer its potential. So, the approach of this party, outlined Thursday by the hon. member for Don Valley (Mr. Gillies), will help the young to find jobs and will help other Canadians. Even so, it will be necessary to take special measures to arrest or reverse the trends towards higher and higher levels of unemployment among Canadians aged 24 and under. Speaking Friday, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) underlined the most dangerous consequence of this budget, that the country will continue to mark time, because we are governed by a party more intent upon its own survival than upon the growth or progress of the
Milestone Speeches 31
nation. That is harmful to many parts and people of Canada; but no group suffers more from this government or this budget than the hundreds of thousands of young Canadians who are looking for work in this rich country and finding only frustration. If we continue to deny them the chance to contribute their best to Canada, they will quickly become accustomed to contributing their least. That is a tragedy we have in our power to avoid if this government would only put the nation’s priorities ahead of its own.
First Speech as Prime Minister House of Commons Debates 10 October 1979 31st Parliament, 1st Session: Volume 1, 37–42 Right Hon. Joe Clark (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to stand and take part in this debate for the first time as Prime Minister of this country. I must say I am pleased to find that the former prime minister is adapting so well to a role which obviously very much fits a man of his talents and temperament. On behalf of the government I want formally to express our appreciation to the Governor General and Mrs. Schreyer for the work they have done for Canada during their period of office. It has been a service that has been very energetic, one that has sought to bring the values and customs of that office to all corners of the country. I also want to congratulate most sincerely the mover and seconder of the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne. That is always a difficult occasion for new members rising for the first time to make their maiden speech on the first sitting day of the House of Commons. I join in the words of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Trudeau) in expressing our congratulations to those two members who made very direct, businesslike speeches, speeches in the tradition of the regions from which they come and in the tradition that animates and moves most members, whether they have come newly or again to this House of Commons. I want also, Mr. Speaker, after the great struggle in which we had to drag you from your seat yesterday, to congratulate you on your re-election by the House of Commons to preside over our proceedings. I am sure it will be a presidency and direction that will be as distinguished in the future as it has been in the past. We wish you well and wish all
32
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
of us well as you preside over this central institution of the democracy of the land. I must say to the former prime minister, the Leader of the Opposition, how much I appreciated his counsel and advice in the early days of my prime ministry, his willingness to meet with me, particularly in preparation for trips abroad, and his absolute co-operation in the work of transition from one government to another. It was very much appreciated. It was another signal contribution on his part to this country. I want to take this opportunity here to thank him formally and directly for that help at that time. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Clark: As I said earlier, he seems to be taking very well to his new role. It is an area in which I have certain experience. He will recognize as time goes on that there is a time to stop fighting the last election and to begin thinking about the future. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Clark: If he does not do that, there is the hon. member from Winnipeg and there are others who will ensure that the party does that for him. In his remarks the Leader of the Opposition raised the rhetorical question as to which of the premiers of Canada told me to go shake myself. Well, we all know that they all told him to go shake himself. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Clark: He raised the concern—and it is not unnatural that he would—that we have changed the system of cabinet government in the country. We have changed it principally in two ways. First, we have made public what had previously been kept secret about the way cabinets govern in this country. There has always been an inner cabinet in Canada. The difference is that with this regime, which believes in open government, the composition of that inner cabinet is public, whereas under the regime of the former prime minister the composition of his inner cabinet had been private. Again the Leader of the Opposition raised a question about the strength of the influence of the voices from New Brunswick, Manitoba, Nova Scotia and Alberta. What has happened is that distinct from the kind of government we had prior to May 22 this is a government in which voices from all of the regions of Canada count and in which
Milestone Speeches 33
influence is not reserved to a select elite accumulated around the Prime Minister, in the office of the Privy Council and in the Prime Minister’s Office. I should say to the Prime Minister— Some hon. Members: Oh, oh! Mr. Clark: I should say to the former prime minister. I wanted to raise his hopes because there is no question that none of the hon. members opposite are going to do so. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Clark: I want to say to the Leader of the Opposition that I am a Prime Minister from Alberta, and I am no less a Canadian for that. If he had recognized some time ago the fact about Albertans and, indeed, about citizens of other provinces, that we can be loyal to our provinces and loyal to our nation, he would not have encountered the difficulties he and his government did. I want to extend my personal congratulations to all members of the House of Commons elected here. I have had the opportunity to extend those congratulations personally to several of them, but I want particularly to extend a welcome to those members of Parliament who are elected for the first time because, as they will find, they are members of a very special institution which is clearly unique in this land. This is the central institution of Canada. It is the one place where every corner of a vast country has the right to be represented and the power to be heard. The traditions of the institution change, but our constant obligation here is to be the one place where the whole nation comes together, speaks frankly together and acts together. In my view, this Parliament is not now as strong as it needs to be because too much power rests with the executive of Parliament and with the executives of political parties; too many limits are placed on the right of private members to know, to inquire, to propose and to be responsible for their own actions and for their own decisions. In particular, the historic right of Parliament to control the public purse was eroded by guillotine rules which meant that each year billions of dollars of public spending went unscrutinised and unchallenged. Parliamentary committees were denied the authority and the resources to have a positive influence on public policy. Members of this House of Commons, people sent here to represent their constituents and the interests of all of Canada, were denied information which should have been made public. As a result of that, great numbers of our fellow citizens have been
34
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
turning away from Parliament and have ceased to regard this as the vital, national institution which it must be seen to be. Parliament is the only institution we have which can rightly claim to represent this whole nation. This Parliament is in danger of losing its constituency, and one of the solemn obligations upon those of us who are fortunate enough to be members of the Thirty-first Parliament of Canada is that that is a trend which we must change and reverse. That will require change in some of our rules and some of our practices, but more has to change than just the rules of Parliament. There must be a change in the attitude toward the institution on the part of all members, not just those who are ministers of the Crown. I am confident that that will occur because there are so many members here in all parties who came to this House of Commons—and I quote the words of the hon. member for Cardigan (Mr. MacDonald)—“to make Parliament work.” The government will be introducing proposals for rule changes and has already indicated changes in attitude which, in effect, will provide a latitude to private members of the House of Commons which can be used, if members choose, to obstruct all progress here. That will be one capacity. That will be one consequence which could flow from the latitude we intend to give to private members of the House of Commons. Or it can be used to make the House of Commons the vital centre of discussion and decision in this land. I hope that this Parliament might be characterized by very open inquiry. Naturally, on some questions some members have their minds made up already. So do some parties, and I am not looking particularly at the hon. member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent). However, on many of the most important questions we face there are no easy answers, yet there is an obligation to act and, indeed, in many cases an urgent obligation to act. As a government we cheerfully accept the responsibility to put forward answers when we think we have them. What is more important is that we cheerfully accept the responsibility to initiate unfettered inquiry where that might yield better answers than the ones we propose or the ones we have. I give the commitment now as we start this session in the House of Commons that this government will welcome amendments to legislation from whatever part of the House they come if their proposers can persuade us of their merits. I hope that attitude of openness will extend throughout this Parliament and to most major questions, and that this will be a Parliament where decisions are based on evidence and not on ideology. The gov-
Milestone Speeches 35
ernment itself is proposing action which questions certain long-held assumptions concerning, for example, the notion that Crown corporations, once established, must stay in the public domain forever, or the attempt to keep public information secret, or concerning the nature of relations between the central and the provincial governments. We do not expect that everyone will agree, but we hope it will not become the habit of any party in this House to resist reform just because it is new. [Translation] There is an obvious fact about the forthcoming decade: it is that a substantial part of the old formulas has become worthless. We must reconsider our procedure to develop policies in several areas and it rests with Parliament to undertake openly such a task. The drafting of the following reports is almost completed and they will be submitted to the standing committees well before Christmas: to wit, the report of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Miss MacDonald) on foreign policy; the report of the Secretary of State (Mr. MacDonald) on cultural policy; the report of the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Baker) on parliamentary reform; the report of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Crombie) on pensions and that of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. McGrath) on fisheries. A joint committee will be set up next week to consider the matter of atomic energy. Moreover, we want to complement the proceedings of standing committees by setting up select committees that will deal with specific matters. The first select committees were announced in the Speech from the Throne and I add today that we intend to suggest that the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale) be appointed chairman of the select committee on the specific needs of the handicapped and disabled; the hon. member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Wenman), chairman of the select committee on the voluntary sector; the hon. member for Mississauga North (Mr. Jupp), chairman of the select committee on foreign ownership, and the hon. member for Calgary South (Mr. Thomson), chairman of the select committee on measures necessary to prevent recurring cost overruns. We hope that those committees will be entirely set up and active next week and that they will submit their reports for the consideration of Parliament and government at the beginning of 1980. [English] If the House accepts the challenge that we are placing before it, I believe that we can make this again an instrument which is strong enough
36
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
and respected enough to reflect the diversity of an exciting country. Instead of talking about the instruments of national action and national unity, we can become an instrument of national unity and of national action, and that is the purpose of the reforms that we propose. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Clark: The Leader of the Opposition made reference to the phrase I had used during the election campaign, a phrase concerning communities. That is a matter of great concern to me. The concept is of great concern to me because in recent years the sense of community in Canada, despite the best intentions of the hon. gentlemen opposite, has become unraveled. That was evidenced most dramatically by the election in Quebec of a government explicitly committed to dismembering the country. But that erosion of common purpose has grown in other ways as well, such as in the decision of the Canadian Labour Congress that they could not trust government enough to continue in consultation; the mutual suspicion that has clouded relations between the federal and provincial governments; the growing gulf between Canadians working in the private sector and Canadians working in the public sector; a sense among private citizens that their government and their Parliament was ignoring their interests and their views. More was happening in recent years than just the development of interest groups and narrow movements which arise occasionally in every country. There was a pattern of things coming apart in Canada, of the centre being literally unable to hold, and the irony was that every assertion by the centre of its authority weakened that authority. The lesson is that this nation cannot be ordered together. This nation must be brought together, and the starting step must be to establish a basis of mutual trust, of goals that emerge from the community of Canada rather than being imposed upon the community of Canada. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Clark: As a new government we have believed that the way we should begin to knit the nation together was to establish a climate of calm and of co-operation. My ministers have travelled and consulted widely with the provinces, labour, business, co-operatives and a multitude of groups and individuals, sometimes concluding agreements, more often establishing the basis for future agreement. The fact is that the central government can lead the nation in resolving difficult prob-
Milestone Speeches 37
lems only when the central government is seen again as a leader which itself respects the other partners of the Canadian confederation. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear! [Translation] Mr. Clark: Mr. Speaker, it had been obvious for several years that continuous confrontation had become a rule, a kind of system for federal-provincial relations. As a new government, we have set a first immediate objective: the easing of the climate of federal-provincial relations. This is what we did. Action has been taken in that perspective. I think, for instance, of the agreement signed as regards Loto Canada. An agreement in principle has also been reached between the new government and some coastal provinces concerning offshore mineral resources. In the same spirit, we have decided not to reintroduce in the Commons the bill on the referendum as proposed by the former government. This measure was perceived in Quebec as an act of aggression and it is precisely the kind of attitude that my government intends to change. So, my government has the firm intention of altering the atmosphere of federal-provincial relations. Concrete measures have been taken in recent weeks and others will be in the future. We believe that it is possible to solve several problems without any constitutional amendment and without revising the constitutional tool we now have at our disposal. This is not a one-way process. In some cases, the answers we will choose might imply a jurisdictional transfer from the federal government to the provinces, whereas in others it might be a transfer from provincial jurisdictions to the federal authority. Of course, there are skeptics in this House. It is quite possible, however, with a will, with a determination to chase partners rather than conflicts, for a Canadian government to get co-operation, understanding and agreements. During this parliament, the issue of federal-provincial relations will still lead to controversy and intense debate. It is my hope there will be indeed outspoken debates. It is my hope that every member in this House will share a determination to contribute fully and outspokenly, with deep conviction but without prejudice, because, Mr. Speaker, no party can hope to have all the wisdom needed, or all the answers. The government will listen to members on this side and members opposite
38
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
who may have different perspectives and priorities. It is this government’s view that all hon. members, wherever they sit in this House, want to have a strong Canada and maintain our confederation. [English] Mr. Olivier: Say that to René Lévesque. Mr. Clark: Someone asked me to tell that to René Lévesque. In my judgment, it is the duty of all members of the House of Commons to tell that to René Lévesque. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Clark: And it is important for all of us in the House to end that personal preoccupation with René Lévesque. The message which we are interested in delivering is not to the premier of the province of Quebec; it is to the people of the province of Quebec. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Clark: We believe that there is a much wider range of opportunity for accomplishment with us as a government prepared to seek new approaches with the people of Canada than there was with the former government, which was determined to continue old quarrels with the Premier of Quebec. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Clark: If the hon. member for Ottawa-Carleton (Mr. Pepin) does not stop interjecting, I will quote sections of his report to him. Some hon. Members: Oh, oh! Mr. Clark: The results of the election in May left all of our parties deprived, in one way or another, of the balanced representation that might be considered ideal. That is a problem for our parties but it is a great opportunity for this Parliament. We can rise above narrow partisanship and help each other to achieve a better understanding of how our respective regions perceive, and are affected by, these national issues. I am not suggesting that any of the parties argue their own views less aggressively; only that in this Parliament, and especially on this subject, each of us should be more open to the views of the others. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!
Milestone Speeches 39
Mr. Clark: That will not be easy. It will require of us in this House an act of mutual trust, just as the conduct of federal-provincial relations, in our view, required a new spirit of mutual trust between Ottawa and the provinces. The test of our federalism and its strength is not in the undoubted power of the central government to have its way. Rather it is in the willingness of the partners to act together. The success of our federalism will lie in our ability to accommodate the different kinds of communities Canadians choose to live in. These communities have different economic potentials, different economic strategies, and they have different cultural and social goals. Confederation gave to the provinces not only real powers—and in some cases exclusive powers—which could be exercised in those fields, but it assigned to the provinces the sources of revenue, the economic means to exercise those powers effectively. That was the spirit in which the forests, the mines, the natural resources of another day and the revenues therefrom were assigned to the provinces. That is the spirit in which in 1979 this government agreed that the provinces which have offshore resources should control their development. The extent to which all provinces have the economic means to exercise their powers will determine their ability to pursue their different cultural, social and economic goals. The greater their dependence on Ottawa for their revenues, the less likely they are to develop that diversity which is at the heart of the Canadian idea. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Clark: In these so-called constitutional debates the real question at issue was not the law of the country but the nature of the country. Miss Bégin: It is the country. Mr. Clark: Can we afford to have Canadians doing different things in different ways in different parts of the country? I ask that of the former minister: can we afford to have Canadians doing different things in different ways in different parts of the country? Not only do I think we can, I believe we must if we are to honour the spirit of this country. One thing which is beyond debate, to my knowledge, is that everyone in the House accepts the absolute necessity of a central government strong enough to guarantee basic standards of service, instruments of growth and national co-ordination, and indeed capable of initiating and expressing national policy.
40
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
When it comes to the national interest, the final responsibility and the ultimate authority lie with Parliament. If paramount national interests were endangered by federal-provincial conflict or federal-provincial stalemate, this government and Parliament could act. There is no question that we would have the support of Canadian people in so acting. But asserting that ultimate power in emergencies is quite different from insinuating that ultimate power every day. The nation is more than the central government. The need for a national transportation policy, to take one example, is of an order quite different from the need for a national lottery. The nation will survive the provinces running the national lottery. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Clark: Indeed the nation will be much stronger if the government in Newfoundland uses wealth from offshore resources to build its economy directly, rather than having part of the proceeds recycled back from Ottawa. One fundamental fact is that there is a limit to what Ottawa can do, because there is a limit to what Ottawa can know. Ottawa cannot know the local needs, natures, and requirements of different corners of this country as well as the properly constituted governments of those provinces. The hon. Leader of the Opposition quoted Edward Blake and approved of him. I will quote Sir John A. Macdonald on a matter where— one of the few times—I think Sir John was wrong. Sir John A. Macdonald would have preferred a unitary government. That is what he wanted; that is what he dreamed about. That was the model he had in his mind, but Sir John A. Macdonald was a practical, pragmatic man. He wanted to make the nation work. He was more interested in having a nation which worked than having a nation which accorded to his theories. He recognized that the nation was not built the way he wished it was, and successful national governments since have recognized the limits of federal power. That is not matter of constitutional law. It is a matter of common sense, and it is an approach which must be applied to the economy and the culture of Canada as well as to our constitution. [Translation] Today, Canadians want to recover control of such matters as concern them in their homes, in their communities. The challenge which this government, and this Parliament, must primarily face, is that of rerouting our Canadian economy. For the better part of the last ten years, we
Milestone Speeches 41
have constantly been plagued with a low rate of economic growth, a high rate of unemployment and a high rate of inflation. And short-term forecasts promise much more of the same. Canadians have a right to ask themselves why, in as rich a country as ours, we have not been able to fare better. There is no doubt that the international situation is to be blamed in part. Today, we are feeling the effects of a slowing down in the economic activity in the United States—but we cannot blame the whole wide world for our problems. Canada is surely not in bondage. The failures in our economic policies have their roots here, not in Washington, Zurich or Jedda. We have an alternative. We may go on pretending that we cannot solve our own problems, and looking for scapegoats. That will surely result in the realization of pessimistic forecasts. Or we can take on the job, which is ours anyway, of building this country. The time has come to roll up our sleeves and build this country. [English] Our goals as a government are clear. The Canadian economy must begin growing again much more close to its potential. Job opportunities must be created for Canadians, especially for groups like young people, women in the Canadian economy, and native Canadians, among whom unemployment is especially high. We must reduce the inflation which continues to rob Canadians of their savings and the real value of their incomes. Simply continuing existing policies will not work. That is why we intend to change the economic direction of Canada in several ways. First we intend to open up economic policy-making in Canada. Under our system government does not control the economy; it can only influence it. If that influence is to be effective, economic signals from the government must be public, understandable, and certain enough so that they can be relied upon. The best way to ensure that is to lift the shroud which has enveloped the making of economic policy. That is why we propose to encourage pre-budget hearings by a committee of this House, so that Canadians can understand the economic issues and options before the government. That is why we intend to make public with each budget four-year revenue and expenditure estimates. As we indicated today, that is why we are quite prepared to have a committee of parliament look into major economic questions such as the questions relating to interest rate policy. Second, we intend to be much more specific in economic policy. We believe that management of the large economic levers of fiscal and
42
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
monetary policy should be stable and consistent. We reject fine-tuning as an effective economic option. Instead, we recognize our economy is not monolithic but consists of a multitude of parts, each with its own sectoral or regional requirements. We intend to be sensitive to those specific needs and to tailor policies to fit them. That is the approach reflected in the Speech from the Throne in its emphasis on developing regional strengths such as tourism, shipbuilding, fisheries, grain transportation, and northern mining, and in its commitment to stimulate the housing industry through tax credits for mortgage interest and property taxes and to provide new incentives for small and medium-sized enterprises. Those programs will create jobs, jobs which are stable because they are founded on inherent economic strengths. [Translation] The same objective—creating specific programs to meet specific economic requirements—served as a basis for the implementation of our other job creation programs. I am sure all members welcome the fact that in September the rate of unemployment was down for the seventh time in as many months. But we all know that this improvement is not shared by all Canadians, the rate of unemployment for women is still 2 per cent higher than that for men, more than 12 per cent of Canadians under 25 are unemployed which is nearly double the national rate. Although no official statistics are available in the case of natives we know for a fact that the rate of unemployment in that group is much higher than in others. We intend to grapple with those problems. I will present the House with an employment strategy for women based on the principle that women have an undeniable right to participate equally in all sectors of the economy. That strategy will include steps to reduce occupational segregation through better training programs and contractual clauses that will recognize the women’s responsibilities concerning the children and will increase the opportunities made available precisely to them under economic expansion programs. In addition, our programs will underline the significant part played by the government which will become a leader in this area with the introduction of specific employment policies. Still in that vein, we intend to set up a youth employment secretariat to co-ordinate and plan programs making training and job opportunities available to young Canadians. We will be reviewing the job tax
Milestone Speeches 43
credit program to promote on the job training for young people who do not have all the necessary skills and we will be introducing a better program to encourage young Canadians to serve their communities. [English] Sir, in seeking to broaden economic opportunities available to native Canadians, the government supports the growing desire among native people themselves to assume authority and responsibility for their own development. The minister and I have recently had very useful conversations with representatives of the National Indian Brotherhood concerning, mainly, other matters, but certainly opening the door for discussion by which we can work together on important work opportunities for the native people of the land. Finally, sir, I want to emphasize this government’s determination to place much greater reliance on the private sector, and private sector broadly defined, whether in terms of business or in terms of volunteer agencies, to achieve our economic and social goals. In recent years, in many ways the federal government became a burden on our economy. Record deficits and virtually uncontrolled spending were sometimes explained as being intended to spur economic growth. They were nothing of the kind. They were a drag on the economy. We are implementing in this government a program of spending restraint, not because we believe it is one easy step from restraint to lower deficits and ultimately to a balanced budget. Our restraint program is intended to free resources to the private sector to encourage investment, to encourage business expansion and to encourage job creation, which we believe is the best way to generate the revenues which in turn will help us balance the budget of Canada. We intend to reduce the burden of government on the economy and offer practical incentives to individual Canadians to build a stake in our country. I am confident that Canadians will respond to that kind of encouragement and incentive. As I have travelled this country in recent months I have sensed a growing confidence, almost an enthusiasm, among Canadians over the prospects for this country. We should be confident and we should be enthusiastic because there is literally no country in the world with a greater potential, with a greater capacity to build, and with a greater offer of liberty and opportunity to its citizens, than this country.
44
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
Some hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Clark: Sir, energy is just one example. Certainly we need a new agreement on pricing and more effective programs both to conserve energy and to increase its supply. My ministers and I, as the House knows, are discussing these questions now with the provinces, and I have every confidence we can reach an understanding that acknowledges our needs and acknowledges theirs. But, the true significance of our energy situation is not what it requires in the short term. The true significance is what the energy situation in Canada offers our citizens in the long run. This country can be self-sufficient in energy within a decade. We can be free of the insecurity that is the price of dependence on supplies beyond our control. For many years we have talked about our energy potential in this country, about the billions of barrels of oil locked away in the tar sands, about our heavy oil deposits, our frontier potential, and our 500-year supply of coal. All we could do in those days was talk; we lacked the national need and we lacked the economic rationale to develop the resources we talked about. The time for talk is over. Resources which used to be too expensive to develop are becoming almost cheap at their price for Canadians. To that extent OPEC has done us an economic favour. The economics now make sense to take advantage of our resource potential. Our national need is evident. What we require is a national will to make that happen. During his remarks the Leader of the Opposition referred to a phrase he had used often during the election campaign, a phrase to which I took the deepest exception. He suggested that Canadian should learn to lower their expectations. We disagree on many things, but we disagree on nothing more fundamentally than that, because I believe this is a time for Canadians to raise their expectations, not to lower them. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Clark: We are a nation of immense potential, immense potential in our physical resources, in the great strength that comes to a country like this by the fact that all of us, coming from every corner that is represented here in this House of Commons, have in our heritage, in our past and as part of our being a different sense of what this country can become, and a different identity that, woven together can create a vibrant and strong national identity. There used to be a time in this country when Canadians feared the
Milestone Speeches 45
regions and feared the different identities that might develop. There is nothing to fear in the regions of Canada. There is nothing to fear in the differences of Canada. Those regions, those differences, and those resources are the strengths of our country. Our challenge as a Parliament is to try to give the leadership to restore that sense of calm and that sense of co-operation that can bring Canadians together to work toward the realization of the individual dreams of Canadians across this country. What we have tried to do in the Speech from the Throne is set down a beginning agenda, steps we can take to reform this institution to make it the vital centre of the nation again, steps we can take to start Canadians along the road to feeling a part of their country and to building a stake in their country. That is the work we invite Parliament and the people of Canada to join in accomplishing. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!
Last Speech in the House of Commons House of Commons Debates 13 May 2004 37th Parliament, 3rd Session: Volume 139, 3156–60 Hon. Anne McLellan (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise today in this House to pay tribute to a fellow Albertan, and an outstanding parliamentarian and public servant, the right hon. member for Calgary Centre, the man from High River. Although we have spent years on opposite sides of the House, no one can but have enormous respect for the member’s commitment to this place and his profound belief in the importance of the democratic discourse that takes place here. Because of that commitment, the right hon. member displayed on a daily basis his love of language and his understanding of its power; its power to inform, to elevate and to inspire, and at times, dare I say, its power to irritate, to exasperate and to move to anger. Some have said that the hon. member was able to say more in 35 seconds than others could say in 35 minutes. It is perhaps not surprising that the right hon. member understands the power of language. He is the son and grandson of newspaper owners and his mother
46
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
was a French teacher. I am told that as a young man he considered a career in journalism. Indeed, he was the editor of the student newspaper, the Gateway at the University of Alberta. As a student he quickly became involved in his lasting passion, politics. I understand that at the university he debated vigorously the issues of the day with fellow students, such as Jim Coutts, Preston Manning and Senator Joyce Fairbairn. By the late 1960s, the right hon. member had decided to make politics his career. He worked for some time as a speech writer for the late hon. Robert Stanfield. The right hon. member was first elected to Parliament in 1972, becoming leader of the Progressive Conservative Party in 1976 and Prime Minister in 1979. He left elected politics in 1993 but returned as leader of the Progressive Conservatives in 1998. His commitment to progressive conservatism has never wavered. As minister of external affairs, the right hon. member represented our country with distinction around the world. I want to particularly note the important role he played, and our country played, in bringing an end to apartheid in South Africa. [Translation] While he served as the minister responsible for constitutional affairs between 1991 and 1993, the right hon. member’s commitment was obvious throughout the country, as he worked tirelessly to bring about constitutional reform through the Charlottetown accord. [English] While the Charlottetown accord was not finally accepted by Canadians, no one could ever doubt this right hon. member’s commitment to a strong and united Canada where policies like official bilingualism are at the heart of who we are and what we aspire to be. As we all know, the right hon. member has never stopped working on behalf of Canadians, both in and outside the House, either in an official party or not. For example, yesterday he asked a key question about the government’s commitment to the fight against HIV-AIDS in this country. It will be 25 years ago this week that the right hon. member became Prime Minister of Canada. On behalf of the Prime Minister, the Government of Canada and all Canadians, I wish to thank the right hon. member, his wife, Maureen McTeer, and his daughter, Catherine, for their selfless, courageous and
Milestone Speeches 47
inspiring commitment to this country and its people. Mr. Speaker, the member had the honour to lead the political party that was there at the founding of our country. Hon. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, CPC): Mr. Speaker, as Leader of the Opposition, it is my honour today to rise and pay tribute to the right hon. member for Calgary Centre and to his political career. I wish to begin by admitting that we have not always been on the same side of political issues. I think we have spent most of our careers and political lives as opponents, but in this business, while this may colour one’s perspective, it should not blind one to the abilities and accomplishments of others. Because of the rivalries that we have had from time to time, the right hon. member and myself are sometimes compared, and I am sure will be more frequently in the future. These comparisons to me are, from my perspective, not always flattering. I can give one example. A few months back I was on the road as I often am for a number of days at a time and left my family to travel alone back from the riding to Ottawa. My seven-year-old son, Benjamin, found himself seated with the right hon. member for Calgary Centre on that four-hour plane flight. Well, a few days later my harshest critic, my wife, delivered the verdict. She said, “Do you realize that lately you have been spending less time with your son than Joe Clark has?” Man, I tell you, some things hurt. However, there was a point there. As we all struggle with the challenges of living in public life, we cannot help but admire an individual who has been in public life almost his entire adult life and who has not only managed those challenges but has sustained a strong family life, an enduring and loving marriage to his wife Maureen, and a wonderful father-daughter relationship with Catherine who I understand also grew up at Stornoway, like my daughter Rachel. Today we pay tribute principally though to a long and distinguished career in public service. Whatever our differences, the right hon. member for Calgary Centre has had a career here of well over 30 years. He has by my count been elected to this House eight times. He has served with distinction in key roles such as the constitutional affairs minister and has been minister of external affairs. He twice led a national political party. He occupied the post of leader of the opposition during some of the most critical battles ever to take
48
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
place in the history of this Chamber. And it was almost 25 years ago that he received the mandate, albeit briefly as it turned out, to be Prime Minister of Canada, one of only 21 people in the entire history of this country to be so honoured. As a consequence, the right hon. member for Calgary Centre will leave here with only history to judge him, which makes him a historic figure. Many people come here with the ambition to be historic figures but very, very few ever achieve this. And for that, we salute his career and we wish the right hon. member and his family health and prosperity into the future. [Translation] Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, throughout his very long parliamentary career—he was first elected in 1972— the member for Calgary Centre performed his duties with dignity, a keen sense of public interest and, I might add, a good sense of humour. He is a gentleman. In March 2002, he joined us to vote in favour of a Bloc Québécois motion calling on the government to recognize the fiscal imbalance. He advocated the rejection of the clarity bill. He did so with arguments that we do not support, but nonetheless, he urged his party to vote against this disgraceful bill. We did not always agree with his stand on the Quebec issue, as it did not meet our expectations or Quebecers’ expectations for that matter. Standing by his convictions, at the end of the 1980s, when the Progressive Conservative Party was in power, he made a sincere attempt to reconcile the aspirations of Quebec and Canada, but unsuccessfully. Nonetheless, he was always open to Quebec, sharing with Quebecers values common to both peoples. In all sincerity, I hope he enjoys his political retirement with his family, who supported him at all times. I wish him a good retirement and good luck. [English] Hon. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the NDP caucus, I certainly want to wish the right hon. member for Calgary Centre well as this Parliament comes to a close, and to thank him for his distinguished service as a parliamentarian, as a prime minister, as leader of the opposition, as a minister and as a Progressive Conservative.
Milestone Speeches 49
It should also be said that the right hon. member served Canada particularly well as Canada’s foreign affairs minister during the Mulroney years, as I, who was his assigned critic for part of that time, can well attest. It has already been mentioned the role that Canada played under his leadership and the leadership of the prime minister at that time in the fight against apartheid and I think this is a Canadian story that we do not tell well enough or often enough. One hesitates to be too complimentary about the right hon. member because some of his adversaries have said a political goodbye to him before and lived to hear their praise repeated in a different context. The right hon. member has a history of responding to duty and one never knows where or in what way duty may call again. The NDP has a relationship, probably not remembered with affection by the hon. member, with one of the most difficult moments in his political life. We moved the motion that ultimately brought down the newly elected government in 1979. We did not, however, determine the government’s tactics in response to the motion. That is a responsibility still to be sorted out. However for the record I want the right hon. member to know that I argued in caucus at the time for letting him govern for a time while we saw what he would or could do. Perhaps it was because it was my first Parliament and I was not anxious to go back to the streets, I am not sure what the reason was, but that was my position at the time and I stick to it. [Translation] I would also like to commend the right hon. member for setting an example for western Canadians by being truly open to and aware of Quebec’s aspirations and the reality of a bilingual Canada. Although we could debate certain constitutional matters at great length, I think the example he set in this regard is and will be part of the legacy of the right hon. member for Calgary Centre. [English] I think the right hon. member was also precocious in his attitude toward women, championing the cause of women’s equality long before it was always popular to do so. Finally, I want to commend the right hon. member for his appreciation of the role of Parliament and, in particular, the role of the House of Commons. Remarks have already been made by the leader of the Bloc
50
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
Québécois about the right hon. member being a gentleman and about his sense of humour. What I want to say of him and what I think is one of the highest compliments that can be paid a member of Parliament is that he is a House of Commons man who took seriously this place, its procedures and its possibilities, no matter what side of the House he was on, and saw the importance of doing the nation’s business in this chamber and not across the street in some other contrived, unelected and unaccountable venue. We hope he will write a book, for few have more to teach us about the nature of political commitment, through all the ups and downs that political life offers, than the right hon. member for Calgary Centre. [Translation] Good luck and thank you very much. [English] Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join in this tribute to a man who, for over 30 years, spanning four decades, has dedicated his life to serving the public interest. Canada is a complex country. It has been said that if other countries suffer from having too much history, Canada has too much geography. All that geography makes our great country a place in which diverse and sometimes divergent views and interests coexist and in fact flourish. Throughout his political career, the right hon. member for Calgary Centre strove to understand that diversity and bridge those divides. The son of a newspaper man from High River, Alberta, it would have been easier for him to be a man of his roots. Instead, he became a man of the world, always reaching out to the other, whoever the other happened to be. The right hon. member learned to speak both of Canada’s official languages. He named the first woman to serve as foreign affairs minister and the first black cabinet minister. He has always been an ardent supporter of human rights. He fought Canada’s fight against South African apartheid. He was instrumental in Canada securing an acid rain treaty with the United States, and he welcomed the Vietnamese boat people. The constitutional accord he negotiated would have, for the first time, recognized aboriginal peoples in our basic law. In each case there was a political risk and a political price to pay. Not all of these initiatives were in fact successful but together they
Milestone Speeches 51
speak to his unwavering commitment to make this country a place anyone can call home, no matter their history, no matter their background. He spoke of Canada as a community of communities long before the concept was fashionable. Indeed, our recent history has shown how truly prescient his vision was. [Translation] When I was young, I observed the right hon. member, who served our country as party leader, prime minister and then secretary of state for foreign affairs. He played a role, in a number of ways, in my decision to enter politics. His commitment to Canada and his protection of the public interest are an inspiration to us all. [English] Too often political pundits, media commentators describe what we do in this chamber in terms of winners and losers. That is, of course, important to our system. At its core, our system is in fact adversarial. It starts, after all, after an election, but that, dear friends and colleagues, does not tell the whole story. At its best, politics is about making the big play in the interest of Canada. In an age of careful political leadership and government by opinion poll, the right hon. member for Calgary Centre stands out as a man who in every circumstance tried to make the big play. Far removed from the back rooms, focus groups and polling questionnaires, he had a vision and he made his case to Canadians in public places, but more often than not in this House of Commons. He is a fierce opponent in question period and a formidable debater. On occasion, Mr. Speaker, you may have recognized that he is capable of being a tad partisan as well, but his motives were never in question. At all times and in all things he was motivated by the desire to make Canada a better place. I would be remiss if I did not take a moment to acknowledge his wife and partner in this long political journey, Maureen McTeer, and my friend, Catherine. Political life, as we know it, is hard on families: long hours, time away, stress and hectic schedules, but their approach has always been a team approach. His achievements are their achievements as well. This House of Commons and indeed this country will always be in the right hon. member’s debt, both for the things he did and for the things for which he stood. He has taught me a great deal about the
52
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
country that we serve and I think we all collectively are better parliamentarians for having known him. Thank you, Joe. Right Hon. Joe Clark (Calgary Centre, PC): I have to say, Mr. Speaker, that I preferred these parliamentary tributes when they were about someone else but I appreciate deeply the tribute that the House has paid. I thank my fellow Albertan, the Deputy Prime Minister, for her remarks. I want to thank the Leader of the Opposition and, more particularly, his very engaging son, Benjamin. [Translation] I would of course, like to also thank the leader of the Bloc Québécois . He is right, we do not see eye to eye when it comes to certain basic issues relating to Canada, but I think that we both, myself as much as he, appreciate each other’s sincerity of commitment to our objectives. He is a little less bilingual than I, but these things happen. [English] My colleague, my friend and, dare I say, former youth member of the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada, when there was such a thing, has now, I am pleased to see, confessed his collaboration or the collaboration of his party with the Liberals in bringing down my government in the beginning of our life. I have to express a particular appreciation to my friend and my colleague in the other part of the Progressive Conservative caucus in the House of Commons, the member for Fundy-Royal. I admire him as a parliamentarian and an individual, and I very much appreciate his words today. Mr. Speaker, I think this will be one of the least controversial interventions of my career. I want to begin my remarks where I began my career, which is with the men and women who elected me in the four constituencies in two provinces which it has been my privilege to represent here in the House of Commons. I am immensely grateful to the voters of that spectacular but shortlived riding of Rocky Mountain in Alberta; the riding of Yellowhead, which I had the privilege to serve for so long; and the riding of KingsHants, from which the Deputy Prime Minister comes as does her now colleague, the current member for Kings-Hants; and of course my constituency of Calgary Centre.
Milestone Speeches 53
I want to express my thanks to literally thousands of other individuals in Canada and abroad, in this House and outside, who have helped me in good times or in bad times or in both. Everyone here knows, and it has been acknowledged, just how much members of Parliament owe to our families. That is always true but I have to say that in no case has it been more true than in the case of Maureen McTeer and of Catherine Clark. Maureen sought election here herself, in a difficult constituency and time. She would have been a formidable presence in this House of Commons. It may also be appropriate for me to say, and this is perhaps the most controversial thing I will say today, that Maureen, Catherine and I, under fire, have learned something about family values. The spokesman for the NDP referred to the defeat of my government in 1979. I have had the privilege of several dramatic moments in this House. I will not recite each one of them. I remember clearly how that defeat came about after a vote on our budget in 1979. On that vote, the Liberal Party wheeled in every member who could draw breath. They literally evacuated the hospitals. Members of Parliament, on whose desks cobwebs had grown, showed up miraculously to vote. The present Prime Minister should have seen it because I learned that night that just because a member of the Liberal Party might be worn out, battered and beaten up, he can still come back to haunt you. Now, almost everyone who serves here leaves with a larger vision than they brought. The diversity of Canada becomes a personal experience which lifts most of us beyond the natural Canadian boundaries of region and language and local experience. The real privilege of working here goes beyond service to our constituents or to our country. In an age of invention and uncertainty there is no other profession so consistently subject to change and to surprise. In an era where people are always learning, there is no better school than public life. [Translation] I learned the other official language here, learned it in my fashion. That helped me understand that the distinct society is not a dead phrase in a constitution, but the living reality of most of French-speaking Canada, and a defining feature of our history and our future. Serving in this Parliament became my passport to communities and realities I would otherwise never have known so well: aboriginal Ca-
54
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
nadians, Canadian Jews and Canadian Arabs confronting ancient tensions, farmers seeing their way of life threatened, the transforming imagination of our artists and scientists. But this Parliament is more than a school. It is a place to act. It is the principal place where the Canadian community can act together. [English] This House can reflect our country at its worst or at its best. I have been here for both experiences. At our best this House of Commons defines the public interest of Canada. That happened, I believe, when we argued for and against specific constitutional changes in at least two Parliaments; when we argued for and against a free trade agreement; and when we acted together, as others have mentioned, as a Parliament in a practical campaign against apartheid. In such debates there are bound to be deep disagreements, because that is in the nature of a diverse country that is continent-wide with roots and interests reaching literally everywhere. That very diversity makes it imperative that there be a place where broad public interest can be expressed. There are plenty of voices for private, regional or special interests. At our best in this House of Commons, the whole community can find its Canadian voice. I have been honoured to serve here. Maureen and I look forward to the next chapters in our lives. I hope my colleagues in the House are able to draw as much satisfaction from their public service as I have from mine.
2
Economic and Energy Policy The following chapter about economic and energy policy, though the shortest, is also perhaps the most multi-faceted of those included in this volume. In two speeches, Clark showed his firm grasp of the complex nature of our Confederation, the tension between balancing a strong national government with encouraging provincial control of energy. These debates continue today. What does not continue today is the Red Tory tinge evident in Clark’s approach to the issue. Taken from the perspective of a Westerner, it has added significance as it demonstrates the careful balance between his view of Canada as a united federal state but also the importance of decentralization. This theme is picked up in the next chapter which includes a speech on the importance of federalprovincial consultation on energy policy. In the following speeches, delivered during and shortly after his time as Prime Minister, Clark discussed the problem of energy provision in Canada. The most recent collapse in international oil prices and ongoing pipeline debates reminds us that this is a perennial one in Canadian federalism. In the first speech, Clark staked his claim that if the oil industry was nurtured, Canada could have energy self-sufficiency by 1990. Demonstrating the liberal nationalism that was part of Red Toryism, Clark argued that he hoped that Canada “would be much better protected against the vagaries of the international market” and from “national decisions of foreign governments taken for their own reasons and with no thought of Canada in mind” through the implementation of his program. This sort of rhetoric would no doubt make most contemporary conservatives balk and demonstrates how the Conservative party has shifted since Clark’s time in the House of Commons. The protectionist sentiments seem out of place from the present day when free trade is the norm in Canadian politics, even among nominally left-wing parties and governments. And it may have been these sorts of statements that emboldened the more right wing critics of Clark’s A Man of Parliament; Selected Speeches from Joe Clark, edited by Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon. Montréal and Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press, Queen’s Policy Studies Series. © 2019 The School of Policy Studies, Queen’s University at Kingston. All rights reserved.
56
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
day who were frightened that the Progressive Conservatives had elected a “Red.” However, despite his call for increasing Canadian ownership of its energy sector, Clark remained a Tory at heart. It was, after all, a private sector solution that he proposed. He was not arguing for nationalizing ownership by the federal or provincial governments, nor bringing about worker ownership of the refineries and wells. Instead, he simply stated that Canadian capital should be owned by Canadian businesses. And further, Clark proposed that the Trudeau government of the day should be subsidizing companies to expand production and protecting them until Canada stood on a solid, self-sufficient energy foundation. Given that Clark spoke with the 1973 OPEC crisis fresh in everyone’s minds, such a moderate response was understandable and commendable. What is further commendable is that in his response to the fallout of a crisis Clark refused to turn this into a one-man show. He did not raise “the spectre of unilateral action” nor brandish “an emergency power or a declaratory power” with which to threaten the provinces. This instead was meant to be a roundtable process in which Clark elicited the opinions of not just his fellow first ministers but also those of the wider Canadian public. Through a national conference on economic development Clark aimed to bring in relevant stakeholders such as “industry, the unions, the credit unions, the farmers and other individuals concerned with the economic development of Canada.” This conference demonstrated Clark’s belief in the small and local given form. It is unfortunate then that it never saw the light of day as Clark’s minority government was defeated before it, or as his energy plan as a whole, could be put into action. With the federal government’s duty to consult, his commitment to consultation was ahead of his time. While it was a principled position, for Clark it was also a practicality and necessary for maintaining the very fabric of the Confederation. His concern for the federation may also have a lot to do with the timing of these two speeches which appeared shortly before and after the first Quebec referendum on May 20th 1980. Separated as we are from these momentous events and with the Quebec sovereignty movement at low ebb, this perhaps does not carry the same weight for us today. But this was the beginning of an era that would culminate in Quebec remaining in Confederation by less than 1 percent of the second referendum vote. And as we saw in the recent British EU referendum vote, these things can easily go the other way. For Clark, this was an attempt to create a new kind of Confedera-
Economic and Energy Policy
57
tion promised to Quebeckers by Prime Minister Trudeau following the referendum in order to not just convince Quebec to come along, but to remain in. Viewed another way, the energy debate was not simply about the end of securing our energy supply but it was also about the means by which it was secured. This was a consultation that sought the co-operation of Confederation’s constituent parts in order to create a solution that was greater than the sum of its parts. In his words, it was the creation of a “genuine national package reflecting a genuine national consensus and pursuing genuine national goals.” It is unfortunate then that in failing to follow his advice in crafting the National Energy Policy, Prime Minister Trudeau would help foster the rise of a new kind of conservative (and a new kind of Conservative), one fueled by a sense of Western alienation to which Clark alluded in this chapter. While hindsight is always 20/20, perhaps we should have followed his advice on the importance of an inclusive process then.
Energy Supply House of Commons Debates 6 November 1979 31st Parliament, 1st Session: Volume 1, 1005–1008 Right Hon. Joe Clark (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker, I was very interested in listening to the attack of the hon. leader of the New Democratic Party on the Liberal party. I will not try to create the suspense the leader of the NDP did, and I will announce at the outset that I intend to oppose this motion. Regarding the speech of the hon. Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Trudeau) who introduced the motion before us today, I suppose the part which struck me most, and that I found frankly saddest about his remarks, was that frequently he urged this government to come back to the policies of his government, to return to the policies of his government, to look backwards. Fundamentally that is the reason why there was a change in government on May 22: Canadians had had enough of a government looking back. They wanted a government that was looking forward, that was prepared to come to grips with the challenges and the problems of the Canadian people. That is why we were elected. That is true.
58
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
Some hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Clark: I want to deal directly with the questions laid out in the motion, even though they were not all addressed by the Leader of the Official Opposition. [Translation] I would like, first, to deal with the question of oil supplies to Eastern Canada, namely Quebec and the Maritime provinces. I believe the best way to describe the situation at this time is to say that it is tight but under control. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Hnatyshyn) as well as the chairman of the National Energy Board have been constantly monitoring the situation for weeks and months. We did not wait until we had a crisis this winter to act, and concrete steps have been taken to deal with any major problem that could occur in coming months. That is why the volume of our exports of crude oil abroad have been reduced considerably, in fact nearly eliminated so as to fully meet the demand by Canadian refiners. With the approval of the government, the National Energy Board is allowed to swap Canadian western crude for additional supplies of foreign oil to eastern Canada. The National Energy Board recently approved swaps totaling 2.5 million barrels that will practically all go to Quebec refineries. In addition, the National Energy Board asked Interprovincial Pipe Line to amend its regulations so as not to penalize corporations that have not done business with it in the past. That will have a direct effect on a group of heating oil distributors in Quebec who are thus given access to 450,000 barrels of crude oil from western Canada. Other steps that would take too long to enumerate here today have also been taken to ensure as much as possible the security of oil supplies to Quebec and the maritime provinces. However, I would like to add that if we were to face major interruptions in coming months we will not hesitate to use the powers we have under the Energy Supply Emergency Act. I do not believe this will be necessary but if the situation ever called for it, my government will not hesitate to act so the citizens of Quebec and the Maritimes will not have to face an oil shortage this winter. [English] I think there was probably no stranger part of the motion than the
Economic and Energy Policy
59
condemnation of the government for “its failure to support existing intergovernmental agreements on oil pricing and supply.” All members of the House and the Canadian public should be very clear as to exactly what that means. It suggests that this government and this Parliament should be content to rest with the status quo, that we should ignore the need to face the facts of the Canadian future, that we should be content to rest in the past and to put up with policies which have failed in the past. That is the recipe, the prescription, of the former government opposite, that backward-looking group which earned its way out of office and now is forgoing any possibility of getting back into office because it refuses to look to the future and continues to be preoccupied with the past. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Clark: Let me spell out for the House and the country exactly what the oil policies of the old government have achieved and would achieve for our country if we were prepared simply to put up with the status quo. The policies of the old government have reversed dramatically Canada’s traditional strength in international oil trade. In 1974 we had an oil trade surplus of $1 billion. Last year we had an oil trade deficit of $1 billion. If existing policies are left in place, we could have an oil trade deficit of $6 billion by the mid-1980s. That is the prescription of the Liberal party. That is not the future this government will accept for Canada. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Clark: Because of those policies and because of what they have done to our dependency on imported oil, the cost of oil has become a major contributor to the federal deficit. This year alone it is costing the Government of Canada $1.8 billion to offset our dependence on imported oil. Under the policies we inherited, that cost would double to $3.6 billion by 1985. The policies of which those opposite are so proud produced last year a shortfall of 345,000 barrels a day between Canadian oil production and Canadian oil needs. If we followed the advice of the former government simply to look to the past and ignore the needs of the future, those policies would widen that shortfall to 640,000 barrels a day within five years. The old policy has resulted in a widening gap between Canadian oil consumption and the discovery of new Canadian reserves. Since 1974, when OPEC alerted any government which had its eyes open to the
60
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
need for strong national action, we have been consuming in this nation an average of 648 million barrels of oil each year and adding barely 100 million barrels to our known reserves. Those same policies of the old government have done little to restrain energy demand in Canada or to encourage Canadians to eliminate waste and inefficiency in their consumption of energy. We remain the largest per capita consumers of energy in the western world. During the first nine months of this year, our consumption of gasoline was up more than 4 per cent. Not only does that represent virtually no progress in energy conservation, it threatens the commitments Canada made to its world allies through the International Energy Agency and at the Tokyo Summit. Those are the principal results of the policies of members of the old government who want to turn back the clock and say that we should leave them untouched. They are a prescription for energy failure in a country which has a rare opportunity for energy success. They may be acceptable to the Liberals and the New Democrats, but I say to the House of Commons that they are not acceptable to this government and the people of Canada. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Clark: Because they are not acceptable is precisely the reason we have been conducting extensive negotiations with the provinces, to try to come forward with a new energy package that will not only deal with price but will deal with other instruments and other aspects of a policy and a package which can make this nation self-sufficient in energy by 1990, which can make energy a building block for the future of Canada rather than an obstacle to our growth, as has been the case with the policies followed and still pursued by the old government. I want to deal with the accusation of an inability to conclude an agreement on energy pricing. My government is working towards agreement with the provinces in ways that were perhaps contemplated by the last government but were rarely pursued by them. We are making progress and we are confident of reaching agreement on an energy package soon. Obviously, with our discussions continuing, it is not appropriate for me to get into the content of an energy package today. But it is probably worthwhile, and even instructive to members opposite, to examine the process that we have followed. We are not, and we do not pretend to be, miracle workers in getting agreement in a complex federation. It takes time to reach agreement in
Economic and Energy Policy
61
an atmosphere of reasonableness and in an atmosphere of co-operation. On the rare occasions when the last government talked to the provinces that must have been evident to them. I remember a day in 1976— An hon. Member: Have you talked to Saskatchewan? Mr. Clark: The leader of the New Democratic Party asks if I have talked to Saskatchewan. Yes, I have, and I wonder if he has. Some hon. Members: Oh, oh! Mr. Clark: I remember a day in 1976 when the then minister of energy, mines and resources reported that more than six months of talks and meetings had preceded decisions on new oil and natural gas prices. His statement to this House in May of that year made reference to meetings as long before that as December, 1975. Far more often, unfortunately, the government of that day, the old government, could not be bothered with that kind of consultation, although it occasionally paid lip service to it. The prime minister of the day talked from time to time about not wanting to act unilaterally, about bringing the provinces into discussion, but what happened? What happened, as demonstrated clearly by the events of 1977, was that he would set a price agreement and then his government unilaterally broke that agreement, and consequently poisoned relations on energy questions between the federal and provincial governments. Some hon. Members: Oh, oh! Mr. Clark: Sir, we do not operate that way. We are working with the provinces towards building a stronger Canada. We are planning and we are building together, and the current discussions on energy are part of that process. We are not raising in this chamber the spectre of unilateral action. We are not running around suggesting that we have an emergency power or a declaratory power with which we can threaten the provinces. That is what we are advised to do by the old government opposite, and that is exactly why, because they followed that approach, the old government opposite was so unsuccessful and failed so dramatically in getting agreement among the provinces of this country and the national government on how we can make use of our unique and virtually limitless, in all of its aspects, energy potential. Let me be quite clear that we are prepared to accept our responsibility as a federal government to move by ourselves if we have to, but
62
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
we do not use that as a club or as a threat or as a weapon. I believe that we must try, and must try 110 percent, to get agreement by agreement before resorting to other alternatives of menace or of threat. We have not yet reached that limit. Indeed, we are making positive advances towards agreement. Indeed, I can report to the House that we have now reached a point in the discussions with the provinces where I think it would be useful to bring together the first ministers of Canada to discuss energy matters; a broad package of energy matters. I will be convening a meeting on Monday next, November 12, here in Ottawa of the first ministers. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Clark: Sir, our principal objective in working towards a new energy package with the provinces is first and foremost to achieve energy self-sufficiency for Canada by 1990, so that by then no Canadian will have to depend on insecure or unreliable foreign sources to heat his home or to drive his car. In moving toward that fundamental goal we also want to reinforce the commitment of this nation to a new era of co-operation with the provinces, to demonstrate our belief that, given clear and stable direction, the private sector can meet Canada’s energy needs, and to use the opportunity that self-sufficiency provides significantly to increase Canadian participation in the development of our nation’s energy resources. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Clark: Sir, no one in this House is satisfied with the degree to which our energy development in Canada is dominated by firms controlled outside Canada. But it is important as we lament and oppose that situation that we understand how it happened. That situation arose because of past government policies, going some distance back, that made it more attractive for foreigners than for Canadians to develop our resources. It was reinforced by existing fiscal policies which, without any offsetting initiatives, tended simply to reinforce the status quo. Sir, we in this government are determined to change the status quo in terms of Canadian participation in Canadian energy development. The additional investment resources that will be available through changes in pricing policy will provide us with an opportunity to do that, and we intend to seize that opportunity to help more Canadians control more of the Canadian energy industry.
Economic and Energy Policy
63
Some hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Clark: Among the elements of a new energy policy under discussion with the provinces we are proposing the creation of a national instrument to provide a significant source of capital investment in major new energy projects across Canada. That concept appears to have general approval among the governments involved and we are hopeful that such an institution would have broadly based support from those governments. The creation of an institution like that will provide a specific source of funding, separate from other claims on the fiscal resources of government, to support projects ranging from coal development in Nova Scotia through a gas pipeline in Quebec and the development of additional hydro resources in Manitoba and Newfoundland. By placing a strong public financial commitment at the front end of those projects, their development will be more certain, their development will be quicker, and they will come on stream to serve the interests of Canadians much more quickly than they would without that instrument. In supporting those policies, in supporting those projects and in investing those new financial resources, it will be a basic principle of this government to encourage the maximum possible Canadian participation. We all know, those of us who are prepared to look at the facts of what is happening in the energy industry, how the use of special incentives by the government of Alberta in regard to in regard to increased exploration and development of natural goas led to a considerable increase in the role of Canadian-controlled companies in that area. Some hon. Members: Oh, oh! Mr. Clark: The leader of the New Democratic Party scoffs. I ask him to check the record because the record is there. It was a method that was brought in and it has resulted in Canadian control to an increasing degree of an industry that has too long been controlled by foreigners. I sympathize with the leader of the New Democratic Party. It is often difficult when reality collides with ideology, but this government is determined to govern on the basis of the real situation and the real potential of this country. We differ from the New Democrats in that we are not caught up in ideology. We differ from the Liberals in that we are not preoccupied with the past. We are determined to build a Canadian future in this country.
64
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
I had referred to the experience in Alberta, and I say to the House that I am convinced that an ability to back up the entrepreneurial skills and technical expertise of Canadians with major financial support can be equally productive in strengthening Canadian participation in other important energy developments. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Clark: The last item in the Leader of the Opposition’s motion concerns interest rates. No one in this House, and I am sure no Canadian, likes high interest rates. We all want them lowered and this government is determined that they be lowered, not by instant magic, because there is no magic, but by taking the tough decisions now that are essential if we are going to restore the Canadian economy to the kind of strength that will allow more moderate rates of interest in the future. That, sir, is our medium-term goal and we are dedicated to it. However, the issue in this motion is the short term—whether the government had any immediate alternative but to accept the advice of the governor of the Bank of Canada and, indeed, what the consequences following an alternative course might have been. The hard reality is that the economic circumstances we inherited from the old government left us with no short-term alternative. In fact, on becoming the government it became apparent to us that the mess was even worse than we suspected and that our immediate options were even more limited than we thought they were. We knew that we were inheriting a budgetary deficit of $11 billion, the largest in Canadian history. We knew that we were stuck with a balance of payments deficit of some $7 billion, the worst per capita deficit in international dealings of any western nation. But let me tell the House a few of the facts we found out only after we became the Government of Canada. First, because of the previous government’s commitment to secrecy, we did not know that the trend in government finances was exactly opposite to what Canadians had been told by the old government. We found that long-range forecasts, which we made public for the first time, showed the federal deficit increasing to $14 billion by 1983 and the public debt actually growing dramatically again with the next five years. Secondly, we had been told by the former minister of finance, as recently as his last budget, that the Canadian economy was entering into a period of, to use his words, “sustained expansion.” What we found in fact was an economy here and in the United States sliding toward a recession, not moving toward sustained expansion.
Economic and Energy Policy
65
The third thing we found was that the accounts of Canada, as presented by the old government, simply did not represent the true financial position of the country. In the Accounts of Canada Adjustments Act, the previous government proposed to write off some $3.5 billion in dubious assets, an action which might not affect cash requirements but which certainly had an impact on the country’s net debt and debt servicing costs. Similarly, we found Crown corporation borrowings of as much as $1.5 billion which were not entered in the accounts, even though they were a contingent liability of the government. We found a number of capital projects with costs virtually out of control, from the Prince Rupert grain dryer, where costs had multiplied five times, to the Mirabel Airport losing $1 million a week and requiring expenditures of hundreds of millions of dollars before it could even achieve solvency. [Translation] Mr. Speaker, faced with this legacy, no responsible government had any other alternative but to accept rising interest rates. Our government made a difficult but responsible choice. Let me also tell you the other solution we could have adopted. The Liberals as well as the New Democrats have hinted to the Canadian public, without ever making their position clear, that there was an obvious way out, which as Canadians should know, which had the full support of the opposition, namely, to reject the advice of the governor of the Bank of Canada. Such a decision would have had dire consequences. The governor might have felt he had to resign, as the government’s decision would amount to a lack of confidence. Given the present economic situation, such a resignation might have provoked a wind of panic on the Canadian stock exchange dealt a hard blow to Canadian currency. Even without the Governor’s resignation, our dollar would have been affected by our $7 billion trade deficit, followed by a drastic depreciation of our dollar and serious inflationary consequences for country. Such was, Mr. Speaker, the short-term choice the government had to make. I hope the representatives of the two parties opposite will have the courage to rise before this debate is over and tell this House and the Canadian people that it was the option they supported. [English] We are faced here with a ritual motion of non-confidence from a government that is so preoccupied with its past that it will—
66
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
Mr. Munro (Hamilton East): Government? Some hon. Members: Oh, oh! Mr. Clark:—by a group who consider themselves a government and who are so preoccupied with the mistakes that they made in the policies to which they were committed in the old days that they refuse to face the future of Canada. We on this side of the House are not afraid of the future of Canada. We will not accept the advice of those opposite, that we either succumb to ideology suggested by the New Democratic Party, or we lock ourselves in the past and shut our eyes to the future that can be gained in this country. We have in the energy resources of this nation a tremendous potential upon which to build as a nation. It is a potential which was there under the old government, but which it refused and failed to take advantage of. We do not intend to perpetuate that failure or to continue in the path of shutting our eyes to the great energy potential which exists in this country. We are a nation which need not depend on foreign sources. We are a nation which need not subject the people of Quebec and Atlantic Canada to an increasing dependence upon unstable foreign sources. We are a nation unique among nations of the world which has the possibility to build upon our own energy strength. This is what this government intends to do. If those opposite want to risk a general election on a question of the past versus the future, then we will go with confidence into that election, speaking to the future and certain that the people of Canada, given a choice or forced to make a choice between a government that wants to govern and a party opposite that wants to politic, will share with us the confidence that my ministers and I have in the future of this country. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!
Economic and Energy Policy
67
Energy Policy Security and National Interest House of Commons Debates 18 July 1980 32nd Parliament, 1st Session: Volume 3, 3116–3119 Mr. Clark: The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) promised that his spending would not exceed the real increases in gross national product. That was his promise during the election campaign. He broke his word, as it has become the habit of the Liberal party to break its word to the people of Canada. Mr. Chénier: Look who’s talking. Mr. Clark: That casual attitude toward honesty damages the very fabric of Canadian democracy, but in no field does the failure to face facts honestly more endanger the future of this country than in the field of energy policy, because we are a nation with immense potential and immense good fortune. We are also a nation which is blessed by individuals who have gone out to acquire skills and who have turned their skills to innovation, to creativity, and to opening and building a land. That is part of the legacy of this great nation, but our good fortune cannot be allowed to obscure two fundamental facts. The first is that no one else will look after Canada. We Canadians have to build on our good fortune, and we have to do it ourselves. Sometimes that means taking hard decisions, and always that means honesty. If we back down from hard decisions, our country will slide down the scale of nations. The second reality is that energy, which can be the source of Canadian security and success, can also be the cause of Canadian decline. If we build on our own resources, we can be the strongest nation in the world. That is if we build on our own resources, but if we expose ourselves weakly to the world, we can be cut down by revolutions in Iran, by invasions in Afghanistan, and by national decisions of foreign governments taken for their own reasons and with no thought of Canada in mind. Any of us in this House of Commons who are honest and knowledgeable about the facts know the frailty of the world energy picture. We know that demand is rapidly exceeding supply in the world. We know that the foreign policy of the Soviet Union is focusing more and more upon securing energy supplies at whatever cost to world stability. Hon. members of this House of Commons also know that we in Canada are unique among nations in our ability to protect our future
68
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
against hostile foreign decisions and to protect our future by making realistic Canadian decisions here at home. That is the reality facing any Government of Canada, but the response of Canada’s two recent governments has been dramatically different. My government faced those facts and for the first time in post-war history in Canada prepared a comprehensive national energy policy which would build upon the energy strengths of this energy nation. A federal-provincial agreement on that package was two days away when the Liberals and the New Democratic Party combined again to bring our government down. An hon. Member: Poor Joe! Mr. Clark: Since then there has been no comprehensive energy policy at all advanced by the Liberal government. Negotiations on a narrow but important part of energy policy, the part concerning price, are apparently under way. The producing provinces, naturally enough, are insisting that they receive the same net benefits from this government that they would have received from the agreement we had prepared. That is understandable, but the point for this Parliament to underline is that all the people of Canada also have the right to expect that Canada will get equivalent benefits from the Liberal agreement, equivalent to those benefits Canada would have received from the agreement two days short of signing by the Progressive Conservative government defeated last year. The Prime Minister is apparently meeting the premier of Alberta. He may well have a proposal to make. He has an adjournment ahead of him. I want to suggest some items for his agenda during that adjournment as they relate to energy policy. I would like him to bear in mind, as I believe the Canadian people are increasingly bearing in mind, the important elements of the comprehensive energy proposal which we made and which the Liberal party and the NDP, for their own narrow political reasons, voted against. Some hon. Member: Oh, oh! Mr. Clark: Those elements of that proposal were designed to build Canadian security, were designed to ensure Canadian supply, and they included some of the following. First, they included a pricing regime which would be sufficient to lead to exploration in this country, including non-conventional exploration in areas where exploration has not occurred successfully before, and which would lead the producers of this country to go forward and to guarantee security of Canadian sup-
Economic and Energy Policy
69
ply, because we believe that Canada, with the resources available to it, with the initiative of its people and of its industry, is eminently capable of becoming self-sufficient in energy by the year 1990. That was our goal, that should be the goal of Canada, that can be the goal of Canada, and that is a goal which apparently has been abandoned by the Liberal government and which I recommend that they adopt, not in my interest but in the interest of the nation that they will govern for a few years more. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Clark: Second, that energy package put together to secure Canada’s energy future, to take advantage of the rare resource we have as an energy nation, provided—and I say this for the special information of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources who, unhappily is absent—a force majeure clause which would have permitted the Government of Canada to separate Canadian price, to an even greater degree than was in the agreement spelled out, from the changes that might occur in world price, in prices by OPEC. That force majeure clause was an item of protection which was in our agreement, and we have no way of knowing what protection, if any, will be in the agreement signed by the Liberal government, if indeed there is one. Third, we recognized as a fundamental element of an energy policy for Canada that there had to be help to those Canadians who were going to be hit hardest by the increases in price that increases which were inevitable in a modern world economy. So, we introduced an energy tax credit which would have been available to the lower income and harder hit Canadians across the country, an energy tax credit, I would remind the House, voted against by the NDP and voted against by the Liberal party, but introduced by this party, introduced by the government we formed, as a fundamental element of a national energy package— Some hon. Members: Oh, oh! Mr. Clark: I am being heckled by the hon. member for Timmins-Chapleau (Mr. Chénier). I wanted to say the hon. member for Hollywood, but it is Timmins. His interjection was a complaint against the tax credit. I am not surprised that he should interject against the tax credit since the other night he applauded the imposition of an increase in the price that his constituents have to pay for home heating oil, an increase they would not have had to pay under our government.
70
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
Some hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Clark: We introduced those measures of aid to help Canadians who would be hardest hit. That was another major element of that program. Again we recognized that there were in some parts of Canada energy generation which depended excessively upon petroleum. So we offered special help to the province of Nova Scotia and to the province of Prince Edward Island so that they would be better able to deal with the increases which were inevitable in the current international energy situation. We proposed an energy self-sufficiency tax which would have yielded some $6 billion. We proposed a tax that the NDP voted against which would have taken $6 billion from the large multinational oil companies of this country. The NDP voted to spare multinationals from a $6 billion tax burden which we proposed to introduce. Some hon. Members: Oh, oh! Mr. Clark: That energy self-sufficiency tax imposed upon the energy industry was to have been directed entirely to energy supply and to developing conservation in this country. We proposed the establishment, as part of that package, of a Canadian energy bank which would encourage individual Canadians and Canadian-controlled companies to invest in Canadian energy projects. Again there has been no mention of that important factor, no similar instrument spelled out by the Liberal party. This party stands committed—and we proved it with the energy bank—to the concept of Canadian ownership of the Canadian energy industry. That is a principle which was voted against by the NDP, it was an initiative which was voted against by the Liberal party, but we believed in it and we set it forth in the energy package which was brought forth by us as a government. We believe in Canadian ownership of Canadian energy resources, and we gave Canadians a program which would have accomplished that goal. Some hon Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Clark: Those are some of the elements of our energy package, and the NDP was caught in the act of voting against Canadian ownership, of voting against low-income Canadians, of voting against energy security, so they are making a great deal of noise in this House. No doubt they are trying to shout down the revelation of their record, but as a party they voted against lower income Canadians, they voted against
Economic and Energy Policy
71
Canadian ownership, and they voted against Canadian security of supply. If they do not like hearing this now, they had better get used to it because they are going to hear a great deal more about their actions against Canadian interests. Some hon Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Clark: Indeed, as one of my colleagues pointed out, they will be hearing a great deal more about their actions against the steelworkers, their actions against unions. Mr. Skelly: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think the record clearly shows that it was the Canadian people who in fact voted against the Leader of the Conservative Party (Mr. Clark). Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is a point of debate, not a point of order. Mr. Clark: I regret that in the uproar which was being caused by the hon. member’s colleagues I did not hear his remarks, but my colleagues who did hear him tell me I missed nothing. Some hon Members: Oh, oh! Mr. Clark: I want to speak for a moment not simply about the contents of that energy package, important as they were because they faced, for the first time since the war in Canada, the great possibilities that existed for this nation to become self-sufficient in energy. I want to speak for a moment, for the benefit of the Liberal party, about the process that was followed in working out that package because I happened to read a most extraordinary chronicle in the life of Canada the other day, an interview given by one Pierre Elliott Trudeau to, of all people, the Toronto Globe and Mail. I thought that wonders would never cease when I read the account of that interview, until it became clear why exactly that interview had been given by that individual to that particular medium. The reason was that he wanted to build up the idea that there is no alternative approach to the confrontation politics which he has practiced for so long at such a high cost here in Canada. He suggested that what he termed as the non-confrontationist approach of my government has not worked. I want to give him one instance where it did work, and I wish him as much success as we had. When we began the process of working out an energy agreement which would speak to supply and security of supply for Canada, we consulted with the premiers of the country, Premier Buchanan, Premier Blak-
72
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
eney, Premier Davis, Premier Hatfield, Premier MacLean, and Premier Lougheed. We consulted with the premiers of the country. We did not take them a package which was a fait accompli, but we said, “Look, here is the goal for this country, a goal for a price which Canadians can afford and will have to face, but a goal also which will take advantage of the great resources that are here and will build on those resources.” I went to them as prime minister to premier and I said, “This is not a closed book, this is an arrangement, an agreement which conserves the interests of the whole community of Canada which we commonly serve.” I received from those premiers several proposals that became part of that agreement and that were very helpful to the final package which was proposed. For example, it was the Premier of Ontario who suggested first that there be a relation that would not go above 85 per cent of world price and would naturally be protected after that by the force majeure clause. We did not go to a province, as the Trudeau government so often does, and say, “Take this or leave it.” We said, “Here is a proposal. How can it be improved?” Premier Davis made a suggestion that improved it significantly. We went to the Premier of Nova Scotia and said, “Here is a proposal. How can it be improved?” Premier John Buchanan and Premier Angus MacLean of Prince Edward Island co-operated with us in having the energy package that was brought forward reflect the special requirements of their parts of Canada. There were other items where we went to the premiers and listened to the advice of other governments, because we wanted a package which would not simply be a package that bore a party name, that would not be something that was forced down the throats of Canadians by a national government, but in effect would be a genuine national package reflecting a genuine national consensus and pursuing genuine national goals. That kind of consultation will work in this country. That kind of consultation came within two days of working out a national energy package. If that package had been adopted this country would be much more secure in energy supplies than we are now, this country would be much better protected against the vagaries of the international market and against political changes which may occur in countries we cannot control, than it is now. That was a national policy worked out by a national government that was prepared to treat the provinces as partners sharing common goals, rather than as enemies who are there only to be confronted.
Economic and Energy Policy
73
Some hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Clark: One other dimension of the energy negotiation which is important to recall to the attention of the House and the Canadian public at this time is that we recognized, as I think most Canadians do, that the question of pricing cannot be separated from the question of changes in the equalization formula of the country. I will say to the House that we received advice from public servants and from others that the only way to approach that problem was to approach the two issues together. I considered that advice and I knew it would fail. I knew the only way we could get agreement on those two important and fundamental questions in the country was to approach them in the proper sequence, and to recognize that in western Canada for a variety of reasons there had grown such a deep suspicion of the national government that there would not be a ready agreement on equalization until there was seen to be a fair agreement on an energy package first. That is why we proceeded in the sequence of getting agreement first on energy. We would have had that agreement on the Saturday after the government fell, and on the Monday after the government fell we had scheduled a first ministers’ conference at which we had prepared for presentation to the premiers the proposal of a new review of equalization in the country based upon the Rowell-Sirois report, recognizing the fact that 40 years after Rowell-Sirois it was necessary for us to re-examine root and branch the equalization system in this country. We proposed the innovation that instead of just simply being a commission imposed upon the provinces by the government, it should be a commission jointly appointed, with members appointed by both provincial and federal government, because that is the way to make a federal system work—not to argue about commas in a law but to recognize we share a common country and we want to build this common country together. That was the approach we took to equalization. I know we have heard nothing of the reforms in the equalization agreement which will expire in less than two years. We have heard nothing of that from this government. To our knowledge and to the knowledge of the House of Commons, it is doing nothing about that fundamental problem. Had we been successful—and we were not; that is history—not only would we have had an energy package that would have moved this nation toward energy self-sufficiency by 1990, also I firmly believe we would have had an agreement on an amendment to the equalization formula which would have taken account of resource
74
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
revenues in a way that would have truly shared, not by imposition but by agreement, the resources and wealth of this whole nation. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear! [Translation] Mr. Clark: Mr. Speaker, I think that we have thoroughly discussed national unity during recent years. I think, however, that we may have overlooked some means available to a national government. We have decided, for example, that it was not sufficient to convene the provinces and the federal government merely to discuss constitutional matters. We must also co-operate to consider modernizing other Canadian institutions. This is why we have advocated the establishment of a national conference on economic development in Canada. The purpose of such conference would be to gather for the first time in Canadian history all the representatives and spokesmen not merely of the federal and provincial governments but also from the industry, the unions, the credit unions, the farmers and other individuals concerned with the economic development of Canada. It is by working together that we can have a united country. The constitution alone or discussions dealing exclusively with legal matters will not do it. I referred earlier today, Mr. Speaker, to the actions of the Liberal government on energy matters and I indicated and there was evidence of it as recently as last night, that the word of the federal government is worth nothing or is not acceptable and that the people cannot rely upon it. Finally, the Liberal government is specializing in policy flip-flops and we just had a new example with energy. That is very serious, particularly when we think of what the Prime Minister said during the referendum campaign. He solemnly committed himself to achieve a new Canadian federalism. He promised it to Quebeckers and other Canadians. But now that the referendum campaign is over, can we truly believe that he has really changed, that his attitude is different from what it was in the past and that the proposals made by his government constitute the slightest opening onto a genuine reform? Unfortunately, the answer is no. In fact, all the Prime Minister has managed to do up to now is to cause a lot of people to worry, from Claude Ryan to Roy Romanow. It augurs no good at all for the future, and I hope that the Prime Minister
Economic and Energy Policy
75
will be able to pull himself together in the next few days and will realize that the time has come at last to keep his word and to take concrete steps toward the renewal of the Canadian federation. [English] I close by reminding this House that we are a nation with great opportunities. We are a nation which, as well as its natural wealth, also has a wealth of good will and a wealth of common interest. We are a nation which can be brought together, but also we are a nation which can be driven apart. We need, as a nation, national projects. We need, as a nation, co-operation among levels of government and among individual Canadians. We need, as a nation, national leadership. We have had none from this government in the first session of this Parliament. They have sought and are receiving an adjournment. I would hope their agenda for an adjournment would include having a budget ready for the early days after we come back in mid-October, would include having an energy agreement concluded which gives the people of Canada at least the benefits that would have been available under ours. Having regard to the time, I wonder if I might conclude my remarks by moving, seconded by the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker): That this House continue to sit this day beyond the ordinary time of daily adjournment in order to complete its consideration of the motion of the President of the Privy Council now under consideration.
Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!
3
Federal-Provincial Relations As previously mentioned in the introductory chapter, Joe Clark had (and has) a keen interest in defending the rights of the small provinces and less well heard regions of our Confederation. This is illustrated in his speeches on the proper nature of federal-provincial relations. As an Albertan, Clark has a particularly acute sense of the awareness that Canadians living beyond the Highway 401 corridor can feel towards the rest of Canada. In the following chapter, five speeches illustrate Clark’s understanding of the impact of federalism on diverse parts of Confederation. In the first one, Clark articulates his view of Canada in classic pluralist terms as a “community of communities.” This is perhaps one of his most memorable phrases and articulates a united Canada of shared but distinct identities, where our loyalty lies in our most immediate neighbourhoods. While this speech was from an Empire Club address, the others were made throughout his parliamentary career, in parliament from both sides of the House, as opposition MP to the Prime Minister’s Office. Clark spoke on a wide range of issues, from the importance of small town newspapers to the overall relationship of the federal government to the territories. Outside of his political career Clark worked as a journalist, both at local papers such as the High River Times and wrote for larger papers such as the Globe and Mail. This experience helped to lend perspective on the importance of local businesses and the news media in helping to build the “distinctive sense of community” (see page 97). Clark believed that this could not be fostered by institutions with a cross-country reach because their scope did not recognize the unique peculiarities of the federation. Clark made a point to demonstrate that what is also important was not just federal government support for these initiatives but the ways in which federal government support is given. Both means and ends were important to Clark; these concerns are demonstrated throughout this chapter. A Man of Parliament; Selected Speeches from Joe Clark, edited by Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon. Montréal and Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press, Queen’s Policy Studies Series. © 2019 The School of Policy Studies, Queen’s University at Kingston. All rights reserved.
78
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
Because our federation was originally intended to be centralized, with the federal government playing a dominant role in governing, the provincial governments have often had to fight to ensure they didn’t get run roughshod by an activist federal government. Clark worked within this tradition from his earliest days as a parliamentarian. Though he was a federal MP, his actions suggest that his allegiances lay often with the provinces in their efforts to get a fair share of revenue from their resources. In the third speech presented in this chapter, Clark was up against a government that, in his words, was beginning to act like a “bull in a china shop,” flouting the duty to consult with provinces on matters that directly affect them. Here the debate was over the federal government’s ability to raise export taxes (as is their constitutional prerogative) to the detriment of the Alberta oil industry. In this case specifically, Clark was indignant about the federal government backtracking on an agreement with the Alberta government to establish a schedule for the gradual increase of said tax. It was when this schedule was subsequently disregarded that Clark rose to speak for Alberta. The economy of Alberta, in the international oil boom of the post Arab oil shocks of the 1970s, was thriving but still needed to be nurtured. Clark understood the strategic importance of this province’s resource and believed that its importance was inextricably linked to Canada’s economic health. He believed that the oil industry was the one “strong card” Alberta had to play in its attempt to “become a strong, industrialized province which would contribute to the industrial strength of the whole of Canada.” This speech provides a glimpse into the early stages of a debate (i.e., the role of the extractive industry in our economy) that is still front and centre in our national conversation today. As becomes apparent throughout the speeches in this chapter, for Clark, the federal government is at its weakest when it tries to interact on a smaller, local scale in place of provincial or municipal government. This principle, which we now refer to as subsidiarity, suggests that the government closest to the delivery of services is the one that is in the best position to deliver them. It allows for diversity in policy and sees the federal government as fostering that diversity, whether it’s economic or social. We see this articulated by Clark not only in his defence of the oil industry, but also in his assertion that the “control of resources means control of the future of the province of Alberta.” Clark believed that this control should be firmly in the hands of whichever province or territory was most affected. Unlike their provincial government counterparts, the territories of
Federal-Provincial Relations 79
Canada do not have any constitutionally entrenched powers. Instead, the territories only have authority in areas given to them by the federal government. This leaves them particularly vulnerable to the vagaries of the federal government. The speech included herein deals with a bill before the House which would establish a precedent for how national parks would be established in the territories but, for our purposes, speaks to Clark’s thoughts on power arrangements between national and sub-national governments. As Clark puts it, “if you wanted to establish a national park in Ontario, you must ask the local government; but if you wanted to establish a national park in the Yukon or Northwest Territories, you tell the local government.” He uses this policy to eloquently point out one of the fundamental weaknesses in our federal arrangement: that is, the double standard which exists between the federal government and the citizens of a province and those of the territories. In order to address this imbalance, Clark gave a defence of the need for increased self-government in the territories, an issue which, given the majority Indigenous population of the territories, is woefully absent from our contemporary discourse. Clark’s mission, as demonstrated in this chapter, was to ensure that the provinces and the diversity of regions within Canada maintain a fair and equal relationship with the federal government. In his view, it was only in this way that Canada would be able to develop and grow to the benefit of all its different regions. Aside from this defence, Clark weighed in on debates that continue to this day, such as energy independence and self-sufficiency. Clark’s work for more equal intra-federal relations is admirable and no doubt timely in a federation that is increasingly decentralized. This would please him as the last thing he wanted was for the provinces to become simply creatures of the federal government in Ottawa.
80
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
Building a Nation (Community of Communities) The Empire Club of Canada Addresses (Toronto: Empire Club Foundation, 1979), 318–327 What I want to do today is speak to you, not simply about some of the issues in the election campaign, but also some broader questions of approach to the country. I think we recognize that in every election there are important substantive policy differences, whether about mortgage deductability, or about energy self-sufficiency, or about the fundamental question of whether Jean Chrétien can count. There are always those important questions. But there are also, occasionally, elections which involve a choice between two quite different ways of seeing the country. As you will know, I think a central issue of the general failure of his [Pierre Elliott Trudeau’s] government is that he did not understand, and sometimes did not try to understand, other aspects of Canada’s very complex reality. Too often, he and the quite similar people he drew around him tried to change the country to fit their theory about what the country should be. In economic policy, in constitutional policy, in their attitude towards the instincts of the individual Canadian citizen, they have been governing against the nature of the nation. To govern a nation, one must first understand it. I want to sketch briefly my understanding of this nation, Canada, as we enter the 1980s. First, as the Commission of which Mr. Robarts was such a distinguished member found, our diversity in this country is both utterly inescapable and immensely valuable. It’s typical, I think, that our official emblem—the maple leaf—is not indigenous to two of our provinces and two of our territories. For there are thousands of happy and productive Canadian citizens who are most at ease when they speak neither of our two official languages. We are a nation that is too big for simple symbols. Our preoccupation with the symbol of a single national identity has, in my judgement, obscured the great wealth we have in several local identities which are rich in themselves and which are skilled in getting along with others. If that truth has been lost on Ottawa’s planners, it is not lost on the people of Canada, whether those people are artists like Alden Nowlen or Monique Leyrac or W. O. Mitchell or Gordon Lightfoot or Emily Carr or the Group of Seven, whose work evokes their locale, or whether they are citizens who are starting heritage societies, starting history clubs,
Federal-Provincial Relations 81
organizing walks through their own back yards. In an immense country, you live on a local scale. Governments make the nation work by recognizing that we are fundamentally a community of communities. Of course the national government has to be strong, particularly on economic questions. But it must also be sensitive to the damage that neat theories can wreak upon a diverse country. There is nothing new to that view. Indeed, the successful prime ministers of Canada have incorporated that idea into the makeup of their governments, ensuring that every region had senior ministers who were strong enough to keep the government in touch with local realities. That is a fact of life in Canada to which we must return. A second thing that is important is my view, and that of my party, that our economy in Canada is potentially one of the strongest in the world. We have in abundance resources which are elsewhere in short supply, whether of food or energy or minerals. Capital will come to us, and come to us in ways we can control. So will as much population as we want. Our challenge in this country is not to cope with scarcity. Our challenge is to build on abundance. Other nations might well be forced, legitimately, to contemplate limits on growth. But our very different challenge here in Canada is to plan and to manage growth. Finally, our people are ambitious. Whatever cultures we come from, whatever heritage we bring to these shores, we are all of us North American in inspiration. We want to build. We want to grow. Generally, the goals of Canadians are personal goals. A few people in our history have helped build our nation by consciously pursuing national goals, but many more have built this nation by pursuing the personal goals which the nature of this nation allows. The personal goal of most Canadians has been freedom and some security for their family. That caused the settlement of new regions, caused the immigration of new citizens, caused the transplanting of old roots to new ground. A policy designed to make the nation grow must build upon and must not frustrate the instinct of most Canadians to build a stake for themselves. So what we propose in this election campaign is not just a change in government, but a fundamental change in the very direction of this country, a change that would reflect the value of that cultural and regional diversity, that would build on the natural strengths of our economy, and would recognize that the best instrument of national achievement is the individual initiative of the private citizen and the private sector in this country. Through the last decade, government has been properly concerned
82
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
with services to citizens, and now we have a good basic system of services in place. But the challenge of this next decade is to make our people grow in understanding of the great good fortune that we have here in Canada. We can do that. I come, as your Chairman said, from the foothills of Alberta, and I have learned late the second language of our country, mais je peux le parler à High River sans danger, sans risque, mais avec le véritable avantage que maintenant je peux comprendre le Québec assez bien a communiquer les aspirations des Québécois aux Albertans, aux Ontarians et les autres Canadiens et je peux, je croix, communiquer aux Québécois les aspirations, l’intérêt, la détermination des Canadiens des autres provinces de bâtir une pays avec le Québec. L’avenir du Canada est plus qu’une question de loi. C’est une question de volonté et de compréhension. Il y a deux jours j’étais applaudé quand j’ai défendue le bilinguisme devant un auditoire de la Colombie Britannique. Le peuple canadien a eu assez de toutes les querelles plus ou moins artificielles entre gouvernements. Ils cherchent un terrain d’entente. Ils cherchent des objectifs communes qui respectent la diversité des traditions de chacun. The great need now, whether it is in constitutional policy or economic policy, is for momentum in this country. In constitutional terms, the fact is that a new national government can get agreement on several changes—more likely changes in practice than in law—but several changes and soon, and that will break the impasse of distrust. Once trust is restored to federal-provincial relations, we can begin toward the more profound reforms, reforms whose end purpose must be to confirm national leadership in economic development, and to confirm provincial leadership in the development of the cultures that are strong in the regions and the provinces of this country. The national government cannot impose those goals, but only the national government, only the government of all the people of Canada, has the authority to bring together the economic partners whose agreement is essential to any effective new national policy. Even more important, we intend to change the attitude in Ottawa. We intend to create in Canada an atmosphere in which the innovator and the entrepreneur are encouraged to go out and to build in the world. No one who travels in this country, no one who knows it, can escape being impressed mightily by the great potential that is here, and by the knowledge on the part of the people of Canada that we are a fortunate
Federal-Provincial Relations 83
nation, a fortunate people of unparalleled potential. There is a tremendous potential upon which to build here in Canada. There is no doubt that the people of this country are seized with that spirit of potential. What we need is a government in Ottawa that will encourage and recognize how essential to our future it is that the policy, the attitude, the approach of government get in line with the attitude and the hopes of the people, that we have a government in Canada that is as confident and proud and as buoyant about the future of this country as are the people themselves.
Federal-Provincial Consultation on Energy Policy House of Commons Debates 12 November 1979 31st Parliament, 1st Session: Volume 2, 1219–1220 Right Hon. Joe Clark (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker, perhaps at the beginning I might have the permission of the House to lay on the table two copies of “An Outline of Proposed Initial Stage of National Energy Strategy,” a background paper that was published earlier today in both official languages. Some hon. Members: Agreed. Mr. Clark: I would like to take the opportunity to express my apology to opposition spokesmen on the other side in that it was only recently that we were able to get a copy of my statement to them. This had to do with the relatively short time between the conclusion of our discussions and my desire to come and report as directly as possible to the House of Commons. I want also to indicate, sir, how much I appreciate the courtesy of members on both sides in providing unanimous consent so that I might report to Parliament on my meeting today with other first ministers. As hon. members know, today’s discussion centred on the proposals put forth by this government to achieve our goal of making Canada self-sufficient in energy by 1990. Those proposals previously had been the subject of extensive consultation between Ottawa and the provinces, and I believe the positive tone of discussions today reflected the value of frank and extensive consultation in a federal system. Sir, that is a pattern we intend to continue.
84
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
I am pleased for our country, to be able to report substantial agreement among first ministers on the major outlines of a comprehensive energy policy for Canada. The first ministers unanimously endorsed our central goal of energy self-sufficiency. We agreed it is dangerous to the economic future of our country to ignore a situation where so many Canadians, especially in Quebec and in Atlantic Canada, are dependent on unreliable foreign oil supplies. The important element of price remains to be negotiated. As I told the conference, that is, jurisdictionally, a decision for the producing provinces and the national government, but we want to take the pricing decision only after we had the opportunity to hear from other parts of Canada and know how price increases would affect those regions. I was impressed by the realism of the first ministers in recognizing that, while price increases are never easy, the consequences of failing to act would be much more serious for Canada. They would expose us to supply interruption which could devastate the economy of Canada and could leave Canada relying upon unstable foreign sources of oil—sources which simply cannot be counted on. Against that background we will be meeting representatives of the producing provinces this week to seek a pricing regime for oil and natural gas, designed to increase Canada’s ability to supply our own oil and gas, to encourage conservation, and to encourage substitution of alternate fields. Sir, today we proposed a special tax on incremental oil company profits to help finance Canadian energy development. Officials of our government will be consulting with provinces and the industry to design the most effective tax. We proposed a Canadian energy bank to help Canadians invest in long term and essential Canadian energy projects. Several provinces, I am pleased to report, have agreed to take a look at contributing equity financing to that bank. The federal government itself expects to contribute about $1.5 billion to equity, over the next four years to help build Canada’s energy potential. Officials will also meet to identify conservation projects where work can begin immediately. I indicated our intention to propose a co-operative program to help individuals retrofit oil-burning furnaces. We would be prepared to contribute to an industrial energy conservation program in Atlantic Canada. Regarding home insulation, several provinces have indicated that local needs would be better served if the Canadian Home Insulation Program, CHIP, were under provincial control, and we are prepared to work out arrangements under which CHIP
Federal-Provincial Relations 85
would be transferred, together with increased federal funding. [Translation] First ministers strongly supported the need for new initiatives to encourage increased substitution of more plentiful energy sources for oil. Particular attention was given to the opportunity for expanded natural gas markets in Ontario, Quebec and perhaps the maritime provinces, but there was also recognition of the other sources available in particular regions for example, greater use of wood waste in British Columbia, increased coal production in Nova Scotia, further hydro production in Manitoba, Quebec and Newfoundland, and expanded development of renewable energy sources across the country. Officials of federal and provincial governments are beginning work immediately to identify areas where substitution can start in 1980. [English] We have also discussed with first ministers means to help Canadians who will be least able to deal with price increases, and so deal with other specific problems. Those measures will be dealt with either in the federal budget, or in connection with the next first ministers conference which has been rescheduled for December 17 and 18. That change in date will allow officials to conclude the work flowing from today’s conference and will allow first ministers to also deal with other matters. [Translation] Leaders of 11 governments met to discuss a complex and difficult subject on which there are some legitimate differences of view. Those differences were aired honestly and openly—but without acrimony and within an overall spirit of partnership. I want to express my appreciation publicly of the positive spirit in which provincial premiers came together. [English] As I said at the conference, Mr. Speaker, Canadians have a choice. We can ignore realities, or we can face them. We have before us the opportunity to provide Canadian industry with a permanent cost advantage over American competitors. We have before us the opportunity to ensure all Canadians have reliable and se-
86
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
cure energy supplies “made in Canada.” We have before us the opportunity to launch a major new era of energy development and a major new commitment to energy conservation in which all Canadians can share. On the basis of today’s discussions, Mr. Speaker, I believe Canadians have every reason for confidence that their governments will choose to seize the energy opportunity that is ours. We have further discussions to continue; we have further negotiations ahead of us, but I wanted to come directly from the conference to report to the House of Commons upon the progress that was realized today. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!
The Export Tax House of Commons Debates 8 November 1973 29th Parliament, 1st Session: Volume 7, 7675–7677 Mr. Joe Clark (Rocky Mountain): Mr. Speaker, I wish to applaud the initiative of the hon. member for Champlain (Mr. Matte) in introducing the motion we are debating. Many members who have spoken before me in this debate have made specific reference to constitutional discussions which have been before us and which have been of concern for some time. I do not intend to repeat what they said or to speak particularly about the direct method of repatriation in a discussing the constitution. I want, instead, to turn my attention tonight and the attention of the House to that atmosphere of co-operation which is necessary before there can be an amendment of the constitution and which is necessary, indeed, before the constitution can be made to work. I was interested in hearing the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) indicate this afternoon that a debate on this topic is usually a debate which is of special interest to members of this House from the province of Quebec, because in that province there is a special interest in constitutional matters. Sir, it used to be that members of this House from Alberta were able to more or less take a spectator’s seat in those discussions on federal-provincial relations. That is not the case tonight. It is natural that I should view and enter this debate against the context of the current deep dispute about energy matters between Alberta
Federal-Provincial Relations 87
and Ottawa. No Albertan could escape that context because, sir, there is an anger in Alberta now that exceeds in intensity anything in my memory or in the memory of older men than I. It is not anger that other people would want to use our oil, our resources. We want them to. Moreover, we want Canadian consumers to have a better price and better access to our resources than nationals of other countries. The Premier of Alberta has made that clear. Instead, sir, the anger in Alberta is about the methods this government has used to implement a policy which, while it is important to every region of Canada, is most important to Alberta because it affects not only our price of fuel and our prospects of warmth but our capacity to grow and to industrialize. This is not the place to debate the merits of particular federal proposals regarding energy. Those have been debated on other occasions in this House, and will be again. The debate inspired by this motion concerns, not the merits of a particular case but the methods by which our federal system works. In many ways, this is the most appropriate forum for a review of the Alberta situation, because whatever disagreement might exist about the merits of the actions proposed by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald), what inflames Alberta opinion most is the method by which these decisions, of vital importance to Alberta, were imposed—clearly without consultation and, one must assume, without consideration of the impact the measures will have upon Alberta’s capacity to grow. Whatever disagreement there might be about the things the minister of energy has done, the anger in Alberta today is about the way he has done these things. And the concern for Canada is that the method he has applied here—the method of a bull in a china shop—is a warning of the way in which other provinces might be treated on other issues by other ministers at other times. That warning, sir, is more profound because, while the minister of energy has a special talent for provocation, the style of confrontation which he has adopted toward Alberta is a style which before the last election was becoming a trademark of this government and which apparently now is being renewed. Sir, no Canadian should need reminding of the diversity of our country. That diversity is the reason we have a federal system where provinces and the national government distribute most powers and share others. This federal system was not imposed upon Canada. It grew out of our nature and is the only system which can hope to unite a diverse country and yet allow its individual parts to find their own identity and strength. By the very nature of our country, we are bound to have in-
88
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
terests which conflict. That means that a particular obligation lies upon our politicians to try to unite differences, not excite differences. And if that is an obligation upon those of us who sit on the backbenches of parliament, it is an obligation with a particular weight for those who occupy ministerial offices. Yet in this dispute with Alberta that is precisely the obligation which the minister of energy has affronted and ignored. I want to review for this House the sad record of what has happened, in the name of consultation, on this export tax. But first let me try to make this House understand the particular importance of this question to Alberta. What we are worried about here is not simply revenue, although of course that is important. What we are worried about, as well, is the sense—and we have the sense—that control of resources means control of the future of the province of Alberta. It is very much less a matter of price than it is a matter of future. We have primarily relied, in the province of Alberta, on primary production, on agriculture. We have the opportunity to industrialize and we have begun to industrialize. But we are working with certain regional disadvantages. Freight rates are one, population distribution is another, market distribution is yet another, the habit of investors to invest in central Canada is another. We have one strong card—petroleum. It provides us with the opportunity to develop petrochemical industries and jobs. Sir, this opportunity would help us to turn the corner and become a strong, industrialized province which would contribute to the industrial strength of the whole of Canada. However, we have no reason for confidence that this goal will be accomplished by Ottawa directing policy, and we have no reason for confidence after looking back at the history of tariffs, at the present discrimination in transportation and at a variety of other matters. What I should like to do tonight is try to convey a state of mind which it would be folly for other parts of Canada to ignore, just as it would have been folly for other parts of Canada to ignore the state of mind that began manifesting itself in Quebec in the early 1960s. This House should remember that the export tax was one of two barrels which hit Alberta in early September. The other was the prospect that Syncrude might be denied the kind of tax treatment which other oil producers in Alberta would receive and that Syncrude consequently might well be held up. Moreover, sir, the export tax seemed to be a device aimed particularly at Alberta and at Alberta’s major resources and not applied, as it might have been, to the resources of other provinces. It was a partic-
Federal-Provincial Relations 89
ular attack on a particular province. In September, energy ministers of the Alberta and Canadian governments were in Ottawa at a meeting which had been arranged some time previously. The apparent attitude on both sides was conciliatory. The first item on the agenda was the need for close and continuing consultation. The ministers discussed that first item and agreed to maintain close contact and consult one another thoroughly. The federal minister of energy made the point that in this field events develop quickly and that consultation could not be considered as constituting a right to veto. Naturally, that position was accepted by the representatives of Alberta. The discussion progressed to other items on the agenda. Then sometime between 11 a.m. and noon the federal minister of energy announced that the National Energy Board would be imposing an export tax of about 40 cents and that the announcement would be made publicly later that day. Alberta ministers had no warning that was coming and no opportunity to make comments or suggestions which would materially affect the decision. Scant minutes after affirming the need for consultation, the federal minister presented Alberta with a fait accompli. That was not consultation. That was mere advice. Any province, treated that way on a matter of such vital interest to its future, would have responded in anger. Indeed, any federal government which enshrined the habit of treating provinces that way would face a breakdown in all of its relations with all of the provinces of Canada. That was the first export tax, the 40-cent tax. The second act in this charade of consultation began on Monday, October 29—again in Ottawa. Four senior ministers of the government of Alberta came to Ottawa to meet with the federal Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and the federal Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner). They were briefed by officials of the Department of External Affairs on developments in the Middle East. They had general discussions concerning plans Ottawa might have for a pipeline to Montreal. They discussed the possibility of staging-in price increases. On the export tax, the Alberta ministers took the position that since they disagreed with the idea of the tax, they saw no immediate point in discussing how its proceeds might be distributed. It is clear there was no discussion at all of any prospect of an immediate rise in that export tax, and certainly not any discussion of a proposal to more than quadruple the amount. Indeed, the federal minister of energy said that events might develop that would mean an export tax might not have to
90
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
be imposed. The federal minister indicated to his provincial colleagues that, in his view, the export tax proposal “was not written in stone.” The ministers then repaired to a joint press conference at which the provincial minister of intergovernmental affairs went out of his way to make clear Alberta’s interest in adopting a “Canada first” position. Four senior Alberta ministers left those meetings agreed on three clear impressions. Their first impression was that serious consideration was being given to the staging-in of increases. The second impression was that there was now a genuine commitment to consultation on the part of the federal ministers. The third impression was that if there was to be any change at all in the export tax, the change would be in the direction of removing the tax. It is conceivable that one of these ministers might have been wrong, but it is surely stretching credulity to suggest that all four ministers were wrong on all three impressions. Four days later, on Thursday, November 1—a week ago today—the federal minister of energy rose in his place to announce that the export tax had been more than quadrupled. Alberta officials were advised a matter of hours before the public announcement. Again it was advice, not consultation. However, this second case was worse than the first. In the first case, the export tax had come out of the blue. In the second case, it came four days after a meeting in which Alberta ministers believed they received a message that the export tax might go down, or it might go out, but at which no indication at all was given that the tax might go up so exorbitantly. There might be some members of this House who do not like Albertans. I do not say that there are, but that there might be. That really does not matter because these tactics could be applied to any province, not just Alberta; and on any matter, not just petroleum. I hope that members of this House and of the public generally, no matter how preoccupied they might be about the price of fuel or the extent of foreign ownership of any other extraneous question, will remember that we are dealing here with a method of the application of federal power that could be imposed as arbitrarily upon any province or any interest as it has been upon Alberta. It is interesting, for example, to conjecture what the response would have been had federal involvement in the financing of higher education been approached in the early 1960s in the spirit which marked the federal imposition this fall of an export tax upon petroleum produced primarily in one province. I said at the beginning that the purpose of a federal system, and par-
Federal-Provincial Relations 91
ticularly the federal government, must be to unite differences, not inflame them. The reason that is important is that it is easy, in Canada, to inflame differences among regions. Particularly when emotional questions are involved, as emotional questions are involved here, it would be relatively easy to unite most of Canada against one part of Canada. However, that would be a destructive unity which would lead inexorably to the disintegration of the nation. I utter that caution not simply to my colleagues in this House but also to the press gallery. One problem inherent in our system is the natural tendency of the national press to take Ottawa’s view in a dispute with the provinces. That is not due to prejudgment so much as to the fact that journalists are locked in here in day-to-day contact with one side in a national dispute. I believe it has been harmful to Alberta that this disagreement broke out at roughly the same time that a general election was in progress in Quebec, which meant that several journalists from that province, who have reason to know that Ottawa is not always even-handed in its dealings with the province, were preoccupied at home and thus did not have the opportunity to visit the province and the people of Alberta to learn Alberta’s side of this story. The real tragedy flowing from the methods of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources is that it has created an atmosphere of confrontation on a question where federal-provincial co-operation could have prevailed. Alberta wants to co-operate with other provinces and other Canadians to ensure supply and arrange a better price for Canadian consumers. The premier and his ministers have made that clear. They have been calling for some time for a national federal-provincial conference to work out the priorities and the policies that Canada and the provinces might follow to meet the challenges raised by energy questions. However, co-operation is a two-way street. Ottawa must demonstrate a willingness to work with Alberta. That would have been much easier two months ago, before the actions of the minister of energy gave Alberta ample cause to distrust that minister and anyone acting in his name. But it is not impossible to achieve now. The language of this motion deplores the tactics of confrontation and fear which have marked the approach of this government to federal-provincial relations. Of course we deplore that approach, but we must do more than deplore. We have to turn the practices of this government around and insist, as a parliament, upon an atmosphere of co-operation with the provinces instead of the present atmosphere of confrontation.
92
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
It might be more amusing to have the luxury of a full-scale feud between a province and the central government, but that is very literally and clearly a luxury we cannot afford. Not only is there the danger that this atmosphere of confrontation might prolong disagreement about national energy policy; there is also the very real danger that this tactic, if practiced continually by the federal government, will lead to a reaction in some regions that will make national unity very difficult to maintain. However important laws might be in Canada, the thing that finally unites this country is the will to work together. If the federal government indicates by its actions that it would sooner fight than agree, that attitude will become contagious. I hope that the government as a whole, and the minister of energy in particular, will recognize that the leadership they are supposed to offer is leadership in the direction of co-operation, not confrontation.
Jurisdiction around National Parks House of Commons Debates 4 April 1974 29th Parliament, 2nd Session: Volume 2, 1159–1160 Mr. Joe Clark (Rocky Mountain): Mr. Speaker, I will not take much of the time of the House. The minister is proposing a return to the original language of the bill, language which in the considered judgment of the committee was inappropriate, language which the committee acted to strike out, to amend. The original language would have written into law a statutory double standard. It provided that if you wanted to establish a national park in Quebec, you must ask the local government; if you wanted to establish a national park in Ontario, you must ask the local government; but if you wanted to establish a national park in the Yukon or Northwest Territories, you tell the local government. Provisions like that make a mockery of any claim of belief in more self-government for the territories. We, in my party, do not propose to pass a mockery into law. The minister has made the point that this matter can be discussed in committee during study of another bill. The point remains. There is language in the bill before the House today with which we, as a parliament, must deal today, in considering this bill. It is language in this bill, not in any other, which expresses the attitude of the House of Com-
Federal-Provincial Relations 93
mons of Canada on the status and potential of governments in the territories of the north. You cannot get around this by saying that it should be dealt with in another bill. If this should be discussed during the consideration of another bill, the minister should not have introduced the word “consultation” into the present bill. He did. It is that with which we are dealing. A principle is involved which, although it might arise on other occasions and in other bills, has arisen here and cannot be blinked away. Actually, it is known to members of the committee that there has been agreement by the councils for the particular parks established. There is no threat to them. What we are doing is establishing the attitude of parliament, the view of parliament, that there should be an increase in the powers of self-government existing in the northern territories. We also think that this bill would set a precedent for the establishment of future parks, so that if more parks are to be established in the north there must be approval by the elected representatives of the people and not merely some kind of consultation. We, in the Progressive Conservative party, introduced an amendment which would, for the limited and special purposes of establishing national parks, give the people of the territories the same rights as the people of Ontario, Quebec and other parts of Canada, an amendment which would treat them as citizens not as subjects. Instead of consultations, we proposed that there must be the agreement of the elected councils of the territories before any large part of a territory could be taken away and used as a national park. My colleague from Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett), a member of the NDP, preferred a gentler word than agreement. He preferred “approval,” an amendment requiring that the elected territorial councils approve of any proposal to permanently remove lands from an area that will soon be a province. We accepted his softer language. It expressed the principle that democracy means something in the Yukon and the Northwest Territories. So, the amendment approved in committee is an amendment in the language of the NDP, and it is that which the minister proposes to strike down today. We oppose that action by the minister, that strike against democracy, and will look forward, when the voting comes, to having the support of the NDP in sustaining an improvement which the NDP itself proposed. It is apparent to me, sir, that the minister and his advisers find it inconvenient to treat the people of the territories as though they are citizens. The minister and his advisers concocted a phony argument in
94
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
committee, that to give the councils of the territories a say on whether a national park is to be established in this region is somehow to give them absolute control over all the natural resources of the north. That, sir, is an absurd argument, which ignores the very special nature of national parks. I, as the representative of a constituency with national parks in it, have every reason to know that when a national park is created, all manner of administrative problems are created too: Native rights are affected; normal jurisdiction over municipal highway and other matters is suspended or changed; planning becomes very difficult. That is evident in Alberta and wherever else national parks exist. The establishment of a national park very much alters and affects the future of the region in which the park lies. The word “consultation” would mean that the territories concerned would have no right to influence that territory’s future direction. “Approval” would at least allow for a chance to shape that future. Sir, the larger question of resources is not affected at all. Elected spokesmen of the territories have made it clear that the status they want is a status—I quote Ken MacKinnon of the Yukon Territorial Council, in testimony to the standing committee in Whitehorse in December: Without the immediate control of natural resources, the reason being that we think we have to prove to the people of Canada and to the government of Canada that we are as capable of dealing with the resources of the province as any other area of Canada.
So, there is no question at all about control of resources. There is, however, sir, a basic question which must be faced, the question as to whether we are going to trust the judgment of Canadians who happen to live in the two territories. Are we going to say that when it comes to establishing parks we trust the premier of Quebec more than we trust the elected representatives of the Yukon; that we trust the premier of Ontario more than the elected representatives of the Northwest Territories; that we trust the premier of Nova Scotia more than the duly elected representatives of the north? That is what it comes down to. Perhaps it is a hard question, because so much land is involved. I remind the House that there is also a lot of land in the north of several provinces, and while it might be inconvenient for the minister and his advisers to have to deal with elected representatives in the province before taking land away forever and creating a national park, we put up with that inconvenience because we are a democratic state. The amendment here, by the minister and his advisers, would have democracy stop at
Federal-Provincial Relations 95
the border of the territories, so far as national parks are concerned. The real question facing us is: Are we prepared to endorse that double standard and write it into law, or will we extend to the citizens of the territories the same trust on the limited question of national parks that we extend to the citizens of the rest of Canada.
Regional Identity and Community Newspapers House of Commons Debates 29 October 1973 29th Parliament, 1st Session: Volume 7, 7338 Mr. Joe Clark (Rocky Mountain): Mr. Speaker, I want to turn to a matter which was first raised in the House on June 18. That, you will recall, was when the country discovered the Minister of State who is a little bit responsible for multiculturalism. You will recall that the minister spent about one-tenth of his total budget on an advertisement which featured a campaign picture of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and purported to advertise a program of grants which was already oversubscribed. To add to the excitement, the minister had been chastised by the assistant undersecretary of another department who, it turned out, had more authority over the minister’s program than did the minister. That storm has blown over. The minister’s assistant who authorized the ads has disappeared. The assistant under-secretary has remained firmly in control. The minister has come back to the House, anxious to resume any responsibilities anyone will give him. An agency, controlled at least 50 per cent by prominent Ontario Liberals, is counting its commission on the account, and the most enduring moment of the affair is the response of the Minister of State who, having been asked why no tenders were called on the ads, said that he was “not aware of any tendering procedure for advertising programs of the federal government.” That flurry erased several important issues. One of them was the attitude the government should take toward the ethnic and periodical press of the country because, apart from patronage and politicking, the other reason for the ads was that they provided a means by which the government might provide some tangible support to the Canadian ethnic press. I want to argue their case tonight, not just in relation to the ethnic papers which generally deserve and require support, but also
96
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
in relation to the community press generally in Canada which serves needs which larger media cannot meet and which has special problems some of them caused by the government. Government support to the community press should be open and above board—by the front door, rather than by occasional back door subsidies in the form of the extravagant and pointless advertising program we saw this June. In passing, I should also point out that even the present program of advertising in the ethnic press seems to treat some periodicals, like the Toronto Jewish press, in a less favourable way than other periodicals. Mr. Haidasz: That isn’t true. Mr. Clark (Rocky Mountain): There are two kinds of newspapers operating in Canada today, the large and the local. They are generally distinguished by their size, their wealth and by the intensity with which they serve their particular readership. The dailies might help us to understand the world; the weeklies help us to understand ourselves. They are called ethnic or community papers and they are particular to a heritage or a place. Both kinds of papers need ads to live. At one time, governments and other advertisers treated both kinds of papers almost equally. But in the 1950s and 1960s, as our attitudes became more urban and international, the people who place and pay for ads became bemused by mass markets, and the so-called “institutional ads”—the ads an editor could get a loan on—drifted away to mass media. That was done thoughtlessly, without examination either of the relative impact of an ad in a local or a mass medium, or an examination of the effect upon the vitality of the particular communities these local papers serve. The government was as guilty as anyone. There are signs that times are changing, and I want to take this opportunity to congratulate the government for giving the community press a fair shot at the ads concerning both the new tax form and the LIP program. But those cases are exceptions; they are not a policy. I understand that the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury), that great progressive, has a proposal before him to gather data on the effectiveness of advertising in the community press. Member papers of the CCNA were enthusiastic about the proposed study and were geared up to cooperate, but the President of the Treasury Board is sitting on the initiative and the enthusiasm of editors is beginning to wane. There are other problems. The Post Office has established a so-called free zone within a 40 miles radius of small communities and within that
Federal-Provincial Relations 97
zone cheap postal rates apply to local papers. But in Ontario and British Columbia, changes in provincial law have created new local government boundaries, incorporating several towns. They change the status of a town but not its nature, and the Post Office Department, legalistic to the last, has denied free zone status to small towns so incorporated. Again, newspaper plants which do not have a printing press are disqualified from eligibility for IDB loans, yet the offset revolution, leading to a different style of printing, means that most plants ship out their printing to a central press and so cannot go to the Industrial Development Bank. These are accidental prejudices; just as it was accidental that advertising shifted to mass markets and made survival more difficult for local papers. We need these local papers, just as we need a multitude of strong ethnic groups and places which have a distinctive sense of community. I ask the government to recognize that need directly and to encourage the various local media of Canada at least as much as we encourage book publishing, the arts and other activities which contribute to a sense of Canadian identity.
4
Parliamentary Supremacy Joe Clark, “a man of parliament,” believed that there is no greater, or more fundamental component of Canadian democracy than the House of Commons. From the beginning to the end of his career, Clark extolled the virtues of the House of Commons for representing the geographic and demographic diversity of Canada and for bringing the entire nation, in a microcosm, in one place, under one roof. While often imperfect and messy, the ideals of parliament were worth striving for. This chapter examines several of the areas around parliament that were a preoccupation for Clark. Under the theme of parliamentary supremacy, the following seven speeches range from discussing the powers of the PMO to multiculturalism and Clark’s assertion that the supremacy of parliament as the “forum of the nation” and the foundation of responsible government was vital to Canada as we know it. Procedural fairness, equality and the importance of dialogue were the issues about parliament that first caught Clark’s attention and he would return to them throughout his career. In a speech given early in his career in December of 1974, Clark describes what lies at the heart of our system of responsible government. He argues why the executive branch of Prime Minister, Cabinet and Crown must have the approval of the House of Commons to continue to govern. Clark saw this as necessary not only for legitimacy of our representative institutions but also as a bulwark against the extra-parliamentary power centres that robbed parliament of its elan. Put bluntly, parliament must remain supreme against the worrying growth in both size and scope of the PMO and PCO (a trend which continues to this day) as well as the lack of parliamentary oversight of these new positions and policies. Two specific examples are the fact that the prime minister need not appear before standing committees (as we have seen with the Jody Wilson-Raybould affair), and the increasing reliance on first ministers’ conferences to deal with issues deemed too complex for A Man of Parliament; Selected Speeches from Joe Clark, edited by Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon. Montréal and Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press, Queen’s Policy Studies Series. © 2019 The School of Policy Studies, Queen’s University at Kingston. All rights reserved.
100
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
the House. These were not the only examples of this trend, a fact that concerned Clark. As Clark himself noted, despite the “first among equals” theory, the prime minister has never been a weak position within the Canadian parliamentary system. Clark specifically notes that through a concentration of power the prime minister (whoever that may be) was increasingly able to act over the heads of those meant to hold them in check. The Cabinet, the governing party, and parliament itself were weakened in their ability to hold the prime minister accountable. One primary cause of this, Clark noted, is the increasing influence of mass communication such as television and now the internet. The ability of the prime minister to go over the heads to the people’s representatives in the House and communicate directly with the people via televised address led to a concentration at the “apex of power.” Given that those at this apex often came from specific socio-economic classes, occupations, and indeed a specific gender, Clark thought that this was detrimental to the diversity that the federal system should represent. The third speech in this chapter begins with a discussion of the influence of money in politics and then shifts to a discussion on the improper use of public money by a government. Specifically, Clark argues that a government should not be allowed to use public money for partisan purposes, on the campaign trail or in between elections. Speaking on the Canada Elections Act, Clark suggests that by not addressing this blurring of the lines between party and the national interest, and by failing to address the abuse of public funds by governing parties, opposition parties would be weakened and the result would have negative implications for equality in the House of Commons. The use of public money without the approval of parliament was not just to do with smaller expenditures but with the larger budget itself. In a speech given during his time as leader of the Opposition, Clark discussed how increasingly the government was able to avoid the House because it has been slowly stripped of tools by which to hold the government to account. Clark notes that to some extent this is necessary as government has grown in size, but this development also makes oversight significantly more important. For this is in fact the primary purpose of parliaments the world over, i.e., raising and approval of the budget which the executive then spends on government priorities. This loss of supremacy can have wider consequences for the rest of the system. As Clark notes “[t]his parliament is the only institution in Canada which legitimately speaks for all the people of Canada. It is our only
Parliamentary Supremacy
101
national institution. But it can have effect only if it has power. It can be respected by the people of Canada only if it is respected by the government of Canada.” The legitimacy of our system then, requires a strong parliament. The last speech included in this chapter provides remedies to strengthen parliament and mitigate the likelihood of governments getting away with scandalous behaviour. Given the fused nature of legislature and executive within the Westminster system, without a strong parliament, Canada lacks the checks and balances that are found between legislature and executive in presidential systems. To illustrate such, Clark listed a sampling of the scandals which Pierre Trudeau’s government had been involved in up until that point. He then goes on to suggest ways to address problematic behaviour, such as giving “independent initiative” to committees to be able to start investigations of their own accord. His first budget also championed openness and access to information legislation which also helped parliament be held accountable. These are discussed in more detail in chapter 7. Without such formal restraints, the convention-based nature of our system often caused a lack of accountability to parliament. It’s fair to say that for Joe Clark, parliament formed the central fulcrum around which the other themes and goals of his political career coalesce. It is the House where the various constituent parts of Confederation can gather and make their wishes known. As the primary representative of the citizens of Canada to their government, it is necessary that parliament be empowered to hold said government to account, and prevent such as abuses as mentioned above. Clark’s words remain extremely timely to our present day, as the concentration of powers in the Cabinet to the detriment of parliament is a trend that has continued since Clark’s time. This is unfortunate, as it may be a contributing factor to increased feelings of disempowerment and disillusionment among the wider public about their efficacy within the Canadian political system.
102
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
Parliamentary Reform House of Commons Debates 18 March 1982 32nd Parliament, 1st Session: Volume 14, 15579–15583 Right Hon. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition) moved: That in the view of this House the future effectiveness of Parliament as a democratic assembly, representing the needs, beliefs and aspirations of the people of Canada, requires that an immediate review of all its rules and practices proceed without further delay, and this House therefore urges the government to refer the document “Position Paper: The Reform of Parliament,” tabled on November 23, 1979, to the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization as a basis for commencing discussion, along with proposals for reforming the budgetary process.
He said: Mr. Speaker, given the tensions that have crystallized since March 2, this is not an easy time for any member of this House to speak calmly to the House of Commons. But I think it is an essential time for us all to speak about the House of Commons. We must do more than speak; we must begin to act on reforms that will make Parliament both more efficient and more democratic. I emphasize both of those goals, the goal of efficiency and the goal of democracy. They are both important and I will come back to the importance of both later. But first, let us be frank about emotions, both in Parliament and in the country. We talk a lot in Parliament about a sense of collegiality and about good will in this institution, but that pretence has prevented us from facing Parliament’s own problems squarely. There is anger in this House. There is frustration here and there is a certainty that we are not doing the job that Canadians expect of us. That state exists among members of all parties on both sides of the House. It is confirmed whenever we go home to the people who sent us here and stand accused of being powerless to do the job that we were sent here to do. One member of this House used the phrase the other day that private Members of Parliament are regarded as— [Translation] — poor little parish priests. [English]
Parliamentary Supremacy
103
Unhappily, that member is right. We all wear the clothes of authority but only a handful of the members of this House, the central ministers, have any real authority. That, sir, is wrong. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Clark: One of the reasons there was such support in this country for the ringing of the bells is that Canadians know that such centralized authority is wrong and want it changed. [Translation] In Le Devoir of March 17, editorial writer Jean-Louis Roy said the following, and I quote: After the absurdity of federalism without provinces, Canadians have been treated to government without Parliament. In fact, Mr. Speaker, we have been without a Parliament for quite a long time. No matter which party is in power, our rules and practices allow the government to impose its will on Parliament and to govern by orders in council and by regulations without even consulting Parliament. Worse, the system practically prevents ordinary members from having their own concepts or proposals adopted by Parliament. Private members’ motions are seldom passed, and when they are, the reaction is usually one of surprise. Hon. members know cases where some of their constituents are on the verge of bankruptcy. What can they do for these people? Others are in danger of losing their homes. What can they do for them? In every riding in Canada, Canadians are losing their jobs. How can we help them? Many members have good ideas that Parliament would do well to consider. And why not? What it boils down to is that most members can do no more in the House than rise, speak and bow. Is that democracy? [English] When the government House leader was first appointed, he indicated his interest in parliamentary reform. I look forward to hearing his proposals today, and I hope he will agree to allow the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization to start immediately on a wideopen consideration of the ways we can renew parliamentary democracy in Canada. We put forward some proposals as a government in a position paper published by the then president of the Privy Council, the hon. member
104
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker). Those proposals include a fundamental strengthening of the power of parliamentary committees, including the power to initiate inquiries into questions that the government might not want investigated. We proposed a major change in the power of private members to have their proposals considered seriously and at length in the House of Commons. We proposed a system to re-establish Parliament’s control of spending by extending debate on the estimates of any two departments which the opposition might choose without prior advice from the government. We proposed a means to require parliamentary consent to regulations before those regulations can take effect. In the interests of efficiency, we proposed to limit the length of speeches in the House to 20 minutes each, and to establish more regular sitting periods for Parliament. I make the point, sir, that these significant changes, to increase the power of Parliament and to reduce the power of the executive, were made when we were in government, yet they reflected, I believe, an understanding of the way governments can abuse their power. These proposals go a long way toward reform, but they were designed then to begin the discussion, not to limit it. Our attitude today is the same. We suggest these proposals be considered as the basis for commencing discussion in the standing committee. I am obliged to note that the reason this paper was not referred to committee in 1979 was that the present Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen), then the Liberal House leader, indicated the Liberal Party would want to debate for some time the question of a reference to committee. I can indicate to the government House leader now, that providing the reference to committee is wide enough to allow full and positive consideration of fundamental reforms in Parliament, there would be no such delay from this party. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Clark: Canadians will also know that we have proposed a major change in the way budgets are prepared, a change to ensure that in the future there will be full public discussion in advance of significant tax changes so that the government on the one hand, and individuals, companies and organizations on the other hand, can assess the impact of those changes and plan their implementation. That recommendation did not arise simply from this party. That recommendation arose
Parliamentary Supremacy
105
as a result of a series of public hearings held in 16 communities across Canada by a special committee of the Progressive Conservative caucus on the budget and the economy which heard representations from 168 organizations and hundreds of individual Canadians. We would want that proposal, to open up the budget-making process, to be considered as well in the committee as a means to protect Canadians against a process which resulted in a budget which the government’s own ministers now describe as a disaster. It is worth pausing on the question of the budget because it demonstrates that when Parliament is weak, bad law is the result. The budget was a major mistake. It underestimated the depth of the recession in Canada. It introduced tax measures which look good in theory but were a disaster in practice. It has driven job-creating investment out of Canada and contributed directly to Canadians losing their homes, businesses, farms and their confidence. It happened because Parliament let a group of civil servants make decisions which the House of Commons should be making. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Clark: The only time the government asked people who knew whether what they were doing on the budget was right was after the government bad acted and committed itself to a course which is proving disastrous, not only to them politically but also to hundreds of thousands of individual Canadians who face the prospect of losing their jobs, homes and businesses, or simply losing the kind of hope which has been the fuel of growth in this country. If this government had asked those questions first, many of these measures would not have been brought in and we would have avoided some of the bankruptcies, foreclosures and some of the thousands of lay-offs in Canada. The point is that when Parliament works badly, Canadians get hurt. That is not just a question for Members of Parliament; it touches directly the lives of people who are affected by what Parliament does or indeed, fails to do. What has happened with the budget has happened on other questions. For example, why was Parliament shut out of any consideration of the VIA Rail closings which affected so many communities across this country? How can orders in council be passed giving the government the power to establish internment camps without the House of Commons being consulted? Why should the government have the power to change the express will of Parliament and make the metric system
106
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
mandatory when the House of Commons said it would be voluntary? Some hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Clark: These are not just questions for Parliament; these questions affect the lives of individual Canadians, sometimes profoundly, and yet their Parliament has no role. That is wrong, and if we in this House have any self-respect, if the hon. member heckling opposite has any self-respect, if indeed he has any respect for the people who sent us here, then we will change that system and take advantage of those changes. [Translation] Mr. Speaker, I mentioned the need for democracy, and that is one of our requirements, but Parliament must also be effective. Our country has changed tremendously since confederation, and its problems are more numerous and often more complex. We cannot solve today’s problems with nineteenth century tools. There must be a way to agree on limiting debate. Common sense and mutual respect must prevail if differences are to be resolved. We have proposed a number of ways in which Parliament could be made more effective, and we are willing to give serious consideration to any proposals from the other parties, especially proposals that stress respect for democracy and a desire for effectiveness. We are convinced that agreement is possible if we demonstrate our good faith and if we share the conviction that Parliament has a central role to play in governing Canada. [English] Sir, I have outlined the specific proposals put forward by my party and by us as a government. I would like, if I might, to speak a little more personally, on the basis of an experience which is widely shared in this House, as someone who has had the opportunity to serve as a private Member of Parliament, as Prime Minister and head of a government, and as the Leader of the Opposition. I should say at the outset that there will always be, at the base of discussions about the role Parliament should play, a difference of view as to whether Parliament is here simply as the body to which the government is responsible, or whether parliamentarians themselves should be involved directly in the formulation of public policy. Arguments can be made on either side. As someone who had responsibility for leading the government of this country, my own view, very strongly held, is that
Parliamentary Supremacy
107
Members of Parliament should be here not simply to be reported to, not simply to hold the government accountable but to participate directly in the formulation of the public policy of this country. In my view, that is our role. I believe, sir, that the weakness of Parliament is a major threat to the country, indeed a major danger, because this House is the only national institution to which every corner of the country has a claim, to which every corner of the country sends a representative, and in which every corner of the country has a voice. As a consequence, we are the only national institution which can speak with legitimacy in expressing the will of Canadians and in responding to their needs. That is in the nature of this institution, and it is ours uniquely and ours alone. We are, for many individual Canadians, the only connection they have with their government. Public servants are not that kind of connection; government advertising programs are no substitute for Members of Parliament. We are the only connection that most people have with their government, the only ones they can call to account for reflecting their needs and aspirations. Therefore, this House has to be at the centre of the people’s government or else it is a government which responds to something other than the will of the people. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Clark: In my view, the weakness of this House is based on three major developments. One of those has been that, as the business of government has become more complex, instead of turning to the talent, understanding and experience of members of this House, consecutive governments have turned to the public service and ceded more and more of the decisions of responsibility which should rest here to professional and unelected experts. Second is the proliferation in number and subject matter of federal-provincial conferences and consequently the number of decisions which reflect directly upon the business of this House, yet those decisions are taken elsewhere before they come to this House and agreements are made before they come to this House. There has been a significant and dangerous movement of the power of decision-making away from the public and their Parliament to the private quarters of federal-provincial conferences. The third, and perhaps most crucial development, has been the natural tendency of those who hold power to try to keep it, indeed to try to enlarge upon it. The most recent victim of that tendency, I regret to say,
108
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
has been the freedom of information legislation which, when we were piloting it through the preparation stages of government, encountered time and time again objections from various vested interests in the government who did not want the public to know. My colleague, the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker), as government House leader, prevailed to ensure that the balance was struck much closer to the needs of the public, and perhaps exposing and putting at risk some of the preserves of government. That unfortunately has changed, because the private sources of power in Ottawa have again been exercising their influence to ensure that the power of the executive expands and the power of both Parliament and the people of Canada diminishes. I also regret to say, but it is germane and important to say it now, that that same tendency, that same determination of those who have the power to keep it or to enlarge it, has been at the base of most of the proposals for parliamentary reform which have come from governments. There is a natural preoccupation on the part of governments to enlarge the power of the executive, to focus on the need for efficiency. There is no doubt at all that this institution needs to be much more efficient than it has been. We all agree with that. However, efficiency can be won along with democracy, not in the teeth of democracy. I want to propose ways, psychologies and attitudes which, in my view, can accomplish that goal. However, those three developments— the determination to hand public servants, not elected members, the power to resolve questions which grow more complex; the growing role of federal-provincial conferences; and the perhaps natural but, nonetheless, resistible temptation of those with power to enlarge power—have fundamentally changed Parliament and raised real weaknesses, real dangers and real menaces for our country. I believe that since those changes have been fundamental, the reform and the renewal of Parliament must be equally fundamental. Let me now express a view in which my colleagues may not yet want to join me. I do it as a party leader. I do it as a former Prime Minister. It is my view that we can afford to limit radically the mandate and the control that parties exercise over individual hon. members of the House of Commons. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Broadbent: You are fired, Joe! Enough of that! Mr. Clark: You have had enough of that, Ed?
Parliamentary Supremacy
109
Mr. Broadbent: What heresy! You are out of the club now! [Translation] Mr. Clark: Someone just suggested that I talk to an independent member. I am in the House to speak to all members, because I feel the problem is one facing all parties and all the members of this House. I feel that it is a very basic problem for the House of Commons, and I hope that the Liberals will show the same determination I have seen here, namely, to put a priority on democracy and the rights of regular members and their constituents. [English] Let me just pursue that further for a moment, if I may. I think on the question of what constitutes a matter of confidence, I see no reason at all why it should not be possible for us, for a Parliament, for a government, to sit down with its members before a session begins or shortly after the Speech from the Throne has been published or given, and we should be able to say: “Here are the measures which are of fundamental importance to the government. Here are the questions on which we will stand or fall. Here are the questions on which party lines will be enforced and the whips will be imposed.” They would be a minority. We should be able to say: “But here are the other questions which will arise in the course of our mandate, questions which have already arisen concerning the public view and on which the party has no strong consensus.” I see no reason why there could not be a division made and stated at the beginning of a session by a government as to which will be the fundamental questions of confidence on which its existence, its lifestyle will depend or fall and which will be those question which can be addressed directly, independently, if you will be individual members of the House of Commons. As a party leader and former Prime Minister, I have no fear of that. I have no fear of the judgment of my colleagues, whether my colleagues in this party or my colleagues in the whole House. I happen to have faith in the collective judgment of the elected members of the House of Commons, if those members are allowed to express their judgment. That is what I seek to have achieved. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!
110 Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
Mr. Clark: As to those other matters which are not questions of government confidence, let them be considered on their merits. Let them stand if they deserve to stand. Let them be rejected if they deserve to be rejected. What in the world is wrong with that? That is the way most of the people who elect us think this Parliament works. That is what they think Parliament is. They would be shocked if they knew the degree to which party voting is imposed here on all sides of the House. They would be shocked by that, and so should they be, because it is unnecessary and a betrayal of the trust that all of us hold as individual members of the House of Commons. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Clark: I seem to have won some support for that view from at least my colleagues and, I gather, from some hon. members of the NDP, including their leader, as well as a couple of hon. members on the Liberal side. I am pleased to see that happening. I hope there will be more of that and that we can carry on in that spirit in the parliamentary committee. However, let me suggest that an approach of this kind can lead to at least two results. One would be a more extensive participation by elected Members of Parliament in the formulation of public policy. Personally, I see no reason why we should not prefer the public judgment of elected people to the private judgment of appointed public servants. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Clark: I recommend that the government House leader and his colleagues most seriously consider this second point. I believe this would create a much more positive attitude toward the work of governing on the part of hon. members on all sides of this House. I am not speaking here of the role of government. There is no doubt that some of my colleagues, and perhaps I myself, would act most quickly to introduce sunset laws and other pieces of legislation which would reduce the scope of government. I am speaking here of the work of governing. There is no doubt that one consequence of frustration in this House is that many members on all sides feel that they cannot contribute to it so they should stop it. There is no doubt that that is an attitude which has taken root in this House of Commons. There is no doubt that it is wrong and against the generally positive nature of most of the people who are elected here. I believe that if individual Members of Parliament were given much more opportunity to play a larger role in the formulation of public poli-
Parliamentary Supremacy
111
cy, then the government’s problems with respect to getting bills through would diminish. The question of time would not be as contentious as it is now. I believe that if we give Members of Parliament from all parties positive things to do, they will concentrate on doing positive things and will not be interested in finding nits to pick. Instead, they will be concentrating their efforts on ways in which to advance the public interest of the country. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Clark: We are not speaking here entirely theoretically. A preceding government to this one, a Liberal government, allowed Members of Parliament to help formulate an immigration bill and, indeed, allowed public hearings across the land. That was a highly complex bill which, if my memory serves me correctly, passed through this House in four days, despite its complexity, because Members of Parliament and the people of Canada had been involved in its formulation. They had a chance to speak on the content of the bill, not simply to say “yea” or “nay” at the end. That is a model for the future, in my view. Sir, the events of the last few weeks have been unusual only in degree. It was the first time that a government had sought to act on such an omnibus measure. It was the first time an opposition had used the bells that way. However, the issue has been building for a long, long time. Our system has been changing for a long time, gradually giving more power to governments and parties and gradually limiting the rights of Parliament, the rights of private members and of the people we all represent. If that continues we will waste the talent of the hon. members who serve here, lose the trust of the people who sent us here and gradually erode our democracy. We cannot let that happen. We are here to pass good laws and to prevent bad ones; but we are also here to protect the symbol and the instrument of democracy in a free country. Suddenly, in a way which no one could foresee, large numbers of the Canadian public have become aware that there is something wrong in Parliament. They know that the people with power will not listen and that the people who listen cannot act. They want this institution renewed and they count on us to renew it. I believe that the great majority of hon. members in all parties in the House genuinely want a Parliament which is both democratic and effective. I hope we will seize this opportunity to begin that most basic reform. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!
112 Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
Powers of the Prime Minister’s Office House of Commons Debates 18 December 1974 30th Parliament, 1st Session: Volume 3, 2375–2378 Mr. Joe Clark (Rocky Mountain): It is a particular pleasure for me to follow in debate the hon. member for Scarborough East (Mr. O’Connell), not merely because of the eminent qualities he possesses as a member of parliament but also because of the place whence he has come. This is probably as close as we shall get to a man who has, in effect, been the deputy minister of the Office of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), an office responsible to the Prime Minister, which, like the Privy Council Office, is not answerable to this House. Mr. O’Connell: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order, to say I have not been the deputy minister. I have to reject that assertion at once. My function was a political function, not a staff function of the kind performed by a deputy minister. Mr. Clark (Rocky Mountain): I appreciate the clarification, but my point stands whatever the description of the office—the closest we get as a parliament to people who serve in the Office of the Prime Minister or in the Office of the Privy Council is when those people leave real power and come to parliament, as the hon. member for Scarborough East has just done. I think there is a natural temptation for someone from the Province of Alberta, like myself, when addressing a question of the kind before us today to speak about the present unfortunate circumstances in federal-provincial relations between that province and the federal government. I shall not do so today, and I do not intend to take much time in this debate. But I do want to draw attention again to the very serious institutional aspects of the bill which has been brought forward and, more particularly, the very many changes which have occurred in the federal structure in relation to the Office of the Prime Minister in particular, for which there has been no legislation. I think it can be suspected that the reason we have the bill before us is to provide a post of status for Mr. Gordon Robertson, whose qualities have been attested to by members on both sides of the House. The reason this was necessary, I suspect, has very much to do with the ripples which were caused in the public service by the appointment of Mr. Michael Pitfield to replace Mr. Gordon Robertson.
Parliamentary Supremacy
113
In my opinion the Pitfield appointment was an unfortunate one in its implications for the public service generally, quite apart from causing or inspiring the legislation we have before us today. But I do not wish to dwell on this point, Mr. Speaker, although other hon. members may wish to do so. The point I wish to make, sir, is that there have been, over the last several years, a multitude of changes in the de facto structure and nature of the Government of Canada. We have seen the growth in size and power of the Prime Minister’s Office. We have witnessed the growth in size and power of the Privy Council Office. We have been treated recently to the simultaneous resignation of five senior public servants—and we in this House can only guess, what was the cause of those resignations and what the consequences will be. We all recognize that in the last few years there have been major changes of the kind to which I have referred in the way the Government of Canada works. We might, on different sides of the House, disagree as to the importance or significance of any particular change, but it is clear that the Privy Council Office has grown, that the Prime Minister’s Office has grown and that the power of the Prime Minister has grown. Yet it is highly significant that today, as we deal with the measure before us, although there have been a multitude of changes, this is the only one which has been brought before the House of Commons. All the other changes, though in effect they have altered the nature of our government, have occurred beyond our reach. We have not been asked to approve them. We have received no legislation in respect to them. We have not had the opportunity which is now given us to debate legislation. Mr. Darling: They’ve been slipped in through the back door. Mr. Clark (Rocky Mountain): As my hon. friend from Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Darling) has said, “They’ve been slipped in through the back door.” And whatever the implication of that, Mr. Speaker, I believe it is agreed by all members of the House that this is not a satisfactory situation for the Parliament of Canada. The other day I introduced a private member’s bill to try to take the very simple, elemental step of establishing a parliamentary committee which would look into the powers and prerogatives of the Prime Minister. Such a committee might have been able to work out ways in which that office, and the offices which have grown up around the Prime Minister, could be made responsible to parliament from which, in theory, all
114 Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
the Prime Minister’s powers are supposed to flow. Some sympathetic noises were made on the other side of the House in relation to that bill but, as happens with so many bills which propose changes for which the government is not ready, it was talked out. There is a temptation, sir, for me to repeat at this time the arguments I made during my eloquent address on that subject during the private members’ hour— Some hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Clark (Rocky Mountain): I should say to hon. members to my immediate left that the temptation is even greater now because there was not a quorum present in the House of Commons when I spoke on private members’ hour, as customarily there is not a quorum present during such periods. However, I will resist the temptation to repeat that argument, except to summarize by saying that not only has the size of the Office of the Prime Minister increased numerically, as we can see from the size of the staff for which the hon. member for Scarborough East was recently responsible, but that its power, too, has grown, simply because the role of government has grown. This applies also, of course, to the Privy Council Office, but bearing in mind the extent to which the media concentrate on the Prime Minister, the accretion of power has been particularly substantial in relation to the Office of the Prime Minister. I should say one more thing in this connection. The hon. member for Scarborough East, in response to a thoughtful and important speech by my colleague from Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Roche), said there was no need for a special minister of inter-governmental affairs or federal-provincial relations. He said the reason such a need did not exist was that there is already a minister—the Prime Minister. Well, sir, one of the alarming facts about the Office of the Prime Minister and about its responsibilities is that the Prime Minister, alone among ministers, does not appear before a standing committee of this House to answer questions. He is not subject to questions except during the generally unsatisfactory exchange which takes place in the course of the question period, when the possibility of intensive inquiry is seriously limited. He is not directly responsible for answering questions in a standing committee, as are other Ministers of the Crown or as a minister responsible for federal-provincial relations would be. This relates to the whole question of the growing disproportion between the power of the Prime Minister and his cabinet and the power of this chamber, one which has diminished substantially in recent times.
Parliamentary Supremacy
115
I made the point the other day, and I repeat it now, that in a very real sense this parliament has more control over the president of the CNR or of Air Canada or of any other Crown corporation than it has over the Prime Minister. I say this because the holders of those high positions are expected to appear before standing committees and explain what they are doing, while the Prime Minister is not. This, I suggest, is a serious deficiency. I say, too, speaking personally, that I sympathize with the motive of the Prime Minister in expanding the Prime Minister’s Office and the Privy Council Office so as to allow him, as the elected political head of the government, to balance the opinion of an appointed public service. I think there comes a time in the growth and size of government when that sort of thing is necessary, and we have reached that time here. So I sympathize with the motives. But I do not sympathize at all with the literal irresponsibility of those opposite, and the fact that they are beyond the reach and effective scrutiny of the members of the House. That is not acceptable. Neither, I believe, is it acceptable that we place the highly important question of federal-provincial relations within the ambit of responsibility of the Office of the Prime Minister, who does not appear before standing committees, or is not in the practice of appearing. Mr. O’Connell: Would the hon. member permit a question? Mr. Clark (Rocky Mountain): Yes. Mr. O’Connell: Does the hon. member mean by his allegation of irresponsibility on the part of prime ministerial staff that members of the Prime Minister’s Office, for example, like members of the President’s office in the United States, should be called before committees and examined? Is he suggesting that we move to the presidential system? There is a minister responsible for every person in the Prime Minister’s Office, and that minister can be questioned here—similarly with all other ministers. Mr. Clark (Rocky Mountain): My point here—I apologize if I have not made it—is that with most ministers we have two chances to ask questions. We have the inadequate opportunity here in the House of Commons during the daily question period, but the real opportunity that we have to gather information about the day-to-day operations of their departments is in the standing committees. Neither the Prime Minister nor the senior staff is in the habit of appearing before standing committees. If my recollection is correct—the hon. member will know because
116 Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
he was in that office at the time—last year the Prime Minister declined an invitation to appear before a standing committee. So we do not have an opportunity to question his officials in the same way that we have an opportunity to question the officials of other ministers. This opportunity is particularly important in view of the immense power they wield as co-ordinators of the officials in the Privy Council Office and the Prime Minister’s Office. The hon. member for Scarborough East used the word presidential. That is his word, and is his system. It is my fear that what we are developing is, in effect, a presidential system under which the Prime Minister can operate without any real responsibility to this House, under which he cannot be questioned and his officials cannot be questioned. The reason one worries about this, and the reason it is of concern now is not simply that the Prime Minister of the day happens to belong to a party other than my own. It might be that as the universe continues to unfold we will move across to that side of the House and we will have a Prime Minister from our party. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Clark (Rocky Mountain): So my concern is not about a particular individual or group of individuals, it is about the system that we are establishing, the institutions that we are developing, and the way we are changing the nature of government in Canada. As I said earlier, I agree with the motives of the Prime Minister in trying to establish around him as political head of the government what has been called, in the words of a former editor of Cité Libre, a countervailing force to the public service. But I make the point that there is in our system another countervailing force to the power of government, and it is this House of Commons. The danger is that a serious imbalance is growing between the power of the Prime Minister and the cabinet and the capacity to countervail that power in this House of Commons. I raise these matters now because, despite the scope of the change that we have seen in the way we are governed here, this bill is unfortunately the only specific opportunity that we in this House have to discuss this very serious change in the nature of the government of Canada. That is to say, it is unless the Prime Minister, when he brings forward the changes in the rules that he is proposing—or perhaps I should say threatening—also proposes a means by which we, as an institution, can control those new agencies that have grown up to create the imbalance between the power of the ministry and of this parliament.
Parliamentary Supremacy
117
I want to speak very briefly about those fellows and the very few women in the public service who earn so much more than do members of the House of Commons, namely, our senior public servants, particularly those who are appointed at the discretion of the Prime Minister and who do not have to go through the Public Service Commission. I repeat, I can understand and approve personally of the Prime Minister’s desire, as political head of the government, to try to control and direct his own government and not let the job be done by senior public servants. But I think it would be wrong for us to ignore the fact that there has been in recent days, indeed years, reason for suspicion that appointments to senior positions have been for reasons other than merit. I suggest these reasons have also to do with loyalty, not necessarily loyalty to a party but loyalty to a point of view that might be embodied in a minister. I think it would be a very real danger, particularly in a country of such diversity, and frankly such fragility, as Canada, if we developed, in effect, a personal public service at the senior level. The appointment of Mr. Pitfield clearly raises the fear, as do the consequent resignations—I use those words deliberately—of other senior deputy ministers in tandem, that we are developing a public service that is chosen not simply because of its competence but also because of its loyalty to the particular point of view that happens to occupy the treasury benches at the present time. That is a serious situation for our system of government to face. There is one other aspect I want to touch on today and it relates also to parliament and our powers and prerogatives. It is very clear to me, and I think to many members on this side of the House, that the growth in formal relations and conferences between the federal government and the provincial governments, indeed the various levels of government, seriously threatens to undercut the authority and the role of the House of Commons. There is the inexorable danger that these new processes that we are developing will bypass parliament and will mean that decisions are taken at some place other than this place; and it is this place where, under our system, decisions are supposed to be taken. Reference was made earlier by my colleague from Edmonton-Strathcona to the discussions that took place at the Western Economic Opportunities Conference in Calgary in the summer of 1973. At that time issues of great importance to western Canada were raised by the premiers, and commitments were given by various ministers. Many of those commitments have not been honoured, but that is not really the
118 Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
point. The point is that the demands made during those few days in Calgary by the premiers were demands that had been made time and time again, year after year after year, by members of the House of Commons. The difference was that in Calgary, in speaking to the premiers the ministers gave commitments; in the House of Commons, speaking to members of parliament, the representatives of those regions, the government was evasive or gave no answers at all. Mr. Mazankowski: Contempt of parliament. Mr. Clark (Rocky Mountain): That is a very serious undermining of the power and prerogatives of this place. My colleague for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) calls it a contempt for parliament, and I think that is literally what it is. I do not think it is the purpose of ministers deliberately to tear down parliament, but I think this is what is happening. Over a period of time they have started to pay more attention and to attribute more seriousness to issues raised by premiers, in private or public conferences, than to representations made by the people who are elected to this House from those regions where these issues arise. There is a danger that, by creating this special office we are speaking of today, we are going to contribute and add to that process of bringing down the authority of parliament, and making it easy for the government to bypass this place which is, in theory and in fact, the most effective arena and institution to control a government given to excess. The hon. member for Scarborough East spoke about complexities when he defended the establishment of a special office for federal-provincial relations. As I recall from sitting in the gallery at that time, the present Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald), when he had responsibility as House leader, spoke of the complexities which parliament and the government must face when he proposed the changes to the rules of this House. Whenever there is an attempt to downgrade or bypass parliament the excuse is complexity, that events are coming on too fast and are too complicated for this Chamber to handle. That bespeaks the assumption that parliament cannot deal with complexity, and that assumption, so long as it is in the saddle, is literally fatal to this system. That assumption ensures that we will continue to be undermined and that the powers of this institution will continue to go down. As I say, I think that is a danger in the institution we are establishing today, particularly since this new office will be answerable only to a prime minister who is not in any practical way answerable to this House of Commons.
Parliamentary Supremacy
119
I want to repeat what we all know, that we are not a federal system by accident, we are a federal system because we have to be. This is a highly diverse country which requires a government that is in tune with its diversities. It is certain to all of us, I think, that this parliament is the best representation of diversity, drawing as it does individuals from every locality in the land, and paying attention, as its tradition insists, to the rights of those individuals to speak on behalf of their localities. No other agency of government does this, and it cannot be guaranteed in the public service where people in order to become promoted to levels of effective decision making have to live here so long they forget where they came from, Mr. Speaker. This cannot be done either in private conferences, involving various premiers. It cannot be done with guarantees in any other but this forum. The strength of parliament is not an academic thing at all. It is important to the very roots of this federal country. Every time we wear it down or bypass parliament, and every time we set up agencies to deal with problems that are too complex for parliament, we literally put federalism into danger, as well as damage the parliamentary system of government to which we claim allegiance. My point in this intervention, which has gone on longer that I intended, is that there has been a range of serious changes in the way in which we have been governed in this country in the last ten years. Since I came here in 1972, and during the longer period when I was watching events from the gallery, this is the only time at which parliament itself has had the chance to pass judgment on the growth of power. The other powers have been developed without recourse to parliament, and without our having the opportunity to debate them and to express whatever concerns we had. What is remarkable about this bill is not that it has come before us, but that so many other bills which should have come before us did not. With so many of the powers of the Prime Minister and the executive being developed in this country without recourse to the House of Commons, this is a very serious situation. I hope that when this bill reaches the committee we will be able to review not only the powers that will attach to this new official, not only his relation to the Prime Minister, but also we will be able to review the range of powers of people and agencies appointed by the executive, so that we can begin to achieve the balance which was written into this system when it began—a balance between the executive and elected representatives of this very diverse country.
120
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
Economic Policy and Parliamentary Supremacy House of Commons Debates 9 December 1976 30th Parliament, 2nd Session: Volume 2, 1824–1830 Mr. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition) moved: That this House vigorously protests the manner in which it has been deprived of a genuine role in the discussion of estimates and fiscal and monetary policy, objects to the secrecy of economic studies and projections, deplores the fact that key recommendations of the Auditor General will not be implemented in the foreseeable future, and condemns the government for it inept handling of the public finances of Canada.
Mr. Speaker, I think that I and other hon. members of the House noted with particular interest your remarks immediately prior to our coming to this item of business when you indicated that later tonight we would be following the usual procedure and the House would be concurring in supplementary estimates and other expenditures of the government of Canada. I think that one of the major reasons we have chosen today to introduce this motion in the form we have is precisely that the usual procedure of the House of Commons, being simply to concur in, and not being able to call the government to account for its expenditures, has created a situation which has raised very severe questions about the competence of parliament to carry out its traditional role as a guardian of the public interest and as a controller of the public purse, which has been, in concert with other actions by this government—highlighted most recently by the report of the Auditor General—a further source of a decline in public confidence in the public institutions of Canada, a decline which should not affect us merely in our capacity as members of those particular institutions but also should concern us as it is an indication of a weakening of the ability of national institutions to earn the respect which alone can draw the country together. I should say, in passing, that the respect for public institutions, particularly for parliament and for the conduct of governments, was not helped at all by suggestions which were made a couple of nights ago, and which have been repeated, dismissed this very valid request by the hon. member here by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald), that somehow in this country it is unpatriotic for the provinces of Canada to adopt a common position which is a compromise position on all their
Parliamentary Supremacy
121
parts in the face of a consistent tactic of the government opposite of attempting to divide the opinion of the provinces of Canada in federal-provincial relations and trying to triumph by a tactic of divide and conquer. Mr. Stanfield: Blackmail; that’s what it is. [Translation] Mr. Clark: For some time now, Mr. Speaker, Canadians have been more and more concerned and asking questions about the value and merits of their national institutions. Unfortunately we must admit that they are right to ask those questions. Their very existence depends on respect from the people. It is the duty of the government and of Parliament to earn for them the respect of Canadians. However the attitude of the present government is about to jeopardize the credibility of our national institutions. [English] I think, sir, that we have all been concerned with the practice that has become evident again today in questions relating to the public nature of the federal-provincial discussions which will occur next week and those which occurred earlier this week. We in Canada now face a situation where to an increasing degree decisions of fundamental importance to the future of the country are taken by small groups of people who theoretically are responsible, but who in practice are meeting in secret to make decisions in secret which are relayed back to respective legislatures, whether the parliament of Canada or the legislatures of particular provinces, for ratification. That has rather seriously changed the system of government we have had in this country. It raises serious questions about how the parliamentary system functions and the way the system was established, namely, to allow members elected from the various constituencies of the land to control in a real sense the actions of the executive of the day. Parliament must begin with information, and it must involve influence. If the parliament of Canada continues to be denied information and influence on the activities of the government of Canada, we have strayed a serious distance from the original purposes of the parliamentary system. Today the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) raised a very legitimate question when he asked the Prime Minister (Mr.
122
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
Trudeau) by what authority, in terms of the long history of parliament, the decisions of import to the country—those that were under discussion earlier this week and will be again next week—should be made, in effect, in secret by a group of people who, while theoretically responsible, have the capacity to impose their private decisions on the various legislatures of the land. The Prime Minister who is probably the expert in the House of Commons on strawmen dismissed this very valid request by the hon. Member for Edmonton West as setting up a strawman. It is not that at all; it is a question of real concern to all of us who want to see the parliamentary system in Canada function and represent the people of Canada. Unfortunately, the practice of secrecy which the Prime Minister, at least, is not prepared to initiate breaking down in relation to the federal-provincial conference next week has become a practice very close to the heart of this government. As my colleague, the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) has pointed out on numerous occasions, this is a government almost obsessive in its secrecy. We have seen it refuse, not simply to make information available to people who should be informed both by formal right and informal right, but we have also seen it frequently make decisions which suffer because they are based on the narrow range of information. We have seen this most recently in the Speech from the Throne which began this session of parliament. The government proposed to begin consultations on the anti-inflation process—some 13 months after the process was brought into being—not to try to draw upon the advice of Canadians and the advice of interested sectors of the country but, instead, to try to get some help in bailing the government out of a situation it got into by acting too much in contempt of the advice that could and should have been offered by various interested parties in the country. The federal government apparatus has quite aptly been called by the Auditor General—and, I believe, by the Prime Minister—“the largest business in Canada.” In terms of its spending impact, it is equivalent to the 20 largest corporations in Canada. Yet what we have here is this massive instrument of impact upon the conduct of Canadian affairs, a complete absence of direction, absence of leadership, an absence of purpose. In the face of that situation, this largest business in the country has become, in effect, an uncontrolled political conglomerate which, unfortunately, in its lack of purpose and lack of direction is setting a trend for other levels of government and a trend of carelessness for the public purse.
Parliamentary Supremacy
123
We believe that it is fundamental to restore fiscal control to the House of Commons and the government of Canada. We think that unless there is a demonstration on the part of the government that it is concerned about fiscal control, unless there is a demonstration that the parliament of Canada has a capacity to control the spending practices of the government of Canada, we are going to continue to invite the cynicism which is unfortunately undermining the respect for institutions in this country. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Clark: I repeat, Mr. Speaker, that if that cynicism persists it is going to have serious effects, not simply on the financial capacities and on the economic policy of the government of Canada, but it is going to have a serious and deteriorating effect upon the capacity of this institution of parliament and the institution of the government of Canada to command respect and draw together Canadians in achieving our other goals, whether they be in terms of social policy, national unity or anything else. When the Auditor General introduced his report, the attention of many of us was initially drawn to what one of the newspapers called the “horror” stories. We are aware of many of these horror stories and the failure to make optimum use or anything near optimum use of office space, transfer expenses not accounted for, inadequate control of cash received in many departments, expenditures seriously in excess of appropriations that are approved—we know about the individual horror stories. We have to recognize that the reports of Auditors General, particularly the most recent one but also those which preceded it, have to be seen not as a mere catalogue of mistakes but, instead, as a thorough indictment of the system of control that has been in place in the government of Canada for the last eight years. The recommendation of the Auditor General that a chief financial officer be appointed in each department seems to be under way, if we can judge from the responses given in this House by the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Andras) yesterday to questions the origin of which might be a matter of dispute. Mr. Stanfield: They change their minds from day to day. Mr. Clark: As my colleague, the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Stanfield) points out, they change their minds from day to day; but the problem with the House of Commons is that we still do not know exactly what
124
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
kind of system the President of the Treasury Board intends to bring in. An hon. Member: He does not, either. Mr. Clark: We do not know if he intends to bring in any system at all. If a chief financial officer is to be brought into each department of government, the House of Commons would like to know from the minister—and if he participates in the debate later, perhaps he will tell us—at what level these officers will be appointed in the departments. There is a very real danger, if they are named at a level too subordinate to the deputy minister, that they are going to be unable to exercise the kind of control that is important. If they are not able to do that, then their appointments will be phantom and their authority will be nil. We would like to know from the minister at precisely what level these officers will be appointed, and precisely what their functions and powers will be. Mr. Hnatyshyn: And whose idea it was. Mr. Clark: The hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Hnatyshyn), of course—a naturally modest man—is interested in having on the record precisely whose idea it was. Even if there is an introduction of this kind of representation, it is clear that it is only part of the step that must be taken by the government to repair a situation where its expenditures are, in the words of the Auditor General, “virtually out of control.” In addition, even if we are able to make the kinds of reforms proposed by the Auditor General of Canada, it is clear that there is going to be one part of, or one half of, a necessary two-pronged effort to restore fiscal control to the federal government of Canada. It will help only to give direction and control in a bureaucratic sense; it will not, by itself, serve to restore public confidence. The present runaway situation in public finance is associated with two developments. The first development has been the partial—I emphasize “partial”—implementation of the recommendations of the Glassco royal commission for decentralization of fiscal control. There has been a decentralization of authority without the mechanisms for control and responsibility. The other matter which is of critical importance is that there has also been, in the period since 1965, a gradual and striking removal from the House of Commons of any effective capacity to control the spending or planning of the government of Canada. In passing, it is important to dwell for a moment on the degree to which the reforms proposed by the Glassco commission have only been partially introduced. I will accept, as I am sure the House will, the au-
Parliamentary Supremacy
125
thority of the Auditor General of Canada himself when he says: However, it seems clear that the present unsatisfactory and vulnerable situation came about because certain key recommendations on financial management and control made by the Royal Commission on Government Organization (Glassco commission) in 1962 were not implemented. Perhaps they were not understood, although the recommendations relating to the decentralization of financial authorities were evidently understood and were fully implemented.
The Auditor General goes on to say: Unfortunately, the concurrent and equally important Glassco recommendation that new counterbalancing controls be instituted and that existing ones be strengthened was not implemented.
Sir, I now want to turn the attention of the House to the problems faced by this parliament in dealing with the public spending of the government and the problems faced by parliament in exercising the traditional parliamentary role of controlling, in the final analysis, government expenditure and government plans. I will not dwell long on what we can call the former situation. It is clear to all who have studied parliament and know of its force that there was a time, not long ago, when the House of Commons had a real capacity to call the government of Canada to account. It was not simply a matter of giving, as we shall be called upon tonight to give, automatic passage to expenditure requirements—not at all. There was, with the capacity for unrestricted questioning of estimates, the real ability to force the government to respond to the will of the public of Canada. One authority upon whom I shall call is Professor Norman Ward, author of the book entitled The Public Purse. He referred to that historic event in Canadian parliamentary history which has become known as the pipeline debate, when the opposition of that day was able to use its capacity to delay passage of the estimates to force the government of Canada into a difficult situation. I quote Professor Ward, who said: No one who witnessed that sitting of the House could have any doubts of the power of the weapon which the members held until spokesmen for the various opposition parties made clear that they had chosen to lay it down.
No observer of any of the processes which will occur later this eve-
126
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
ning in this House can have any doubt that the parliament of Canada has lost completely that capacity to control expenditures and approve the plans of a majority government in Canada today. There was, with that former system, an obvious shortcoming: it took too long. As government has become more complex, it is no longer possible to have the unrestrained capacity on the part of the opposition to hold up public business. Everyone recognizes that we could not contemplate, with the modern agenda of business, the kinds of delays which were possible perhaps in easier times. The difficulty is, sir, that the reforms which were introduced, particularly the way they have been interpreted by the government opposite, have substituted for delay a much more serious problem in that they have left the parliament of Canada virtually without control of the public spending of Canada, and virtually without control of the government of Canada. It is significant to note that when there were changes in methods of financial control, there were, by coincidence, at the same time changes in the rules of the House of Commons. To be consistent on the matter of questioning the estimates, it would be helpful to the House of Commons to review some of the changes which have occurred in the last few years in the handling of estimates by this government and the presentation of estimates by this government to the House of Commons. One change was that detailed information was dropped from estimates and millions of dollars were put under headings which gave little information. For example, the preface to one set of estimates says that they are to assist members of parliament in their deliberations and to assist those seeking an understanding of the purposes for which the government proposes funds to be appropriated. In 1970–71, the form of the estimates was changed with that particular goal in mind. In fact what has happened, as all know who have served on committees trying to scrutinize estimates, is that a sentence or two is placed in front of items allocating funds—a sentence or two which can be highly uninformative. For example, some in this House have recently been preoccupied with the discontinuance of the ferry service in British Columbia. I happen to have obtained a copy of the 1976–77 estimates for the Department of Transport, and I note that ferry services are defined in the following detail: Development, implementation and monitoring of programs, including participation in policy formulation, for the operation of certain coastal, ferry and related terminal services, particularly
Parliamentary Supremacy
127
those for which Canada has accepted responsibility under terms of union and confederation.
That explanation gave next to no detail, but that item cost in excess of $116 million. On the basis of a handful of words, the parliament of Canada is now supposed to pass intelligent judgment and to raise questions upon expenditure in excess of $116 million. I have cited an example which was simply drawn at random, because it is of some concern now; but it indicates the kinds of changes which have taken place in the period since 1971–72. It indicates a moving away by the government, in its presentation of estimates to parliament, from the giving of detailed information with regard to estimates, and this moving away generally makes it very difficult for the parliament of Canada to do its job. The other highly serious problem which we face as a parliament now, and which the people of Canada face as a consequence, is that the committees of parliament, and parliament itself, have been deprived of any leverage upon the government by the automatic guillotine which comes into force to conclude debate. The government has the capacity in the committees, through its control of committee chairmen—a control which exists in reality, as any realist in this House must admit—to decide who is going to testify and for how long. That is done through the steering committees. They have also the capacity to formally limit debate. Last year, as an experiment, some estimates were brought before the House, presumably for debate along the old lines. The problem was that debate was under the guillotine; it was to end that very night. Consequently, any minister under questioning knew that he had simply to turn up his collar against the storm; he knew he had only to live through that day. Indeed, he encouraged—and I say this with respect to the sensitivity of the hon. member for Scarborough West (Mr. Martin)—supporters of the government party to consume as much time as they could by asking patsy questions. That was allowable perhaps within the rules, but it was a shameful use of those rules and shameful contempt of the right of parliament to control expenditure. An hon. Member: Do you people live in glass houses? Mr. Clark: Theoretically, this House of Commons retains the ability to vote down estimates, although this very rarely happened in the past even before the rules changed. It has not happened at all since 1970–71, not even in a minority parliament. It was not possible for the House of
128
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
Commons to ratify, in the whole House, changes which had been made in the various standing committees. In June, 1973, I remember a number of committees reporting back to the House of Commons recommending specific expenditure cuts. I particularly remember being involved in one which recommended the reduction by $1 million of consultants’ expenditures for the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. That expenditure was struck out in committee. However, the government brought it back in in a form, not where it would be considered as a $1 million expenditure struck out for the reasons decided by the majority of the Standing Committee of the House of Commons, but part of an over-all estimate of $45 million. It was included with a number of other quite legitimate expenditures, expenditures which the committee was quite prepared to accept. With that kind of juggling and varying of an expenditure to which exception was taken in a body of expenditures that we were prepared to accept, the government was in a position of, in effect, blackmailing the House of Commons into supporting an expenditure which it did not want to support. That kind of trickery and deceit has an opportunity to occur only with a minority government. The point I am making is that there is a determination on the part of this government to use the changes that have occurred in the method of bringing forward the estimates to frustrate the will of parliament even though that will is expressed by standing committees of the House. I want to review very quickly a couple of other problems which exist in the present system of consideration of estimates in committee. One obvious problem is that there is very little public attention paid to the activities of standing committees, particularly when considering estimates. Second, there is a clear inability for members of parliament of any party who are interested in getting at the facts about a particular expenditure effectively to cross-examine a chairman or minister who is determined to stop that kind of cross-examination. By controlling the agenda, or having limited time, the government can effectively forestall any kind of investigation. There is, by the nature of reference, a simple inability on the part of the House of Commons to deal with a specific matter in any prolonged or coherent fashion. I see that the hon. member for Westmount (Mr. Drury) is in the chamber. In the last session, that distinguished member was a member of the government of Canada. We had an admission by that gentleman, as a minister, that the government of Canada was indulging in the practice
Parliamentary Supremacy
129
of hiding certain expenditures, particularly those that related to intelligence activities by the government of Canada. That raises the very serious problem about the ability of parliament to control the expenditures of government. We have no capacity to know what amounts of money are being spent on intelligence operations, or for any other purpose, by the government of Canada. I should say that there was an undertaking, although I do not believe it has been acted on, to give private briefings to members of parliament who were interested in that question. The far more serious problem was that the then minister admitted there had been an inflation of other estimates by smuggling in the intelligence estimates. We do not know in how many other cases this occurred. However, it is clear that the parliament of Canada was being deliberately misled as to the amount of money the government of Canada intended to spend on particular projects. The government intended to deflect part of that sum to intelligence activities which it did not trust parliament to know about. That is another indication of the abuse of the system in which the present government has indulged. This is not an academic matter. Today we face another very real concern about the capacity of parliament and parliamentary committees to investigate. I am told by my colleagues who serve on the public accounts committee that many of the documents necessary for that fundamentally important committee of parliament to examine the records of AECL may be withheld for a variety of spurious reasons. Some hon. Members: Shame! Mr. Clark: It certainly is shameful. “Wait and see,” the parliamentary secretary tells me. We will do that. The best way to answer our doubt would be to have, today, an unequivocal undertaking by the minister when he stands in his place that each and every document requested by a member of parliament in the consideration of that and other questions in that and other committees will be available and that each and every witness will be made available. I doubt that that kind of undertaking will be given. It would depart fundamentally from the practice of this government to use the committee system to frustrate, rather than assist, in any examination. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Clark: There are a number of other reforms that we think the House of Commons ought to deal with in a non-partisan manner. We are concerned, not in our capacity as members of parties but in our capacity
130
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
as members of parliament for the effectiveness of this institution. There are a number of changes which should be considered very soon. First, we must improve the capacity of parliament to control public expenditures. One way to do that would be to vest in opposition parties the capacity to select a certain limited number of departments each year whose estimates could be debated in committee of the whole without an automatic guillotine. If a minister or the government wants to introduce the guillotine, perhaps they should be left with that right. However, if there is going to be a guillotine, they should at least have to face the music by standing up in this House of Commons and making it clear that they intend to limit debate. With an automatic guillotine there is a safeguard for the ministers. No one knows they are limiting debate. They get away with murder. We think there is very real merit in giving some consideration to vesting in committees— The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner): Order, please. I regret to inform the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) that his allotted time has expired. He can continue only with unanimous consent. Does the House give its consent? Some hon Members: Agreed. Mr. Clark: I appreciate that courtesy, Mr. Speaker, and I will attempt to be brief. Consideration should be given to vest in the committees of the House of Commons some capacity to initiate investigations into matters of public interest. Right now, the capacity of committees is limited. Their capacity to investigate is limited in two ways. First, we know from experience that estimates before a committee is an inadequate means of examining the government. The second would be to receive a reference from the House, in theory, but from the government in fact. The practice is that when the subject is hot, the reference does not come. Time and time again, this parliament has sought to have the committees of the parliament of Canada empowered to look into questions of obvious public importance. Time after time the government has refused to make that kind of reference. We think it very much worth considering having some capacity vested in the committees of the House of Commons to initiate their own inquiries. They would be both extensive and educational. If we are looking for parliamentary reform, we might consider looking, not to another country but simply to the other place. It is one of the ironies of political life in this country that private members of the other place
Parliamentary Supremacy
131
have far more capacity to look into public problems than private members of the House of Commons. I want, in passing, to pay tribute to the members of the other place in recognition of some of the very important investigations they have carried out, performing the kind of function which the elected parliament of Canada should perform. I think it is unacceptable that the appointed members of a national institution should have more power and capacity to investigate than do the elected members. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Clark: There are number of other matters to which I wished to refer, Mr. Speaker, but I will abbreviate those references. I do wish to say, however, that one of the other constraints upon the capacity of parliament to secure information has been the change in attitude of the government toward the question period. We all recognize that there is no requirement upon the government to answer questions put to it in the House of Commons. But there is a requirement on the part of the government of Canada to treat seriously questions which are posed seriously in the House. Unfortunately, we have seen the development of what I think can fairly be characterized as a personal style of flippant answers, being cute with questions, of seeking not to answer, not to provide information but, rather, to evade questions and create false controversies and to send people off on tangents. We get responses, rather than answers, from ministers opposite, and I think if there were a serious desire on the part of ministers to inform the House of Commons they could start by answering seriously questions seriously posed. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Clark: This motion, among other things, condemns the government for its inept handling of the public finances of Canada. Its record in the handling of public finances is well known. When the present administration took office, federal expenditures were in the neighbourhood of $9 billion a year. Today they exceed $42 billion. When the government took office, governments in Canada claimed 30 per cent of the gross national product. Today they claim almost 43 per cent. Mr. Kaplan: That’s all government in Canada. Mr. Clark: That is right. The parliamentary secretary makes an interjection which is correct. But he would not want to pretend that the initiative for that increase came exclusively or even primarily from other
132
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
levels of government. In the last decade in particular—and this is documentable—that initiative came from the federal government. It has been the central cause of the increase in the growth of public sector consumption of the gross national product in this country. Despite all the increase in expenditures, we have so little to show in terms of public response. Rather than an increased faith in the government’s ability to help Canadians meet their difficulties, there is now an increasing growth of cynicism and a diminution of trust about the role and relevance of government policies to the economic well-being of Canada. Rather than a major increase in our well-being as a nation, we see our country has slipped in one decade from second place to seventh place in the world in terms of per capita living standards. It threatens to fall even farther down the list. Instead of there being greater sense of economic equality in Canada, we see instead a greater sense of division among the regions and among the different income groups. I do not wish to take the time of the House to elaborate on economic details about which my colleagues will be speaking later on in the debate. But there are a least two aspects of the present situation which are fundamental. The first is something I have enunciated on many occasions when speaking across the country. It is the need for us to halt, and gradually reverse, the growing claims of all governments upon our national output. I am convinced that what is often referred to as “the British disease” is a very real economic malady. I have no reason to believe that if we continue to hurtle down the course set by the government we will avoid our own particular Canadian strain of that disease. Indeed, we will invite it. I want to make it clear that my colleagues in the Conservative party and I are advocating a far different approach to spending restraint than that which is practised by the government. The government opposite bows in the direction of restraint, although the minister admitted the other day that in fiscal year 1977 federal government expenditures will increase by 14 per cent. Mr. Andras: Fourteen per cent this year, and only 11 per cent next year. Mr. Clark: The minister tells me 14 per cent this year, and 11 percent next year. An hon. Member: Dreadful. Mr. Clark: We find it interesting that the saving will be in the neighbourhood of $1.2 billion. It is both interesting and illustrative that that is exactly the figure the government of Canada, in the negotiations
Parliamentary Supremacy
133
between finance ministers which failed this week in Ottawa, is seeking to take from the provinces of Canada. So the government practices restraint, not by restraining its own expenditures but by passing its burdens on to other levels of government. That is not restraint; that is sleight-of-hand. Some hon. Members: Hear, Hear! Mr. Clark: Clearly, what we need to do is not to pass the buck on to the provinces but, instead, exercise national leadership to try to bring together the efforts at restraint to all levels of government. [Translation] There is another major difference between our approach and theirs, that is, the relation between the federal spending policy and that of the other levels of government. One of the favourite tackles of this government in limiting its expenditures is quite senselessly to shift its commitments on the provinces, and to hell with the taxpayers: they have no choice but to support all governments. In our approach, we endeavour to generate a coordinated and joint effort on the part of all levels of government with a view to moderating the overall demand on the economy. I underestimate neither the difficulty nor the complexity of that endeavour, but it is necessary otherwise we will witness no less than the abdication of the leadership. This brings me to the second point. I want to stress in this context. It is obvious for everybody, except the government, that we cannot continue making decisions which affect more than two fifths of our national economy on the basis of the arbitrary and unilateral action of eleven different governments. And yet that is what we do in Canada. The federal or provincial governments make their budgetary decisions separately, without real co-ordination, which often puts them in competition if not in opposition. [English] Of course, the ministers of finance meet, as they did earlier this week. But I do not think any of us would pretend, in the present atmosphere, that they even seek to achieve any meaningful co-ordination of the economic direction of what amounts to two fifths of our national output. This, clearly, is not a one-sided affair. The fault—if that is the term I should use—does not rest solely with the federal government. The gov-
134
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
ernment has contributed significantly to the whole problem of governments acting unilaterally in a country requiring co-operation, but it is not the exclusive agent of that kind of action. It is fair to assert, however, that only the federal government can show the kind of national leadership we need if we are to achieve worthwhile economic co-ordination within the public sector. Along with maintaining security, the management of the national economy is probably the most fundamental responsibility of the federal government. It controls the monetary system, and while it does not by any means exercise all the fiscal power, it controls the national fiscal lever and thus, in a very real way, sets the framework for everyone else. Only the national government can exercise the primary responsibility for economic management in Canada. In the name of that responsibility there must be a much greater effort, a much more concerted active national leadership in seeking to co-ordinate, through consensus and through compromise, the impact of public sector policies and demands upon our economy as a whole. That will mean, not a giving up of ultimate responsibility by the government of Canada but a greater willingness on the part of all governments to act as partners and to share information and planning before each exercises the responsibility which ultimately rests with each. I began, Mr. Speaker, by speaking about the problems that face our national institutions, such as the erosion of respect which can have consequences of very real danger to a country like ours. This parliament is the only institution in Canada which legitimately speaks for all the people of Canada. It is our only national institution. But it can have effect only if has power. It can be respected by the people of Canada only if it is respected by the government of Canada. The tragic situation today is that the government of Canada has demonstrated, through its use of changed rules, through its refusal to accept the control or the point of view of the House of Commons, which amounts to contempt for parliament which, unfortunately, is capable of being shared by the people of Canada. We believe that that kind of attitude by the government must be changed. We would hope that in the acceptance of the motion introduced today we will be beginning down the road toward a change in that fundamental attitude. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Clark: With a little prompting from my friends, in that spirit, Mr. Speaker, I want to move, seconded by my colleague for Edmonton Cen-
Parliamentary Supremacy
135
tre (Mr. Paproski): That this House vigorously protests the manner in which it has been deprived of a genuine role in the discussion of estimates and fiscal and monetary policy, objects to the secrecy of economic studies and projections, deplores the fact that key recommendations of the Auditor General will not be implemented in the foreseeable future, and condemns the government for its inept handling of the public finances of Canada.
Parliamentary Sovereignty and Powers of the Prime Minister House of Commons Debates 9 December 1974 30th Parliament, 1st Session: Volume 2, 2071–2073 Mr. Joe Clark (Rocky Mountain) moved: That, in the opinion of this House, a committee should be selected to consider the powers, prerogatives and privileges attaching to the office of Prime Minister and to report what safeguards are desirable or necessary to secure the constitutional principles of the sovereignty of parliament and the supremacy of the law.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I should point out to the House that the language of this resolution was drawn from a resolution introduced to the British House of Commons on precisely this topic several years ago. I can say, in a certain hopeful sense, that the resolution was accepted at that time in that House. I hope it will receive similar treatment here today. In the past ten years there have been a great many deliberate changes in our political institutions. New departments of government have been introduced and a range of new procedures developed from impact studies to local initiative of government spending designed to bring governments and citizens into closer harmony. Last year parliament passed the Election Expenses Act which will end the secrecy of political party financing and encourage all parties to become more active and more broadly based. The rules of parliament have been dramatically changed, and the Speech from the Throne suggested that more radical changes will be proposed. Those changes have been made deliberately, usually after extensive study and public debate. In that period the office of Prime Minister has also changed dramat-
136
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
ically, and it is one of the curiosities of our system that so little serious attention has been paid to the extent or significance of the power of that office. In the United States, books and theories and countless columns are written about the power of the presidency. In Canada, with rare exceptions, we focus for a moment on a sudden growth in staff or an expenditure on suede sofas, and then largely leave the question alone. However, it is too important a question to leave alone and the purpose of this resolution is to allow an examination of the role that should be played by the office of Prime Minister in a modern, federal parliamentary state. I underline and emphasize the fact that what is sought in this resolution is an opportunity for a committee of this parliament to examine the role of the office of Prime Minister. The resolution makes no assumptions about that role except the assumption that the powers of the Prime Minister, like the powers of parliament, should be discussed and decided in public and in the context of the requirements and the traditions of the whole country. Let me say a word about those traditions. In my view there is no tradition in Canada of a weak Prime Minister. We are told, in parliamentary theory, that the Prime Minister is merely the “first among equals” in parliament, with the assumption that Her Majesty can quite easily choose another of us equals to be first. That is the theory. In fact, the Prime Minister has always been a strong figure in Canada, with his parliamentary leadership buttressed by his party leadership and with official responsibilities and an official reputation far beyond those of his peers and at least equal to those of Her Majesty. Therefore, the tradition is not the theoretical tradition of being merely the first among equals, answerable to the Queen but, rather, the practical tradition of exercising leadership in a federal state with a parliamentary system which requires the governors to be responsible to the governed through this parliament. Nobody is suggesting that we go back to a weakness that never was. However, throughout our history there has been another tradition to balance the necessary strength of the office of Prime Minister; that is, that the powers of the Prime Minister should not be developed or exercised in isolation but must be set in a federal parliamentary context and be subject to detailed and regular parliamentary scrutiny. There is no such scrutiny today. The Prime Minister comes to the question period on most days, but the questions are usually about his judgment, seldom about his powers; and anyway there is no requirement that he answer. After the so-called
Parliamentary Supremacy
137
Pearson precedent of 1968 there is a real question whether parliament can defeat a Prime Minister by vote in this House, except on matters of obvious confidence, like a budget. If our capacity to defeat a Prime Minister is so limited, so is our capacity limited to control him by the threat of defeat. As the chief minister, he is less bound by Treasury Board than any of his colleagues, and appointments to or by his office can be made without recourse to the Public Service Commission. His estimates are brought before the miscellaneous estimates committee. However, they are not dealt with there by him, but by a parliamentary secretary to another minister. The Prime Minister reports to no standing committee and there is no statute to define his responsibilities. Ironically, parliament probably has less real control over the Prime Minister than we have over the president of Air Canada or the president of CNR, because a Crown corporation is established by statute while the Prime Minister’s Office is not, and its officials must appear regularly before standing committees while the Prime Minister’s officials do not. No matter how loosely you define “responsible” government, parliament should have some direct control over the actions of its Prime Minister beyond his mere appearance for questions in the House. If that has been important in the past, I suggest it will be even more critical in the future, for reasons I will enumerate. First, whatever the theory, the fact is that our system of government in Canada is a system of cabinet government, not parliamentary government. Occasionally, initiatives by private members are adopted by the government and from time to time members can amend a bill in committee or the whole House. However, the bulk of the power of initiative lies with the cabinet. It is the same in Britain, and one distinguished participant in and observer of the British system, the late Richard Crossman, suggested that in the system of the Mother of Parliaments, the process of a concentration of power has gone even further. Writing a decade ago in the introduction to Bagehot’s The English Constitution, Crossman said: In Bagehot’s day, collective cabinet responsibility meant the responsibility of a group of equal colleagues for decisions taken collectively, after full, free and secret discussion in which all could participate. It now means collective obedience by the whole administration, from the foreign secretary and the chancellor downwards, to the will of the man at the apex of power.
138
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
We have no expert testimony on this trend in Canada, but it is safe to assume—and certainly it is the public assumption—that the Prime Minister controls his cabinet and that it is the Prime Minister, not the cabinet, and certainly not Parliament, who regularly makes the final and the important decisions. Second, the power of the Prime Minister grows as government grows. We have increasingly an interventionist state which controls or strongly influences more and more of the processes of our society. The merits of that development can be argued another time. The simple point I want to make is that as the government becomes more powerful in the nation, so does the leader of the government become more powerful. The present Prime Minister, by virtue of his office, has much more power in Canada than did Louis St. Laurent, John Diefenbaker, Lester Pearson or any of his predecessors. The state might have got out of the bedrooms of the nation, but it has more than made up for that everywhere else, and the one office that has grown most in power is the office, in Mr. Crossman’s words, “at the apex of power.” Third, the same active agenda which has increased the role of government has decreased the power of parliament to control government. Parliament once had a virtually unlimited power to scrutinize and delay. While parties might disagree about the nature of specific reforms, all of us recognize that the old, easy rules would not have let the business get done. But we have paid a price for that reform, and the price has been that at the same time as the powers of the executive have increased, the powers of parliament have decreased; so we have less control on bigger government. The fourth factor in the growing power of the Prime Minister is television. Today, every head of government has become a star personality whose advisers cultivate the talent to manipulate opinion and whose office has the permanent opportunity to command attention. Professor Denis Smith, in his article “President and Parliament” argues, and I quote: Canadian Prime Ministers have always made their primary appeal for support not in the House of Commons, but outside, to the electorate.
That is much easier now, with mass media. All of us here, if we are realists, know that the most effective place for a Prime Minister to get his message across is on television, not in this House. That is a fact of life which adds immensely to the power of the Prime Minister and dimin-
Parliamentary Supremacy
139
ishes, again, the capacity of this parliament to control an official whose whole authority is presumed in theory to arise from this chamber. Fifth, the present Prime Minister has, in effect, established for the first time a new “Department of the Prime Minister” in the Privy Council Office and the Office of the Prime Minister. His purpose was to provide a means by which he, as head of government, could keep track of and co-ordinate the various initiatives of a mammoth government. I understand that purpose and, speaking personally, approve of it as the only means to ensure that there is, in fact, some over-all control of the direction of government by the elected politicians whom the Prime Minister commands. However, this new department was created in the absence of authority from, or discussion in, parliament. It operates beyond our scrutiny and, having the ear of the Prime Minister, it has the capacity virtually to change any direction or challenge any initiative that arises either in parliament or in the public service. Without dwelling on them too long, I would suggest that certain other forces which traditionally have restrained a Prime Minister have been weakening recently. For example, we accept the notion, without much evidence, that Canadian political parties control their leaders and, in particular, prevent them from the excesses we associate with Watergate. But when did that last happen? Did the Liberal Party in Newfoundland ever restrain Joey Smallwood? Did the Union Nationale restrain Maurice Duplessis? Parties do not behave in that way because they know that in attacking their leader they attack themselves. This is particularly true now that campaigns are so heavily influenced by national media and voting is more often for the personality of the leader than it is for the local candidate or a specific issue. Again, we have assumed that a Prime Minister can be controlled by the public which, at each election, has the chance to “throw the rascals out.” However, public control of the Prime Minister depends upon a competitive electoral system. In Canada, the electoral system is, unfortunately, not competitive in Quebec, which means, as it did in 1972, that a Prime Minister can be rejected by most of the country and still survive. Finally, there is the argument that the professional public service can provide a counterbalance to a powerful Prime Minister. That capacity also is being weakened, first by the deliberate establishment of a “Department of the Prime Minister,” precisely to confront such a capability in the public service and, second, by the increasingly frequent appointment to public service positions of individuals who have personal or
140
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
partisan loyalties to the Prime Minister. Hon. members can disagree about the extent or significance of any of the factors I have discussed today, but I think we must surely all agree that two main trends are occurring. The first is a trend toward the concentration of formal and informal power in the office and person of the Prime Minister. Second is the weakening of any effective means to control that power. In a modern state, it may well be impossible or even undesirable to reverse the first trend. But surely we cannot let that power grow unscrutinized and uncontrolled. I think it is safe to say that if we saw a corporation, a union or any other private agency accumulating the power that is developing now around the office of the Prime Minister, we would want to develop some assurances that the public interest was being served. It is particularly important that we apply that same standard of scrutiny and control to an office whose original authority was as a creature of this House. The resolution before us suggests simply that this is a matter which we cannot ignore. It does not propose a particular remedy or imply that anything improper has been done. It simply asserts that the tradition of parliamentary control requires at least a formal consideration of the powers which now attach, and the restraints which should apply, to the most powerful office in our political system. There is a danger, of course, that this discussion will be seen as simply one more step in a struggle for power between members on one side of the House and those on the other, or between the executive and the legislature. However, that is not the case, as I hope my arguments have shown. There is another dimension to the problem; it is the very real harm that can be done to a country like Canada by any concentration of power. Our federal parliamentary system was not developed by accident or by simple, blind importation from elsewhere. We are a diverse country and we need institutions which both reflect and accommodate that diversity. The best institution for that purpose has been parliament, because it draws its membership from truly every corner of the country and has traditionally encouraged its members to express the views of their locale. But parliament was never designed to be simply a talking shop; the assumption was that the Prime Minister and the cabinet, who came from parliament, would heed the views of the various locales. If they didn’t, in theory, parliament would bring them down. But parliament, the forum of diversity, has lost this control over the executive, and the Prime Minister is increasingly able to construct a government which reflects his own views better than it reflects the di-
Parliamentary Supremacy
141
versity of the country. If that double trend continues—the weakening of the forum of diversity and the empowering of a particular group— those regions and attitudes which lack power will naturally tire of the system. That is the special Canadian danger of this kind of concentration of power, and it must be on our minds as we consider the powers and prerogatives of the office of the modern Prime Minister. Mr. Speaker, I thank the House for its attention and hope that this resolution will commend itself to the support of hon. members. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. John M. Reid (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council): Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the hon. member for Rocky Mountain (Mr. Clark) for bringing this subject to our attention and also on the excellent speech he has just made in favour of his proposition. I agree with him it is important to for us to examine the institutions of government from time to time, to analyse changes which concern us and question the direction government seems to be taking, especially if it is one about which we do not feel comfortable.
Multiculturalism and Accountability to Parliament House of Commons Debates 28 June 1973 29th Parliament, 1st Session: Volume 5, 5189 Mr. Joe Clark (Rocky Mountain): Mr. Speaker, may I begin by expressing my appreciation to the Chair and to the table for their courtesy in giving priority to the matter which I am raising tonight. I also have a starred question on the order paper with respect to this matter. I appreciate that the minister has not yet had a chance to reply to it. I raise this question because of the very great urgency surrounding the affair, which I think can probably be called the Ostrey affair, involving the Minister of State responsible for multiculturalism (Mr. Haidasz), which arose in this House last week regarding a situation in which the minister was being ordered about by the assistant deputy minister of citizenship. This is important for two reasons. The first reason is the importance of multiculturalism and the symbol that the actions of last week display of the very slight regard the government in fact has for the multicultur-
142
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
al program. The second, and perhaps the even more important reason, is the question of the responsibility of the minister in parliament and the right of the Parliament of Canada to be able to go to a minister and hold him accountable for the actions for which he presumably speaks. We in this party have protested previously that the multicultural program as put forward by the government is a false front, a public relations gesture. We raised this question in 1969 when the Official Languages Act was before the House. At that time amendments were introduce by my colleague from Athabasca (Mr. Yewchuk) and were rejected out of hand by the government. Now, that concept of multiculturalism which the government rejected in 1969 has been embraced in a way that is weak, that is late and that is lamentably partisan. We believe that a multicultural policy is highly important because multiculturalism is a highly important part of this country and has to be encouraged. But tonight I want to speak particularly about responsibility to parliament. When I addressed my question to the minister, I addressed him as the minister who seemed to be a little bit responsible for multiculturalism, but I think I was exaggerating. We have not asked ourselves, what does responsible mean in terms of this minister? He clearly cannot be regarded as responsible in literal or practical terms for the activities of a department that comes under another minister. He is clearly a second-class minister who has less power than an assistant secretary of state. We have had this once before. The Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Andras) was once attached in a similar way to the department of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development when the government of that day desired to put forward a false front of wanting to hold consultations with the Indian and native peoples. The device was clearly designed to mislead. In the statute, two types of ministers of state are set out. The essential difference is that one has power and the other does not. This is spelled out in the Government Organization Act, 1971. The government at that time made the minister of state responsible for urban affairs a meaningful figure, but refused to do that with the minister of state responsible for multiculturalism. This shows that the latter is a phony department, interested in public relations and not in a program. I suggest that this matter is far more serious than the simple abuse involved in spending money on advertisements or insubordination by an assistant secretary of state. When we get into this practice of institu-
Parliamentary Supremacy
143
tionalizing phony ministers who are unable to act, who are unable to report, we are setting a dangerous precedent for parliament. I think this would be terribly embarrassing for the minister, embarrassing enough that he would want to resign rather than hold on to a façade. But if it satisfies the minister, I want to make it clear that it does not satisfy us. That kind of arrangement simply does not satisfy us because we believe that recognition of the multicultural nature of this country is highly important. To a segment of the public it is a highly important part of our past, and should be an important part of our future. It should not be played around with, Mr. Speaker. There will be some reply tonight. I have great respect for the parliamentary secretary who has the responsibility of replying. However, I think that real respect for and recognition of the importance of multiculturalism will have to come with a change in the status of the Minister of State responsible for multiculturalism. This will involve a change from the situation where he has no power into one where we have a minister of state who has enough power to deal with an aspect of our society which is recognized as being unique to Canada, and which is being played around with in a second-rate way by the government.
Partisan Uses of Public Money House of Commons Debates 12 July 1973 29th Parliament, 1st Session: Volume 5, 5566–5569 Mr. Joe Clark (Rocky Mountain): Mr. Speaker, like other members of the House I welcome the bill that is before us and I certainly support its basic principles. I think there are a number of particular faults that have been enumerated by others who have spoken before, and which will be re-enumerated by others speaking in the debate tonight. It is the clear will and intention of the House to get the matter into committee quickly so that we can give it the careful and detailed examination necessary to bring a better bill back to the House. I welcome also the interest of the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) in amendments. I am prepared to overlook the fact that he has no alternative on this issue in this minority parliament. It seems to me to be the particular genius of the President of the Privy Council to act gracefully when he has no alternative. I presume that his expression
144
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
of interest in amendments was a kind of apology in advance for the draftmanship of the bill. Clearly the bill is so riddled with holes and uncertainties as it stands that one is almost tempted to think that the cabinet ignored the services of the law officers of the Crown and drafted it themselves. The bill needs extensive tightening and amendment and this will occur during the committee stage. I think an important point to make is that this matter will not come back before us again. This is the only time we will have to consider the question of election expenses and questions of related abuses. We must therefore take care in committee to ensure that we achieve the best bill possible, and to ensure that we get it out of committee and into this House in time to be in effect before the next general election. While I welcome the bill I do not welcome the atmosphere which brought it here. That is not an atmosphere of Watergate, which is a consideration which is irrelevant, at least to my party. We were on record for the need for improvement and reform in this area well before Watergate, and on record as assigning the highest priority to this question of reform. The atmosphere I speak of is one of cynicism and suspicion which was developed deliberately for partisan purposes by spokesmen of the New Democratic Party at great cost to the public’s respect for public life in Canada. Indeed, sir, if any Watergate analogy is apt, it is the analogy between the apparent immorality of the advisers there, who believed that any means justified the end of re-electing the President, and the amorality here of the political operatives of the NDP who deliberately and over time, and virtually without evidence, sought to create a mythology of corporate control of the political process, thereby deepening cynicism and public distrust. The hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) was at it again today, drawing dark implications with his usual lack of specific evidence. I do not intend to dwell longer on this point except to say that we are talking in this debate about honesty in the political system; and if it is dishonest for a politician to be bought—as we all agree it would be—so it offends any sensible concept of honesty to suggest that one’s opponents are bought, subliminally or otherwise, when you know that they are not. That atmosphere of cynicism is unfortunate, not simply because it undermines respect for the system and the process of politics, but also because this contrived question of the influence of corporations or unions has turned attention away from the more serious question of the abuse by a party in government, for partisan purposes, of the power of government.
Parliamentary Supremacy
145
This is a far more dangerous assault upon a free and equal electoral system than all the imagined influence of multinational corporations and international unions. Moreover, it is a danger which we know exists. There is evidence as recent as the advertising campaign of the Secretary of State (Mr. Faulkner), who is a little bit responsible for multiculturalism, and as recent as the campaign for the re-election of the government of Manitoba, which campaign was so close in its results that the ambiguous use by the party in power of the advantages of office may very well have provided the narrow margin of victory. Mr. Lalonde: What about Ontario? Mr. Clark (Rocky Mountain): I will specify later some of the practices of the party in power in Manitoba. I will refrain from references to the party in power in the province from which the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) comes. The abuses of the party in power in Manitoba are a textbook warning of the extent of abuse that a government party can engage in. But, sir, the point I want to emphasize now is that the capacity for abuse and the reality of the abuse of office by a party in power is a subject on which this bill is completely silent. Mr. Baker: Right. Mr. Clark (Rocky Mountain): Only the naïve would consider that to be accidental, particularly when the bill stands in the name of the master strategist of the Liberal Party. It is no accident that the area of abuse left untouched is the area of abuse which, in federal politics, is most acceptable and most advantageous to the Liberal party. The President of the Privy Council has said that he will welcome amendments, and we will give them to him. If the NDP is serious about wanting to control abuses, they will support our efforts to limit or eliminate the capacity of a party in power to use public funds for advertising, use of aircraft and other facilities to advance a partisan cause, to frustrate the system and to attack the spirit of free and equal elections. I recognize that it will not be easy to spell out the distinction between partisan and legitimate uses, but it would be utterly irresponsible for parliament to let this bill pass without limiting the capacity for abuse of office by a party in power. As it stands, this bill is an invitation to unilateral disarmament. Opposition parties are at a disadvantage anyway in our parliamentary system. Even though the things we say make more sense than the things the government says, government statements car-
146
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
ry the promise of action and thus get more attention. For example, the proposal by the leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) to stop the tax system from profiting from inflation had less force as his proposal than it did when it was adopted holus-bolus by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) in one of the flip-flops that have come to define that man of principle. There are other disadvantages of opposition, sir, not the least of which is the danger of appearing negative because of the constitutional requirement to be skeptical of things the government proposes. These disadvantages are an inescapable part of the system, and we will live with those for the short period we remain in opposition. But, sir, they are in a category apart from the illegitimate advantage governments draw from their access to the public purse. The government proposes in this bill to limit further the already limited capacity of opposition parties to compete, while retaining unfettered the single most important weapon in the armament of a party in power—the ability to abuse public funds for party purposes. This bill will be a fraud unless we add amendments to limit the government party as effectively as we limit opposition parties. I said that I would return to the question of Manitoba. The examples of abuse there are not simply examples of abuse: they also underline the fact that the NDP in practice prove that their motive in chasing the money changers from the temple is simply to take over the trade. The only way the NDP in office has changed bad practice is to make it worse. They have practised abuse with moral authority. I would ask the House to consider these facts of life in Manitoba in 1973, and to let each one of us here ask himself, what multinational corporation, or other bogey-man, has so abused power to distort the principle of an equal chance in elections? The Manitoban election was in June. From January into May there was an accelerating program of advertisements on radio, television and in the newspapers, ostensibly telling how to apply for an education rebate, but in practice extolling the program. Mr. Faulkner: What about the practice in Ontario? Mr. Clark (Rocky Mountain): The Secretary of State is responsible for the campaign to do with multiculturalism. During the same time, a general and accelerating increase in government paid advertising in Manitoba by various departments and agencies was explaining, of course, what wonderful things the Manitoba government was doing as a prelude to the election. In May, in the mail box of virtually every
Parliamentary Supremacy
147
farmer in Manitoba, there mysteriously appeared a government brochure forecasting the great plans of the government for agriculture, at public expense. The same month, a week before the election was called, a personal letter on the stationery of “The Office of the Premier” was mailed to every resident in the province advising of the removal of the medicare premium. Prior to that, on the same stationery, with the same taxpayer paying the post, a personal letter was sent from the premier to every citizen whose home improvement grant was approved. This personal approach, over the signature of the premier, was made in a province where, you will remember, the party in power was anxious to hide its own name, and emphasize the premier’s name, at public expense. In the campaign itself the premier flew around in a Saunders Aircraft plane. An hon. Member: Davis did the same in Ontario. Mr. Clark (Rocky Mountain): It is interesting to hear from the NDP, those paragons of virtue, that somebody else was as bad as they were. Saunders is controlled by the Manitoba Development Corporation, and the NDP had the plane rent free, on lease, from a middleman, who had it rent free from Saunders. When he was caught, the premier offered to pay, overlooking the fact that Saunders is not licensed by the Ministry of Transport to charter, and thus not eligible to collect. This is not to mention the numerous executive assistants to ministers who managed campaigns, or the other public officials who worked to sustain the party in power, or the very severe pressure brought to bear to contribute upon people who are doing business with the government. It has been pointed out in interventions in the House that that pattern is not limited to one province. A similar apparatus is being established in British Columbia, and certainly it exists in Saskatchewan. It is clearly here in Ottawa, although the Liberals here have not been so sanctimonious about condemning others for the things they do themselves. There was an order for return made to a question of the hon. member for Colchester-Cumberland North (Mr. Coates) indicating the abuse during election campaigns whereby aircraft of the state were engaged by ministers on partisan campaigning activities. There is the ad of the Secretary of State, sometimes responsible for multiculturalism and, indeed, the whole program of that minister who, from time to time when it is safe, appears in the House. It appears to be a contrived program, contrived for partisan purposes, even to the point of assigning to the
148
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
minister an executive assistant whose chief former function was partisan, even though it was not always successfully partisan. There has been recently in the House on the part of the very minister who introduced this legislation, a refusal to conduct a public inquiry into the harassment connected with the ITT contribution, harassment that is only possible when it is supported by a party with the force of government behind it. There was the reference yesterday by my colleague, the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Roche), to the partisan use even of Her Majesty’s visit. I do not begrudge the Liberal candidates in Alberta an audience with the Queen. The point is that no one attends state dinners in a personal capacity. Guests are chosen as representatives, and the significance of this most recent event is that 15 of the duly elected federal representatives of the people of Alberta were deliberately excluded, their places taken by individuals who represent nothing more than the Liberal party in Alberta, which in Alberta is not very much. That is inexcusable partisanship, particularly when it involves Her Majesty unwittingly in an embarrassment she has no practical power to resist. In terms of this debate it is one more graphic instance of the developed practice, the habit, of the Liberal party in power to use prerogatives which attach to the government for purposes which are narrowly and simply partisan. This is a habit we must break, and since no amount of exhortation will reform the Liberal party, legislation must. The danger here goes far beyond elections. Mr. MacEachen: The hon. member would save our souls. Mr. Clark (Rocky Mountain): There has been for several years an important confusion among Liberals about the distinction between their party and the government of Canada. That, perhaps, is natural because they have been in power far too long, for most of the last 75 years. In a system such as ours there is usually and hopefully a healthy strain between the public service and the government. Here, instead, there is consistent inbreeding. Consider the way in which during the question period one can look across the way and see the former deputy minister of the department of trade and commerce, now the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp), conferring with his front bench seatmate, the former deputy minister of defence production, now the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury). There are others who have moved, without changing their style or attitude, from the public service to the front benches or backbenches of the Liberal party.
Parliamentary Supremacy
149
Mr. Stanbury: Has the hon. member anything against the public service? Mr. Clark (Rocky Mountain): I have nothing against the public service, but I think there is a very unhealthy attitude when there is no distinction between the public service and the party in power, as in the case here. An hon. Member: That does not apply in all cases. Mr. Clark (Rocky Mountain): There is the exception which proves every rule. Mr. Speaker, I remember once overhearing a conversation by the predecessor in parliamentary gymnastics to the President of the Privy Council, the Hon. J. W. Pickersgill, who had gone to that reward he designed for himself but has now retired. He referred in passing to what he called an unfortunate interlude in Canadian history, the unfortunate interlude being the six years of Diefenbaker government, because they interrupted what he and his colleagues had come to look on as the normal state of affairs in Canada; that is to say, a state of affairs when a Liberal government was in office. That is the same man whose great regard for parliament, when he sat on this side of the House, was such that he developed obstruction to an art form, indicating the extent of his commitment to parliamentary government. There are other instances throughout our history of confusion in the Liberal party about the distinction between the public interest and the interest of the Liberal party. There is the suspicion that persists that it was the Liberal party, which caused the death of “This Hour Has Seven Days” from the CBC. Some hon. Members: Oh, oh! Mr. Clark (Rocky Mountain): Members opposite can laugh. It is interesting to record the degree of seriousness which the Liberal party attaches to the independence of the CBC. I am particularly sorry to see joining in that revelry the Secretary of State (Mr. Faulkner) who is responsible for reporting to the House for that corporation. There was the emasculation of the Company of Young Canadians when it became inconvenient to honour its mandate. There was the subtle attack by the former minister of finance who has now gone to that preserve for defeated Liberal politicians. There was the sudden attack on the independence and capacity of the Economic Council of Canada. There is the attitude which is evident in this House right now.
150
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please. I hesitate to interrupt the hon. member, but he seems to be ranging somewhat further afield than the purposes which are being considered, namely the amendments to the Canada Elections Act and certain other acts. Mr. Clark (Rocky Mountain): I can respect that comment, Mr. Speaker. The point I am trying to make is there has been consistent confusion in the minds of the Liberal party between the partisan politics of that party and the public interest of the nation. This bill, if it is to have any sensible effect and treat all parties in this country equally, cannot remain as silent as the draft which was introduced. The omission of any reference to the abuse of power by the party in government was not accidental. It has to be seen in the context of the way this government has acted in recent years. There has been the change in rules which has seriously limited the powers of parliament and the incident the other night when the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) frustrated the right of parliament to object to specific expenditures. It must be seen in the context of Information Canada with the simple and singular purpose of advancing the cause of the party in power. It must be seen in the context of the attitude of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), before his temporary repentant period, when he referred to members on this side of the House as nobodies. This bill is one more weapon of the Liberal party against democracy. It limits the capacity of other parties to compete, leaving their own party and their own capacity to campaign untouched. This is the major weakness in a bill which is good in principle and which has several useful reforms which members of my party have advocated over the years. However, it has several flaws. We clearly need to give it detailed and careful consideration in committee. This matter will not come back before us again. We must deal completely with it now. We must not deal with only half a bill such as the government has brought forward, which serves its own interest and leaves its own greatest weapon unhampered; we must deal with a bill that includes the reforms we intend to propose which will place real limits on the capacity for abuse by a party in power of the prerogatives of office. We are willing to prepare positive amendments to make it a good bill. I hope there is a general disposition in this House to support them in committee.
5
Foreign Affairs International relations and foreign affairs is perhaps Clark’s most important and cherished role in both his post-prime ministerial and post-public life. Serving as secretary of state for external affairs (now known as Global Affairs Canada), Clark oversaw and directed the Canadian response to some of the defining events of the late twentieth century. The speeches included here were chosen for the significance of the event as well as demonstrating Clark’s principles on the global political stage. Leading and informing Canadians on events ranging from Panama to Cambodia to Kuwait, Clark continued to “build Canada,” this time in front of the world. Perhaps it speaks to how important he found this work that Clark used his last speech in the House to discuss the fall of apartheid. More than anything Joe Clark represents a tradition of Canadian foreign policy which, while certainly not dead, has fallen by the wayside in recent years. The role of peacekeeping and dispute resolution mediated by the United Nations has become less important to Canadian foreign policy. Despite Clark’s optimism that the “dead letter” of the United Nations Charter would be revived by the end of the Cold War, institutional multilateralism has perhaps not been the focus of Canada’s foreign policy in the early twenty-first century. This change was made clear when Canada was passed over for a non-permanent seat of the UN Security Council in 2010, a seat that we have held more often than any other non-permanent member. Clark discusses this shift in priorities in more detail in his most recent book entitled How We Lead: Canada in a Century of Change. The lament for a bygone era is evident when he writes about the Harper government’s international priorities: That disdain for multilateralism was evident from the government’s early days and was only reinforced when Canada was defeated in its 2010 bid to be elected to the Security Council. This A Man of Parliament; Selected Speeches from Joe Clark, edited by Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon. Montréal and Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press, Queen’s Policy Studies Series. © 2019 The School of Policy Studies, Queen’s University at Kingston. All rights reserved.
152
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
attitude is not specific to the UN but is also reflected in a generally passive presence in other multilateral organizations like the Commonwealth, La Francophonie and the Organization of American States (OAS), where Canada has previously been an active leader (29).
He would make the same kind of plea for greater international engagement in policies as diverse and distinct as the end of South African apartheid and the run-up to the First Gulf War (see page 154 and 171, respectively). Clark proposes that the best way to reach a peaceful settlement is through negotiation and (if need be) sanctions involving all parties engaged in a conflict. The example of apartheid is perhaps the most clear example as it was the use of sanctions by the international community that quickly sped up the dismantling of the apartheid regime in the early 1990s. We see this most clearly when looking at Clark’s speech before the beginning of the First Gulf War when Clark proposes that “force will have been authorized” but only as a last resort and “on behalf of the international institutions Canada has spent five decades to design and to defend.” Indeed, Clark emphasizes this point, arguing that “[to] abandon those institutions now, to abandon the unanimity and the consensus that has been found in the United Nations now, would be to abandon all hope for the rule of law in world affairs.” Now of course to some, this deep belief may have been taken to non-pragmatic, perhaps even dogmatic levels when Canada would negotiate and work with authoritarian regimes undeserving of the gesture. Two examples mentioned by Clark are the Khmer Rouge Cambodian regime of Pol Pot and the post-Tiananmen Square Chinese Communist party (see pages 180 and 190, respectively). The crimes of the regimes, some might say, surely deserve a more aggressive, if not overtly military response. And this may very well be true, but not by Canada alone. As a middle power Canada has always had to walk a tightrope between the great powers of whatever age and the institutions of the prevailing international order. And while of course appeasement is never necessary, this sort of approach allows Canada to carefully pursue its own interests rather than be pulled upon as a junior partner into the next coalition of the willing. Even when Clark discussed something as relatively minor as a proposed research institute on international peace and security (see page 158), he attempts to create the proper institutional structure (at arm’s length from the government of the day) so that Canadians might think
Foreign Affairs 153
deeply about the requirements of peace. This emphasis is especially relevant today in our world so obsessed with “security” in all aspects of our political-economic and social lives. Clark’s focus on peace is refreshing because his speech reflects just how far we have come from the ideals of that time. For without this proper institutional framework, increased power in the hands of a state can quickly become abusive. We need look no further than the People’s Republic of China of 1989 where eleven years of “Reform and Opening” had in no way democratized China to allow the citizenry real contestation with the ruling Communist Party. It would of course be false to equate Canada with China, but the warning is there nonetheless. Strong institutions are necessary to counterbalance the potential abuse of power by the government of the day. Despite all his good work accomplished during his tenure as secretary of state for external affairs, perhaps the work that affected Clark the most was his work with Nelson Mandela in support of dismantling apartheid in South Africa. In an interview from November of 2013, Clark spoke of a private moment he shared with Mandela soon after his release from prison, when he addressed the African National Congress in exile. His compatriots were being critical of his captors but Mandela called for empathy saying “we must remember how hard this is for them.” Such empathy in the face of such grievous oppression and violence was no doubt unearned by his jailors. It is clear in Clark’s recollection of this event and the impact it had on him, that empathy, compassion and were integral to his international political beliefs, ideas, and actions.
154
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
Apartheid House of Commons Debates 7 March 1990 34th Parliament, 2nd Session: Volume 7, 8922–8924 Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs): Mr. Speaker, a week ago today, I had the distinct privilege, on behalf of Canada, to meet with Mr. Nelson Mandela on his first voyage outside South Africa since he was confined to prison 27 years ago. I want to report to Parliament on our conversations, and also on my brief visit to Namibia, in whose struggle for independence Canada has played such a vital role. Lusaka, Zambia is the headquarters of the African National Congress in exile. Mr. Mandela came to consult with his national executive, some of whom he had never met. He wanted also to meet those countries and institutions which have played a leading role in the struggle against apartheid. The Prime Minister, whom I represented, was one of the first invited to Lusaka, which is a sign of the respect that Canada has won among the people on the front lines of the fight against apartheid. That is a tribute to the resolve of people throughout this House and across the country. But it also creates a responsibility for Canadians to continue our leadership in new circumstances which, will more promising than the decades of impasse on apartheid, are also more challenging and complex. [Translation] The House knows the changes which have swept South Africa in recent months: — the historic Harare Declaration of the African National Congress which accepted the desirability of peaceful, negotiated change in South Africa; — the election as President of South Africa of F. W. de Klerk, a man who seems committed to initiating real change; — the unbanning of the African National Congress; — and the triumphant release of Nelson Mandela from prison on February 11. The stage is now set for historic progress towards a truly democratic and non-racial South Africa. But we have only just begun. The state of emergency is still in force. Political prisoners remain detained. The pillars of apartheid remain. As Kenneth Kaunda said in Lusaka, Mr.
Foreign Affairs 155
Mandela is now free, but he is free only to live in an apartheid system. [English] I think it important that Canadians understand the spirit in which Nelson Mandela approaches this phase of events in South Africa. He referred to his meetings with President de Klerk, and the Ministers of Justice and Constitutional Affairs of South Africa, and said he is convinced that they are true reformers who seek a new social contract in South Africa. But, he noted, these are but three men who face the same party structure responsible for the development and the maintenance of the repressive regime of apartheid. They deserve to be encouraged, but neither he nor the world could ignore the history of the national party or the forces of retrenchment which lie in waiting. Mr. Mandela believes that pressures must be maintained until real change occurs. Expressions of intent are not enough to warrant relaxation of pressure. Mr. Mandela was unambiguous on this issue: the greatest assistance which could be offered by the outside world to the African National Congress is to maintain sanctions. Indeed, he spoke of intensifying sanctions, and I have asked him to indicate where and how he thinks this should occur. Commonwealth heads of government, in Kuala Lumpur last year, agreed that Commonwealth pressure would remain unyielding until there was “evidence of clear and irreversible change.” The Commonwealth Committee of Foreign Ministers, which I chair, will meet in Nigeria, in May, to assess the evidence of change. The African National Congress has agreed to work with us in that process. The headquarters of the African National Congress will return to South Africa and the organization, unbanned, will lead the effort to secure a non-racial democracy in South Africa. Thousands of ANC members and followers will have to be relocated inside South Africa. Offices will have to be established. A new infrastructure must be built. The ANC, at the same time it is negotiating, will also have to focus on equipping the black leadership in South Africa for the responsibilities of economic management and political governance. The ANC asked me for Canada’s direct assistance in meeting the costs of its reintegration into political life inside South Africa. I noted the firm policy of successive governments of Canada not to support political parties in other countries. We will, naturally, continue to support specific humanitarian, education and other programs which meet the
156
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
needs of the ANC. A delegation from the African National Congress will come to Ottawa within a month to discuss specific areas of co-operation. I also made the point that there are thousands of private citizens in Canada who would want to support the return home of the African National Congress. This resource should be tapped, and I have initiated discussions with representatives of the three parties in Parliament to identify individuals and strategies which can be offered to the ANC to help them secure substantial private Canadian support. A great challenge facing the ANC is to level the playing field as it approaches negotiations with the government. The South African government will be able to draw on all the wealth, expertise and resources which apartheid has put at its disposal. The ANC is dispossessed and disadvantaged in this regard. Successful negotiations will require a greater equality of resources and expertise. That is an area where Canada can help. Finally, the ultimate success of a non-racial South Africa will depend on the capacity of both blacks and whites to exercise both political and economic power. Economic exploitation lies at the heart of apartheid and, by and large, black South Africans have been shut out of the experience of running industries and businesses. Therefore, I told Mr. Mandela that we will look urgently at additional programs to provide potential black leaders of industry with practical experience in running large corporations in both the private sector and the public sector. In their telephone conversation of February 13, the Prime Minister invited Mr. Mandela to visit Canada. He has suggested that it might be appropriate for Nelson Mandela to address this free Parliament. Mr. Mandela looks forward to coming to Canada to express directly his appreciation of the support of Canadians. The impression I took away from two days of meetings is of a man who is strong, serene, wise and generous. He is a person of principle, but also of practicality and flexibility. To emerge from prison after so long a punishment and to retain an understanding of the concerns of his jailers is extraordinary. Mr. Mandela disproves the notion that history is made only by impersonal forces. The course of South African history will be determined in large measure by this man and by his counterpart in Pretoria. Canada will maintain sanctions until there is clear evidence of irreversible change in the apartheid system. But we intend also to encourage President de Klerk in his courageous and moderate course. Foreign
Foreign Affairs 157
Minister Pik Botha has written to me suggesting that Canadian experience might be particularly helpful in developing negotiated solutions for South Africa. I have responded by proposing that Mr. Ted Lee, the head of our legal branch, and Canada’s former Ambassador to South Africa, visit the region to assess areas where Canadian expertise might be of use. I made it clear to Mr. Botha that any expertise we might offer must be available to all parties in the negotiations. Mr. Lee will be in South Africa in early April to consult with the government, the ANC and other relevant parties. The nature of the South African challenge has changed. The opponents of apartheid outside South Africa must be as sensitive and generous in encouraging the process of change as Nelson Mandela has been in leading it. Canadian non-governmental organizations have brought great honour to Canada in their fight against apartheid. I will be meeting with them within the next two weeks to discuss how Canadians together can best pursue this fresh prospect of finally ending apartheid. After my meetings in Lusaka, I paid a brief visit to Namibia, which will celebrate its hard-won independence on March 21. Canada will be represented at the independent celebrations by my colleague, the Minister of External Relations and International Development and by a small all-party delegation from Parliament. For years, Namibian independence was a hostage to apartheid; now Namibia is leading the way for its neighbour South Africa. It is a remarkable example of a successful transition to a non-racial democracy, of the holding of successful free elections, of the drafting of a constitution without peer in Africa. The Namibian success points to what is possible when reason overcomes emotion and compromise replaces prejudice. During my conversations with President-elect San Nujoma and his ministers-designate, I expressed both Canada’s congratulations and our intent to continue to contribute to the development of a stable and prosperous Namibia. When I was called to the platform to welcome Nelson Mandela to Zambia, President Kaunda said that Canada, though far away, had earned the right to be considered a “front line state” in the fight against apartheid. Because we are a western democracy, a diverse society, a successful economy, our role may be even more important in this sensitive new phase of the campaign to establish a non-racial democracy in South Africa.
158
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
Canadian Institute for International Peace and Security House of Commons Debates 17 April 1984 32nd Parliament, 2nd Session: Volume 3, 3118–3124 Right Hon. Joe Clark (Yellowhead): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be back in debate. I am pleased to be able to rise to speak on this Bill because I think there can be no question anywhere in the country that the concept of the establishment of a peace institute centred in Canada is of great importance to us. That concept enjoys wide support. I think I owe it to the House to say at the outset that we believe the Bill that has been presented which sets up this particular institute is fatally flawed. While there have been some consultations to date with regard to improving the Bill, those consultations have not resulted in the kinds of changes that we hoped to see. We need changes that will guarantee the independence of this agency, changes that will guarantee its accountability to the House of Commons and Parliament, and changes that will ensure, more than the words of the Minister have, that there will be a complementing of the activities of agencies and institutions already engaged in the field of peace research in the country rather than a supplanting, directly or indirectly, of those agencies. The House will know that last fall the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Mulroney) asked me to undertake certain inquiries with an eye to making recommendations to him as to the policy that would be useful for a new government to follow in the field of arms control and disarmament. I have interpreted that mandate to involve public hearings across the country. I came to this debate from five public hearings in five Canadian centres—Vancouver, Montreal, Halifax, Edmonton and Toronto—in which we had the opportunity to receive some 70 briefs from Canadian organizations and hear 92 witnesses. The most particularly valuable witnesses were those who came forward in an open session to make their contributions and to participate and express their views on an issue which they considered to be of deep concern to them. I have also had conversations with a wide range of Canadians and people outside the country regarding appropriate policies and institutions which should be established. Without question, there is in Canada a deep and growing concern about the possibility of nuclear conflict and a deep and growing concern about whether our country is acting as effectively as it might to
Foreign Affairs 159
inch the world away from nuclear destruction. I will be reporting fully to the Leader of the Opposition later on my inquiries and recommendations. I think it might be helpful as we consider this institute if I touch on some of the testimony and bring to the House of Commons some of the views I heard in public hearings from concerned Canadians across the country, people who are not sitting in the House of Commons and are not part of the policy making, but who consider themselves very much affected by the issues that we are here discussing. I would like to begin with a reference to testimony from a young woman who came from Great Island to the open forum at the hearing in Halifax, Nova Scotia. She came at considerable inconvenience to herself because she felt involved in these issues and wanted an opportunity to have her views expressed. She said that where she lives unemployment and poverty were very high. She said that disillusionment, apathy and despair were widespread, especially among the young, and that that disillusionment, apathy and despair were based primarily upon a deep sense of powerlessness. She suggested that many of her neighbours believed that the hearings which we were holding were simply meant to try to defuse the public’s concern and play to their undying belief in the democratic process, but that nothing would be done. That was her fear when she came. She said that she came nonetheless because she dissents from that prevailing cynicism. She believes that governments and parliamentarians will listen to people on the peace issue and will try to translate the wishes of concerned ordinary Canadians into realizable policy. She said she would go back to her community and try to convince her neighbours that it is not hopeless, that parliamentarians and governments will listen and will respond. She spoke for herself, but she spoke for much more than herself. She spoke for a wide feeling of powerlessness, concern and a sense of being isolated in the country. As we discuss institutions which we might establish, we the Parliament of Canada, must be conscious that we are responding to the concerns of Canadians like the woman from Great Island and others who have nearly given up on the system if they see us put in place something that appears to be strong but in fact is not, something that appears to be independent but in fact is controlled by the government. One of the startling pieces of evidence that came before our hearings concerned the growth of fear among children in the country. Many of us who have children know from our own experience the extent to which they are preoccupied and concerned about these questions. My
160
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
daughter, who is seven, began one or two years ago to ask me when the war is going to come, when is the world going to end? I have no recollection of putting questions of that kind when I was six or seven, nor do most of us in the House. That is not just random observation. That expression of fear is now common in the country. Coming before our public hearings across the country were trained psychologists, some of them based at McMaster University where there is now a cross-Canada study being conducted of the effect of the threat of nuclear war upon the attitudes of young people. Most of the evidence that has now been gathered is evidence that has come from the United States. It is compelling! In a study published in 1982, 3,500 American children were asked what they expected if there were to be a nuclear war. Most responded eloquently and simply by saying “I will die. We will all die.” They expressed bitter resentment against adults who had already lived a full life and were putting their chance for a full life at risk. J. C. Mack, publishing in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists in 1981, after a survey of 1,000 school children, concluded: — young people are growing up without the ability to form stable ideals or the sense of continuity upon which the development of stable personality structure and the formation of serviceable ideals depend.
In Vancouver we heard from the Physicians for Social Responsibility whose testimony in part I will read to the House: Scientific data indicate that a nuclear war would result in a catastrophe of degree and magnitude beyond comprehension, and that there could be no meaningful medical response to such a catastrophe. We believe that it is our responsibility, as physicians, to do all in our power to prevent what would be “the final epidemic.”
There is a very real fear in the country among the sophisticated and among the innocent that we will destroy ourselves. I recognize, as does the House, that fear is no basis for foreign policy. But we recognize also that that fear is a wholly understandable reaction to a situation in which negotiations between the superpowers are broken and suspended. The number of nuclear weapons states is growing, not reducing, and the world is vulnerable to nuclear terrorists or accidents. Canadians have cause to be afraid and, as their representatives in
Foreign Affairs 161
government and Parliament, we have a duty to address and reduce the causes of fear. I believe there is not much point in spectacular gestures. I believe we are more likely to find real progress by proceeding in a steady, sober, consistent, balanced way. The second concern that was raised during the hearings quite consistently was a concern about how effective Canadian policy is now in responding to concerns that exist in our public and around the world. I want to summarize some of those concerns about our effectiveness that are germane to this debate. One that was repeated frequently is that government interest in these issues is sporadic and not well co-ordinated. That testimony is saying two things. It is making the observation that one year we have for a while a suffocation policy, then it lapses. Later we have proposals for a five-power conference, a tour and consultations, and then they lapse. But there is none of the persistence now in Canadian policy which helped former governments achieve agreement on test bans, which helped the former Prime Minister, Mr. Pearson, contribute to the establishment of the United Nations peace-keeping operations. They are saying that there is a sporadic, inconsistent nature to our public positions on policy. Second, there is the concern that expertise is spread around in government. Internal expertise is not co-ordinated. Much of it is concentrated in the Department of National Defence, for example, whereas the Department of External Affairs is supposed to be the lead Department. A second theme that was consistent is that we have a greater capacity than we are using to develop and advance specific responses to particular problems on the path to peace or on the path away from tension now. Canada is, of course, doing important work in a multitude of fields, but we are not organized to contribute up to our potential. A third concern has to do with individual Canadians, whether they are experts or simply worried citizens, who believe that they are outside our system, that they are affected by our failures, but have no impact upon the policies we follow. They have neither the information they require nor the influence they require. Finally, and it is very important in the context of this debate for it to be understood, there is a very real concern—the Minister made reference to it—that there is an imbalance between the emphasis on defence studies funded and encouraged by the government, carried on across the country, and the need for studies that deal particularly with the question and with the perspective of peace, and that that imbalance has
162
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
to be corrected if we are going to be as effective as the country can be in moving the world, in inching the world, away from conflict. I think these concerns provide a useful context for the consideration of this Bill. We are not discussing here a series of policy initiatives. There was to have been a resolution presented to the House. That resolution was the subject of extensive consultation among the Parties, but that resolution has not come forward. It dealt with the general question. We are here dealing with a very specific question. We are dealing with a specific Bill to establish the Canadian Institute for International Peace and Security. It is a Bill to establish one agency in a field where several agencies exist. It is a Bill that has to do with one initiative on a question where several initiatives are needed. I make the point to the House that what we do with this institute will affect what we are able to do in other ways to increase security and world peace. If the widespread concern of Canadians over the possibility of nuclear war is addressed, if what I call the fear issue, the force of fear in the country, is addressed, that can be a means of bringing Canadians into our foreign policy debate generally. This involvement of Canadians should not be seen as a threat to Canadian policy. It should be seen as it is, as an unparalleled opportunity if we choose to avail ourselves of the strong, sophisticated, deep interest that exists in these questions in the Canadian public. On the other hand, if we choose to ignore public concern in the hope that it will simply go away, we run the risk of souring the public on the ability of their elected representatives to provide leadership on this crucial issue. They will turn then, in my view, from the tone of seriousness, of sophisticated responses, a tone that marked the hearings I held, and opt for more radical or for more unilateral solutions. It is essential that we find ways to bring interested Canadians into the discussion of what their country should do in a field of policy which affects them vitally. Of course, the issues are complex. That complexity is not only a limitation to the participation of Canadians outside Parliament; that complexity is a limitation upon the ability of Members of this House to be as informed and as effective as we should be. Elected representatives, as well as the general public, have a great need of being better informed on the technical issues relating to peace and security questions. In short, the essence of the challenge facing elected representatives is to improve the quality of knowledge upon which we might act and then enlarge, in the country and in the House, the will to act. What is needed is an institute designed to encourage and facilitate
Foreign Affairs 163
informed debate and to produce independent, non-partisan research and information, a world-class research and public information institution on international peace and security questions, not merely on the narrower question of arms control. [Translation] Mr. Speaker, we believe that the Canadian Institute for International Peace and Security could play a very useful role. It can make a very positive three-fold contribution to world peace and the Canadian policy: by helping the world nations to draft policies and plans likely to minimize the risk of nuclear conflict; by keeping Canada’s own politicians and population well informed so as to increase their influence over public policies; finally, by symbolizing the commitment of the Canadian Government and Parliament to make the quest for peace one of our great national priorities. Those are all worthy endeavours. In the course of this debate, we must stress the fact that the institute must have the independence, credibility and determination required to take up that challenge. In our view, this Bill does not give it the necessary independence and, therefore, restricts its credibility. We also believe that we are duty-bound to establish clearly to what extent the activities of that organization would mesh with our national objectives to foster international peace and security. Other measures must be taken as well. The government’s internal structure must be much more coherent about any peace-related issue. The independence and integrity of research institutions already active in Canada must be maintained and protected. The Government itself must be much more open with Canadians and aware of the deep and sincere concerns about international peace. [English] I think it is very important, sir, that we distinguish very clearly in this debate between the idea of an institute and the proposal that exists in this Bill. In our view it is important that there should be an independent institute centred in Canada to study peace and security. That is unquestioned; that is very clear. But we have a very deep and profound concern about this Bill, Mr. Speaker. There have been extensive inquiries by the government prior to this proposal being brought into the House of Commons. I rather regret that
164
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
the full conclusions of those inquiries, the full range of alternatives, prepared for the government were not presented to this Parliament. This, after all, is a parliamentary matter. We are establishing here a Canadian institute, not simply a governmental institute. It would have aided immeasurably the parliamentarians who have to make decisions on this question to have had access to the recommendations presented to the people making the inquiries by the government and indeed to have had access to the recommendations made to the government by those representatives. There are, as the House will know, broadly two kinds of agencies, broadly two kinds of institutes in the world, two kinds of models, speaking generally, of approach to this question. One focuses internally. It is inward-looking. It serves the government. It is, for example, like the National Security Council in the United States. Its purpose is to pull government advice together. Its purpose is to ensure that there is a balance in government decision-making internally to protect, for example, against an unusual influence from the military side or an unusual influence from somewhere else. It is an internal agency. That is one model, which could be followed by an institute established by this Parliament. The other model is external—encouraging independent research, encouraging public information and having its focus beyond government rather than being locked into government. Those are the two models, broadly, which exist in the world. They play very distinct roles. They are very different. However, what we have here in this institute is an attempt, in effect, to combine both approaches—not to have an agency which is strictly internal, not to have an agency which is independent and external, but to have one which combines features of both. Our concern as we look at this Bill is that, in attempting to combine features of both, the government creates a very real confusion about exactly what kind of agency we will have here. That confusion will almost certainly continue. That confusion, if it does continue, as I believe it will, could cripple the institute. If we are not careful in debate today, we could place upon this institute, if we adopt the Bill as it sits, restrictions which will severely, perhaps fatally, handicap its future. This institute has to be done right the first time. Mr. Trudeau: Could you tell us how? Could you be more precise? Mr. Clark (Yellowhead): Yes. I am pleased that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) is involved in the debate. Yes, I will be telling him how. The
Foreign Affairs 165
Prime Minister already has some recommendations from the Leader of the Opposition, most of which he has ignored. I will come to that later on. Mr. Trudeau: Most of which have been listened to and respected. Mr. Clark (Yellowhead): “Listened to”; that is exactly the point. That is exactly the fear one has here, and that is exactly why it is so important to have an independent institute. We do not want to have something which goes around listening to people and then ignoring them. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Clark (Yellowhead): The Prime Minister has put his finger on the essence of our concern. Mr. Trudeau: Yes. Mr. Clark (Yellowhead): Well he should and well he could, because it is a concern which is born in part by the practice of the government in so many other fields. We cannot afford to sacrifice this institute, which is so important to goals shared by all people in the House, to the practice and the fear of independent activity which exists on the government side. This institute has to be independent or it is nothing. That is the point. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Trudeau: Tell us how to make it more independent and we will do it. Mr. Clark (Yellowhead): All right. If that is a serious offer— Mr. Trudeau: Yes. Mr. Clark (Yellowhead): You will do it, all right. I would like to see the clause which indicates that the Minister can direct the institute as to what it should do— An hon. Member: Clause 28. Mr. Clark (Yellowhead): I will depart from the normal rules since I have been asked a question by the Prime Minister and quote precisely the clause. Clause 28 now reads: On request therefore, the Institute shall undertake research for or provide advice to the Minister in relation to any issue involving
166
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
international peace and security.
I would like to see the word “shall” changed to the word “may,” because that leaves the decision in the hands of the independent institute. Mr. Trudeau: Just move an amendment. Mr. Clark (Yellowhead): Oh, no, I do not want an offer from the Prime Minister that we move an amendment. I want an undertaking from the Prime Minister that he will accept that amendment. Do I have that undertaking? Mr. MacEachen: Come to the committee. Some hon. Members: Oh, oh! Mr. Clark (Yellowhead): We are not discussing here a detail. We are discussing the fundamental independence of this institute. We are discussing a fundamental principle which affects the effectiveness of this institute. The Prime Minister has intervened. He has said that he will act on what we propose. I have just made a proposal which would guarantee, or take a step toward guaranteeing the independence of this institute. Will the government accept that proposal? Mr. Trudeau: If that is all you want, yes. Some hon. Members: Oh, oh! Mr. Clark (Yellowhead): No, but it is a start; it is a start. Mr. Trudeau: That is what we want to hear. Don’t tell us about the ladies in Halifax. Mr. Clark (Yellowhead): The ladies in Halifax, the women in Halifax, have an interest in this issue because it is their lives and the lives of their children which are affected by what we do here. It is their future which is limited— Mr. Trudeau: They do not want you to talk out the institute, which is what you are trying to do. Mr. Clark (Yellowhead): —if we create here an institute which is not independent, which is not credible and which intrudes upon the independence and credibility of agencies already in the field. They are very much involved. The Prime Minister would serve us all well if he showed less contempt for the women of Halifax, for the people of Can-
Foreign Affairs 167
ada and others who are very much concerned about this issue and this institute. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Clark (Yellowhead): I was saying that this institute has to be done right the first time because institutions define their nature in their very early days. This Bill has the following faults. First, it is confused as to what kind of institute the government wants. Second, it is far too dependent upon government. Third, it is not accountable to Parliament. Fourth, it is not clear, despite the Minister’s words, how this institute would relate to other agencies which now exist in the field. Those are all major flaws which have to be corrected now while we are defining the nature of the institute. It would be irresponsible to let the measure proceed with these defects which could be crippling. Those of us who unfortunately have had experience in this House with offers across the floor which are not backed up in practice will require a little more than casual statements by the Prime Minister from his seat before we will be satisfied that we have an institute which guarantees the independence that is essential to this kind of undertaking. Let me very quickly review some of the limitations upon the independence of the institute in the Bill as it now sits. I have spoken about the most dangerous of them, Clause 28, but there are also others, Clauses 6 to 8 speak about the appointment of a board of directors. Under this provision Cabinet will appoint the directors and the executive director. We have had an offer that there will be consultation with the Opposition Parties. What use is consultation when the government makes the decision alone? This Bill gives the government the power to make this decision by itself. There has been a proposal put forward—and the Prime Minister is interested in proposals —which would have the board of directors appointed by consensus of the standing committee of the House interested in external and defence policy. That would provide independence. That empowers the committee to appoint. It does not merely permit them to be consulted, it empowers them to appoint. That gives a much greater degree of independence than does the present measure. Clause 14 of this Bill, which limits the kind of independent institute that we need, gives Cabinet alone the power to fix the fees of board members and fix the terms and conditions of employment of the executive director—very powerful instruments in the hands of Cabinet. The Cabinet determines where the principal office will be. That is a fairly
168
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
minor matter, but why should Cabinet decide it? Why should that not be decided by some agency more independent than the Cabinet of Canada? In Clause 26 Cabinet has the power on its own to direct the board to make, amend or repeal any of its by-laws. In other words, what the board does after due deliberation, Cabinet can come in and has the power to undo. The effect of Cabinet coming in and undoing it is final. In effect Cabinet controls the by-laws of this institution. I have spoken about advice to Ministers under Clause 28. Clause 29 regarding funding indicates that the institute’s funding will come from “moneys appropriated by Parliament for the purpose,” so it says. No other details are given, but in our view if we want to guarantee some kind of independence, consideration should be given to provisions for funding on a basis longer than one year to facilitate longer-term planning and, again, to promote the institute’s independence from the Government’s priorities for research. We have had very serious and disappointing experiences with the problems of agencies that are supposed to be independent but in fact are not. There is, for example, a very clear danger in this Bill as it is written that this institute would be encumbered with political appointees who will either be reluctant to provide objective, independent analyses of, and information about, peace and security issues where such analyses would conflict with government policy or, should they be inclined to show that kind of independence, they could find themselves in the kind of situation that Doris Anderson found herself in when, as President of the Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women, she dared to suggest that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms as originally tabled in the House did nothing for Canadian women. We have had too much experience with agencies that were supposed to be independent but were not independent in fact. We cannot afford to risk the independence and credibility of this institute by imposing upon it the kinds of restrictions and limitations which have so weakened institutions in other fields of policy in the country. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Clark (Yellowhead): The Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen) suggested that we should approve this Bill in principle here in the House and then work out the details in committee. What the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for External Affairs called details go to the very heart of this Bill. They con-
Foreign Affairs 169
cern fundamental questions of independence and accountability. This Bill as it is written would allow the government to control absolutely the work of the institute. The government alone appoints its directors. The government alone decides how they are paid. The government alone has the right to dictate to the institute, to tell it what to do and then require it to do so. That is not the kind of independence which Canadians expect of this institute, nor is it the kind of independence we were led to believe this institute would have. This Bill creates an agency which the government can transform gradually, easily and completely into an instrument of government propaganda or indeed into an instrument of Party propaganda. If a government chose to do what this bill gives a government the power to do, the effects would spread well beyond this particular institute. This Bill effectively gives the government the power to limit the independence of existing agencies which are working now for peace because the institute we are discussing here can move very quickly to centre stage. It will have an immediate and permanent profile high above private agencies already working in the field and it can become the standard against which they are judged. I remind the House that this institute has behind it more than the power of example. It has the power of money. If this institute which has the power to fund other agencies or individuals is to be truly independent, no strings will be attached to that funding. But can it be truly independent when the government alone appoints its directors, when the government alone sets its salaries, when the government alone can tell it what to do? That, sir, is not independence. Without independence, this institute has the power to do more harm than good. The power this Bill gives the government to control this institute and, by extension, to influence unduly the tone and direction of research carried out by other agencies interested in peace and security is one fatal flaw in this Bill. Another fatal flaw in the Bill is that while this Bill gives the government the power to control the institute, it does not give Parliament the power to hold the institute accountable. There is no accountability provision here. The minister may lay on the Table a report. Many reports are laid on the Table of Parliament. There is no accountability of this institute to Parliament. There is instead tight and very fundamental control by the government of the day. That is inconsistent with the purposes of the Bill and is a very unfortunate aspect of it which we simply must see changed. Reference was made to consultations that have occurred and to rec-
170
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
ommendations that have been made by the Leader of the Opposition, some of which have been adopted. Clause 5(a) of this Bill as it now reads reflects a recommendation of the Leader of the Opposition to create a national library and database on peace and security agencies. Clause 5(e) reflects a recommendation of the Leader of the Opposition to provide facilities for conferences, seminars and funding for some other bodies. There have been important but minor agreements to proposals put forward by the Leader of the Opposition as a result of consultations. However, we must ask two questions about these consultations. Why did the government agree only on the relatively minor questions and not agree on the questions which provided accountability or independence for the institute? Why did it agree only on the minor matters and disagree on the major ones? The other question we must ask is why did the consultations end so quickly? The Prime Minister knows that there was a long process of consultation with regard to a resolution on the peace initiative, a consultation in which views were put forward by the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the New Democratic Party, many of which were accepted. The Prime Minister shakes his head. Am I incorrect? I can speak only for the proposals put forward by the Leader of the Opposition. The Prime Minister now tells me that I am correct. I appreciate his correction. There was a very fruitful process of negotiation on that question. I gather that problems with members of the NDP have made it difficult to bring the resolution forward, but agreement was reached on major matters between the government and the Official Opposition in the House of Commons. The process of that kind of genuine consultation works. It began in relation to this Bill but was then suddenly stopped. Why was it stopped? Why did the government bring this Bill into the House now rather than carry on the discussions that had begun to be fruitful regarding the production of a Bill which could come into the House and be accepted by all Parties in the House? The Parliament of Canada approves the concept of a peace institute. We want to see something established along the lines of what was referred to in the Speech from the Throne. What we have here is something very different from what we were led to believe by the Speech from the Throne would be brought forward by the government. It is different because it is not independent. It is different because it is not accountable. It is different in fundamental ways that go to the heart of
Foreign Affairs 171
the capacity of this institute to be seen as a credible institution in the Canadian community. Because we have had too much experience to do otherwise, we are going to require from the government some guarantees now that it is prepared to make this institute independent and that it is prepared to build in accountability. We do not want to see the government sabotage its own institute by imposing upon it limitations that will kill its credibility in the country. If we do not do this right the first time, the institute may well be doomed. We think the issue is too important to allow the Government’s concerns about independent activities to doom this institute.
The Invasion of Kuwait House of Commons Debates 28 November 1990 34th Parliament, 2nd Session: Volume 12, 15859–15864 Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs) moved: That this House, noting that the Government of Iraq has not complied with the United Nations Security Council resolutions concerning the invasion of Kuwait and the detention of third country nationals, supports the United Nations in its efforts to ensure compliance with Security Council resolution 660 and subsequent resolutions.
He said: Mr. Speaker, today we are on the eve of another important Security Council vote. I think it is right for Parliament to consider the implications of the crisis that prompts this vote. It is the intention of the government through this crisis to consult as much as possible with the people of Canada and with Parliament, just as we have been consulting extensively with our allies. I intend, in the course of my remarks, to report briefly upon some of the conversations that I have had over the last 16 days with countries involved directly as Canada is in the gulf. We tried, in this extraordinary crisis, to offer candour to the House and to expect from the House and to ask from the House understanding of the larger international implications of the grave issues that face us. We are trying to approach this issue step by step. It is in that context that I want to take this opportunity to set out the thinking of the gov-
172
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
ernment on the decision that is before us in the Security Council tomorrow and my view of the context in which that decision will be taken. I expect there will be other debates in this House as the situation evolves. This vote, sir, comes near the end of Canada’s two-year term on the Security Council. It is our fifth such term, a record for non-permanent members of that council. That is an appropriate record because, I dare say, no other country has been as loyal a supporter of the ideals of this world organization in whose founding Canada participated actively and creatively. When we look for a noble and far-sighted vision for managing world affairs in what will be a difficult decade and century to come, we can hardly do better than to draw on the vision of the United Nations charter. The great sadness of our times has been that the charter was a dead letter for 40 years, because of the paralysis of the cold war. The cold war is over. I was in Moscow the week before last, and I found an extraordinarily different country from the austere monolith I had visited five short years ago. Sadly, their problems in the Soviet Union are enormous but they have a country and they have a leadership and they have a people with great reserves of strength. Nations like Canada will and must help them where we can. The tremors of the Gorbachev reforms have allowed profound change through eastern and central Europe that not only helped end the cold war, but set the stage for the CSCE summit in Paris last week. In some respects, that summit marked the formal end of the Second World War. I would like to communicate, in passing, one of the remarkable moments of that CSCE conference. Vaclev Havel, prisoner, playwright, president, sitting at his desk in that debate, said to others around the room and around the world that this summit was the pre-eminent moment in his life because it brought to pass so much of what he had struggled for through all of those years. That was the context in which we met to bring in effect a formal end to the Second World War. The Paris summit should have been an unqualified celebration of the new possibilities before us, of our shared determination to build a new European common home, to be secure from Vladivostok to Vienna to Vancouver, as Eduard Shevardnadze has said. It should have been a celebration of the growing willingness to use the United Nations in the way it had been intended, to bring peace and to bring greater security to this world. But the celebration in Paris was muted, because we all understand
Foreign Affairs 173
that a terrible breach of faith and a breach of law and a breach of order has happened: an act of war by Iraq which imposes on the world community the burden of a great challenge. If new and more hopeful vistas for world peace are at last to open, we as the United Nations have to be equal to the challenge which Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait represents clearly to all of us. This challenge goes to the heart of Canadian interests and Canadian diplomacy, not just now but for 50 years: the building of a workable world organization able to prevent or able, if necessary, to reverse the most blatant and dangerous of international offences, which is the acquisition by force of another country’s territory and, in this specific case, an effort to extinguish a UN member in its entirety. The challenge has gone even beyond these transgressions of international law, as Iraqi authorities have threatened the use of terrorism and of chemical weapons which they have used in the past, with terrible consequences, even against their own people. That is the evil that countries historically arm themselves against. That is the evil that causes proliferation, which is responsible for an arms race which in large part diverts the resources that should be going to the poor of the world and denies people in developing countries the right to live decent lives. That this evil has occurred in the most heavily armed and the most volatile region in the world only amplifies its gravity. I have just come from the Middle East. The potential for death and for destruction in the Middle East is very real. Members of this House of Commons should have no illusion about the danger, or about our obligation to try to moderate that danger. Most of Israel’s neighbours remain in a state of war against her. The Palestinian people, despite the intifada, despite their acceptance of resolution 242, live in a pressure cooker of frustration with thousands of new migrants forced home from the gulf. There are the larger questions of democracy and decision-making in the Middle East. There are quarrels between families and regimes who each want to leave the Arab world. There are shocking gaps in income between opulent wealth and the most terrible poverty. There are chemical weapons, biological weapons, almost certainly some capacity for nuclear weapons, and there is the steady flood of conventional arms. In the midst of all that, in a region where the institutions of modern government have shallow roots, there is generally the common link of the noble religion of Islam which, if it became radicalized, could have
174
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
devastating consequences around the world. President Gorbachev—the Prime Minister and I know from our conversations with him—is aware of those consequences. King Hussein is aware of them. Presidents Ozal and Mubarak are and, of course, Prime Minister Shamir understands the threat of Islamic extremism. That the Iraqi aggression affects security of access to the most vital of commodities further compels our attention. But make no mistake about the importance of the principle we intend to defend, the principle of international order where international law is respected, and the United Nations is used and the United Nations works. Canadians, historically, have been at the cutting edge of the practical measures which have won respect for the United Nations. We helped draft the charter. Professor John Humphrey of McGill was a principal author of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Lester Pearson guided the ideal of peacekeeping, against Canadian critics who said it was an inappropriate use of the United Nations, and 83,000 Canadians wore and wear today the blue beret, with pride and with effect, to build peace and to maintain peace. Now we are at a new step in the evolution of the United Nations, a time in which at last the members of the Security Council are working together on resolutions which involve enough compromise on all sides to allow this diverse world to act together to keep its house in order. And yet, at the same time as being prepared to compromise to come together, the Security Council of the United Nations has taken actions which are clear in their intent and respected in their application. It is hard to think of a time when the United Nations worked better and we, Canada, want to keep it working because that is the only way to advance peace and prevent war. Since the beginning of the crisis the United Nations has shown that blatant disrespect for international law can be met with a response that is firm in its resolve and unbending in its respect for international order. For Canada some of the basic precepts in which our foreign policy is deeply rooted are being challenged by the gulf crisis and they just may be vindicated by its resolution and its aftermath. The rule of law and the establishment of a stable international environment have been key objectives of ours since the end of the Second World War. [Translation] Since the beginning of the crisis, the government of Canada has kept
Foreign Affairs 175
the same objectives in constant view: to make clear the unacceptability of Iraqi behaviour and Canada’s determination to play its part in the collective response; to reinforce the rule of law in international affairs and support a renewed United Nations in its first post-cold war response to a gross violation of its charter by a member state; and, of course, to protect Canadian lives and Canadian interests put in jeopardy by the invasion and annexation of Kuwait. Following from those objectives, we have been trying for three months, in co-operation with the other countries joined in a united stand against Iraq, to ensure that the UN-imposed sanctions are made as effective as possible; that the international consensus is sustained; that the humanitarian and economic problems created by the crisis and the sanctions are addressed quickly and sympathetically, both as an intrinsically important goal and one supportive in sustaining the international consensus; that the international community explore peaceful means to end the dispute, while enforcing UN resolutions. [English] Well, sir, where are we today? Iraq is still occupying Kuwait, in spite of universal condemnation and the near universal application of sanctions. We, of course, hope that sanctions will help to persuade Saddam Hussein to withdraw. We continue to believe that they help make clear our resolve, but we also now recognize that sanctions in and of themselves are not sufficient to force a withdrawal, if the Iraqi government places a higher priority on holding onto its territorial gains than on the resumption of normal life for its citizenry. We simply have to face that fact. The government in Baghdad, as the House knows, has been using innocent civilians of third countries, including Canada, in its efforts to wrest concessions from the international community and to try to win propaganda points with its own supporters. It has proceeded at the same time with a ruthless program to annihilate all traces of Kuwait’s separate existence. In short, Iraq has repeatedly ignored the demands of the international community in successive Security Council resolutions passed since August 2. It has failed to comply with the obligations incumbent upon it on the basis of international law, on the basis of the principles of civilized behaviour, and on the basis of its own membership in the United Nations.
176
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
I have, as I said, Mr. Speaker, in the last several days been in the Middle East. That trip followed intensive talks that both the Prime Minister and I had with the leaders of the Soviet Union, the European Community and the United States. In the Middle East I spent many hours in discussions with Iraq’s neighbours, including the president of Turkey, the King of Jordan, the Prime Minister of Israel, and with the ministers of foreign affairs of those countries. I also met at length with President Mubarak of Egypt, and with his foreign minister, Dr. Abdul Mequid. Several weeks ago, I met with other foreign ministers from the gulf area, from Saudi Arabia and Qatar. I set out for all these interlocutors the view of this government regarding the unacceptability of Iraq’s invasion. It is important for the House to know that every head of state, every head of government, and every minister with whom we have met shared that view, that the occupation of Kuwait is unacceptable. The view in Canada, in the region, and throughout the world is the same. Iraq is isolated. Iraq has behaved abominably. It has invaded a small neighbour, and it has done its utmost to ensure that its restoration would be impossible. It has taken thousands of hostages, including Canadians. This destruction of a small country is, in the words of President Mubarak, “unbelievable.” That was the word President Mubarak conveyed to me when he told me of specific and categoric assurances that had been given to him personally by Iraq’s president only days before Iraq unleashed its military arsenal against Kuwait. From the beginning of this crisis, we have all hoped that peaceful means would produce the necessary Iraqi compliance with Security Council resolutions. Indeed, Canada has been working strenuously since the beginning of August to seek just such a peaceful solution. We have done so in the United Nations, we have done so in the region, and we have done so in close consultation with all the members of the Security Council. Officials of my department have been travelling around the world regularly, particularly to Security Council members—including the people who rarely vote with Canada—to try to encourage a unanimity and a consensus that will allow the United Nations to be effective in these circumstances. I am sure that I speak for all Canadians in hoping that a peaceful solution may still be possible. Time, however, is running out. Tomorrow at the United Nations in New York, Canada will, as a
Foreign Affairs 177
member of the Security Council, participate in the formal consideration of a new resolution that has been under discussion for some days now. This new resolution will almost certainly authorize the use of whatever means are necessary to remove Iraq from Kuwait and to restore to Kuwait its own destiny. For Canada and for others, what is at stake is the integrity of our international order and the credibility of international law and of our multilateral institutions. We must recognize, however, as I have seen over the last few days, that the neighbours of Iraq have another interest in ensuring that Iraq’s deed is undone. Mr. Speaker, we in Canada, far from the scene of the battle, far from the immediate site of those terrible tensions, must realize that there will be no safety and there will be no stability if Saddam Hussein gets away with his annexation of Kuwait. All countries would prefer a peaceful solution, not a deal which rewards the aggressor, but full and swift compliance with the resolutions of the Security Council. Regrettably, many believe that a peaceful solution is not attainable, whatever their preference. The leader of Iraq does not seem to grasp the dimensions of the problem he has created. Consequently, he does not seem to understand the strength of the resolve to see justice done. He thinks the world is bluffing. The purpose of the United Nations resolution, which Canada and other members of the Security Council will consider tomorrow, is to ensure that Iraq understands that this is not a bluff. Tomorrow’s resolution will demand full compliance with previous council resolutions. If Iraq does not fully implement those resolutions, the text will authorize member states co-operating with the government of Kuwait to use all necessary means to see they are implemented and to restore international peace and security in the area. Does this mean that force will be used? That is up to Iraq. That resolution will probably be approved tomorrow, November 29. In normal cases, that would mean the capacity to act, with whatever means, would exist tomorrow, November 29. Now there is a serious and constructive proposal that the resolution build in a pause between the day in November when the authority is vested, and some specific later date on which it might be used. That proposal reflects the call for a pause which Canada and other countries proposed after discussions during the United Nations General Assembly. A deadline which implied an ultimatum could be counterproductive and artificial, and that is not what is proposed. As the Prime Minister said yesterday, what is
178
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
contemplated is, instead, a pause of goodwill to allow Saddam Hussein one more opportunity to reflect on his options. Naturally, that time must be used by all nations to seek a basis for the peaceful acceptance of Security Council resolutions. But, in particular, it gives Iraq an opportunity to seek a peaceful end to the war it began when it invaded Kuwait. In passing, Mr. Speaker, I should say, that that proposal for a pause indicates one of the very real fruits and benefits of the new atmosphere within the Security Council, when countries that had not previously worked together were prepared to work together in these circumstances to ensure that there was a basis on which the world could act together. We certainly hope that Iraq will take this opportunity. If Iraq does so, will the international community in any case insist on the elimination of its leadership or its entire military capacity? No, there is a willingness in the region to live with Iraq, warily to be sure, but on a basis of international law and internationally guaranteed frontiers. Does Iraq have legitimate concerns which should be discussed? Perhaps there are some. That is up to the Government of Kuwait to negotiate or for Iraq to pursue in the many international fora which adjudicate exactly such disputes. The possibility of such a negotiating power is contained in Security Council Resolution 660, the very first passed by the Council in responding to this invasion. We urge Saddam Hussein to pursue this option. Would military action in the gulf be an exercise of only western will? Absolutely not. The coalition includes such partners as Pakistan, Morocco, Czechoslovakia, Argentina, as well of course as Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia, the Gulf states and dozens of others. An Arab force could see to the future defence of Kuwait with international peacekeeping components as necessary or as desirable. Canada would certainly consider seriously a request to participate in the cause of peace. Will there be further attempts to resolve existing tensions in the gulf and Middle East regions? Yes. During my discussions in the Middle East the Arab-Israeli dispute was also raised, specifically the Palestinian question. I believe that one of the consequences of the current gulf crisis could be a new sense of urgency about solving other problems facing that troubled region. We have of late witnessed a pattern of successes within the Security Council in addressing regional issues, not just in the Middle East, but also in Cambodia and elsewhere. If that pattern continues, if we do not lose it here, if we can maintain the strength of the United Nations which we have so carefully built over the last
Foreign Affairs 179
years and particularly the last months, if that pattern continues, then a just, lasting and comprehensive solution to the Arab-Israeli dispute, which Canada views as necessary and urgent, may at last be possible. This is a matter than can only be addressed, however, separately from the current crisis. Iraq’s offence is sui generis and its undoing, according to the highest principles of international law and the highest interests of international security, is essential. But resolution of all territorial disputes in the region on a just and equitable basis is urgently required, if peace and security are to apply in a durable way in a region which may be the most volatile in our world. We will also have to turn our collective attention to the need for arms control measures which deal with weapons of mass destruction that threaten the whole region. Sustaining the new unity of the international community is the only hope, the best hope, that these problems can be resolved with speed. There may be the elements of a peaceful resolution of this crisis. I was more encouraged than I thought I might be by the conversations I had in the Middle East. I was encouraged by the determination of people ranging from Israeli leaders, to King Hussein, to the Palestinians to look for ways in which this experience may lead to constructive responses to other issues. So we hope that there will be means found to resolve this crisis. Otherwise, force will have been authorized by the world community, and on behalf of the international institutions Canada has spent five decades to design and to defend. To abandon those institutions now, to abandon the unanimity and the consensus that has been found in the United Nations now, would be to abandon all hope for the rule of law in world affairs. The world agrees with that. The question is: “Will Iraq agree with that?” The resolution we will be voting on tomorrow in New York is the desirable option that I have sought and that many here have sought, the UN authority to use force if Iraq rejects the option of a peaceful withdrawal. The House will remember, and no one in our country should forget, that the use of force began on August 2 when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait. It is now up to Saddam Hussein to determine whether the international community will have to use the authority of the United Nations to achieve our collective goals through further force. Some hon. members: Hear, hear!
180
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
Cambodia and the Khmer Rouge House of Commons Debates 25 January 1990 34th Parliament, 2nd session: Volume 6, Appendix 1–3 Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs): I want to provide a progress report to the House on international efforts to end the violence that has gripped Cambodia for fifteen years. The Cambodian people have suffered greatly from invasion, unparalleled abuses of human rights, and civil war. We wish to ensure that Canada does its part in helping to break the cycle of suffering in Cambodia. There are measures Canada can take to address the suffering of Cambodia, and which will contribute to the building of a lasting peace. The recent history of Cambodia is a saga of unending war, turmoil and death. During the Vietnam War, approximately 600,000 Cambodians were killed. At war’s end, in April 1975, the Khmer Rouge forces overthrew the Cambodian government of Lon Nol. The criminal acts perpetrated afterwards by the Pol Pot regime between 1976 and 1979 were condemned by the international community and by Canadians of all walks of life. The expulsion of the Khmer Rouge by the Vietnamese in 1979 resulted in a long civil war opposing three Cambodian parties to a government put into office by the Vietnamese army. Eleven years later, despite diplomatic efforts, the war is still raging on and more Cambodians are dying. The limited resources of Indochina are tragically wasted on the battlefront. In September 1989, Vietnam withdrew its troops from Cambodia. Since then, the civil war has intensified. The front lines have changed somewhat, but, in general, have remained the same as those drawn up eleven years ago. In many instances, military solutions have been sought instead of political solutions. The victims remain the same: the people of Cambodia, and indeed all of the people of Indochina who have borne too long the burden of protracted military struggle. From the beginning of the war, Canada has helped fund the efforts of the United Nations and its agencies to care for the 300,000 Cambodians seeking refuge on the Thai-Cambodian border. Our commitment continues to these people, and this fiscal year it will amount to $3 million in food and other aid. We also recognize the need to assist the 8 million Cambodians still
Foreign Affairs 181
living in their country whose lives have been disrupted by the armed struggle. Their needs are immediate and real. A response to their suffering must not be held forever hostage to progress towards a political settlement. With that in mind, the government is now in the process of re-establishing the eligibility of Cambodia, Vietnam and Laos, the three countries of Indochina, for official Canadian development assistance. The exact nature of this aid is now under study by CIDA. As part of that process, an officer from our Embassy in Bangkok is currently in Cambodia with representatives of Canadian non-governmental organizations to examine how best to resume an aid relationship there. In the short term, these programs will be small scale and focused on humanitarian needs. Over the longer term their expansion will be predicated on progress towards peace and the political realities in the areas affected. We will not have Canadian aid channelled into the military efforts of any group. Nor will we permit it to be used by groups or governments whose records demonstrate a fundamental disrespect for basic human rights. We will, for example, insist that no Canadian aid be distributed in areas controlled by the Khmer Rouge. The central problem in the Cambodian conflict remains how to deal with the Khmer Rouge in an eventual settlement process. The reign of terror of the Pol Pot regime was one of the most brutal chapters in human history. Each position we, as a government, have taken on the question of Cambodia has been grounded in a determination never to allow the Khmer Rouge back into power. We have called upon the Chinese, Soviet and other military suppliers to the Cambodian parties to cease their support. There is no benefit to Cambodia to be found in the further import of weapons. The people of Indochina have seen enough implements of war to last for all of history. Two major developments broke the old impasse respecting Cambodia. The first was the recognition by the Parties themselves, and countries close to them, that war would yield no winner, but would hold back the development of Cambodia and its neighbours. The second was the decision to treat the search for peace as a regional responsibility and lift it beyond the immediate combatants. Seminal to that process were the Jakarta informal meetings which brought the six nations of ASEAN directly into the process, working with the Cambodian Parties, Vietnam and Laos. The next step was to make that search for peace a genuinely international preoccupation, moving beyond the region, to involve permanent
182
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
members of the Security Council, and other countries with a particular interest or contribution. The Paris Conference was convened. Canada was invited because of our unique experience in peacekeeping, our extensive relations in the region, and our acknowledged reputation as a trusted and moderate nation. The Paris Conference succeeded in getting the agreement of all parties to involve the offices of the United Nations, in the form of a fact-finding technical mission sent to Cambodia. It also made substantial progress in the design of an international control mechanism and in refining the complex of tasks that such a mechanism will have to address. Canada co-chaired that Committee with India, and Parliament can take pride in the skill and effectiveness of the officials in the Canadian delegation. That first Committee produced the agreement that could well be the basis of further progress now. The Paris Conference may resume, and Canada and other countries may be called upon to participate in UN-led peacekeeping and transitional arrangements. It is important that potential participants be adequately prepared. As part of this process, officials from my Department and the Department of National Defence are reviewing Canada’s recent experiences in Namibia and elsewhere. Lessons learned there can be applied to improving the planning and organization of future peacekeeping operations such as in Cambodia. The collection, exchange and assessment of peacekeeping information with both existing and potential peacekeepers, as well as with the UN itself, can only serve to strengthen the UN’s effectiveness and reputation as a peacemaker. In October, I dispatched a mission to Indochina led by Ambassador Alan Sullivan, head of our delegation for most of the Paris Conference, to explore and encourage the resumption of negotiations. One of the major messages delivered by Ambassador Sullivan in Hanoi and Phnom Penh was that of the importance of accepting a major role for the UN in any settlement. In November, the Government of Australia proposed the establishment of a UN interim administration for Cambodia. That proposal has Canada’s full support. It overcomes the problem of how to share power between the Cambodia parties, by delegating to the UN the responsibility for administering the country in an interim period prior to elections. Like the UN-based settlement recently achieved in Namibia, this proposal would effectively guarantee that no Cambodian party would retain or acquire political power sufficient to disrupt the process leading to free and fair elections. That is the most flexible and reasonable
Foreign Affairs 183
proposal currently in play. It has been welcomed by all the key players in the dispute, with the exception of the Khmer Rouge. Indeed it is becoming increasingly clear that the Khmer Rouge and its two non-communist coalition partners no longer speak with a unified voice. At the same time, Canada and other countries recognize that the current regime in Phnom Penh—the Hun Sen regime—is more than simply one of the four factions. Over the last few years it appears to have provided adequate government, and its record in most areas is far better than that of the Khmer Rouge government which preceded it. Nowhere is this more evident than in the field of human rights and in basic respect for human life. The peace process was moved forward in Paris last week in a meeting of the five permanent members of the Security Council. The meeting resulted, for the first time ever, in a significant level of agreement between the mentors of Cambodia’s warring factions. Their views were summarized in a 16-point communiqué highlighting an enhanced UN role in the resolution of the Cambodian problem. China’s decision to agree to the communiqué represents a significant concession and suggests that China may move away from its long-standing insistence that the Khmer Rouge have a major role in the interim government. Such flexibility from the Chinese, who are the principal backers of the Khmer Rouge, is an important ingredient in ensuring the co-operation of the Khmer Rouge in the peace-building process. As I have said in the past, we all wish that we did not have to deal with the Khmer Rouge. Unfortunately, the Khmer Rouge remain a major military reality, the strongest among the three resistance factions. To exclude them a priori from the peace would leave them no option but to continue fighting a civil war. We must instead find a way to include them in the process of peace while removing their ability to either wage war or to seize power and return Cambodia to the living hell it experienced under Pol Pot. The next weeks will be crucial as details of the potential UN role are further discussed, and as options for resolving other key questions such as a cease fire and transitional arrangements are explored. Canada will be active in that process. Should the Cambodian Parties return to the negotiating table with the kind of flexibility and commitment demonstrated by the permanent
184
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
five in Paris, it is probable that a resumption of the Paris Conference will follow as a next step. As a co-chair of one of its key committees, we expect to be closely involved in the preparations for a new Paris Conference. We will continue to work closely with our friends in Asia and elsewhere to help create the best possible environment for peace-building. We will stress that a new window of opportunity to build a lasting peace has been opened, and that all the Parties to the conflict must approach the upcoming discussions willing to seek and make the compromises which will be required if Cambodia’s long nightmare is to come to an end, and peace is finally to be brought to this once gentle and tranquil land. Peace for Cambodia must become a priority for the world community. Canada has the experience, ability and commitment necessary to play an important role in the peace process. I can assure the House that we will do so.
The Aftermath of the Gulf War House of Commons Debates 15 March 1991 34th Parliament, 2nd Session: Volume 14, 18534–18537 Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs): Madam Speaker, may I begin by expressing to my colleagues who are critics for other parties in this House my regret that there was a brief delay in my transmitting a copy to them of the statement I intend to make. As members of the House will know, this has been a long week and I apologize to them for the 10 or 15 minute delay in delivering that statement. Over the last seven and a half months, the Kuwait crisis has riveted our attention and engaged much of our debate. Today Kuwait is again a free country, though deeply scarred by its ordeal. I visited free Kuwait five days ago. I raised over the Canadian Embassy there, the flag our diplomats so reluctantly took down when they were forced by lack of food and water to leave on October 19. I wish now to report to the House on that trip which began, quite deliberately, with a call on the Secretary-General of the United Nations
Foreign Affairs 185
in New York and which took me to Jordan, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Syria and Iran as well as Kuwait and the United States. I met with leaders of those countries and with the foreign ministers of Egypt and of Italy, and with leading Palestinians from the Occupied Territories. In Jordan, I visited the headquarters of United Nations agencies working with the casualties and the consequences of the conflict. The Canadian government is contributing to many of their activities, but I want to draw the attention of the House and of Canadians to the United Nations Children’s Fund operated by UNICEF for humanitarian assistance for the children who are victims of the conflict. The government has contributed an additional $550,000 to that fund and I hope individual Canadians might make their own contribution to that special Gulf Disaster Relief Appeal, organized by UNICEF Canada to provide medical and humanitarian assistance to mothers and children suffering the effects of that conflict. My colleague, the Minister of National Defence, and the Chief of the Defence Staff, also visited Bahrain, Qatar, and the field hospital at Aljubayl, to express the gratitude of Canada to our troops and to the countries which hosted them. My purpose was to look beyond the liberation of Kuwait to the issues this crisis has underscored. The fundamental problems remain, but there are now new possibilities which need to be nurtured. My interest, as the foreign minister of Canada, was everywhere understood and welcomed. As a member of the coalition of countries who, through the United Nations, came to the aid of Kuwait, Canada’s commitment to the liberation of Kuwait was clear. But Canada also represents a lifetime of commitment to the United Nations. My primary mission was to try to ensure that the sort of world consensus which emerged to free Kuwait be further mobilized to prevent such aggression in the future, and to strengthen the chances of enduring peace and security. That is the first lesson of this crisis. There are other lessons. As the Prime Minister said on February 18, one such lesson is that reckless transfers of arms must come to an end. Canada’s commitment and record on arms control entitle us to place this item high on the world’s agenda. I reviewed with leaders of other countries of some of our proposals to reduce the flow and risk of arms. Progress, of course, will be slow, but everyone I met in the immediate aftermath of a decade of conflict in the gulf acknowledged the need to address this problem, and to do so practically and persistently. The House should know that in some gulf countries the immediate reflex
186
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
may be to buy new arms to deal with threats they believe will continue. That underlines the need for countries like Canada to advance proposals like those the Prime Minister has set forth. But for real peace and security to emerge and for arms transfers to diminish, the underlying causes of tension have to be resolved. These tensions, many of which relate to enduring disputes between Israel and her neighbours, were a major topic of my discussions. Madam Speaker, no one in the Middle East has forgotten a single moment of history, and there is a lot of history to overcome. There is now, however, an opportunity—now, but not for long. The world must not lose that opportunity. [Translation] Many of us have said that the recent events have changed the Middle East forever. Canada’s purpose has been to make those changes for the better—to strengthen the United Nations, to increase the control of arms and to reduce the risk of war, and to resolve the tensions at the root of insecurity in the Middle East. I congratulated Mr. Perez de Cuellar, on behalf of the people of Canada, for his resolution during this crisis. He thanked Canada for our support, and believed that Canada had set an example for other states by our determination to settle this crisis through the United Nations. He informed me that the United Nations is poised to police the separation of forces, once an official request is received from the Government of Kuwait. He also urged us to try to heal some of the wounds of this crisis by helping leaders with whom Canada has close ties—such as King Hussein of Jordan. He was concerned about the Palestinians whose leadership had been so criticized, but whose right represent a continuing challenge to the reputation for fairness and effectiveness of the United Nations. Indeed, this issue dominated many of my subsequent discussions. On my way to the region, I also met with Secretary of State Baker, just before he embarked on his own tour. He shared our view that there is a psychological moment of opportunity to be seized on the agenda for arms control. His immediate concerns were with the arrangements for regional security which would enable the United States to withdraw its ground forces from the theatre and bring the troops home. Even as we spoke, of course, the Foreign Ministers of the Gulf Co-operation Council were meeting in Damascus with the Foreign Ministers
Foreign Affairs 187
of Syria and Egypt to reach agreement on the stationing of Syrian and Egyptian ground forces in Kuwait, to replace Coalition ground forces, once a definitive ceasefire with Iraq was arranged. [English] Madam Speaker, I believed that my trip to the area should begin with the government of Kuwait. The Emir of Kuwait was still in Taif, in Saudi Arabia, where he had spent the occupation. His appreciation for Canada’s contribution to the liberation of Kuwait was heartfelt. The Emir was deeply concerned at the damage to his people and to his state. Plans are already beginning for the massive reconstruction of Kuwait and I welcomed the clear assurances that the expertise of Canadian companies will enjoy opportunities commensurate with the important role Canada played in liberating Kuwait. The senseless damage to Kuwait must be seen to be believed. Across the limitless desert landscape burn innumerable fires, each set deliberately with powerful charges of high explosives. Downtown, on the waterfront, are burned-out building after building, looted store after store, museums, homes, things of value or merit, trashed. This was not war damage; this city was put to the torch in the last 48 hours of occupation. For the Kuwaitis, the ending of sanctions against Iraq is therefore a major problem. Should oil exports again earn revenues for Iraq when Kuwait remains crippled? On the other hand, Iraq itself is badly damaged and needs to finance its own recovery. One idea being explored by countries of the region is the dedication of a proportion of Iraq’s oil revenues to repair the damage Saddam Hussein has done. Much will depend on what kind of regime survives in Iraq. Saddam Hussein is now being challenged by his own people. But through the force of arms and oppression he can cling to power. As long as he does, the countries of the region will be wary of his designs and will want continued sanctions on anything enabling him to rebuild his armies. In Kuwait, there is a mood calling for change in the way the country governs itself. The government says it is anxious to open up the regime, to institute more democracy. I encouraged that development and urged that particular care be taken to allow the reintegration of Palestinian residents of Kuwait, many of whom, most of whom, were intensely loyal to Kuwait. Almost everyone with whom I met indicated that the Palestinian problem is the key issue to be resolved in the region. The answer will
188
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
have to be found in greater security for all states of the area. The issue has three essential elements which all must be respected. They are the security of the state of Israel, the rights of the Palestinians and territory. Sequence and relationship—which goes first, and what is tied to what—could consume thought, discussion and negotiation for years. Meanwhile, were that to occur, the despair of the refugee camps would find more radical expression and the arms race would go on. I sought in my discussions in Jordan, in Syria, in Israel, and in the home of a leading Palestinian, Faisal Husseini, to promote appreciation of the need to build confidence in the collective ability of states and peoples to live together in acceptance and security. Eventually, a healthier state of mind can be built. There is not a lot of time. The countries and peoples concerned could make gestures, take initiatives, not of a kind which bear upon their fundamental security interests, but which build up a habit of working together. That is the message I left with all those with whom I met. Could not Lebanon be the theatre of such co-operative action to further strengthen the authority of the government of Lebanon? Could some progress be made among the states and parties on water projects? Can peoples see their welfare in terms of a shared and more harmonious future, instead of a bitterly divided past? Madam Speaker, it is not clear that they can. But that is the best way to build trust. Much time in this discussion is devoted to technique, to whether it should be an international conference, at the United Nations or not at the United Nations, or whether it should be separate bilateral negotiations, and whether discussion between the Palestinians and the Israelis should be part of that or separate, and, in any case, who should represent the Palestinians, and so on. On that last point, Canada can only agree with the Secretary-General of the United Nations; the Palestinians should be represented by the organizations or representatives they choose. Our distaste for the support for Saddam Hussein by the leader of the Palestine Liberation Organization should not disqualify Palestinians from coming to their conclusions on what we have always said was fundamental; their right to choose their own leadership in the search for realization of their legitimate rights. As I said in Jerusalem to the Prime Minister of Israel, we are among the closest friends of that country.
Foreign Affairs 189
Canada will not let Israel be put at risk. As the Prime Minister of Canada said on February 8, and as President Bush said a week ago, there is no security in geography. I also went to Iran. My meeting with President Rafsanjani was productive. Of course, we discussed problems—human rights and hostages for example. But we did so in a way which gave me hope that Canada can work well with Iran. These countries are all neighbours of Iraq. They are not disinterested in the outcome of the current uprising there. Indeed, Syria, Saudi Arabia and Iran have brought together in Lebanon the leaders of the various groups representing the masses of people wishing to be done with Saddam Hussein’s tyranny, not just the Shiite majority in the south, not just the Kurdish minority in the north, but others as well. We have always said that the future of Iraq is up to the Iraqis. I encouraged other states in the region not to intervene. I have been encouraged by all the leaders I spoke with. They want a durable peace in the region. They are however not yet ready to move beyond the liberation of Kuwait to address the age-old problems on which they have been so long divided, except with wariness and with distrust. But move they must. Or the arms race will spiral, and the United Nations will lose the lustre of its concerted action to liberate Kuwait. That would be our common loss. By its nature, this is an interim report to the House, and I will be coming back to the standing committee as early as next week. My conversations last week gave me a more direct understanding of attitudes in a region whose conflicts are deep and dangerous. They reinforced Canada’s ability to play a constructive role in calming those conflicts and in using the end of a war to begin a real peace. I know that all members of this House share our commitment to that goal. As our ships head home from the gulf, proud of our contribution to one victory, we are seeking now to address the sources of that conflict. Last July no one foresaw the invasion of Kuwait; no one foresaw the unprecedented response of the United Nations. We cannot foresee the developments of the next several months except to say that they offer a real chance to resolve the most intractable conflict the world knows, and it is in Canada’s interest to make the most of that opportunity. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear.
190
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
Tiananmen Square House of Commons Debates 5 June 1989 34th Parliament, 2nd Session: Volume 2, 2596–2599 Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I want also to express my appreciation to you, sir, for granting this emergency debate and to commend the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner), the Hon. Member for Windsor-Lake St. Clair (Mr. McCurdy), and other Members of the House who have sought this debate tonight. I know that all Members of the House of Commons and, indeed, all Canadians share a deeply felt sense of horror and of outrage at the events that have unfolded over the last few days in China. We have watched a country’s Armed Forces turn on its own citizens in an indiscriminate and brutal fashion. We have seen unarmed students and citizens gunned down and overrun by tanks. We have witnessed troops shooting from behind at fleeing crowds. We have heard of military units dealing summarily with even non-violent acts of resistance. Tiananmen Square, which has been the site of so many important historical events over the decades and over the centuries, now adds to its legacy one of the most tragic occurrences of modern China. The situation is evolving very rapidly. The latest news we have had from our Embassy in Beijing only minutes ago is that the violence which started in the Chinese capital is now spreading across the country. There is growing evidence that the military is at odds with itself. We have received reports that there is now fighting between various factions of the military. The appearance is one of military chaos. Those forces who unleashed the initial program of violence against the students in Tiananmen Square appear to have set in train a chain of violence that cannot now be easily contained. How could this have happened? As the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition has said, we had hoped and believed that China was on the road to extensive and fundamental reform. For 11 years the Chinese leadership has been pursuing a range of policies aimed at opening China up to the outside world. Hallmarks of this welcome reversal of earlier centralism and isolationism have been the decentralization of decision making, the encouragement of private enterprise, and the welcoming of increased trade and economic exchanges with Canada and other western democracies.
Foreign Affairs 191
During the past few years we have also seen welcome change on the political front, even if the depth of reform has been less than in economic areas. We have seen more freedom of the press, more freedom of speech, more freedom of association, less control on travel, more flexible policies on emigration, and even some tentative signs of willingness to accept legitimate political action expressed through vehicles other than the Communist Party. Indeed, the last few weeks of political difficulty were in some ways a signal of the great strides that China seemed to have taken. Students in great numbers were tolerated in the non-violent expression of their desires for further change. Their cries for greater democracy, for the establishment of basic rights and freedoms appeared to be getting through to the government. We watched some of China’s leaders express sympathy, understanding and, most important, respect for the objectives of the intentions of the students. Those were positive signs of a nation in the process of change. Many among us believed that China would somehow manage this pressure for change by becoming more democratic, more open and more respectful of its own people. When the tanks and the troops moved in on Tiananmen Square on Saturday night, it was clear that the forces of darkness and not of light had triumphed. It was clear that leaders who had urged restraint were being brushed aside. It was clear that the aspirations of a few were being placed ahead of the aspirations of the many. It is very much because of the great strides forward which China has taken over the last decade that the events of the last few days are so tragic for China and so tragic for those principles and freedoms which we hold dear and which we had thought were starting to find their proper place in Chinese political life as well. [Translation] Mr. Speaker, our relations with China have been very important to us and they still are. In 1970, we were one of the first Western countries to resume diplomatic relations with the People’s Republic after that country’s twenty years of isolation. Since then, our relations have become such that anything that happens in China is a matter of great interest to Canadians. Exchanges involving scientists, students, cultural groups and teams of athletes became common and have been encouraged by both sides.
192
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
Our two countries have organized the twinning of many provinces and cities. All this has enabled us to have high level discussions with the Chinese leaders on matters of common interest. Such matters might range from regional disputes to protecting the environment and how to make the world trading system more sensitive to the needs of our two economies. Our trade has benefited both our countries. Thanks to our development assistance program, we have expanded China’s ability to modernize and we have introduced in China the Canadian way of doing things. I firmly believe that the range and intensity of our relations with China has enriched both our countries. [English] The extent of the friendship between Canadians and Chinese that has grown over the last decade makes the carnage in the streets of the Chinese capital particularly difficult to accept. As we examine what our response should be, however, we must remember that we will cherish our friendship with the Chinese people, that we are not going to become in this country anti-China. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear. Mr. Clark (Yellowhead): Our condemnation and our outrage should be focused on the violent and aggressive actions that we cannot and will never condone and on those who initiated and encouraged those actions. As soon as the military strike against the civilians in Tiananmen Square became known to us on Saturday, we made clear our abhorrence of the unnecessary and indiscriminate use of force against unarmed students and citizens. As the events unfolded and the extent of the violence and the killing became clear, we called on the Chinese government in the strongest possible terms to take steps urgently and immediately to stop the aggressive and senseless killing by its Armed Forces. Yesterday at noon I had the Chinese Ambassador called in to underline the seriousness with which we viewed the situation and to ensure that he passed to his authorities our call for a stop to the killing and also passed to them the depth of our outrage. We, of course, have not been alone in calling on the Chinese leadership to stop the carnage and to return to peaceful methods to resolve
Foreign Affairs 193
their political crisis. Most western Governments, Governments from around the world, even Communist Parties in other countries, have joined in condemning the brutality of the methods chosen to clear Tiananmen Square and to crush all and every expression of dissent by the students and other civilians once the military action had begun. This government remains ready to offer humanitarian assistance or supplies if those are requested or needed. In assessing the actions which should accompany our condemnation of the violence and the killings, we must bear in mind the need to safeguard Canadian lives, as well as the need to build pressure on the Chinese government. At the time of the outbreak of violence there were approximately 600 Canadians resident in China, roughly half of whom were in Beijing. In addition, there were a number of business visitors and tourists scattered around the country. Our first concern, because of the violence, has been the security of those in the capital. As a precautionary measure in case of further military action against the universities, our Embassy evacuated all Canadians from the city campuses and is currently providing temporary accommodation to the 75 or so students who are affected. We are in constant contact with our Ambassador Earl Drake, and we have contingency plans for the evacuation from Beijing of the students, other Canadians, and the staff of the Embassy. We have put into place arrangements whereby aircraft can be made available at short notice for evacuating Canadians to nearby Asian cities, and then onward transportation arrangements can be made after that if necessary. After consultation with officials in Beijing, we decided about an hour ago to advise Canadians in Beijing to leave that city now. Our Embassy will be assisting them in making their departure. I will of course keep the House advised if we decide to proceed with a complete evacuation. I should take the opportunity to indicate to Canadians who might be concerned that if they have questions to raise, we have established an 800 number, 800-267-6788. I know there are many Canadians who have relatives or friends in China who would want to call officials. We will hope to provide them with as accurate information as we can. With respect to bilateral actions that we might take in response to the crisis, we have already deferred or cancelled all events that were planned in the immediate future. We have postponed the signing of a series of memorandums of understanding on development assistance projects which were to be signed later this week. We have suspended the nuclear co-operation consultations that were begun after
194
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
China joined the Atomic Energy Agency and which were to proceed early next week. We will be taking similar action with respect to other scheduled negotiations and discussions. We are advising the provinces and non-governmental organizations with planned consultations with Chinese counterparts to follow suit. Although there are no high level visits in either direction planned for the coming few weeks, we would deflect such visits until a more appropriate time. At the multilateral level I have asked our Ambassador at the United Nations in New York to begin immediately consultations with other UN members and with the Secretary-General on means by which the moral suasion of the United Nations might be brought to bear to support the voices calling for moderation and restraint in China. Canada fully supports the statement issued by the Secretary-General today calling for restraint. With respect to the large numbers of Chinese students in Canada, and I believe there are some 4,500 here at the moment, we recognize the troublesome time for them. While we trust that before long the situation in China will no longer be repugnant to them, we understand their concerns. As my colleague, the Hon. Minister for Employment and Immigration announced earlier today, we will be sympathetic to any requests for extending their stay until calm returns to their homeland. My colleague has also taken steps to suspend for at least a two-month period all removals to China under the terms of the Immigration Act. Some countries have announced the suspension of programs of bilateral military co-operation and sales to China. Canada does not have any such formal arrangements and has sold in the past only very small amounts of non-lethal equipment to the Chinese military. I can assure you, however, Mr. Speaker, that the government would not grant export permits for military sales of any sort in the current situation. Furthermore, I have asked that the modest program of defence relations between the Canadian Armed Forces and the People’s Liberation Army which saw a visit to China last year of the Chief of the Defence Staff, I have asked that those relations be suspended immediately. Sir, what is transpiring in China is tragedy of global proportions. Let us hope that the events of the coming weeks see China and its great people emerge without unnecessary bloodshed and with renewed commitment to fundamental rights and freedoms in an increasingly democratic country. I only wish that I could find greater cause for optimism at the moment. There have been consultations among the Parties in this House, and
Foreign Affairs 195
I believe you would find that there is unanimous consent to adopt the following motion which I have the honour to put, seconded by the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition and the Member of Parliament for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent): That this House, noting that: — the relationship between Canada and the People’s Republic of China is important to Canadians and has been of benefit to both countries over the past many years; — authorities in the People’s Republic of China have directed the armed forces of China to attack the unarmed civilian population of Beijing in contravention of all humane principles of conduct; — the students and citizens of Beijing were peacefully advocating democratic principles and human freedoms as is the fundamental right of all peoples of the world; and — the authorities of China resorted to the use of excessive and indiscriminate armed force on a scale and scope which appalls all Canadians and has resulted in the tragic deaths of large numbers of innocent civilians; therefore: unequivocally condemn this brutal use of force against the peaceful populace of Beijing and call upon the authorities of China to cease this senseless killing and immediately adopt a course of dialogue with the people of China.
Some hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Speaker: Does the Hon. Minister have unanimous consent of the House to move the motion? Some hon. Members: Agreed. [Translation] Mr. Speaker: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? Some hon members: Agreed. Mr. Speaker: Motion agreed to.
196
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
Panama House of Commons Debates 20 December 1989 34th Parliament, 2nd Session: Volume 6, 7285–7288 Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs): Mr. Speaker, there was agreement among members of all parties earlier this afternoon that it would be appropriate for the three parties in this House of Commons have an opportunity to express their position on the events in Panama. I have the honour to present a ministerial statement which is a little untraditional. I apologize for not having circulated advance copies to my hon. colleagues in the House but they will understand the circumstances that prevented that. I thought I would try to do three things. First, report upon the situation in Panama as we know it at this stage; second, review the chain of events which led to the American decision last night; third, present to the House some observations about Panama. That includes the possibility of developing a stable, democratic system in that country, a country and a region which, with less drama than we see in Eastern Europe, is setting a remarkable example of democracy and of economic courage. It is important that parliamentarians in this House and countries like Canada help Panama assume its rightful place in that invaluable process. First I will deal with the situation in Panama, as we know it. The House will perhaps know that there are 131 Canadians who are registered as resident in Panama. Some of those are Canadians of dual nationality. We have been in touch, or sought to be in touch, with all of them by telephone, either through our honorary consul in Panama City or through the embassy headquartered in Costa Rica. To the best of our knowledge and our most recent consultations all Canadians are safe. None is in danger. An official of the embassy based in Costa Rica will be going in to Panama as soon as conditions allow that to be done effectively. Fighting is falling off in Panama City, although there has unhappily been an outbreak of looting now. Perhaps that is a natural consequence of the kind of disorder that can arise in those circumstances. Forces loyal to General Noriega have moved into the countryside. Noriega himself has not been captured. If there are further developments I will try to have them brought to
Foreign Affairs 197
the attention of members who are interested or will establish a system over the period of the recess in which either members of Parliament or certainly Canadians who have family or interests in Panama will be able to be kept informed. [Translation] As a founding member and signatory of the United Nations Charter and as a recent signatory of the Charter of the Organization of American States, Canada fully and unreservedly subscribes to the principle of non-interference in the domestic affairs of States. The use of force is clearly a very serious matter. The Canadian government has already clearly expressed its regrets with respect to the U.S. intervention in Panama. However, we must not forget the pressing reasons that forced President Bush to authorize the intervention of U.S. troops. [English] Over the past two years the world has been witness to one of the most systematic betrayals on record. It is a betrayal in Panama of those democratic values which we hold dear in this House and, indeed, which are respected by most of our neighbours in Latin America and in the Caribbean. Even before that, the governments of Presidents Barletta and Del Valle were very much subject to the whims of General Noriega as commander-in-chief of the Panamanian Defense Forces. Canada has not traditionally maintained the most cordial relations with those successive regimes, which we regarded as being democratic in name only, but we were able to carry on correct business-like relations with them based on mutual interest. In 1987, when General Noriega was indicted by an American court on narcotics trafficking charges and the United States imposed an economic embargo, we did not follow suit. When the May 1989 elections were called, we held out some hope that the Panamanian people would be permitted to express their democratic will at the polls. When, however, it became obvious that those elections were going decisively against Noriega’s chosen candidate, the regime abruptly had the process declared void. Canada condemned that denial of free elections. All of us were shocked by the images of the violent public beatings of the leaders whom the people of Panama had chosen to govern them. It was a temptation then to respond with violence. That temptation was strong and
198
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
outspoken among some in the United States. It was resisted, it was resisted everywhere including, principally and most importantly, by the United States administration. Various efforts were launched to achieve a peaceful solution to this very difficult problem. Some of them were bilateral, some of them were individual efforts by leaders of other countries. One of the most important was through the Organization of American States. On July 20 of this year, the Organization of American States passed a formal resolution which called for a transfer of power, taking effect on September 1 this year, from the Noriega regime to the people who had been elected in the May elections. The OAS also launched a diplomatic mission headed by the foreign ministers of three of its member countries who travelled extensively and worked hard to try to find a peaceful way in which this transfer of power could be achieved. What is lamentable, but evident, is that that peaceful solution did not work. There was, as we all know, recently an aborted coup. In the past week there have been developments that were particularly alarming, would be to anyone in this House and were to many of us, including the statement by General Noriega that Panama is in a “state of war” to use his words, with the United States. That declaration unilaterally by General Noriega was followed by harassment of Americans stationed, by treaty, in Panama. Indeed, it was followed by the murder of an off-duty member of the American services and threats to the family of that individual. It is important here, sir, to emphasize two facts which distinguish the situation in Panama from that which might exist in other parts of the world. One of those facts is that the United States presence there is a result of a treaty. It is not a presence that is the result of an occupation. It is not a presence that is the result of an uninvited presence by the United States in that country. The American troops are there as the result of a legal agreement. They are there as the result of an international treaty. They have a right to be there and they have a right to be protected while they are there. That is one distinguishing factor and feature about the situation in Panama today. A second fact that I want to underline is that peaceful solutions had been sought and peaceful solutions had failed. In fact, what was remarkable for so long was the willingness of the Bush administration to put its faith in mediation, to put its faith in negotiation, to put its faith in peaceful processes. The response to that was the declaration by Gen-
Foreign Affairs 199
eral Noriega, unilaterally, of a state of war. The response to that was the murder of an off-duty American stationed there. The response to that was threats to Americans who had a right to be there and who had a right to be protected while they were there. The Government of Canada today, in my name, issued a statement that made essentially two points. The first is that the government regrets the use of force by the U.S. in Panama, but understands and is sympathetic to, the American action in the circumstances, particularly given the legitimate American concern over the escalating threats to American citizens in Panama. People have a right to be there and had a right to be protected. Second, we made the point very clearly that intervention by force is a dangerous precedent and we note that the United States relied on force only in the last resort, only after the failure of attempts to resolve the situation in Panama peacefully. The question is: What now? What now occurs? What now should be done? I want to mention three things that I think should be on our minds as we try to look forward. One is that we have to work and use all of the influence and standing of Canada to ensure that intervention not become a precedent. There were unique factors here and if they can justify actions that were taken early this morning by the United States, it is the uniqueness that justifies them. There is not a precedent established here that this Parliament or this country would approve in other circumstances. I think that, sir, is a particularly important assurance to be given to the people and to the Government of Nicaragua, where elections are imminent and where every effort must continue to make those elections free and make those elections fair. Second, we believe it is important that we help the government that was elected in May in Panama to establish stability and democracy in that country. That was the theme, I can tell members of the House, in many of the consultations I had today by telephone with Latin leaders of the Organization of American States. They are interested in taking advantage of the opportunity that has been created now to try to sink some of the roots of stability and a democracy that will be important if Panama is to assume its place of significance in a region where those qualities have come to be more evident and more valued. We intend to send a team of Canadian officials to Panama as soon as that would be productive to see if there are specific ways in which Canada can contribute to that process.
200
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
Third, I think there is a lesson here of the real need to strengthen the regional institutions in Latin America, particularly in Central America. It is clear that the Organization of American States, despite its efforts, did not work in Panama. They were not able to achieve the peaceful solution that they sought and that others sought. But I think it important to note that the OAS made a serious attempt to succeed and that, Mr. Speaker, was a change in itself. It demonstrates a new resolution among members of the Organization of American States that Canada can push forward and, in our judgment, must push forward. The point to underline, sir, is that Central America is not anybody’s backyard. Central America consists of sovereign countries, with ambitions of their own, histories of their own, qualities of their own. It is a region which is remarkable for the will that has been demonstrated by its leadership, particularly in the last two and three years, the will to work together and the will to work together against quite extraordinary odds, including the pull of their own history in that region. Traditionalists have asked, why would Canada want to focus on Central America, why would we be in the Organization of American States, why would we play the active role that we are in ONUCA, the United Nations Peacekeeping and Verification Agency, that is playing a potentially critical role in the region, why would we maintain our aid and development assisted relations with the five countries involved in the Esquipulas arrangement? We do that, sir, because Central America and Latin America as a whole are changing, changing by their own will. Carlos Andrés Pérez, the President of Venezuela, repeated again to me this morning when I spoke to him to talk about the events in Panama, his profound belief that Canada has a crucial role to play in that region, both of stability and a democracy that will be important if because of who we are and because of who we are not. The role, in his judgment, can be critical if the institutions and the instinct to reform that had been evident there are to become as effective as they can be. We have a role to play in helping to prevent Noriegas. We have a role to play in helping to provide alternatives to intervention because our presence can strengthen initiatives and institutions like the Organization of American States. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Clark (Yellowhead): In a calmer part of the Question Period today, I had the opportunity to say to my friend from Winnipeg Transcona
Foreign Affairs 201
that I think it is time for all of us to engage in some new thinking about international events, and I meant that. I think he shares that view, as do others in the House. That means that we have to move away from stereotypes, whether those stereotypes are about the Americans and their motivations or whether they are about proud countries which we cannot dismiss simply because they are small. For anyone interested in the future of Central America, interested in the principles of democracy, this has been a hard day for anyone concerned about this hemisphere. It involves a situation which we in the government believe is unique. We think, sir, that we Canadians have a responsibility to make the most of the new situation which has been created by events in Panama, and that is the intent of this government.
6
Indigenous Relations One of the tasks of this collection is to see, through Joe Clark’s speeches, how the Conservative party has all but forgotten its Red Tory roots. One of the policies in which this is evident is what used to be called “Indian Affairs”—now correctly referred to as Indigenous politics. It is this area which arguably highlights the changes in Canadian conservatism in recent decades most clearly. The first significant aspect of Clark’s politics in this issue area is his awareness of history. In his speeches, Clark spoke with a refreshing candor of the largely violent history that has characterized the relationship between Indigenous peoples and the Canadian state. For example, in one speech, Clark recognizes the role that the Indian Act system has in creating the poor economic conditions found in Indigenous communities in stark contrast to inaccurate stereotypes that do not account for poverty in which most Indigenous people find themselves. It’s noteworthy that he argued against and attempted to refute these stereotypes throughout his career. Clark’s remarks remain both relevant and topical, reverberating in discussions and issues that still characterize settler-Indigenous relations today. This came to the fore in 1985 when Parliament was debating repealing the “marrying-out” clause in the Indian Act. This clause meant that, until 1985, an Indigenous woman who married a non-Indigenous man would lose her Indian status and all of the associated rights. The same was not true for men who married non-Indigenous women. Clark delivered a powerful intersectional argument before Parliament. In this particular speech, Clark recognized that Indigenous women face a unique situation of discrimination as it relates to both their racial and gender identities. He put forward that these parts of one’s identity can cause unjust problems on their own but when brought together create a different, unique form of discrimination. This kind of awareness and understanding of the complexities of identity in the Canadian context is A Man of Parliament; Selected Speeches from Joe Clark, edited by Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon. Montréal and Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press, Queen’s Policy Studies Series. © 2019 The School of Policy Studies, Queen’s University at Kingston. All rights reserved.
204
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
something that other elected politicians would be wise to heed. He was able to recognize these dynamics while still formulating a conservative position. The revisions to the Indian Act in 1985 would go on to fuel the politics of many Indigenous communities to this day. Many women applied to regain their lost status, while others within Indigenous communities resisted this change as they felt it would violate their traditions and infringe on their autonomy vis-à-vis the federal government. This tension is the focus of the second speech in this chapter. For though Clark recognized the oppression of Indigenous women in this case, he also wanted to ensure the autonomy of the band councils to determine their own affairs. He was well aware of the paternalism that often characterized the relationship between the band councils and Indian Affairs. And, as ever, he sought to empower the government closest to the delivery of services so that it might develop solutions most effective for the different needs of people in diverse communities. Refreshingly consistent, Clark included not just provinces or municipalities in this vision, but band councils as well. This awareness and compassion was something that Clark demonstrated throughout his career. In a speech given in April 1973 (not even six months after his first election to the House of Commons) Clark gave an impassioned argument for the recognition of Indigenous rights and title through a Parliamentary resolution. This would prove to be the early stages of the debate that would eventually contribute to the enshrining of treaty rights in Section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. Still relevant in our current political climate, Clark recognized that if settler-Indigenous issues could not be “resolved by negotiation, in an atmosphere of mutual trust and goodwill, they will arise in more inflammatory ways.” This has proved surprisingly prophetic in light of the rise of movements such as Idle No More and the strength of Indigenous resistance to resource exploitation through pipelines. This indignation was made manifest, perhaps sooner than Clark thought, in the confrontations at Oka and Burnt Church. This chapter reminds us both how good arguments stand the test of time but also how far Canadians have to go to realize Indigenous reconciliation. Clark wanted to more honestly and openly confront our history of “colonial dominion” and build an order which more readily respects the autonomy of Indigenous peoples and their right to self-determination. These problems have not disappeared and Clark’s words over decades remind us how long these issues have been on the public agenda.
Indigenous Relations
205
The Indian Act House of Commons Debates 1 March 1985 33rd Parliament, 1st Session: Volume 2, 2652–2654 Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I wish to begin by complimenting both the tone and the content of the speakers who preceded me, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Crombie), the Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior (Mr. Penner) and the Hon. Member for Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands (Mr. Manly). That tone indicates not only their own interest but is also an indication of the seriousness with which this historic matter is taken by all Members of the House. Indeed, this is one of the few pieces of legislation to come before this House which can genuinely be described as being historic. It does not solve all the problems, as the Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior made clear, but it is nonetheless an historic and important Bill. The Bill ends a discrimination against certain women, a discrimination that all of us now find unacceptable. It marks a large step away from a colonial mentality that has scarred the relations between Indian and other Canadians and marks a step—just a step, but an important one—toward greater autonomy for Indian bands. It proceeds in a way that is simultaneously reasonable, tolerant and principled to resolve dilemmas that have been divisive at home and have been embarrassing abroad. As the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development noted, this is not a Party matter. It is a uniquely profound Canadian question, rooted in the traditions and the rights of our original people, raising the principle of equal treatment, which is at the core of our free society, and resolved by reason, consultation and compromise. I address these questions in several capacities, including my capacity as Secretary of State for External Affairs. In this 40th anniversary year of the United Nations, I celebrate and commend legislation that brings the laws of Canada into harmony with the international covenant on civil and political rights. In addition, as the House will know, I have had other incarnations in this Chamber. In October, 1979 I had the honour to include in the Throne Speech of that year a commitment to remove Section 12(1)(b) of the Indian Act. Then later, on November 20, 1981, I had the honour to move the adoption of the paramountcy clause, Section 28, of the
206
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In another capacity, my most important capacity as an individual Member of the House of Commons, more than a decade ago in the company of the present Minister of National Defence (Mr. Nielsen), the present Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) and the former Member for Skeena and others, I was part of a parliamentary committee that for the first time in the life of Parliament achieved agreement between Members of the House of a definition and acceptance of aboriginal title. The real reason I rise now to offer counsel to my colleagues here and my friends across the country is that those of us who know the emotions this question can arouse have a special obligation to bring balance and understanding to this debate, as all of the participants so far have done. This Bill is about more than an end to discrimination. It is also about a practical beginning to local band control of local band affairs and the challenge has been to respect the principles of equality and autonomy at the same time. It would be relatively simple to embrace one principle and abandon the other. It would be simple, dangerous and a betrayal of our elemental duty to bring Canadians together and to help all of our people understand the complexities of our country. Questions concerning the equality of women are better understood today than they were a decade ago but there is not yet as wide an understanding of the special sense of community of our Indian people and the importance they place upon defining and controlling their own identity. In addition to suffering more than their share of disease, indignity and early death, they have for a century had their destiny controlled by others. The children of the Eden Valley Reserve west of my hometown were as free as I was to run, to ride and to be children. However, when we stopped being children, the youngsters of Eden Valley were not as free to be themselves as the youngsters of High River because to be Indian in the land which the Stoneys, the Blackfoot and the Cree discovered was to have your life run by someone else. There is somewhat more freedom now for the Stoneys, the Cree and the Blackfoot, but their memory and our legacy was of Ottawa running Indian lives, Ottawa setting Indian standards. Against that background, Members of the House can understand why local bands were worried about proposals to have Ottawa again change their traditions and define their members. To many Canadian Indians, the principle at stake was not the equality of Indian women
Indigenous Relations
207
but the autonomy of Indian bands. Our challenge in this Parliament is to respect both principles together, to end the discrimination that everyone agrees should end and to reinforce the autonomy and identity of communities that were treated like colonies for a century. This Bill is the result of careful and sensitive consultation across the country. The Minister has invited Members to come to committee with proposals they might think better. On this question more than on most, Members who might find fault with the Bill should accept the responsibility of proposing practical remedies. [Translation] Section 12(l)(b) of the Indian Act, in its present form, contravenes international obligations that Canada has freely assumed. Some of these obligations were contracted in 1976, when Canada ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, one of the UN’s fundamental documents concerning the rights of the individual. Canada also agreed to be bound by the provisions of the Optional Protocol to the Pact which stipulates that the Human Rights Commission may examine claims filed by individuals who maintain that their rights have been violated by their own government. The House will recall that in 1977, Mrs. Sandra Lovelace filed a complaint with the Committee that because of the existence of Section 12(l) (b) of the Indian Act, she had lost her Indian status in May 1970 … French is occasionally a problem for the boys from High River and Eden Valley, especially figures. That is why I am the Secretary of State for External Affairs and not Minister of Finance… As I was saying, Mrs. Lovelace had lost her status when she married a non-Indian. She alleged at the time that she was the victim of a violation of certain rights laid down in the covenant. Hon. Members may recall as well that, in July 1981, the Commission on Human Rights concluded that Canada had violated Article 27 of the covenant because Indian Act Section 12(1)(b) had prevented Sandra Lovelace from living on a reserve. Here is Article 27: In states where there are ethnic, religious or linguistic minorities, people belonging to those minorities shall not be deprived of the right to have, along with other members of their group, their own cultural life, to practice their own religion, or to use their own language.
208
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
In the summer of 1983, Canada advised the Commission concerning the steps it was taking to correct that violation. Specifically, our representative gave the assurance that Canada was committed to delete from the Indian Act any discriminatory provision related to sex. The government is now about to honour that commitment. It would seem that, on the occasion of the United Nations Decade for Women, we are finally going to do away with a provision which discriminates against women. One of the happier results of that decade is undoubtedly the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women which was ratified by Canada. Section 12(1)(b) contravenes a certain number of the convention provisions, particularly Article 10 which reads as follows: State parties shall take all appropriate measures to eliminate discrimination against women in all matters relating to marriage and family relations—
By having the House adopt this Bill, Canada will meet its obligations and eliminate that discrimination. [English] With this measure we have confronted one injustice, an injustice to Indian women and one that over the course of the last decade and a little longer has become well known nationally and internationally. However, as others in this debate have emphasized, there are fundamental injustices which we must still face and resolve. Indeed, while discrimination against women is an unhappy characteristic of many societies, the colonial treatment of the Indian people is a particular Canadian injustice. It is a scar on our society and on our conscience. We have talked about it for a long time. In recent years we have begun to act more seriously to establish the self-respect and status of the people who were here before any of the rest of us. The work of the standing committee in the last Parliament was courageous, creative and constructive. I think it would not be improper to mention the particular contributions of the hon. members for Cochrane-Superior, Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands, Wetaskiwin (Mr. Schellenberger) and Brampton-Georgetown (Mr. McDermid). The tone of this debate has demonstrated that this commitment to change and to self-respect, reaches throughout this Parliament. If I may compliment a colleague, I think the fact that this Bill has been introduced so early
Indigenous Relations
209
in the life of this Parliament demonstrates the determination and the influence of the Minister of Indian affairs and Northern Development and the priority of this government. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Clark (Yellowhead): My colleague from Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands quite properly raised the question of cost. That is a matter which will be dealt with by the government, and of course by the parliamentary committee. It cannot be dealt with in legislative form in this Bill, as the House understands, because of the nature of the Indian Act. But the government accepts and understands that the rules cannot be changed without helping the capacity of the Indian people of the country in responding to the changing rules. We accept that we must help to meet the implications of the changes which are under way. But we know also that the question of determining the cost, and determining the method of dealing with the cost, is one which will take some time and, by its very nature, can neither be anticipated nor applied as though there were no differences from reserve to reserve or from band to band. The Minister, his officials and the committee will be looking very closely at the question as to just exactly what must be done. I can say to the hon. member, on behalf of my colleague and the government, that this government will address this issue in a reasonable and sympathetic way to be as much help as we can to the Indian people in responding to this reality, which is sought not only by all of us, but sought and accepted—because they oppose the idea of discrimination—by most Indian people of the country. I have been involved for a number of years in issues concerning equality for women. More Canadians have been involved in that issue than have been involved in the question of concern for Indian bands and Indian status. Indeed, sometimes in the development of this debate there has been the risk of an apparent conflict between those who were concerned about the equality of women and those who were concerned about the problems and the nature of Indian communities across the country. In fact, the issue at the base is the same. The issue is a determination to have identity respected and advanced. I think we have made a step forward in the House today, not simply with the tabling of this legislation, but also with the tone of the response by Members on all sides of the House. If I may speak to one aspect, in concluding, of the challenge yet ahead of us, it has to do not simply with our colleagues in this House; it has
210
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
to do with those millions of Canadians who over the last several years have become concerned about the question of equality for women. I hope that they too will recognize that there are other inequalities. I know they do, but I hope that in their recognition of the other inequalities that exist in Canada they will join with the Minister, the hon. member for Cochrane-Superior, the hon. member for Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands and others in the House to ensure that progress is made much more quickly than in the past in improving the status, the self-respect and the capacity to contribute to the future of Canada and the Indian people of our country. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!
Indigenous Affairs and the Constitution House of Commons Debates 2 December 1980 32nd Parliament, 1st Session: Volume 5, 5267–5269 Right Hon. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I have always been proud to number among my constituents, in the two constituencies I have represented in this House of Commons, citizens of both status native background and Métis background. I am pleased my colleague from Wetaskiwin (Mr. Schellenberger) has introduced this motion. It has allowed us to recognize today that in an age and in a country of increasing affluence, and at a time when the air is rife with talk of rights, the basic ability to live of our first citizens has been marked by a movement backwards—not by a movement forward. The figures are stark, they are known and are shocking to all of us who have followed Indian affairs. The life expectancy of native people in Canada is, on average, about ten years less than that of other Canadians. That is a figure which is worse than the figure of ten years ago. We are not moving forward, we are moving backward. Pre-natal and infant mortality is 60 per cent higher among native people than the national average. Again, this is a situation which has not improved over the last nine years. Among the native people the suicide rate is three times the national average. The rate of violent death is also three times the national average. In terms of unemployment, chronically, the figures run to 20 per cent or 30 per cent; at certain places at certain periods of time the figures for unemployment among native people run in excess of 80
Indigenous Relations
211
per cent. In 1960, 20 years ago, 10 per cent of native housing units were in need of major repairs. By 1977, 24 per cent of native housing units were in need of major repairs. Fire deaths are about seven times the national average. I was interested to hear the hon. member speak about post-secondary schooling. The fact is that the proportion of Indian children aged 14 to 18 in school has been continually declining, since 1973 to a point at which almost 50 per cent of the Indian children in that age group are no longer in school. That is a dismal and frightening fact. Pre-vocational training attendance is down from 3,400 in 1973 to 1,000 in 1979. Those facts, sir, are all the more damning for this Parliament since the status natives of Canada are the one group of people whom the federal division of powers least affects by statute, treaty and tradition. They are citizens for whom the Government of Canada is particularly responsible. Their education, welfare and rights are indisputably federal responsibilities. There have been instances when those responsibilities have been shamefully betrayed by their guardians in the Government of Canada, as the native people of James Bay were betrayed when the Liberal government gave only the most limited support in a crucial conflict where Ottawa had absolute and unlimited responsibility. But the deeper condemnation is that at a time when the federal government is trying to extend its powers into fields occupied previously by the provinces and the private sector, the health and the dignity as well as the rights of these people for whom the federal government is now responsible have deteriorated steadily and disgracefully. Mr. Speaker, I say to you that if the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Trudeau) had given the cause of native Indians one-quarter the priority he has given his own personal preferences for constitutional change we would have made more progress as a nation against the shameful spectacle of Indian poverty, suicide, infant mortality and the indignity which has become a part of life for the original citizens of this nation. I specify the Prime Minister because he is the head of the government and his priorities prevail. But the condemnation, sir, extends to all of us in this House. Most of us have been too ready to allow other priorities to intrude. We have been too ready to turn our eyes away from the problems that the system of dependency on others has incubated among the native people of our land. No realistic thinking person will pretend that these problems are easy to resolve. Those of us who are experienced in this area are more
212
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
aware of their complexity and difficulty. Those problems began with bad decisions more than a century ago. The reserve system has steadily drained status Indians of initiative and dignity. But the native people themselves have begun to reverse that trend. They have begun to take steps, some of them halting and some of them very dramatic. These steps will enable them to regain their pride and regain their place in Canada. For their pains and the work they have done they have been excluded from the decision about their constitution. They have been confronted with both paternalism and prejudice. I want to speak tonight about paternalism because it is within the direct responsibility and control of this Parliament. I have particular cause to know that we have excellent people serving Canada in the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, as we have in the rest of the public service. But federal bureaucrats will always be tempted to think they can make better decisions than the natives can. Occasionally they will be right, but usually they will be wrong. There is no department in the Government of Canada where the temptation to run others’ lives is stronger and there is no department where the consequences of succumbing to that temptation are more ruinous for the people involved. When my colleague, the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp), who is now sitting on the constitutional committee, was the minister for Indian affairs we began to implement a deliberate decision to change the direction and orientation of Indian affairs policy across this country, to move more responsibility to the band councils themselves so that native people could grow in responsibility by exercising responsibility. We recognize that the most legitimate organization in the Indian community is the band council. It is a council which is elected by and responsible to the Indian people themselves. We tried to build up the force, the influence, the role, the independence and the autonomy of those band councils. I draw attention to that policy, Mr. Speaker, only because it appears to have been abandoned and replaced by new forms of paternalism. Under the policy announced by the hon. member for Provencher, when he was the minister, the department would increasingly move back to an advisory role. This new approach would help Indian people carry out the programs that they propose. It would not tell them what to do and control their lives by controlling the purse strings. Three major reforms were announced and were in the process of implementation by the government which it was my honour to lead. First, we made it clear that band councils would be given the power to control their own
Indigenous Relations
213
social and economic development. They would no longer be told so rigorously what to do by the people in Ottawa or elsewhere. Second, a process was being established so that planning and development of programs would begin at the local level. It would start with the band council and not be forced down upon the band council by someone with less knowledge but more authority. Third, the Indian Affairs department would move gradually away from its administrative role and, instead, would provide resources to assist programs begun by the band councils. Regrettably, this new approach which would have broken the cycle of paternalism appears to have been abandoned by the Liberal government. That is a betrayal of the people whose interests that department is supposed to serve. Whereas self-management and the exercise of responsibilities at the local level were characteristic of our approach to the programs of the department, full consultation and participation was the basis of our approach to constitutional renewal and the role of native people. As prime minister I met with Indian leaders to present our government’s view that Indian representatives would participate fully in all deliberations of the consultative committee of ministers on the constitution where there was a clear Indian interest or where the result of such discussions could affect Indian people significantly. Indian, Inuit and Métis leaders would be called upon to participate in the development of the agendas for first ministers’ conferences. We explicitly stated our hope they would join at some very near time with first ministers in the discussion of specific issues. Similarly, last August my party suggested that if the first ministers’ conference of September broke down, as in the event it did, a constituent assembly be formed to deal with constitutional renewal. In the event of such an occurrence we made specific provision that native spokesmen be included in addition to members of Parliament and members of provincial legislatures and territorial councils. The president of the National Indian Brotherhood responded to this suggestion stating that it was a very, very attractive progressive proposal. This record of consultation and participation contrasts sharply with the dramatic events in this city this past week—a constitutional process which, only at the last minute, under duress, allowed for Indian presentations before the special committee on the constitution, a process in which the Prime Minister has refused to meet with Indian leadership to discuss his constitutional proposals, a process which has so angered and so alienated the Indian people that they have felt compelled to go
214
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
to the parliament of another country, the parliament of Great Britain, to present their case. Indian rights and Indian concerns should be debated here in the Canadian Parliament. The Constitution of Canada should be decided here in this country by the people and representatives of this country and in a way in which all the people can be heard. I raise the constitutional matter because the conditions of poverty and of suffering which we all know to be too real a part of Indian life in this country are linked inextricably to the constitution. While the problems are specific—alcoholism, unemployment, school drop-outs, prostitution, to mention a few—the matter at base comes back to human dignity. When a community has so essential a sense of the dignity of a people, that is why the constitutional questions which draw native people here from across this country are so central to the human, social, and economic problems which have been discussed throughout this day. The Indian, Inuit and Métis people of Canada regard themselves as being part of a community, with community or tribal rights as well as individual rights. These people cannot be taken out of their history. Their history rolls out of their imagery, it rolls out of their language and out of their connection with the land which was once theirs alone. To most of us whose ancestors came after the aboriginal peoples, a constitution is a document of convenience, a way of ordering our lives. To the Indian and Inuit people, the Indian Act and the treaties are the only guarantees of their survival against a majority culture which, by threat of arms or guile of argument, took their lands and their livelihood and, inexorably, took their dignity. What they have left as a people is memory and legal claims and status which they feel are menaced by this constitutional approach. And now, happily, a growing pride and a growing sense of purpose. I make the point that their documents are more important to them than our constitution is to us. If we say that their rights can wait while language rights are addressed, we are saying that guarantees which are sacred to them are secondary to us. Naturally, for the Parliament of Canada to say this will only breed anger and resentment. But, more dangerous still, that approach could destroy the growing sense of pride which is the only way this original Canadian people can find the will to work its own way back from the despair which causes indolence, alcoholism, prostitution and those shocking facts of infant mortality. I am no romantic about Indian affairs. The mythical days of Crowfoot and the other ancient chiefs are long gone, together with other myths.
Indigenous Relations
215
But a people remain; a people as innately strong as any other, a people who once owned this continent and managed it well, a people who, like any other, can lift themselves up only if they start with dignity. In his days Chief Crowfoot commanded the plains and foothills where my father and I were born. When I was young and growing up, the people of Crowfoot had fallen from the pride which he symbolized. But in these last two decades, that has changed and the pride and strength that ruled a continent is becoming evident once more. If we worry about young people dying, about unemployment rates that can sometimes be in excess of 80 percent, and if we want to reverse the shameful legacy of the reserve system then we must encourage that pride and that strength where we find it. We must encourage local native leaders to lead. That is why the tool of economic development exercised with local autonomy is so important, and that is why the rights, the source of identity and dignity of our original people cannot be treated by the Parliament of Canada as something secondary. In our judgment, particular programs in the Department of Indian Affairs are wrong because they have turned away from the idea, the ethic, that decisions are more effectively taken when they are taken by band councils with local knowledge and local responsibility. But what is most wrong is that the priority we have given the Indian and Inuit people, who are the special responsibility of this Parliament of Canada, is too low. Their standing, in our view, their place in the work that we undertake, the priority which we assign them, is wrong. This must change if we are to accept our responsibilities as a Parliament to the native people of Canada for whom we are the only and ultimate guardians and spokesmen.
216
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
Recognition of Aboriginal Rights House of Commons Debates 11 April 1973 29th Parliament, 1st Session: Volume 3, 3219–3221 Mr. Joe Clark (Rocky Mountain): Mr. Speaker, I think that since all parties in the House have now had an opportunity to express their views on this resolution, and since we are all anxious that it be brought to a vote as quickly as possible, if there is agreement in the House that we now proceed with the vote I am prepared to sit down. Mr. Lalonde: If you have anything to say, say it. The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel): I was not in the chair when the hon. member made his proposal, so would he please repeat it? Mr. Clark (Rocky Mountain): Mr. Speaker, my proposal was that if it was agreeable to the House that we proceed immediately with the vote, I will surrender my time and sit down now. The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel): The hon. member might make that suggestion, but it is not the responsibility of the Chair to find out whether another hon. member wishes to speak. I do not think the procedure that we have followed in the past should be forgotten, namely, that any member of the House is entitled to express his view on any subject matter before the House. If the hon. member wants to take the risk of not participating in the debate, he can do so. Mr. Clark (Rocky Mountain): Mr. Speaker, I take it that my hon. friend in the Liberal ranks is rising to speak and thus prevent a vote by talking the motion out, so I shall proceed. I was interested to hear the minister say that his government had recognized the rights of the native people as never before. I am moved to comment that his method of recognition is so original that it is invisible. Certainly he has not been in touch with very many of the native groups which have made special recommendations. I have just had a note that the Union of British Columbia Chiefs have yet to hear from this government. Although the minister said he has been in touch with the province of British Columbia in regard to their representations, he has not been in touch with the native people themselves. I also think it was a signal accomplishment for the minister to be able to speak beyond his time in this House without referring for one
Indigenous Relations
217
instant to the resolution that is before us, because what the resolution asks, and all that the resolution asks, is that this House recognize the concept of aboriginal rights so that the proceedings of the committee and the deliberations of this House will have some authority and we can proceed with our discussion knowing we are discussing something that has a point to it, knowing that this is not just another aimless study of the matter. I want to put this debate in context. I think we recognize, as my colleague from Kingston and The Islands (Miss MacDonald) has suggested, that governments in other countries are taking native claims seriously and are starting down the road to settlement at the very time that we in Canada, under this government, have been turning away from the road to settlement and backing away from some recognition of aboriginal rights. I think we acknowledge, and without very much pride, that the native people of Canada in times past were victims of white trickery, when land rights and other rights were often traded for blankets, beads and other pittances. I suggest that the treatment accorded to our native people now is no less shameful. There has been the fraud of consultation in preparation for the white paper, now thankfully withdrawn. There has been the establishment of the claims commissioner who has to his credit now one settlement of one ammunition agreement concerning one treaty in Alberta, but who has clearly been established to delay settlements of claims, not advance them. There has been the shameful treatment of native people in the area of James Bay, an area where the minister has a clear responsibility to help an unsophisticated group of native people who are threatened by a government-sponsored corporation. The minister’s only response has been to give these people a little conscience money to get them into court, so that he and his colleagues can escape discussion of the question on the ground that it is sub judice. I hope that the minister might apply some of his own responsibilities to end native people’s representations with the moral fervour that he has brought to the suggestions of the government of the province of Quebec regarding what they should do after the fact. That is the context of trickery within which we now debate. I think the significance of that is not merely that the government is acting, if I may use the minister’s own word, irresponsibly; the real danger is that the native people cannot be expected to put up forever with this kind of duplicity. No group would. But the native people have before them the temptation to respond with violence when gentler methods fail. They
218
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
have the lessons of other countries where other minorities have felt they were being deceived, and so responded violently. I think the minister drew a red herring deliberately when he suggested because there are regional differences we cannot act in support of this resolution, indicating a commitment to the principal concept of aboriginal rights. There is a need to establish aboriginal rights under a national policy which recognizes the elementary principle that aboriginal rights exist. It is simply a falsehood, I suggest, to say that we cannot proceed now to enunciate that commitment of having a national policy because individual settlements that might occur will differ from region to region. It seems to me the one remarkable fact about Canada’s native leadership is the strength with which they have resisted the temptation to abandon consultation. They have put up with far more than many other groups in Canada would have accepted. I ask if you can imagine the Canadian Labour Congress or the Canadian Chamber of Commerce coming back in good faith to deal with a government which has consistently deceived them? Yet the native people, with their present leadership, have come back and are prepared to negotiate in good faith in spite of the way they have been treated before. I simply suggest that their moderate response cannot be counted on forever. There is a matter related to this which I want to raise. It has to do with the fear, by many white Canadians, that Canadian Indians have been so broken down by the paternalism of the department they will never be able to stand on their own feet. If that is true, it is a tragedy. If it is not true and if, as we believe, people who have been victimized by paternalism can be brought back to pride and independence, then surely it is time to start. If we hope to end a system of paternalism whose cost is extravagant both in dollars and in dignity, surely we must begin by dealing seriously with the native people. That is what this resolution proposes, a beginning. It proposes simply the recognition of a concept of aboriginal rights and a recognition that there is a claim here to be settled. The minister, for reasons of his own, is proposing that the resolution involves much more than that. In his celebrated television interview he said, “There are some cities that have been built on land that is perhaps not Canadian land.” He went on to suggest that there might be a claim for the whole of the province of British Columbia. That is simply a scare tactic. It is simply a device, well known in this parliament and that party, of taking the most extreme possible consequence, pretending it is the
Indigenous Relations
219
norm and using it to scare people, thus avoiding honest debate. This is the resort either of a desperate government which knows it has no case, or an arrogant government which does not care about the facts and which would dismiss contrary opinion by saying, as the minister said of one of his colleagues during that television interview, “He does not know very much.” The tragedy is that the minister can scare Canadians. If he wants to arouse false fears, this clearly is an issue where he can do so. Not only can he arouse fears, he can animate a prejudice against native people which we would be some time settling down. I personally hope the minister will abandon that course on which he has begun and will focus on the issues we must face, rather than the fears he can arouse. I want to repeat the fact that acceptance of this resolution means only the acceptance of the concept of aboriginal rights. No cities are in danger. No province is to be given back to the Indians. At this stage there is not even a commitment to dollars; there is simply a commitment to deal in good faith and as equals with people who have claims older than any other claims this parliament considers. This will be a long process, a process of years rather than months. That is one reason it is so urgent to make a formal beginning now and not to continue to delay. The issues involved are serious. The settlement, when it comes, could involve the payment of millions of dollars—the end of the costly and colonial dominion of the department of Indian Affairs, the recognition of historic rights and the re-establishment of the dignity and sense of worth of hundreds of thousands of native people whom our society has abused. These issues are more than serious; they are also inescapable. At some time some parliament of Canada must face the issues involved in aboriginal rights. No magic is going to spirit these issues away and no mere lawyer, even if he is also a prime minister, is going to dismiss them with ingenious argument, because these issues are based on claims which are rooted in the history of the country and perhaps in her conscience. If they cannot be resolved by negotiation, in an atmosphere of mutual trust and goodwill, they will arise in other more inflammatory ways. So the real question about aboriginal rights is not whether we will face them, but when and in what spirit. Delay might appear to buy time, but it is more likely simply to destroy the good will which still characterizes most of the native leaders of Canada, in spite of the treat-
220
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
ment which too often they have received. Of course, the people who must be convinced about aboriginal rights are not the native people but the whites. The time will come when parliament and the government will have to advise native leaders about certain realities within the white community, namely, what we think we can afford. No doubt that will be difficult, although it will be easier if native leadership is reasonable, as generally it is today, than it would be if we drive out reasonable leadership. But the case which the government and parliament must make today is to the white Canada, and there is no doubt that many Canadians outside the native community are concerned about the concept of aboriginal rights. I think their concern is based upon two fears: first, a fear that any settlement might be too extravagant for the national treasury to bear; and second, a fear that any payments made under a settlement would be wasted, spent foolishly by people who have not yet learned to manage their own affairs. I want to address myself to those two concerns. First, it is important, as we begin the formal stage of this debate, to make it clear to everyone concerned that there are limits upon the settlement the national treasury can afford. We do not intend to give away the country, or give it back, depending on your point of view. What we seek is a fair and reasonable settlement and it must be fair and reasonable to both sides. On the question of costs, the point deserves reiteration that we are involved in costs now, heavy costs. In direct dollar terms, the annual budget of the Department of Indian Affairs, as the minister so readily boasts, involves the expenditure of hundreds of millions of dollars each year. In indirect dollar terms there is the high and recurrent cost of provincial welfare and other programs serving native populations. In human terms, which dollar calculations cannot compute, we pay the staggering price each year of human potential wasted or destroyed by an imposed system which neither challenges the individual Indian citizen nor allows him to follow the course he would choose. So there are high costs today, and while a settlement based on recognition of aboriginal rights would not suddenly eliminate those costs, or perhaps even eliminate some of them, it would lead to the extinguishment of some existing claims and could lead to the breaking down of the hand-out psychology which has made too many native people the wards of state instead of contributing citizens. This brings me to the second fear of many white Canadians, the fear
Indigenous Relations
221
that native people cannot manage their own affairs or do not want to. It is an inescapable fact, in my province at least, that this fear is greatest among people who live closest to reserves. They have simply seen too much evidence of Indian people whose behaviour confirms the unhappy stereotype of the lazy Indian. It is my experience that the anger of the whites toward the lazy Indian is mild when compared to the anger and resentment of industrious Indian leaders and people. It is also an inescapable fact that, while examples can be found of lazy Indians, so can examples be found of industrious and creative citizens. We meet them virtually every time the standing committee assembles and every time we visit reserves. In a sense, the industrious Indian is the more to be marvelled at because he has overcome a system of paternalism which is designed to break down dignity and independence. Anyone acquainted with the treatment of native people in Canada must at least accept that lazy Indians are lazy because we made them so. This is a condition which white society and the predecessors of this parliament have helped to create. We have established and imposed a system which has locked too many Indian people into the stereotype and into the fact of aimless dependence upon the state, and the architects of that system are at least as much to blame as its victims. There is no point in laying blame upon the past, but surely we cannot refuse to deal with the just claims of Canada’s Indians simply because some of them have slipped into the trap of dependence which our society helped to set for them. To do that would be to guarantee that Canada’s Indian people will never escape a welfare trap unless they do it violently. Indeed, that might amount to an invitation to violence, because our refusal to deal reasonably with the moderate men and women who constitute much of the modern leadership of Canada’s Indian people would almost certainly undermine the authority of these leaders and set up less responsible replacements. At the least, such a response would break the growing spirit of Canadian Indian people to stand on their own and make their own contribution as individuals and as a people to the development of Canada. In fact, one consequence of the eventual settlement of aboriginal claims is that Canadian native people will then be forced to stand on their own, because once the settlements are made, the claims are gone. If money received in settlement is wasted, that will be it. There will be no big brother to go back to. Knowing this, knowing that the settlements which are reached will have to be lived with, will itself force native people to face basic questions about their status, about the reserve sys-
222
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
tem, about other matters, and force them to face those questions with a seriousness which cannot exist in the present phony atmosphere of so-called consultation, when they naturally believe their opinions are being sought only to be ignored. What the settlement of aboriginal claims will mean to the Indian people is not simply money or land but, more important, responsibility in a much fuller sense than exists in the paternalistic system we have today. Beyond that, a recognition of aboriginal rights is a matter of simple justice, made more urgent by prolonged delay. These are the people who first occupied this land. We took it from them, seldom by conquest, sometimes by agreements which were unfair then or are inadequate now, sometimes without settlement at all. After taking this land, we took their dignity and independence. In simple terms, we owe a debt. If we believe in any sort of justice in society, we must recognize our obligation to Canada’s native people. The way to begin that movement toward justice and responsibility is to deal with Indian people as though they are capable of responsibility; to deal with them as we would deal with other Canadians who have a claim. This resolution today asks no more than that, and we in our party believe that the Parliament of Canada can do no less.
7
Openness One of the principles of democracy is to have a government that is open, accountable and transparent. In order for it to be accountable, citizens need to be informed. Joe Clark, from his earliest days in parliament, wanted to ensure parliament was open and accessible to Canadians. He maintained that a government must remain honest about its dealings between citizens and their representatives. This is especially important in a parliamentary democracy, given its conventional and organic (as opposed to codified) nature. The role of convention can contribute to opacity as the steps taken by a government in actions such as appointments are never explicitly laid out. For Clark, this was not good enough for Canada or its system of responsible government. In the first speech in this chapter, Clark defended the rights of the House of Commons. He argued that it should not simply be left to the whims of the government of the day to decide what the people’s representatives in parliament are allowed or (more importantly) are not allowed to see. Clark was surprised, as a relatively new MP, “at how often I am told that the public business has to be kept from me, that I cannot be told about this or that, that I cannot be trusted with certain information.” The lack of transparency was evident in a number of ways that included not only in what could be discussed in the House but also if major policies would be announced in the House, thereby circumventing debate. And while Clark did acknowledge that “a degree of confidentiality, has, of course, to apply” he held that governments could do much better, and were often hiding behind convention and privilege. In addition to circumventing the people’s representatives, governments would often not be entirely honest with their image presented to the Canadian public. While it was important to tell Canadians what the government was up to, it had to do so in a non-partisan way and Clark recognized that it often wasn’t so. In this first speech, we find Clark disA Man of Parliament; Selected Speeches from Joe Clark, edited by Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon. Montréal and Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press, Queen’s Policy Studies Series. © 2019 The School of Policy Studies, Queen’s University at Kingston. All rights reserved.
224
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
cussing the dangers of propaganda, this time coming from the offices of Information Canada. He regretted that, rather than also attempting to “gather opinions from the country and feed them back to Ottawa” the department was simply a “big machine spewing out propaganda year after year.” The trouble with this was that, as Clark saw it, the one-sided view that materials released could “not be trusted to reflect the facts,” to the detriment of citizens who may rely on that information. All this perpetuated a cynical view of Canada’s democratic system because, in Clark’s words, “you cannot trust politicians to tell the truth.” A certain amount of cynicism in politics may be a good thing. But Clark saw cynicism beyond this threshold as “cancerous,” particularly when coupled with the fact that “decisions are taken by a tight little group whose practices of secrecy allow no ventilation. That is, because of the diversity of viewpoints espoused by the many different regions and peoples of this country, the secrecy demonstrated above and narrow view leads to decisions that do not reflect the needs and requirements of this country, and it can serve to disunify us, perhaps drastically.” In the aftermath of the FLQ crisis in which Clark was speaking, ensuring unity and trust in Canada’s federal institutions was of paramount importance. It was important to Clark that information be presented not only in an open and honest way, but also in a way that was consistent and easy to understand. To this end, the other two speeches included here show Clark discussing and critiquing the arbitrary way in which governments in Canada make their decisions. In the first instance, Clark is discussing an Air Canada contract and the confusing way it was eventually presented to the House of Commons. At first it was considered confidential by the government. However, the next day as if “by some act of magic” it was deemed acceptable to present to the House. Clark saw this reversal as a perfect example of the trouble with government procedure. In that, “it demonstrates, as nothing else can, how arbitrary is the information policy followed by the government and the complete lack of consistency regarding what will be kept secret and what will be made public.” These often-unknown guidelines made it very difficult to hold governments responsible to MPs and to the public at large. In the second instance (and third speech in this chapter) Clark went after Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau himself. Trudeau had appointed Michael Pitfield (a close personal friend) as clerk of the privy council, the most senior civil servant in Canada. Clark saw two main problems in such an appointment. First, because no guidelines were given to the
Openness 225
House for the appointment, it reflected a dangerous new trend in the growth of power of the PMO, a topic dealt with in much greater detail in chapter 4 of this volume. Second, the appointment had the potential to do damage to the civil service as a whole. Clark argued that Prime Minister Trudeau was “bypassing merit, undermining morale, compromising an essential independence, and eroding the protection of regions or groups whose interests are not represented by the political government of the day.” What was at issue here was not patronage, but the integrity of the Canadian civil service. It was because of the above arbitrariness and lack of transparency that during his short time as our prime minister, Clark would table the first Access to Information Act in our country’s history. Unfortunately, because his minority government was defeated soon after this, the bill would die on the Order Paper. However, the bill no doubt had some ideas with bipartisan appeal, as a very similar bill was tabled by the subsequent Liberal government, once again under Pierre Trudeau. And so as was usual throughout Clark’s career, he did not need to be in the PMO to profoundly affect Canadian political life.
Secrecy in Government House of Commons Debates 10 April 1975 30th Parliament, 1st Session: Volume 5, 4697–4699 Mr. Joe Clark (Rocky Mountain): Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by referring briefly to the remarks just made by the hon. member for Welland (Mr. Railton) and to say that I noted, though I was not particularly impressed by, the idea that the public is the patient in its relationship with the Government of Canada. I think the analogy the hon. member used was inapt in that particular, and I do not think it an apt analogy for another reason, that is to say, the reason for which this debate was generated being exactly opposite the case of someone, say, the Secretary of State, going to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang) and seeking a legal opinion. What happened in this case was that the Minister of Justice sought to impose upon his colleague a legal opinion which was not requested. That surely changes any client relationship, even if the client relationship were a valid analogy for keeping from the people and the Parlia-
226
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
ment of Canada important exchanges of which this is only one symbol. The point was made by my distinguished hon. friend from FundyRoyal earlier when opening this discussion, that what is at issue here is not the content of this particular letter but, instead, the practice which has unfortunately become deeply ingrained in the government of keeping information from parliament and from the people of Canada. I am following in this debate, and I am honoured to do so, two hon. members, for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fairweather), and for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin), who have won the respect of parliament and of observers of parliament for their knowledge of the rules and procedures here. I participate as a junior member of parliament who has been surprised in my short time in this House at how often I am told that public business has to be kept from me, that I cannot be told about this or that, that I cannot be trusted with certain information. I am told this often, as we all are as newcomers to this House. As members of the House of Commons of Canada we are in the category of restricted people who cannot be trusted with information. Surely that is a situation which should not be allowed to continue. The problem with respect to the insistence on secrecy does not apply simply to the failure of the government to produce papers. I spoke recently to an assistant deputy minister, someone who, incidentally, is earning more than any of us here, and he told me that he didn’t wish to be quoted but that if he followed the habit around here he would have to stamp “secret” on the toilet paper because that particular classification was so much in use. Mr. Beatty (Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo): Probably because it was bought from a Liberal without tender. Mr. Clark (Rocky Mountain): There are a number of other instances of secrecy here. I want to deal quickly with some of them. The point was made earlier about consultants’ reports. We now contract out a great deal of the responsibility for decision-making to consultants. Nearly a billion dollars is being spent on consultants’ fees. Yet very many of the reports which are received, reports which should be public information, are hidden from us. They are hidden from members in this House. We are not to be trusted. We are not to be trusted with these reports which are provided by consultants, at an annual fee of a billion dollars, to advise the government. That is one instance. I want to go back to something my hon. friend from Peace River mentioned when he talked about the report which inspired the develop-
Openness 227
ment of Information Canada. There was heavy emphasis in that report on a sort of ombudsman role, a role which would not simply involve a big machine spewing out propaganda year after year from Ottawa to the country, but which would somehow go out and try to gather opinions from the country and feed them back to Ottawa. The report envisaged that someone would go out and try to find grievances and make sure they were corrected. But that part of the report was ignored. The part which was acted upon was the part dealing with propaganda. So we have a very serious situation now in which Information Canada only sends out the approved version of information which, in many cases, and I say this with regret, cannot be trusted to reflect the facts. As well, Information Canada has led to an immense duplication of information facilities. For every member of the press gallery there are ten or 15 information officers dumping stuff on their desks, sending out the approved versions, elbowing up to them at the bar of the Press Club to make sure that the approved version is communicated to the country. That is a very sophisticated and large propaganda machine, something which should be of concern to everyone in this House who is worried about the right of Canadians to know what is going on in the country. Another developing practice has been that of making important announcements outside the House instead of inside the Commons. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) today, for example, announced his new economic policy, which I remind hon. members on the other side is an incomes policy. He did not make his announcement here in the House but outside the House. Again, we have witnessed the frequent practice of answers to serious questions being given flippantly in the House so that another means of access to information is cut down. We even get from our distinguished and well-respected Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen), now that there is a fixed time limit to questions in the period, answers given by him to every question very, very, slowly so as to consume as much time as he possibly can. This cuts into our capacity to elicit information through the question period. During the last few weeks a very surprising experience relating to questions of national security happened to be discovered by chance. We were putting questions to an unprepared minister in a standing committee and it came to light that it was the practice to fudge the estimates, not to be honest with the House of Commons and the people
228
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
of Canada in the estimates which were brought forward because the government hides votes for security services in a range of departments. When that matter was raised in the House the minister, the Minister of State for Science and Technology (Mr. Drury), announced the government’s preparedness to set up some kind of arrangement by which members could be briefed on questions of security. Yesterday I sought leave to introduce a motion to urge the House leaders to go ahead with that arrangement. But it was voted down by members of the other side. They did that at the beginning of the question period and then, a few minutes later, talking out of the other side of their mouths, they refused to answer questions on security matters on the grounds that such things should not be discussed in the House. They said under the standing order they should not be discussed anywhere; they said in the question period that they should not be discussed in the House of Commons. It is unfortunately the position of the Government of Canada that important questions relating to security as well as to other matters should not be discussed anywhere. Mr. Speaker, that is not a position which anyone interested in a democracy can accept without a great deal of fear. A degree of confidentiality has, of course, to apply, perhaps in all matters and certainly in security matters. But that is a quite different principle from the principle which is enunciated and illustrated by the government, which says you cannot trust parliament and you cannot trust the people with anything except the approved versions sent out under the imprimatur of Information Canada. I recall in 1968, Mr. Speaker, in the election campaign of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), the heavy emphasis that was placed upon the phrase “participatory democracy.” There was a heavy emphasis placed on getting people involved. Well, we all know that the basic essential element to participation is information. You cannot have participatory democracy, both words, unless the people are informed. If you are going to have the people receive only approved versions, you are going to have participatory something else. It won’t be participatory democracy. The danger is that it will be neither. I make the point—I emphasize it—that it is not just members of this House who suffer from the prejudice which is illustrated in the refusal to publish the letter which gave rise to this debate, it is also the people of Canada generally, and our very system, because as my colleague from Peace River said earlier, the system of democratic and parliamentary government is suffering seriously from the cynicism which has been engendered across this land in part by the feeling that you cannot
Openness 229
trust politicians to tell the truth. They will give a partial truth, or if there is some information which is important for them to keep they will stamp “secret” on it and refuse to let you have it. That is a very serious, cancerous cynicism and it has directly to do, among other causes, with the insistence on secrecy of the government we have today. As a member of parliament who comes from outside central Canada, as one who comes from a rural constituency not particularly well represented in the public service, with views, attitudes and even prejudices which are perhaps not replicated in the senior public service or treasury benches, I want to talk for a moment about the danger of basing decisions upon wrong information. What we have here is not simply a refusal to publish information and to let members of parliament know. What we have here is a situation that ensures that decisions are taken by a tight little group whose practices of secrecy allow no ventilation. There is no certainty that they are acting on premises that are shared in northern Quebec or western Alberta, or in any other part of Canada that is some distance, be it in miles, ideas or views, from the cabinet or senior public service. That, in a country of such diversity and fragility as ours, is a highly dangerous situation, one that I hope my colleagues on the other side, who I believe are worried about unity and the future of this country, will seriously consider, because this insistence on secrecy leads to decisions that do not reflect the needs and requirements of this country, and it can serve to disunify us, perhaps drastically. My colleague from Welland, and the parliamentary secretary who spoke before him earlier in this debate, referred to this letter as being a legal opinion. That happens to be the dodge, or the excuse, in this case. In other cases when there are legitimate demands for information that should be in the public domain other excuses are given for not making the information available. There is always some reason why the practice is not to make the information available to the public. I think the question that we should face is not: is it the practice? Because of course it is. The government has set the practice. It is a practice designed to keep as much information as confidential as possible. Rather the question here is: why are we slaves to that practice? Why do we have it? Clearly it is wrong to keep information from the people of Canada, from the democratically elected representatives of the people. As a general principle I think we would all agree it is wrong. Yet it is the practice. And so the members on the government side of the House allow themselves to be lulled to sleep by the incantation that the wrong
230
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
that we are committing is a wrong that it is the practice to commit. I say that that is not good enough. Clearly we need a society—certainly we need a parliament—where as much information as possible is known. I think others want to participate in this debate, Madam Speaker, so I will stop now by asking the representatives of the government here today: why fear an informed parliament? Why do they fear an informed public? Why insist on a practice of holding back information that would allow the public and parliament to be informed about the facts on which decisions are based?
Access to Information House of Commons Debates 8 May 1975 30th Parliament, 1st Session: Volume 6, 5607 Mr. Joe Clark (Rocky Mountain): Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to take very much time in this discussion since the parliamentary secretary has swallowed his earlier words and is now prepared to table documents which he previously withheld. Because I think it is a remarkable development, I want to deal with the demonstration that is inherent in the action by the parliamentary secretary today and the absolutely arbitrary method in which documents are considered to be confidential. We have a situation here where an Air Canada contract was regarded as confidential yesterday. Suddenly, today, by some act of magic or some magic wand, it is deemed to be acceptable to table it in the House of Commons. Yesterday it was confidential, today we can have it. That indicates how completely arbitrary the position of this government is as to keeping public information out of the public domain. There is obviously no consistent policy on the part of this government regarding information. There is no consistent policy with regard to what is to be held back in the public interest and what is to be made available to the House of Commons in the public interest. We have known for some time that the government has no information policy except as indicated to me by an assistant deputy minister in a senior department, that is, to stamp “Confidential” on the toilet paper or any other paper which happens to be in circulation in the offices. Surely today we have underlined the complete absence of any kind of over-all policy regarding the public right to information. It has been made absolutely clear that the decision whether a document should
Openness 231
be published or should remain secret is an arbitrary one depending on such things as the state of the moon, or which side of the bed the minister or the parliamentary secretary got out of in the morning. Yesterday the document was so confidential that neither parliament nor the public could be permitted to see it. Today, by some magic occurrence, it can be tabled in the House of Commons. I welcome the tabling of the document. I welcome the latter-day conversion of the parliamentary secretary. I hope he does not disappear from our midst as a result of his conversion to the point of view that parliament has a right to obtain information with which it is properly concerned. While the decision is very welcome, it demonstrates, as nothing else can, how arbitrary is the information policy followed by the government and the complete lack of consistency regarding what will be kept secret and what will be made public. It also underlines the futility of the guidelines applied to the release of information. We now know that the only guideline is what members on the treasury benches opposite want to do. In a system which is supposed to be concerned about the informed participation of the citizenry, that is obviously not a proper viewpoint to take.
Appointment Process for Civil Servants House of Commons Debates 4 November 1974 30th Parliament, 1st Session: Volume 1, 1046 Mr. Joe Clark (Rocky Mountain): Mr. Speaker, on October 8 I raised a question with the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). I asked if he would make a statement on motions outlining the principles which were now to be followed for appointments to the senior public service. I drew particular reference to Mr. Michael Pitfield, and asked the Prime Minister to indicate whether that appointment suggested a replacement of the merit system by the buddy system. The Prime Minister ducked that question, and instead attacked my right as a member of parliament to ask about the appointment and credentials of an official who now has more influence than most members of cabinet, and whose only unusual qualification for that office appears to be his personal friendship with the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister indicated that an appointment at that level was
232
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
at the discretion of the government. Of course it is, but it is the duty of this parliament and the members here to question the judgment that is used in exercising that discretion. That is a matter of concern not only to this House, but to people outside, including the Ottawa Journal, which wrote shortly afterwards, and I quote: Prime Minister Trudeau... has shown remarkably bad judgment in choosing an intimate friend for a position so exquisitively sensitive.... A Prime Minister needs to have friends and advisers around him whom he can trust completely, who will give him their first call on their loyalty. But the place for them is on his own staff, not in the public service.
That appointment started a precedent. It is inevitable that when the present Prime Minister leaves, so will Mr. Pitfield. Some other favourite of some other Prime Minister will come in. The senior job in the Canadian Public Service has, by this one act, been made a partisan political position. That act has changed our system of government and, in one stroke, threatened the political independence of the Canadian public service. Mr. Pitfield’s appointment is the most celebrated case, but it is not an isolated instance. That is the matter which is of grave concern to this House. His appointment is part of a pattern of moving political friends into a public service which can be respected and effective only so long as it is free from the suspicion of partisanship. Not only in this last month have we had the appointment of Mr. Pitfield to his high position, we have also had the appointment of Mr. Jim Davey, late of the Prime Minister’s Office and late of the Minister of Transport’s office, to a senior public service position in the Department of Transport. We have seen the hon. Paul Martin dispatched as High Commissioner to Great Britain. These people now enter the public service to join others like Timothy Porteous, Edgar Benson, Mike McCabe, Paul Gérin-Lajoie, and who knows how many others. It is known to this House and accepted that for some time there has been a provision allowing the shifting into the public service of people who have served, in the senior executive capacity, political ministers and others. Because of the salary level at which these people shift, they inevitably go into the public service in a policy position. I placed a question on the order paper to find out how many of these people there are in the public service and what areas of policy they influence. I did this because I think it is highly important to the system.
Openness 233
The practice poses three critical threats to our system. First, it destroys the balance which is so essential between the elected politicians and the appointed public servants. At the same time it threatens and jeopardizes the long range independence of the Canadian public service. The second threat arises because it undermines morale in the service itself. It removes the incentive to excel. Indeed, it fosters an incentive simply to please one’s master because excellence is no longer the standard which determines promotion; it is friendship which is now becoming the standard by which promotion is achieved. The third threat is that it narrows the basis of advice on which national decisions are made. This is a diverse country, and the government should reflect that diversity. But it will not do so if the public service is to be formed in the image of a partisan prime minister. I asked the Prime Minister to tell us the guidelines to be followed in making that kind of appointment. He has given us no guidelines. I also put a private member’s notice of motion on the order paper in an effort to ensure parliamentary scrutiny of the growing powers of the office of the Prime Minister, which appear to be at the root of the problem we face today. What we must consider is not just a question of Mr. Pitfield’s credentials; he is obviously a brilliant person, an able man. Nor is it a question of stopping patronage, which has been going on for ever and ever. The Prime Minister, by this action, by this pattern he has established, is changing the very nature of the Canadian public service and the very nature of our system of government. He is bypassing merit, undermining morale, compromising an essential independence, and eroding the protection of regions or groups whose interests are not represented by the political government of the day. It is regrettable that the Prime Minister should have indicated, in putting aside this question, that he wants no attention paid to the process that is taking place. It is not too much to say that he is achieving by stealth changes of more significance and more permanence in our system than a change of government could bring about. I believe this is an urgent question for the House to consider both in relation to appointments to senior levels of the public service and to the growing power of the Prime Minister, and I hope the answer from the parliamentary secretary will allow us at least to begin the process of examining the way in which our system is being changed.
8
The Constitution The Constitution of Canada was long in the making. First passed into law as the British North America Act, 1867 by the parliament of the United Kingdom, it would remain in London and under its authority for the next 115 years until the passage of the Canada Act, 1982. This “repatriation” transferred amending authority to the Parliament of Canada, added the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and created an amending formula governing future changes to the constitution. What follows in this chapter is a set of five speeches given by Clark to parliament in the deliberation leading up to repatriation as well as the debates, accords, and referendums that followed. In it, Clark emphasizes his vision for a periphery-to-centre, decentralized confederation as well as discussing and arguing for laws and ideas which would eventually become part of the resulting constitution. First in this section and first chronologically is a speech that Clark gave to parliament the day after the first referendum on Quebec independence. He used the celebratory atmosphere to call for a “renewed Canadian federalism” through constitutional change that would create institutions that had the genuine respect of the various parts of Canada. This was a way to harness a post-referendum build-up of good will to create change that better reflected the realities of Clark’s time. Though he mentioned the three main parts of the forthcoming constitutional package, Clark’s main focus was on strengthening parliament, specifically the House of Commons. In this way, Clark sought to reverse the trend of increasing concentration of power which Clark believed may have caused some Quebecers to lose faith in the federal system. This is a trend which still saps support for federalism in Canada today. Of course, having the power to amend a state’s constitution means nothing if there is no mechanism detailing how it would be changed. Therefore, second in this chapter is a speech Clark gave to the House in support of what was then known as the “Vancouver formula.” This A Man of Parliament; Selected Speeches from Joe Clark, edited by Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon. Montréal and Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press, Queen’s Policy Studies Series. © 2019 The School of Policy Studies, Queen’s University at Kingston. All rights reserved.
236
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
formula, known today as the 7/50 rule, stipulates constitutional changes may be made with the consent of parliament and two thirds of the provinces comprising at least 50 percent of the population. This formula was appropriate in Clark’s eyes as it was supported by all the provincial premiers of that day. The Vancouver formula was opposed by Prime Minister Trudeau who was in favour of the Victoria formula which gave a veto to Ontario and Quebec. In this moment, the two visions of the federation are apparent. Of additional note in this speech is the forceful argument Clark gives against the use of closure to stifle parliamentary debate, a protocol he detested from his earliest days of political awareness. Clark remained committed to fighting against executive overreach throughout his political life. The third speech was given in the House a year before the constitution’s repatriation. Clark rails against the dangers of party discipline and federal overreach into areas of provincial jurisdiction and the damage this can do to Confederation. Focusing specifically on the Trudeau government’s attempts to unilaterally patriate and amend the constitution in provincial legal jurisdictions, Clark fought to ensure that party interests did not come before meaningful representation. The last two speeches included in this chapter jump forward to the early 1990s and deal with the Meech Lake and Charlottetown accords and the struggle and politics that surrounded them. Clark, as a minister in the Mulroney government, had returned to the government side of the House and sought to frame the accords not as the end of a chapter, but the beginning of one. Speaking in June 1990, Clark forcefully proposed that passing Meech Lake would be a win for both Quebec and Aboriginal rights. He argues that by passing this accord, legislatures could create “a moment when Canada came to terms with itself and decided to move forward, recognizing that, of course, all was not perfect, but the perfection could not be approached until the country was whole once again.” Fatefully, Elijah Harper did not agree and so Meech Lake died a mere three days later. No matter, for Clark was used to picking himself up after a setback. In a little less than a year, Clark again proposed the importance of Canada coming together despite its imperfection, this time relating to the Spicer commission and Charlottetown Accord. Though it hangs ominously over the speech from our perspective in time, Clark only mentioned the possibility of a federal referendum twice throughout the entire speech. Instead, what he devoted the most time to was considerations of the
The Constitution
237
ways in which the various constituent communities, societies (explicitly mentioning Quebec), and nations might work together with the various governments to create a new political order. But beyond the obviously high-flying and inspirational rhetoric, Clark also acknowledged the compromises each must make to remain a part of the greater whole which conveyed great economic, political, and social advantages. For example, he acknowledged as an Albertan that Western Canadians should accept Quebec as a “distinct society.” And, despite what many settler Canadians thought (and still think), not all issues important to Indigenous nations revolve around the improper use of public money, thus firmly putting the “progressive” in Progressive Conservative. For Clark, the second constitutional round in Canadian history was a chance to entrench a vision of Canadian Confederation. In contrast to the centralized vision of his Conservative predecessor Sir John A. Macdonald, Clark did not want to see the constituent parts of Canada subordinated to Ottawa. Instead, standing as a personification of intra-state federalism Clark attempted to ensure that the voices from outside Ottawa would be heard, be they provincial first ministers or individual private citizens speaking before the Spicer commission. Clark believed that by recognizing the distinctiveness (with a nod to Quebec) and the difference of these voices in the constitution we could be better brought together to strive for our future as one country. It is a vision we are still striving for to this day.
238
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
The Patriation of the Constitution House of Commons Debates 22 October 1980 32nd Parliament, 1st Session: Volume 4, 3936–3940 Right Hon. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition) moved: That this House supports the immediate patriation of the Constitution of Canada, incorporating only the generally agreed upon amending formula known as the Vancouver consensus, so that all other constitutional changes shall be made in Canada by Canadians.
He said: Madam Speaker, I regret that I must rise today to introduce a motion which, I believe, could move Canada from a bitter impasse over constitutional questions in the shadow of the announcement by the government House leader that the Government of Canada intends to invoke the rules of closure to stop the Parliament of Canada from debating the Constitution of Canada. Some hon. Members: Shame! Mr. Clark: I regret indeed that hon. members opposite invoke closure when there have been more speakers on the motion from the government side than there have been from the ranks of the official opposition. This matter will be discussed at greater length in the country and in the House of Commons, as indeed it was discussed during the pipeline debate when closure was used to stop the right of Parliament to debate a matter— Mr. Cousineau: And to filibuster. Mr. Clark: —which would have struck at the heart of the nation. We will discuss it more, but I want to make two points. One is that this is not the normal kind of stoppage of debate we have had. This is the closure of C. D. Howe. This is not the modified Standing Order 75C, so-called. This is pipeline closure. This is the kind of closure which was used, unhappily, in 1957 to try to ride roughshod over the rights of this House of Commons. That is what is being done again today by this government. Some hon. Members: Shame! Mr. Clark: It is interesting to note that the last time this kind of C. D.
The Constitution
239
Howe closure was used, it was used to force upon Parliament changes in the rules of Parliament. It was used then for the first time in the history of the British parliamentary tradition anywhere in the world to change the rules of parliament. Now again that extreme and extraordinary measure of closure—that full force C. D. Howe kind of closure—is being used, to stop debate which has not been excessive, because government speakers have spoken more than hon. members in this party have, it is being used not on a minor matter but on the fundamental law of the land. Hon. members opposite do not want our constitution debated. They want to cut off debate. They want to stop the right of Canadians in Canada’s Parliament to discuss the constitution of this country. That is unacceptable. Mr. Collenette: Rubbish! Mr. Clark: Because we respect both this institution and this nation, for which disrespect has been shown by the actions of this government, and because we respect the constitution of this nation, what we are proposing, by contrast, is a means by which Canadians can act today to bring the constitution of Canada home today so that Canadians can change it here in Canada. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Clark: The motion that we have introduced provides: [Translation] That this House supports the immediate patriation of the Constitution of Canada, incorporating only the generally agreed upon amending formula known as the Vancouver consensus, so that all other constitutional changes shall be made in Canada by Canadians.
[English] This motion calls for the Parliament and the people of Canada to act quickly on the one constitutional question with which virtually every Canadian agrees, that is, to have the constitution of Canada here at home in Canada. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!
240
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
Mr. Clark: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has consistently said he wants our constitution home, I have consistently said I want our constitution home, so has the Leader of the NDP and so has every other member of the House of Commons. What this motion offers is an opportunity to stop talking and to start acting to bring the Canadian Constitution home to Canada in a way that respects the rules and traditions of this House and respects the rules and the nature of this country. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Clark: More than that, this motion today provides a way to ensure that we can work with our constitution once we get it here. It allows the whole Parliament of Canada to approve an amending formula which was accepted in principle by the committee of officials working on constitutional reform through the summer and, even more than that, which was accepted in principle by all the provincial premiers when they met in Ottawa in September, and which was accepted in principle by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chrétien). Some hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Chrétien: Not true. Mr. Clark: Those are matters of Canadian agreement, agreement on having our constitution home, agreement on the Vancouver formula as the way to work with that constitution once we have it home. Unfortunately, in recent days the focus of attention in the nation has been on the disagreements which exist on constitutional questions, disagreements which are deep and which are in danger of becoming even deeper. But we should not let those serious disagreements obscure the fact that very real progress was made this summer, and that Canada is, for the first time in at least a decade, in a position where agreement exists as to both the necessity and the means of bringing our Canadian constitution home. We in this party want Canada to act on that agreement, and our motion provides the instrument to let Parliament start the action to get the Constitution of Canada home so that Canadians can work with it. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Clark: We are all aware in this House and throughout the country that discord and disagreement in Canada on how we should renew
The Constitution
241
our federation grow worse with every passing day. We know that, with budget and energy policy coming, other deeply wounding controversies may well lie ahead of this Parliament and of this country. For the sake of our country, all Canadians must come together on common, solid ground. We must do it free of partisan recriminations, and we must do it free of any kind of narrow perspective. On September 13 the first ministers’ conference broke down. Now is not the time to assess blame for that; we have had enough blaming. It is time in this country for some building, building for Canada. To that September conference all the participants came with packages of reforms which they wanted. Obviously, it would have been the best thing for our country if a balanced, comprehensive compromise package of reforms and improvements in the constitution had been agreed on. But that did not happen, as the House knows. What did happen, however, was the emergence of the Vancouver consensus as a formula accepted in principle by virtually all of the participants in a closed session in September. The formula allows amendments to the constitution, and allows them now, Mr. Speaker, not two years hence. It does not freeze the Constitution of Canada for two years, so that the people of Quebec, who might want more changes are told, “No, you cannot have them for two years.” It does not freeze our constitution for two years so that the people of western Canada who might want changes are told, “No, you cannot have them for two years; it is frozen.” Instead, it gives us a means and an instrument by which we in the country can use and change our constitution right now. It is a device we can use today. It is not a device we must wait for two years to use. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Clark: And as the House will know, that formula also protects the provinces of Canada, because it provides the fundamental guarantee that no province can be affected by an amendment unless it chooses to be affected. Thus does it reflect the essential partnership of Canada. Thus does it respect the essential nature of a federal system. [Translation] There is no ideal formula but that one has the decided advantage of having been approved, in the present context, by all the partners in federation. Given this approval in principle, it is time all partners set aside,
242
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
for the time being, all the constitutional amendments they propose. It is time they join in bringing the constitution back to Canada so that the required changes can be effected afterwards by Canadians, in Canada. Let us ask the British Parliament merely to give us back our constitution with the generally accepted Vancouver formula. Let us make that happen quickly and let us then, without the intervention of another country, promptly update our federative agreement. [English] I cannot understand, Mr. Speaker, why the government insists on a procedure that would have Britain pass amendments to the Constitution of Canada instead of letting Canada pass amendments to the Constitution of Canada. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Clark: Surely, Mr. Speaker, our constitution is our business. We should be dealing with our constitution here in Canada and we should not be waiting two years, we should be doing it now. What is so tragic about the way we are proceeding is that the Government of Canada not only wants the British to change our constitution but wants us to be prevented from working with our constitution for at least two years. Neither of those is acceptable to me. I am a Canadian, I want to have my constitution here. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Clark: I see no reason to wait. I see no reason to put in an unnecessary two-year delay, because we can have our constitution home quickly, we can have an amendment formula agreed to quickly, and we can do it quickly. If this motion is accepted, the will of Parliament will be clear. The will of the premiers is already clear; they accepted in principle the Vancouver consensus when they met in September. Mr. Chrétien: Not true. Mr. Clark: The Minister of Justice says that is not true. But he knows that is true. Mr. Chrétien: Ask Bill Davis. Mr. Clark: He suggests that we ask the Premier of Ontario. The Premier of Ontario indicated, in the last 15 to 20 days, that he is prepared to ac-
The Constitution
243
cept the Vancouver amending formula. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Clark: That is why we have a basis of agreement here. If I could speak of the one provincial government of the party which in this House agrees with the Minister of Justice, the Premier of Saskatchewan, he has indicated that he too would find the Vancouver amending formula acceptable. Those are the facts, and the Minister of Justice, if he has any respect for the truth or the federal system, should accept that fact and act on it. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Clark: Then, with the will of Parliament clear, as it could be if members rise above party and vote to support this amendment, and with the will of the premiers clear, we can work quickly on the details of the Vancouver formula, to which I will come later. Then we can work on amendments which will allow us to begin work immediately to change our constitution here in this country. If that happens, if the House of Commons is prepared to rise above party matters and is prepared to accept this motion which allows the House of Commons to bring our constitution home today with an acceptable amending formula, I believe we can then start immediately, we can start this week. Instead of bringing in closure which will divide this country, we could start this week to have officials sit down and discuss the wide range of amendments Canadians might want. The chairman of the premiers, Mr. Lyon, has suggested that it would be useful to meet again, that we should not write off all the work done this summer, that we should not let the failure of the September conference mean the failure of constitutional reform. He said that there should be more meetings, there should be more discussions. How much more fruitful it would be if those new meetings and new discussions occur in the context of agreement, not only on having our constitution here, but on the formula by which we can have it here? That agreement exists; that agreement exists. Mr. Chrétien: Not true. Mr. Clark: It was accepted in principle by all of the first ministers. The Minister of Justice says that it is not true. Perhaps his boss, perhaps the Prime Minister does not agree with it, but every premier does. Every premier is prepared to accept that formula and to use it to bring the
244
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
Constitution of Canada home. Mr. Chrétien: No, no; it is not true. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Clark: If the atmosphere is positive we can get agreement on constitutional change. If the atmosphere is negative in this country, and it shows that there is a real risk of it becoming deeply negative on this question, on energy questions and other questions, then we will not get agreement on even the simplest kind of changes. That would set back deeply and dangerously the process and the promise of constitutional change in this country. If this motion is accepted, if we bring our constitution home with the Vancouver formula, then we will have both the momentum and the means to achieve Canadian amendments to the Canadian Constitution right here in Canada. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Clark: Ever since the end of the first ministers’ conference we have been calling for precisely that approach: patriate with the Vancouver consensus amending formula and then make changes in the Canadian Constitution in Canada by Canadians. In our view it is undeniably the way to make constitutional change a source of bringing Canadians together rather than driving them apart, because they will be driven apart, and they are being driven apart by the current proposed constitutional resolution of the government. Our views on the dangers for federalism in the proposed resolution are well known, and we intend to keep on making them as forcefully as we can. If we are gagged in Parliament by the use of closure, we will carry our case to the country. A majority of provinces are now testing the constitutionality of this proposal in the courts. It is not just a few provinces but a majority of the provinces of Canada. Premiers are attacking premiers. Federalists in the province of Quebec are disastrously divided, to the joy and to the benefit only of the separatists of the province of Quebec. Western Canadians and Atlantic Canadians justly resent the second-class status and the third-class status of their provinces inherent in the Prime Minister’s redesigned Victoria amending formula. All provinces have just cause to fear the dangers to the basic federal character of Canada in the proposed section 42 where a federally written, federally timed referendum could allow Ottawa to go around
The Constitution
245
the other order of government entirely. Plans for provincial referenda multiply. What kind of a situation will we have with different levels of government asking different questions on the same subject of the same people, and getting different answers? What will that lead us to here in this country? It will lead us to chaos in this country, constitutional chaos in this country. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Clark: We have no need for that chaos because we have the means here for agreement. There is a Canadian will to have our constitution at home. There is a Canadian way to have our constitution at home in the Vancouver amending formula. What is needed is a willingness on the part of the Liberal party to rise above narrow partisanship and to support this principle which will let Canadians have their constitution home. Why does the Liberal party oppose having Canada’s constitution home this week? Why does the Liberal party oppose the amending formula which is accepted by all the first ministers? Why is the Liberal party standing in the way of the people of Canada having the constitution of Canada here at home so we can amend it, live with it and work with it in Canada? Why is there that kind of opposition? There should not be. What we need, instead, is a determination to move forward now, immediately, to bring our constitution to Canada in a way that we can work with it in Canada. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Clark: The government can introduce closure if they will. They intend to do that with the respect for Parliament that was shown by the late C. D. Howe. That is their intention. An hon. Member: What respect do you have when you filibuster? Mr. Clark: They talk about a filibuster. This must be the first time in the history of Canada or in the history of the British parliamentary system that anyone has talked about filibuster when the government has spoken more than the official opposition. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Collenette: Not true. Mr. Clark: I will admit that the speakers of the official opposition have made more sense than the speakers of the government party. There
246
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
have been 19 Liberal spokesmen and only 18 Progressive Conservative spokesmen, and they call it a filibuster. Mr. Collenette: What about the NDP? They are part of the opposition. Mr. Clark: The Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Collenette) suggests that the NDP should be considered part of my party. I am not exchanging letters with the hon. Leader of the NDP (Mr. Broadbent). Some hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Clark: But I say to members like the hon. member for Yorkton–Melville (Mr. Nystrom), the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Hovdebo), members who, I know, are concerned about the substance of the resolution brought forward by the government, and to members such as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) who, I believe, would be opposed to closure on a constitutional question, that I hope when the time comes for them to cast their votes at a quarter to six this afternoon they will consider whether they want to invite deep rancour and deep division in this country by proceeding both with closure and with a constitutional package they know is divisive, or whether they would prefer to adopt the motion before the House now which would let the Parliament of Canada act today to bring the constitution home immediately in the way that Canadians want. There are a number of merits to the constitutional amending formula which has been agreed to by the premiers. Of course one merit is the single fact that it has been agreed to. When all of the conditions that were uttered at the first ministers’ conference are set aside, when all connections to any packages are put aside, the House must ask the question: why was that formula given virtually unanimous approval in September? Why did it emerge as the only focus of ministerial consideration this summer? Why was the Victoria formula of 1971 not that focus? Why did Premier Davis just the other day acknowledge that he understood the Victoria formula was no longer acceptable? What other generally agreed on formula has ever emerged over all the last several years of debate? The Vancouver consensus is the inescapable amending formula in 1980 for this country. It is the only formula that seeks harmony in the federalism of Canada and allows unity in the national life of this country.
The Constitution
247
[Translation] The Vancouver formula applies to the realities of the day and will allow us to build the Canada of tomorrow. At present, it provides the constitutional changes may be made with the consent of Parliament and two thirds of the provinces comprising at least 50 percent of the population. However, if the amendment approved by the required majority concerns first, the powers of a provincial legislature to make laws, second the rights and privileges granted or guaranteed by the constitution to the legislature or the government of a province, third the assets or property of a province or fourth, the natural resources of a province, dissenting provinces may dissociate themselves from the amendment which would not apply in their case. [English] I want to emphasize that among those advantages of the Vancouver formula—I draw this to the attention of my colleagues in the New Democratic Party—there is a clear guarantee of natural resource jurisdiction. It is not a guarantee which can be overriden by a referendum triggered unilaterally without any other cause than the will of the Prime Minister. It is a guarantee that will endure. It is a guarantee that provinces can count on unless they choose themselves to surrender or to modify that situation. The words which I have just used to describe that proposal are drawn from the report to the first ministers by the continuing committee of ministers on the constitution, a committee which I must say was ably co-chaired by the hon. Minister of Justice and by the attorney general of Saskatchewan. There remained some details to work out, especially concerning how to deal with amendments of universal applicability, which cannot be subjected to opting out, whether constitutional provision should be made for the financial implications of opting out of amendments. Those are details. Those are details which can be dealt with. The Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) and the Minister of Justice propose to use closure to stop Parliament from debating a matter when the government spokesmen have out-numbered the spokesmen of the official opposition. The Minister of Justice is skeptical that we can work out those details. I have faith in Canada. I have faith in the capacity of Canadians to work out those details.
248
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
Some hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Clark: What is more, I believe Canadians should be given the chance. Why leave the decisions to the British? We are an independent, sovereign country. I want us to act like Canadians, not like colonials. This provision would allow us to do that. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Clark: Various proposals were suggested in the continuing committee’s report, and it seems clear that final agreement was clearly within reach with no fundamental issue of principle threatening to polarize or divide opinion. In our view those final stages of negotiation could be completed in short order. No participant in the September conference has suggested otherwise. Perhaps the Minister of Justice will today, but it will be the first time because he has not suggested otherwise before, nor have the representatives of the premiers. We do know that the Prime Minister himself was prepared to accept the Vancouver consensus if—and he applied a condition—he got agreement for his package of constitutional changes. And I cannot believe that he would have taken that position concerning an amending formula that was neither sensible nor workable. He was bargaining with it. He was bargaining with the Vancouver formula but, by being prepared to bargain with it, he knew that if his bluff was called, if there was agreement with this price, then he would have to deliver on the package. So clearly on the question of principle, on the question of the merits, the Prime Minister of Canada himself accepts the Vancouver amending formula, as did every other first minister at that table in September. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Clark: Indeed, the government’s leaked memo is at pains to list several advantages to the formula, advantages to Canada, and to minimize the disadvantages. One disadvantage, which the Prime Minister has talked about since that time, is that the opting-out formula might lead to what he calls a checkerboard effect. On page 28 of that leaked memo it said: No amendment could be made without the consent of Parliament. So there would be a federal check on any checkerboard effect that might be brought about by “opting out”: that is Parliament or the government could decline to proceed with an amendment where the provinces did not all agree.
The Constitution
249
Finally, the government’s advisers from the Department of Justice contend that—and again I read from page 29 of the document: —if the provincial consensus (on the Vancouver formula) … holds, the federal government could consider joining the majority position.
That was the secret advice, the secret decision of the Government of Canada prior to the first ministers’ conference. Why will they not accept in public what they accepted in secrecy? Why will they not let Parliament act today on a formula which they were prepared to accept in September? What has changed? Why do they want to stop Parliament from acting now to have our constitution here in Canada where we, in Canada, can work on it? The secret document went on to suggest appropriate arrangements on the side of details referred to earlier. We know now that the provincial consensus on the Vancouver formula did hold. But the Prime Minister would not agree to join that clear consensus without agreement on his package. It was then the Prime Minister who stopped agreement. As I said earlier, no partner in our federation should now hold all of Canada up to ransom for their own hidden agenda items. The way lay open in September to patriation with the Vancouver formula. It lies open now. And beyond that achievement, which could be finalized in all stages in a matter of weeks, lies the prospect of having the means here in Canada for Canadians to amend our constitution, free from hidden agenda, free from veto, free from referenda, which could override the provinces and destroy the nature of the federal system, and free from blockage. I believe we have a great opportunity here today to make the most out of unusual circumstances. There is great hope among the people of Canada that we can get an agreement on constitutional change. I remember going into the province of Quebec during the referendum campaign and speaking sincerely about the need for constitutional renewal. I know the attitude in western Canada, the region of Canada from which I come. I know there is a deep sense there that change is needed. I know that in every corner of this land there is a determination to end the colonial system that leaves our constitution in another country and that permits decisions affecting us to be taken by another government. There is a desire to have Canadians act, not only to bring our constitution home but to have it here where we can work with it. The Prime Minister has amendments that he wants. The Leader of the NDP has amendments that he wants and I have amendments that I
250
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
want. Premiers have amendments that they want. They can all be dealt with here in Canada and they can be dealt with in accordance with the Vancouver formula. I know I am approaching the end of my allotted time, and so I will conclude by saying that everyone in Canada wants to have constitutional change. Everyone in Canada wants to have our constitution here at home. The reason there is opposition to the government proposal is that they want to have Britain make changes which we believe should only be made here in Canada. They want to continue a colonial status which we want to end. But instead of holding up the House of Commons in debate, our party is today proposing a means by which the Parliament of Canada can act to bring the Constitution of Canada home, to be amended in Canada. It can be done if there is a will in the House of Commons to do it. I pray that there is that will, so that Canadians can change our own constitution here in our own country. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!
Meech Lake Accord House of Commons Debates 20 June 1990 34th Parliament, 2nd Session: Volume 10, 13055–13058 Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs): Mr. Speaker, let me begin, if I may, with the words uttered by my friend from Churchill as he concluded. He is, as he knows, a member whom I respect in the House. He said that the work of the last three years has been wasted. I think that is precisely the question that we are debating here tonight, whether or not the work of the last three years has been wasted. I think that there is a genuine feeling throughout this House that it would not just be a shame, it could almost be a tragedy if that work were wasted. There has been talk here, rather to my surprise, of bullying and of blame. As someone who has been involved in these discussions and these negotiations, and who is not myself blameless, I can certainly say that if blame were our purpose I could give you a list as thick as the Toronto telephone directory of people to whom blame can be ascribed. But surely that is not our purpose because that takes us nowhere. What we want to do now in these last hours of this debate is find some way which we can bring Canadians together to achieve, not an end, but
The Constitution
251
to achieve a beginning, first, of constitutional renewal but then, and I think this is a much larger question, the beginning of a process of national renewal because none of us who has lived these last months can doubt that there are profound problems in this country that go beyond disagreements that arose in a particular negotiation among First Ministers. These are the last hours of this debate. It is a question that is of fundamental importance to the whole country. By the turn of events the last debate will occur not in this Parliament but in the legislatures of Manitoba and Newfoundland and Labrador. I certainly do not take my place in this Chamber to try to lecture the elected members of those two legislatures. I know better than that. I tend to share something of the view of my colleague from Churchill with regard to the counter-productivity of one legislature trying to lecture another legislature. It is not any more helpful in politics than it is in other aspects of life for people to undertake that sort of conduct. But, sir, I think it is, on this question that is so fundamental to the country, legitimate that we express our views in these final hours in the hope that our views might be useful to the individual members of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba and the individual members of the House of Assembly of Newfoundland and Labrador who have this final decision to take. Let me begin with four propositions which inform my approach to this crisis in our national life. First, I believe that we are the luckiest country, the luckiest people in this world. Some of that good fortune we have earned ourselves. Some of it was given by God or was earned by others before us who surely have a right to expect that we would treasure and respect what it was that we inherited. Second, there is an anger and a distemper in Canada that is more widespread that I can ever remember before. Hatred, sir, is not too strong a word for some of the emotions that I have seen and heard. Obviously, anger that strong reveals a frustration that is profound and that is personal and we must all ask ourselves seriously why people are so angry and what we need to do to rebuild the basic bonds of goodwill that any community needs to hold itself together. We cannot repair anger by blaming others for it, but if we do not repair that anger it will feed, it will grow and it will tear this country apart. Third, Meech Lake has become far more than a document signed by First Ministers. It is a symbol. More accurately, it is several symbols. For Canadians who oppose it, it is a symbol of something they dislike—a
252
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
process, a government, a perceived unfairness; for some, unfortunately, a people. For the wider world it is a symbol of the stability of Canada, whether we are a country the world can count on or a risk. For many Quebecers the symbol is direct and it is personal. Acceptance or rejection of Meech Lake is seen as acceptance or rejection of Quebec; not Quebec as the author of five conditions, not Quebec as a participant in an amending process, but Quebec as a partner in this country. I have heard opponents of Meech Lake tell me that if Meech Lake is rejected Quebecers would be angry for a while and then would forget. Well, sir, I do not believe that. Of course, I can be wrong, as we all can. But I have spent three decades in national affairs trying to understand what makes our different communities work and work together. All of that experience tells me that this rejection of Quebec as a partner in Canada would damage this country permanently. I have no right to decide for others, but I pray that Canadians whose decisions might affect Meech Lake would consider my view and would consider the consequences if I happen to be right. The fourth proposition concerns aboriginal rights which appears to be the issue which was causing people to urge Elijah Harper to stop constitutional reform. I have some history on the question of aboriginal rights. In 1973, Flora MacDonald, Frank Howard and I moved a motion that caused the first acceptance by a parliamentary committee of the concept of the legitimacy of aboriginal title. I have been involved throughout my public life with native people. I simply cannot understand the logic which says Meech Lake must be killed in order to advance aboriginal rights. Killing Meech Lake has the opposite effect. It makes action on aboriginal rights more difficult to achieve. Aboriginal interests are, by definition, constitutional interests. If there is a constitutional impasse, nothing will be done on aboriginal rights. That is not theory, that is history, that is recent history. That is what happened when we tried to deal with aboriginal rights in 1985 and did not have the votes because Quebec, which would have voted for change, was not a part of the Constitution. The only way to make progress on aboriginal rights, on Senate reform or on the other priorities agreed to by the First Ministers is to start with what we have. To reject Meech Lake is to reject progress on aboriginal rights. Anyone who takes that action should be fully aware of the consequences.
The Constitution
253
Sir, I can fully understand why the National Citizens Coalition would act against aboriginal interests, but I cannot understand why Indian leaders themselves would do that. [Translation] Mr. Speaker, the situation is critical. There is not much time left. But there is still time to succeed if we really want to. Meech can still be signed by Manitoba and by Newfoundland and Labrador. It is not over yet. In the last three years, many have said that Meech was dead. Yet, it made it to this day. Maybe there are still some nice surprises left in Meech, one last time! I wish it were so with all my heart, for our greater benefit and for the benefit of our country, Canada. [English] Mr. Speaker, all of us watched, some of took part in that long discussion of seven days and seven nights. The most poignant moment on that ninth of June was when the pen passed to premiers whose earlier positions had put the Meech Lake Accord in doubt. Those premiers, Mr. McKenna, Mr. Filmon and Mr. Wells put their pen to paper at the end of the day, and in so doing demonstrated the best of Canadian qualities. They had travelled far, they had strong views, principled positions and deep concerns. But in the overriding interests of keeping this country together—and I trust that is the overriding interest of all members of this House—they compromised, and all First Ministers compromised. They vowed to take Meech Lake back home, to put it to the representatives of their peoples and to let democracy take its course. Other societies and other countries do it differently. They deny legitimacy to the concept of compromise. They do not accept that different parts of their societies can hold different things to be true. They prefer to resolve their differences through fiat or through fighting. That is not Canada. That is not the unique achievement which is admired around the world without reservation or without caveat. That has not been our experience, and it never can be if we wish Canada to continue. Eleven days ago, eleven First Ministers made a solemn pledge to each other, to the Canadian people and to future generations. The three Canadian premiers who had travelled so far promised to use every means at their disposal to allow their people to decide on their Constitution. That was eleven days ago. Three days from today, Meech Lake will pass
254
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
into history. It will either pass into history as a moment when Canada came to terms with itself and decided to move forward, recognizing that, of course, all was not perfect, but the perfection could not be approached until the country was whole once again. Or it will pass into history as a serious step backward for our country. As was indicated in debate earlier today, and as I believe Premier Wells has now indicated, Newfoundland will vote, either tomorrow or on Friday in the House of Assembly. As the House knows, debate has now begun in the Legislature of Manitoba. That debate was delayed longer than anyone anticipated by procedural difficulties. The fact of that unanticipated and procedural delay has created a special situation that nobody anticipated. There was a commitment to make every effort to ensure that the agreement reached, after careful compromise and discussion in the best Canadian tradition, would be moved through the legislatures of the respective provinces. It is clear that the country is counting on that. Just as procedural moves delayed debate in Manitoba, so surely procedural ways can be found to move debate forward so that the word of the three leaders of Manitoba can be honoured and so that the country can move forward to other priorities, whether those priorities are constitutional or whatever they are. Just prior to the conclusion of the last conference on the Constitution in Ottawa, I spent two days in Europe in separate meetings with the foreign ministers of NATO and of the Helsinki process. Naturally, whatever point I tried to make in advancing the foreign policy of Canada, I was asked about Canada’s problems at home. I was asked by incredulous ministers from Hungary, Germany, the United States, United Kingdom, and Yugoslavia. They could not believe that a country as envied and respected as Canada would put itself at risk, and particularly, that we would put ourselves at risk over the question of how we deal with different cultures. Because that is the signature of Canada, that is the success that is admired around the world, the success the new governments in Czechoslovakia, a united Germany, and a new South Africa, will want to copy. Nelson Mandela left Canada this morning. I had the privilege of bidding him bon voyage. He spoke to this House and to the people of Canada of his hopes for his people. He spoke of a country which would discover tolerance and compromise, which could learn to live in unity, which could consecrate itself anew as a nation among the leading de-
The Constitution
255
mocracies of the world. He spoke of the bitterness, the intolerance, the hatred and the prejudice which have governed South Africa. He spoke of Canada as a society to be admired, a concept which inspired him as he faced the enormous challenges which lie ahead. Nelson Mandela was right. What we have achieved here has been achieved nowhere else on this earth. We are a society of many cultures, many regions, many races. It is a society that has always said yes to compromise and no to intolerance. It is a society which says that different cultures, different regions and different races can more than co-exist; they can thrive and prosper in community with diversity. The history of this remarkable land has been a continuous act of affirmation. We can never forget that the existence of this country was not a given, that the building of Canada has been a task accomplished against the greatest odds; geographic, economic and demographic. Tending the community that is Canada requires great care. How ironic it would be, how wasteful if, at a time when the rest of the world was thrusting forward with vision, the people of this country were to turn away from our strength and our future. The Parliament of Canada has spoken. The Parliaments of eight provinces of Canada have spoken. The premiers of all provinces are committed to letting their people speak. Let that process proceed. Let history judge the results. Let us pray for Canada. Then, together we must define new shared goals for Canada which reflect the new realities of this new world in which we live. Everywhere in this world, there are dramatic changes that shake old conceptions and raise new hopes. People everywhere are hoping to become what we are. That is the reality. There are serious differences in this country. There are serious issues to resolve. We have to find ways to define this country that make sense to all of its people. We have not yet succeeded in doing that. That is what the bitterness of these recent months has demonstrated. In doing that, if we succeed we can preserve one of the most respected nations in the world. That is the issue now. This is the challenge that faces us, the legislature of Manitoba and the House of Assembly of Newfoundland and Labrador who have the right of the final vote to decide the future of this accord, of this process, in many ways perhaps of this country. The next step is for them. I say this as only one member with some experience here; the work is not over for us. Then the challenge to all of us is to recognize that this country is not as united as it needs to be, that the goals we have set for
256
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
ourselves are not as contemporary as they need to be, that the definition of this nation does not mean as much as it should to people in different parts of the country. This is not something which should not cause us to lay blame or to distribute retribution. It should be a challenge to us all, to get on with the redefinition of this extraordinary country. But I fear deeply that, if we fail in the challenge that is before us now, we will not have the opportunity to move to that new agenda.
National Unity and the Quebec Referendum House of Commons Debates 21 May 1980 32nd Parliament, 1st Session: Volume 2, 1264–1267 [Translation] Right Hon. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition): Madam Speaker, I wish to begin my remarks in the House today by congratulating Mr. Claude Ryan and all the members of his team who won yesterday an important victory for Canada after an honest and strong campaign which showed a deep faith in Canada’s future. I also want to commend the role played by my friend, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chrétien), by the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and by all other members who were directly involved in Quebec by their actions or by their remarks in this House during the referendum period. [English] I think that it would be well too to underline that many of the Quebecers, many of the 40 per cent who voted for the “Oui” yesterday in the referendum, were people who were not at all lost to the federalist cause. Many of those who allied themselves proudly and enthusiastically with the “Oui” option did so because, for one reason or another, they had come to lose faith in the force of federalism. I believe we can prove that that faith should not be abandoned among those Quebecers and among others. I believe it is important for Canadians across the country to know that a large number of the 40 per cent who voted for the “Oui” option yesterday are people who can be won back to federalism.
The Constitution
257
I think that we, particularly in this House, and those who serve in governments across the country, should recognize that the obligation is very heavy upon all of us to take a role of leadership in reaching out to those who, for a moment, lost faith in the viability of the federal system and to prove to them by our actions that there is a great deal of room for growth, a great deal of room for their aspirations as Quebecers and as Canadians, to be realized within the context of a broad, large land. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Clark: Also if I may, I want to commend the Prime Minister for acting so quickly after the referendum to set in train activities which will move us quickly toward real progress on the development of a new constitution for the country. I am pleased that the Minister of Justice and Minister of State for Social Development (Mr. Chrétien) will be visiting provincial governments. I would hope that he will not forget to visit the governments of the territories. Mr. Neilsen: Right on. Mr. Clark: In any consultations that carry forward, and in any machinery that is established, I hope there will be an opportunity for the elected members of the Yukon and Northwest Territories Council to play a full and an active role in those discussions. We are dealing with circumstances now which have never before existed in Canada. [Translation] First of all, as the right hon. Prime Minister said during the referendum campaign, the main federal political parties, my party, the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada, as well as the Liberal Party of Canada, have both solemnly committed themselves to a renewed Canadian federalism. The same commitment was made by the provincial premiers who were unanimous in denouncing the status quo. We were sincere in making that commitment and I am confident that the Prime Minister and his provincial colleagues were every bit as sincere as I was when they called for a renewal of the Canadian federation. Madam Speaker, we must make the best possible use of the climate of sincerity and good will that now exists throughout Canada, and see to it that our common objective, a renewed Canadian federalism, is achieved.
258
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
[English] The second circumstance that is new is that, for the first time in a long time, it is my view the public of Canada are now interested in constitutional reform. There is a genuine feeling on the part of Canadians, in whatever province, territory or region of this country, that it is time to bring our constitution up to date with the realities of a modern country. That is true and that is important. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Clark: Finally, a third circumstance that has changed and is significant is that this country, Canada, has changed in the last 20 years. It has changed dramatically. It has changed to the point where old constitutional arrangements no longer fit. In my view it is this last point which perhaps is most important—the old constitution no longer fits the modern country. That is true not just in Quebec but in other parts of Canada where real and profound changes have occurred in the last 20 years. We are not dealing now with an academic matter or a question of interest only to governments. We must bring our way of governing Canada into line with the modern realities of the country. Constitutional forms are an important part of that process. We need a new constitution. I welcome the commitment made by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice which was reaffirmed here today. It is a commitment, which I share, to a new constitution for Canada. We need a constitution that is located here in our country, a constitution that can be amended here in our country, a constitution that guarantees certain fundamental rights, and a constitution that articulates a sharing of powers that is appropriate to a diverse federal country. We now have a climate where that can be achieved. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Clark: But I make the point that more than the law and more than the constitution is at issue here. There must also be a positive attitude among citizens and among governments, an attitude which is consistent with the changes in law and the changes in form. Among the citizens of Canada there is developing an attitude of respect for fellow Canadians of different backgrounds and a growing pride in the diversity and the strength of the Canadian family.
The Constitution
259
[Translation] Perhaps I can speak more specifically of the changes that now exist in Quebec, that exist in the so-called Anglophone community in the rest of Canada, because I am very much impressed by the deep changes achieved outside Quebec especially with regard to the aspirations of the Quebec people and the respect for the French language throughout Canada. There has been a change, a new respect upon which we can build a great country in the future. [English] I must say, however, that while those attitudes have changed among the citizens of the country, it is not so clear that attitudes among governments have changed. I think it is important that we address that question frankly here today. I want to take the opportunity, in the climate of good will and of near celebration that exists in this House today after the referendum results, to point out to the Prime Minister that it would be futile for the Government of Canada to be seeking to draw provinces together to discuss constitutional change if, at the same time, the actions of Ottawa on other fronts were driving provinces and people apart. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Clark: I think we all know that the sense of being a nation is influenced as much by conduct as it is by constitutions. The success of renewal will be based upon genuine respect for the other partners in confederation. It would be both unwise and irresponsible for the Government of Canada, or for the governments of the provinces, to perpetuate an attitude of confrontation, or to seek to resolve legitimate differences by methods which erode trust or make co-operation impossible. Hopefully yesterday’s referendum in Quebec will provide very real impetus to the process of change and renewal. But the desire—indeed it is more than a desire—the demand for change is not simply a matter of that referendum and indeed not simply a matter of that province. It is a desire shared by all of the provinces and virtually all of the people of Canada. That fact must be reflected in the agenda for change which this government now has a responsibility to place before the country. It must be truly a Canadian agenda not simply an Ottawa agenda, a Quebec agenda, an Alberta agenda or a Newfoundland agenda. Other provinces and other regions have specific proposals for change to
260
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
which they are equally committed as Quebecers are, and which they have a right to expect will be debated openly and honestly by all involved in the process. Certainly patriation, an amending formula, and entrenchment of rights are legitimate subjects … more than the constitution is at issue here. There must also be agenda, but so is resource jurisdiction, including offshore resources, so is communications policy, and so are proposals to make some national institutions more effective and more representative of regional realities and regional needs. It is not simply that we have before us a rare opportunity, a rare atmosphere of openness and good will, within which to address the whole Canadian agenda. It is equally that we simply will not achieve a genuine or lasting consensus if some parts of this country or some regions of Canada feel their needs are excluded from the Canadian agenda or are given secondary status in national debate and negotiation. [Translation] I was encouraged by the remarks of the right hon. Prime Minister when he said earlier today that except for the basic principles he mentioned, all the other matters are negotiable because, to my mind, that commitment is essential to the future of the constitutional renewal process, since hon. members of the House of Commons and the Canadian people throughout the land view differently some of the constitutional proposals. [English] For example, I believe the Prime Minister and I have different views about the contribution to Canadian unity of the consciousness of being a people like the Quebecers, or of being a region like the west, or of being a province. I have a sense that he is concerned that these more local loyalties will drain strength from the larger community. I believe they are a source of strength. Some members of his party agree with me; probably some members of mine agree with him. But, that question must be addressed openly by all sides. We cannot let our work be limited by the prejudices of a Prime Minister or a Leader of the Opposition, or anyone else. We are agreed on the framework of the federal system. The people of Quebec yesterday in a massive and dramatic way indicated their agreement with a federal framework, and now we must build and go where the facts of modern Canada lead us in giving flesh and form to that federal system.
The Constitution
261
Some hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Clark: The Prime Minister has indicated his intention to consult leaders of other parties here, and I welcome that. I want to anticipate that consultation and make publicly one suggestion that I think should be very much on the agenda of change. As the Prime Minister and as the House know, one of our weaknesses as a country so far has been our failure, at least to this date, to develop national institutions which genuinely command the respect of the whole country. Some progress has been made. I believe progress was made by the late Right Hon. Lester Pearson and his government with the introduction of the Canadian flag. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Clark: I am delighted to learn that today a Standing Order 43 motion moved by my colleague, the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle), regarding a national anthem for this country, was accepted. But, Madam Speaker, we sit here today in one Canadian institution, the only one that has live and genuine roots in every corner of this land. Parliament itself can become the strongest genuine national institution, but it will not have strength until it has real power, and the tendency of the last several years has been to take power from Parliament and to concentrate it in parties, or concentrate it in government. When we were the government, as the House knows, we introduced proposals for parliamentary reform which were designed specifically to increase the influence of individual members of Parliament, and consequently to expand both the range of advice available to government, and the respect available to this institution. I would hope that the Prime Minister will recognize that one of the ways to connect the parts of this country to the whole of this country—one of the ways to ensure a genuine sense of the Canadian nation—will be to strengthen the most representative and national of our institutions, the House of Commons itself. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Clark: I said frequently during the referendum campaign that the referendum itself was a question for Quebecers to decide, but that the work of constitutional renewal was the work of all Canadians. Yesterday’s vote in Quebec ended the referendum campaign, but it did not end the demand in Quebec for change; in fact, it reinforced it vividly and reinforced it dramatically. That referendum cannot and should not
262
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
be used to silence the aspirations of Quebecers, for in fact it was an expression of faith and an expression of those aspirations. For the rest of Canada the vote yesterday was an expression of pride and belief in this country in which we can all joyfully share. It represents a demand for change in which Canadians have every reason to join and, indeed, which other Canadians have articulated in other ways for reasons of their own, or reasons relating to their own situations. That result in Quebec should be used, if I might employ that term, not to frighten or divide Canadians, and I am happy that there is no hint of that today, but to unite Canadians in a common determination to build a renewed federation which can make this a stronger country, a richer country, and a better country in years ahead. That common determination, Madam Speaker, exists among Canadians; of that I am totally confident. Indeed, as is so often the case, in a very real sense constitutional renewal is catching up to the attitude of Canadians. Canada already has changed and the people of Canada know it. It has changed for the better in our new strengths and our new maturity. What is demanded now; what is fairly and justly demanded of all of us, particularly in this House, is a political system, a federal system, that recognizes the change that is about us, and shapes that change to the betterment of all of Canada. The vote which took place yesterday, May 20, was but a date in a continuing process. It was by no means an end but a beginning, and now it is up to us in this Parliament and in the Parliaments of the territories and the provinces of Canada to implement the changes which are being sought by Canadians all across this country.
The Constitution
263
Repatriation of the Constitution House of Commons Debates 23 April 1981 32nd Parliament, 1st Session: Volume 9, 9442–9446 Right Hon. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to find the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) involved in debate. He usually comes in when the government is in trouble. I have heard the Deputy Prime Minister speak very aggressively, very much on the offensive and very much on the defensive. I find it very hard to recall a time when his speech was more lined with defensive comments than was the case in the remarks he made in the House today. They have a great deal to be defensive about. We are meeting now at the end of one phase of this debate. I must say for my party that we enter this phase of the debate with some pride, because we have waged a fight which has kept this question Canadian. The plan of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) was to have this measure out of Canada by Christmas, to have it decided in Britain before Canadian courts could consider its legality and before Canadian opinion could consider its propriety. As we all know, this Parliament or this institution exists to enact and improve good measures and to stop or delay bad measures. My party and I are proud of the work we have done in having Parliament delay and improve this resolution. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Clark: It is very clear that this most basic Canadian question about our own Constitution remains in Canadian control today only because the Progressive Conservative party stood and fought in the House of Commons and in the country. We have not yet won the war to protect Canada’s federal institutions, although we have made it possible for that war to be won, but we have demonstrated the strength of Canada’s parliamentary institutions. The government used every available instrument, from media manipulation to dishonesty about our diplomatic exchanges, to bulldoze this measure through. This party, with no help at all from the New Democratic Party, proved that Parliament is strong enough to stop bad measures being forced down the throats of the people of Canada. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!
264
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
Mr. Clark: There is one other aspect of this phase of the debate of which I am particularly proud. At a time when Quebec is questioning whether it can find a full future in Canada, the Progressive Conservative party, whose greatest strength is outside Quebec, defended and argued the cause of Quebec when its own elected members chose to be silent. Quebecers have reason to question the wisdom of trusting the Liberals, but, more important, they have proof now that Canadians other than Quebecers, from Alberta, Ontario, Newfoundland and elsewhere in our Canadian family, share and are prepared to fight for the federal principles which are essential to the survival of Quebec and Canada. The Liberal party may betray Quebec, but Canada will not betray Quebec. [Translation] I deeply regret the discipline which the Liberal party has forced upon the elected members of Quebec who, unfortunately, do not speak on behalf of that province in this House. Only the Liberal member for Montmorency (Mr. Duclos) has had the courage to put the interests of his province ahead of the instructions of his party. Mr. Lalonde: Shame! Mr. Clark: The minister says shame. Indeed it is a shame for the members from the province of Quebec to abandon their electors just as the Liberal members have abandoned the electors of the province of Quebec. What an ordeal for the people of Quebec who see the members they have sent to Ottawa to represent their interest, who see their own members remain silent or behave like sheep instead of rising against a measure which threatens the federal system, a system which is so important for Quebecers and for the province of Quebec. Is it not ironic that all members of the National Assembly decried this measure, that all the provincial parties denounced this measure? And yet the members who were sent to Ottawa to make sure that federalism would enable Quebec to grow within the Canadian family, those members do not utter a single word against a measure which undermines federalism, genuine federalism. [English] I recall that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chrétien) used to entertain
The Constitution
265
thoughts about going to the province of Quebec to win a provincial election. Well, he has done that; he and his Prime Minister, by pushing this measure through, have gone to the province of Quebec and have won an election. They won it for René Lévesque and against Claude Ryan. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Clark: It is well for us to review what is at issue here. This resolution proposes bringing our Constitution home; that is a goal which everyone supports. It proposes a means to change the Constitution when it is at home, and everyone agrees that we need an amending formula, an amending process. It proposes a charter of rights, which all parties in Parliament support. Those are the goals. But the issue is that the government has determined to pursue those goals in a way which ignores Canadian history, which abandons Canadian practice, which may violate Canadian law, and which very seriously threatens the future of a united Canada. The Supreme Court of Canada will decide the narrow legal question, although it is worth noting that the Liberal government tried every trick in the book to keep that Canadian question from going before a Canadian court. The legal question is important and it is legitimate. My colleagues and I are pleased that the government failed in its attempt to deny Canadian courts the right to decide the Canadian legal question. However, the court is only part of the process. The court can tell us whether this resolution is legal according to past law and past practice; but only we in this Parliament can decide whether it is good law and good practice for the future of Canada. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Clark: That is a decision for legislators, not for judges. The Supreme Court will decide whether the federal government now has the power unilaterally to change the Constitution in areas of direct provincial jurisdiction. Our decision in this Parliament is whether we want future federal governments to have that power, for that will be the effect of passing this resolution in its present form and through the present process. The Parliament of Canada will be asserting, as the newest and strongest precedent for future courts, that we have the power exclusively and arbitrarily to change any parts of the Constitution we want to change. That is the underlying principle of this measure and of this
266
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
process, and it rips the heart out of a federal system. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Clark: That is not just my view. That is also the view of distinguished Canadian Liberals, who sit among other places in the Senate, where they exercise more freedom to speak their minds. I want to draw to the attention of the House and read into the record the comments, for example, of the former Liberal leader in the province of Ontario, Senator Andrew Thompson, who said on March 2, 1981: Putting it bluntly and simply, my question is: are we keeping our word; are we breaking the rules by which we agreed to govern ourselves in the federation? No matter how noble and worthy the purpose of this resolution—and I believe that what we are trying to achieve is worthy—the end does not justify the means.
[Translation] Here is what former Liberal minister the Hon. Jean-Paul Deschatelets had to say, and I quote: This unilateral project goes against and negates everything in which I have believed, which I have supported and endorsed in all my years in Parliament. If Parliament agrees that we need an amending formula, an amending formula as it remains in its present form, I shall not be able to support it. In my opinion, this unilateral proposal threatens to break up, for all practical purposes, the balance of powers which has always existed between our two levels of government.
That is the opinion of a Liberal Senator, Mr. Deschatelets. [English] Then I quote the remarks made last month by Senator George McIlraith, who served with such distinction for so long in this House, including as House leader on the government side: I have served in Parliament now for the past 41 years. During that time the governments have been headed by five Prime Ministers. I have been a Liberal all my adult life. All of the political leaders I noted earlier in my remarks were leaders I respected and ad-
The Constitution
267
mired. With the exception of Sir Wilfrid Laurier and the Honourable Hugh Guthrie—whom I merely met but could not say I knew—they were friends of mine. Were they all wrong? Were all the leaders of the Liberal party in the past three-quarters of a century totally wrong, or could it be that our present government is wrong in taking a diametrically opposed course of action to the one all those leaders thought necessary and proper? Could it be that the present government is wrong in this attempt to make these basic amendments to our Constitution unilaterally, with a bare majority in the federal Parliament? I want patriation but I cannot acquiesce in the wrong and dangerous course we are being asked to follow in most of the proposed legislation before us. In the exercise of my responsibilities as a senator, I have no alternative but to vote against this resolution in its present form.
Thus spoke Senator McIlraith. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Stevens: A great Canadian! Mr. Clark: The Prime Minister has not listened to the Liberals in the Senate. He has not listened to the member of Parliament for Montmorency-Orléans (Mr. Duclos). He has not listened to Claude Ryan. He has not listened to Gordon Gibson. He has not listened to the long list of others in his party who are offended by what he is saying and what he stands for. He has not listened to the elected premiers of the eight provincial governments who oppose his measure. He rejected our proposal in the fall to bring the Constitution home with the Vancouver formula. He rejected our proposal to split the resolution and to send the charter to the provinces for consideration. Now he indicates that he will accept none of the amendments we proposed to improve the charter of rights and respect the federal nature of Canada. Instead of treating the Constitution as though it belonged to the whole country, he has acted as though it is his alone, to change in ways that are his alone to choose. Some hon. Members: Shame, shame! Mr. Clark: The Liberal party lets him get away with it, as does the NDP, sitting complacently back while the constitutional measure which is one
268
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
man’s obsession is forced through this Parliament. I do not begrudge the Prime Minister his place in history, but I would like him to leave us a country to live in when he is gone. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Clark: It is that country which his measure and his method deeply threaten. He has one more opportunity now to prove that his concern is for the country and that his motive is national and not merely narrow and personal. [Translation] The Prime Minister now has a chance to do his duty as a Canadian statesman. He has at least six weeks ahead of the Supreme Court ruling, six weeks in which to try to achieve a consensus. Once the Supreme Court decision is handed down and if the latter asserts the legality of the resolutions, at least as far as its format is concerned, the order of the House will provide the Prime Minister with two days of debate in the House, followed by speedy action in the Senate, and this will conclude the consideration of this proposal by Parliament. This time frame has been set, and we accept it. But it also allows the Prime Minister, without any delay whatsoever, to follow up on the premiers’ initiative. In September, the ten premiers made him an offer. He failed to make a counterproposal. There are now eight premiers who are proposing a detailed amending formula. He does not have to accept it in toto. But we consider it a basis for serious round of discussions, in the same way that we consider the government resolution, including the charter of rights with the amendments we propose, as a basis for serious and reasonable discussions. I maintain that the Prime Minister of Canada has the duty to call a meeting and the right to draw up its agenda. Why will he not call such a meeting? Why will he not respect the federal system? What is he afraid of? He has just been rejected by the people of Quebec. Is he afraid to face the Premier who has just served him a good thrashing? The Prime Minister of Canada should not be afraid of such a meeting. If it does not lead to any agreement, he could then follow up on his resolution unless the court finds it illegal. And if there is an agreement on the procedure to follow with respect to a charter of rights, an amending formula, and perhaps the application of Section 133 to Ontario, he and Canada as a whole will have gained enormously.
The Constitution
269
The Prime Minister should put aside his personal vanity and take advantage of this opportunity to gain so much for Canada. He has the absolute obligation to call a first ministers’ conference. [English] We now have before us amendments from the three parties. I want to deal very briefly with the very skimpy amendments put forward by the Liberal party, by the government. Of course, they come in two batches: the official ones under the name of the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard), and the unofficial Liberal amendments in the name of the New Democratic Party. We want to congratulate the NDP on agreeing with our wording on equality for women in the amendment. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Clark: Of course we shall be voting for that, even though it is tied to a so-called “aboriginal rights” clause which merely requires the provinces to approve amendments to aboriginal rights. What of the official Liberal amendments? Because of our assistance and insistence, particularly that of the hon. member for Provencher, they are grudgingly putting the word “God” in the preamble to the charter. Not with the eloquent and inspiring wording from the Diefenbaker Bill of Rights, with accompanying references in that document, but not in this one, to “the dignity and worth of the human person and the position of the family in a society of free individuals and free institutions,” but instead, words inserted as an afterthought. This is what I find especially reprehensible: they are saying we can have a little bit of God if we accept their amending formula. They ask us to join them in making 70 per cent of the people of western Canada—the population of Alberta and B.C.—irrelevant so far as constitutional amendments are concerned. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Clark: They want us to join them in making those provinces third class in exchange for a reference to God. There is a better way to reflect the supremacy of God in the Constitution of Canada, and that is to accept the amendments in the name of my colleague, the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker). That package respects both God and the federal system. That is the way we should proceed in the Canadian
270
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
Parliament. The amendments which we put forward give proper recognition to the sovereignty of God, the worth of the person and, which is very important, the position of the family in a society of free individuals. The government rejects that approach. It rejects enshrining the right of Canadians to enjoy property. It wants to allow the courts to decide conscience questions for Canadians. It wants the courts to be free to bar Canadians from deciding laws on capital punishment and abortion. For months the government has talked about the tyranny of unanimity and has practiced the tyranny of unilateral action. In the amendments we have put forward, we have offered them a reasonable definition of consensus which we would join with them in supporting, a definition which includes seven provinces representing at least half the people of Canada, acting in concert with the Parliament of Canada. But the government is not interested in that. It is not interested because it does not want a Constitution or a charter of rights that anybody but the Liberals write. It deliberately keeps the charter hostage to a divisive process. It is trying to trade off rights for an amending formula. When the eight premiers met in Ottawa they all dropped their packages and their conditions. The Liberal government does not want to drop its conditions. A Quebec government finally agreed to patriation but the government says, “who cares?” The government wants its agenda in its way, in its time. We will have nothing to do with a process of that kind which is wrong. It is a process which is deeply wrong and is deeply divisive. This government’s preference and guiding star is to proceed unilaterally. It rejects proposals which respect the history and nature of Canada. The government invents new phrases to condemn the enduring realty of a diverse Canada. If “checkerboard” means that different standards apply at different times, at different places, that has always been the case in Canada. That, indeed, was the political principle that allowed medicare to begin in this country. The same principle allows Quebec to enjoy a different pension plan, allows Newfoundland to have a school system different from that of British Columbia, and Ontario a system different from that of Quebec. Some of those differences date from before confederation; others, such as the Newfoundland school system, were specific conditions of entry into confederation. Of course there are differences in Canada. That is our history. That is our nature. To condemn it is to condemn Canada.
The Constitution
271
Some hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Clark: Indeed, one of the most alarming elements of this highly centralist Liberal position is the underlying assumption that difference is dangerous. The Fathers of Confederation believed the opposite when they wrote a Constitution which protected local identities. So did the British parliament well before confederation when it wrote laws which guaranteed the distinct identity of the French Canadian society in Quebec. So do those of us who today celebrate the excitement of multiculturalism, which is the incarnation of difference or respect for diversity, or those of us who cheerfully work to learn a second official language. The Prime Minister and his colleagues like to suggest that they speak for Canada against the provinces. In fact, they speak for official Ottawa against Canada. The Prime Minister and the little clique that advises him will sometime learn, I hope, that there is a Canada beyond Ottawa, a Canada beyond official bilingualism, a Canada beyond a charter of rights. It is a Canada of diversity and emotion, of innovation and of proud identities. Those Canadians cannot all be shaped into the same mould. Mr. Speaker, they should not be, because were they so shaped they would lose the essence and value of this great and unique nation. Our speeches are limited to 30 minutes in this debate, but there is one brief theme that I want to touch on because this has been one other common theme in our history. I refer to the need to have a national feeling that unites us. We know that laws are not enough to unite Canadians; there has to be a feeling of nationality. It is one of the most bitter of ironies that the means the Liberals have chosen with which to impose the centralist view has weakened the Canadian feeling of common nationality. A Constitution which should have been the source of Canadians coming together and growing proud together has instead become the source of division in this country. That is entirely the fault of the way in which the government has proceeded. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Clark: When I hear the Prime Minister speak, as he does at length, and when I hear other members on the government side speak, one word recurs and that is the word “failure.” The Prime Minister speaks of 54 years of failure in constitutional negotiations. He speaks of failure with the premiers. Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister can find failure if he seeks it. The point that must be made is that we have also succeeded dramatically in this country. This has been a country of success when
272
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
governments sought success. It has been a country of agreement when governments and leaders sought agreement. We have faced much more complex questions in the past than some of the questions we face today regarding the Constitution. It was a far more complex matter for the Diefenbaker government to negotiate with the Sauvé government, a means by which federal funds could be made available to the province of Quebec. Yet that was done, overcoming decades of suspicion and reluctance, because there was a mutual will to make the federal system work. It was far more complex to introduce and have accepted a system of medicare across the country, but that was done. And the Canada Pension Plan was accepted across the country because there was determination to seek agreement to go forward. Therefore, when the former government in Ottawa was prepared to seek agreement on a national energy policy, we were able to achieve agreement, something which has eluded this government for 22 months. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. McDermid: The Prime Minister laughs. He has not been able to do it. Mr. Clark: There is a secret to this. There is bound to be failure when a government ignores the nature of this country and runs counter to its nature. We have succeeded in Canada when we have respected the nature of Canada. This proposal fundamentally attacks the basic federal nature of Canada. Even if it is upheld in the courts, it will create a legacy of bitterness and division. Mr. Trudeau: What about the flag? Mr. Clark: It is not necessary to go this way. We can bring our Constitution home. We can have a charter of rights. We can have an amending formula, and we can have it by agreement if we work within the Canadian tradition instead of abandoning it and if we follow the Canadian way to agreement. I urge the government to accept those amendments and, just as importantly, to accept the federal spirit which inspires those amendments. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!
The Constitution
273
The Charlottetown Accord House of Commons Debates 16 May 1991 34th Parliament, 3rd Session: Volume 1, 172–178 Right Hon. Joe Clark (President of the Privy Council and Minister responsible for Constitutional Affairs): Mr. Speaker, let me begin by expressing my congratulations to the member for Saint-Maurice and the member for Regina–Wascana for the excellent way in which they began this debate. This session of Parliament will be more important than most, perhaps more important than any before it. During this time, our country will either agree to go ahead or decide to close down. That determines our obligations today. As all the leaders in this House have said, this is not about the preferences of a party or the agenda of a government. The only agenda is Canada. That has never been a partisan purpose before and it will not be now. Those of us sitting here are far from perfect, as individuals or as a Parliament. Whatever our past failings, we are determined that we shall not fail Canada. I understand fully that the non-partisan approach requires the government to involve all of Parliament in basic decisions. That is why the Prime Minister stated explicitly yesterday our willingness to accept sensible proposals from any party or parliamentarian. That is why I began my new responsibilities by reaching out deliberately to Canadians who had felt excluded in the past—native leaders, northerners, western Canadians. We have an obligation to listen, to learn and to lead, and I know we must do all three if we are to succeed. No individual, party or government is going to compel Canada to continue. Canadians must decide whether we wish to keep our country. That is a decision for all of us. Elected members of this House have an extra obligation. We have to ensure that the issues are clear, that the stakes are understood, and that Canadians have the chance to consider every reasonable proposal to renew and to save this country. We will need a lot of help in that work. We cannot lock ourselves into old ways which Canadians no longer respect or trust. Neither should we lightly put aside our parliamentary process which has earned its legitimacy through 124 years of Canadian experience. Parliament needs to be reformed, not abandoned, and on behalf of the government I am prepared to consider any serious proposal any mem-
274
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
ber might make as to how we involve Canadians who are not elected. Involving them does not mean that we should step aside from our most basic responsibilities. None of us would deny that this country is in crisis. This crisis can also be an opportunity, a new beginning, a journey of liberation from the worst of our past and a freedom to build upon the best within all of us. I believe that Canadians across this country are beginning to see it that way too. They are beyond simple despair at how things have gone wrong, and are wondering how to help set things right. This is a time for this country to reflect on our past and get to know it, to reflect on our present and decide how to improve it, and to look ahead to our future to determine how best to achieve it together. [Translation] Mr. Speaker, our plan consists of four separate phases. Phase one is nearing its conclusion. By July 1, we will have received the reports of the Citizens’ Forum on Canada’s Future and the Special Joint Committee on the Process for Amending the Constitution of Canada. Both have done a good job, and the government will examine their conclusions with all the attention and care the views of Canadians deserve. The next step will be the tabling of a set of proposals on how to reform the country. These proposals will be detailed, they will be specific and they will be published. They will not remain in the private domain, known only to a chosen few. All Canadians will know our vision of the future. These proposals will not be final. However, during the third phase, Canadians will have a chance to tell us what they think. A joint committee of Parliament will meet Canadians across the country to hear their views. The committee will hold public hearings, not to discuss the country’s future in general but to discuss specific changes. The committee’s mission and purpose will be clear-cut. It will be asked to consider concrete proposals for constitutional change. It will seek comments from Canadians and make recommendations to the government. The committee will have discussions with committees or similar groups of members of the various provincial and territorial legislatures, on how they will proceed and the witnesses they wish to invite. This will be more than just a matter of joint hearings. It will be a full-fledged association. The resulting dialogue can then be used to build a national consensus.
The Constitution
275
[English] A major priority will be an intensive dialogue with the aboriginal community whose constitutional concerns must be addressed in this committee while simultaneously its economic and social concerns are the subject of a royal commission inquiry. In the final step, we expect Parliament will propose reforms that will set this country on a sound and sure course for the next century. In order to leave open as many options as possible, this House will be asked to pass legislation which would enable the people of Canada to express themselves directly in a referendum. It is not our preference nor is it our intention to seek to resolve complex, constitutional questions by way of referendum but we believe it is prudent for the federal government to have the full authority to conduct a Canadian referendum— Some hon. Members: Hear, hear. Mr. Clark (Yellowhead): —should that become the best way to achieve consensus on defining our future together. We are prepared to consider other methods of consulting Canadians, including any proposals that right come from the mixed committee, the Beaudoin-Edwards committee. I do not believe there has ever been a more open process put in place for the people of Canada to decide themselves the destiny of our country. I wish to turn to some of the tasks which I believe are in front of us in the months ahead. First, this time constitutional change must address several issues simultaneously. This cannot be a Quebec round, an aboriginal round or a Senate round. We have to make progress on many fronts together. This must be a Canada round. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear. Mr. Clark (Yellowhead): Second, we must be guided by a sense of both pragmatism. and history. We want a country that works well and works together in one of the most challenging periods in world history. The only way for our reforms to succeed is to respect the special nature of this country, including the objective reality that Quebec is a distinct society. Third, the country must get to know itself better. The stories which suffuse our history are extraordinary. They are stories of achievement,
276
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
of strength in the face of adversity, of a unity built on diversity. We do not tell those stories so we do not know them. Let us tell them again. Nostalgia will not hold this country together, but knowledge can. We need to know our history, but we also need to get to know each other better. In Yellowknife last week, Mayor Pat McMahon brought a few people together to talk to me about Canada. One woman observed of Canada, and I quote her: “Everybody feels misunderstood.” That says two things. First, misunderstanding is widespread but, second, for most of us the priority is to have others understand us. It is not a one way street. If we want to keep and build this country, citizens everywhere must work at understanding why other Canadians have priorities different from their own. Quebecers must try to understand why western Canadians feel that institutions like the Senate must be changed fundamentally. Western Canadians must try to understand why recognition of a distinct society is so important to Quebec. Those of us whose ancestors came to Canada from somewhere else must try to understand that aboriginal claims are about respect as much as they are about money. Fourth, there is a real desire in this country for information. Canadians want to base their decisions on evidence and not on ideology. They are ready to move beyond accusation to deliberation. They want to know what unity gives them. They want to know what taking away unity would leave. Sometimes I think we talk too much about our differences and too little about our common Canadian citizenship. I celebrate the diversity of this country, but the real strength of Canada is that we have made these different parts work together. That has required a basic respect for others that is not at all common in the world. We Canadians use our gifts of wealth and freedom to advance our neighbours’ interests, not just our own. That sense of duty to a larger community is evident everywhere in Canada. We have to make more of that common Canadian citizenship. [Translation] According to any standard, we, as Canadians, have accomplished a great deal. We are free, we are prosperous, we are tolerant and we are educated. Taken individually, these qualities are exceptional. Together, they have made Canada a country that is both unafraid to tread un-
The Constitution
277
charted paths and that cares for its people. Mr. Speaker, it cannot be repeated often enough that the integrity of Canadian values is part and parcel to the integrity of this country. Canadians did not choose the path of mutual respect because they felt like it but because our diversity implies the mutual respect of our component parts, so that our relations can be peaceful and productive. Canadians did not choose the path of tolerance because it was fashionable but because different cultures must work together if they are to survive. Mr. Speaker, most Canadians have other, more pressing concerns and priorities than changing the Constitution. They have to look after the education of their children, maintain their prosperity and keep their neighbourhoods safe and clean. However, they must also keep pace with the rest of the world. [English] People can unplug their phones, countries cannot. While we are deciding whether Canada should continue, other countries are moving forward without us. What price are we paying for quarrelling at home while others are focusing on the future? What price are we paying while others are preoccupied with innovating, educating, changing and competing? Unlike Peter Sellers’ last movie, countries do not succeed by just being there. I am not saying that Canada should stay together just because some accountant or economist might say it makes sense. Canada is not a corporate merger but being poor is no foundation for doing anything. I do not know of one economic argument which says that being smaller means being better. If there were such an argument, Europe would not be uniting. If there were such an argument, Asia would not be trading. If there were such an argument, Confederation would never have happened. Our ancestors would have seen a better life apart than they found together. If that was the decision in the middle of the 19th century, when the global economy had barely begun, how on earth can it be different now when the global village is at our doorstep, and at our doorstep forever. Whatever the options in the past, whatever the differences Canadians have had, our advantage in the future is to be together as one strong, large, effective country. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear.
278
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
Mr. Clark (Yellowhead): I believe we have time. In 1864, Confederation was constructed in four short months between the conference in Quebec City and the conference in Charlottetown. Although our problems may be more complex, surely we can begin to save a country in the time it took to build one. In 1865, George Brown, one of the Fathers of Confederation made a statement. He had not been a fan of Confederation, but he came to be a convert. He said, and I quote: We are endeavouring to adjust harmoniously greater difficulties than have plunged other countries into all the horrors of civil war. We are striving to settle forever issues hardly less momentous than those that have rent the United States of America, and are now exposing it to all the horrors of civil war. Have we not then great cause of thankfulness that we have found a better way for the solution of our troubles than that which has entailed in other countries, such deplorable results.
Canada is still the better way. The world knows it. Our ancestors knew it when they chose to come here from around the globe. Canadians know it today. It is our obligation to build that better way, not to discard it, knowing the value of our achievement and knowing that we can make it better still. Mrs. Coline Campbell (South West Nova): Mr. Speaker, the minister had a very effective speech. As he put the four stages of the process before us, it certainly cleared up some of the concerns I have and I am sure other people have. Having been on the Beaudoin-Edwards committee and knowing that everybody who came before us said that public participation was critical to the process, I had hoped the minister would come up with proposals that the public would have had a chance to discuss. I will ask about that again in my second question. But from that discussion, a new set of proposals, some reinforced or some discarded, and then more public participation after it had been looked at again. I am wondering if there is to be a two-stage public participation in the process. Second, I cannot believe that we have to wait until September to get the proposals. I think everybody in Canada knows that the Senate and Parliament have to be reformed. The Supreme Court could easily be, by bringing together the provinces to look at it. The distribution of powers
The Constitution
279
does not need unanimity. There was not one expert who said it was the Constitution that was to blame. They said it was the process that was used around Meech. There was not expert who did not point out that we had two amendments since the new Constitution was in place that passed, and only one failed. I just cannot believe, with the government having a majority here and in the Senate, that we cannot get together and reform the institutions within our own jurisdiction this summer. I do not know any Canadians, since I crossed Canada, who felt that we were giving them leadership, from this place down to the people, in the areas we have control over. The other thing is the power of spending. That is something that the government can talk about and talk about immediately. I do not believe that you can roll the dice, come February, to the Allaire or the BélangerCampeau committees and not have time next fall to undo it. I know the feelings out there and I am sure the minister is aware of the feelings right across Canada. There is a hope we can come together in Canada and redefine ourselves but I do think there is a lot that could be done immediately to make that process a lot easier. I am wondering if the minister would tell me why the proposals cannot be done, and some of the things done immediately. Mr. Clark (Yellowhead): There is no question about two realities concerning public opinion: One is that there is a profound cynicism about existing institutions, and each of us will attribute that to different origins, but there is no question about the reality of it. There is also no question about the fact that that, if we simply succumb to it, it is corrosive, that could be destructive of this country. What we have to do is not succumb to criticisms of our institutions but to prove that by reforming them we can make them work better. That cynicism is there and we have to take account of it. The second reality, flowing from the first, is that Canadians very much want to take part. Individual Canadians do, but so do some particular Canadian groups. The hon. member has been engaged in this process more intensively over the last few months than I have been but since any appointment to this portfolio I have, for example, made a point of meeting with native leaders, going to the north and speaking to people who see their interests not simply in terms of their own particular interest, but also in terms of the regions they represent or the groups from which they come. Speaking of public participation, we have two processes that end on
280
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
July 1. The hon. member is part of the joint committee and we have the Spicer committee. There was a lot of skepticism about the Spicer committee but I think that process has engendered a great deal of participation and a lot of originality across the country. Public consultation cannot stop. We all have obligations to carry it forward, and I have to find ways in which some of the work that was started by Spicer can be carried on. It is important that the next phase of public consultation not be about issues in general, but about specific proposals that can put things in a general context of reform. We are not talking here simply about changing institutions within the federal jurisdiction; we are talking about basic changes in Canada, including changes in the way we see ourselves and changes in attitude. There needs to be some over-all context within which we act and we are trying, hoping and expecting to have it ready for the fall. We expect to be able to put before this House in the fall an over-all position as to how these changes which we must pursue together can be put together to advance the country. Then the discussion, the next phase of public participation, will be a phase which will allow individual Canadians to focus specifically upon particular proposals placed in a Canadian context that have been put forward by the government. We will welcome amendments, changes and improvements in that process. We think that is the best way to take account of what is being done now and to ensure that Canadians have a constructive opportunity to help define the future of the country. The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski): The hon. member for Saanich– Gulf Islands. I would like to recognize the hon. member for Parkdale and also the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre and the hon. member for Shefford, but I only have six minutes. Ms. Lynn Hunter (Saanich–Gulf Islands): Mr. Speaker, I want to begin my remarks by congratulating the minister on his appointment to this portfolio and to wish him well. I hope that the esteem in which he is held in this country will bring a resolution. Having said that, he knows what is coming next. The remarks in his speech were well-suited. He talked about reaching out to those who felt excluded, and as a member of the Beaudoin-Edwards committee, that was the over-riding theme. I caution and urge him and all of us to have the political courage as politicians to step back from this issue, look at it and take the condemnation of the Canadian people sincerely.
The Constitution
281
We deserve it. This is a wonderful country we have, and we are at the risk of losing it. As you, sir, know better than most people, we have a wonderful country. People outside of this country are wondering what we are on about here when they are talking about issues of survival and here we are navel gazing. That criticism is real. It is very sincere. Please do not dismiss a constituent assembly made up of politicians and those who have felt excluded. Please do not exclude that option, because that is something that I think is a balance. Please do not exclude that. My second point is with respect to your reference to a Canadian referendum. Referenda have been divisive tools in Canada’s history. My question is: What do you think would constitute a majority? Would Quebec need to have its referendum on the same issue? The west? The north? The aboriginal people? This is the complexity. As one of the witnesses at the Beaudoin-Edwards committee hearings pointed out to the committee, any parliamentary reform is like a Rubik’s cube. You change one thing and the whole thing changes. We in this place have to have the wisdom to be able to see what those changes will bring. Mr. Clark (Yellowhead): Mr. Speaker, first, on a referendum. I have said publicly that in our view a referendum cannot be used to force any group of Canadians to do something that it does not want to do. We are in a situation in which the Government of Canada does not have the legal authority that we require for the kind of consultation that might become necessary as we seek to achieve the broadest possible consensus in the country. We are not introducing it because we intend to use it; we are introducing it because we think we may have need for it and we think it would be prudent to have that in place. With respect to the other question, I agree with the hon. member’s comment about the force of Canadian opinion. I do not intend to reject in advance anything that might be proposed by the Beaudoin-Edwards committee. Here is the challenge that I think we all have to look at in the next little while. We have a parliamentary system. It is heavily criticized, but it has served the country well for over a century. Churchill once called it the worst system of government in the world except for all the others and that reality continues. We have that base. How do we add to that base in this committee process to make all Canadians, particularly people who have felt excluded,
282
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
feel more a part of the process? I have some ideas. Some of the proposals put in the throne speech are regarding working with legislators from the territories and from the provinces. That has never been done before. That is an innovation that may be helpful. There are others we are prepared to consider, and I say very sincerely that I would very welcome practical proposals from any member of the House as to means in which we can combine the fundamental nature of a parliamentary committee with the necessity to involve people who felt excluded before.
A Man of Parliament Selected Speeches from Joe Clark
Edited by Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
Queen’s Policy Studies Series School of Policy Studies, Queen’s University McGill-Queen’s University Press Montréal & Kingston | London | Ithaca
Copyright © 2019 School of Policy Studies, Queen’s University at Kingston, Canada
School of Policy Studies Publications Program Robert Sutherland Hall 138 Union Street Kingston, ON K7L 3N6 www.queensu.ca/sps/ All rights reserved. The use of any part of this publication for reproduction, transmission in any form, or by any means (electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise), or storage in a retrieval system without the prior written consent of the publisher— or, in case of photocopying or other reprographic copying, a licence from the Canadian Copyright Licensing Agency—is an infringement of the copyright law. Enquiries concerning reproduction should be sent to the School of Policy Studies at the address above.
Library and Archives Canada Cataloguing in Publication Title: A man of Parliament : selected speeches from Joe Clark / edited by Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon. Other titles: Speeches. Selections Names: Clark, Joe, 1939- author. | Rose, Jonathan William, 1964- editor. | Mellon, Hugh, editor. | Queen’s University (Kingston, Ont.). School of Policy Studies, publisher. Series: Queen’s policy studies. Description: Series statement: Queen’s policy studies series | Includes bibliographical references. Identifiers: Canadiana (print) 20190120576 | Canadiana (ebook) 20190120797 | ISBN 9781553395164 (pbk.) | ISBN 9781553395447 (HTML) | ISBN 9781553395454 (PDF) Subjects: LCSH: Clark, Joe, 1939- | LCSH: Canada—Politics and government—1945-1980. | CSH: Canada— Politics and government—1979-1980. Classification: LCC FC625 .C58 2019 | DDC 971.064/5—dc23
Contents Note Acknowledgements Introduction
vii ix 1
Chapter 1 Milestone Speeches
23
First Speech as a Member of Parliament
26
First Speech as Prime Minister
31
Last Speech in the House of Commons
45
Chapter 2 Economic and Energy Policy
55
Energy Supply
57
Energy Policy Security and National Interest
67
Chapter 3 Federal-Provincial Relations
77
Building a Nation (Community of Communities)
80
Federal-Provincial Consultation on Energy Policy
83
The Export Tax
86
iv
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
Jurisdiction around National Parks
92
Regional Identity and Community Newspapers
95
Chapter 4 Parliamentary Supremacy
99
Parliamentary Reform
102
Powers of the Prime Minister’s Office
112
Economic Policy and Parliamentary Supremacy
120
Parliamentary Sovereignty and Powers of the Prime Minister
135
Multiculturalism and Accountability to Parliament
141
Partisan Uses of Public Money
143
Chapter 5 Foreign Affairs
151
Apartheid
154
Canadian Institute for International Peace and Security
158
The Invasion of Kuwait
171
Cambodia and the Khmer Rouge
180
The Aftermath of the Gulf War
184
Tiananmen Square
190
Panama
196
Chapter 6 Indigenous Relations
203
The Indian Act
205
Indigenous Affairs and the Constitution
210
Recognition of Aboriginal Rights
216
Contents v
Chapter 7 Openness
223
Secrecy in Government
225
Access to Information
230
Appointment Process for Civil Servants
231
Chapter 8 The Constitution
235
The Patriation of the Constitution
238
Meech Lake Accord
250
National Unity and the Quebec Referendum
256
Repatriation of the Constitution
263
The Charlottetown Accord
273
Note All author’s royalties earned from the sale of this book will go to King’s University College’s Hugh Mellon Excellence in Research Award. To learn more about it, see https://www.kings.uwo.ca/research/hughmellon-excellence-in-research-award/
Acknowledgements This book began as a conversation between the late Hugh Mellon and me about the ways in which the Conservative Party of Canada (CPC) had abandoned its Red Tory roots since Joe Clark was its leader. Encouraged by Arthur Milnes, a former student of Hugh’s and editor of other volumes of political speeches, we sought to take another look at the at the speeches of Joe Clark, a vocal and clear advocate for a progressive conservatism. Doing so was a bit of a formidable task as Clark’s public service spans more than thirty years. While he was prime minister for only a small part of that, he has been intimately involved in many important debates about Canadian identity, foreign relations, the constitution, the Conservative party and the importance of parliament. The title of this volume, A Man of Parliament, alludes to the significance that Clark placed on parliament as a deliberative body where issues of national importance could be discussed and resolved. There have been many people who have been crucial in seeing this book come to fruition. The driver of the project was Hugh Mellon, whose untimely death in 2014, resulted in an inevitable delay in the project. Hugh was passionate about the book and its importance to marking the evolution of the Conservative party and was eager to chronicle the important voice of Joe Clark in parliament. Since his death I have been fortunate to have the support of many who have helped make this book a reality. Eric Macpherson’s work early on supported the project as a summer research assistant at Queen’s. Eric contributed to the chapter introductions and was important in giving shape to the choice of speeches in this volume. Patricia Mockler’s editing and research skills were helpful in the final stages of the project. Kim Richard Nossal, general editor of the Queen’s Policy Series, has demonstrated infinite patience in seeing the book to its completion through nudging and cajoling in the right balance. I am appreciative of his support throughout. Special thanks to Anne Holley-Hime whose eagle-eyed
x Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
copyediting skills improved the presentation and flow of the text. While the book has benefitted from the guidance of many, none of the above are responsible for any omissions or errors. Many people have given generous financial support to the project. Thanks go to Sean Adams, Bruce and Andrea Alexander, Joan Andre, Ron Atkey, Scott Brison, Jean Charest, Mary Collins, David Crombie, John C. Crosbie, Michel De Salaberry, Paul Evans, Roy Everest, Corinne Fontaine, Paule Gauthier, V. Peter Harder, Thomas Hockin and Arlene Strom, Colin Jackson, Peter Milliken, David Mitchell, Reid Morden, Lowell Murray, William Neville, Roy Norton, John Rae, Alan Sullivan, Scott and Taryn Tanas, William Winegard. Also, special thanks go to Hugh’s siblings, Beth Mellon, James Mellon, and Mark Mellon for their generous support. Most importantly, sincere thanks to the Rt. Hon. Joe Clark and Maureen McTeer for their encouragement and support of this collection.
Introduction This volume is a testament to the steady voice of Charles Joseph Clark on many of the issues that still echo in Canada’s parliament. Through his thirty years on both the opposition and government benches, Clark took on challenging issues and articulated a clear and consistent vision of how Canadian politics should look. He has been one of the few participants who, in his time in parliament, has occupied virtually every role in that chamber. He has been a backbench MP, shadow cabinet critic, cabinet minister and of course prime minister. At the time of his retirement, he was the elder statesman of a party that he nurtured and fed but which had abandoned him and many of the moderate progressive causes for which he fought. The issues that this volume addresses are broad and significant ones that go to the heart of our parliamentary democracy and, indeed, our political community. These include questions about the accountability of government, the appropriate balance between openness and transparency on one hand and national security on the other, and the power of the executive vis-à-vis the role of parliament. As an Albertan from the often-alienated West, Clark maintained that it was important that this “forum of the nation” remain the central institution for the voice of all Canadians and that it address pressing issues of the day. In the face of the expanding power of the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO), Clark sought to ensure that the executive remain accountable to the legislature, in accordance with the principles of responsible government. As parliament was and is the only place from which every region in Canada has the opportunity to voice its concerns, it was imperative to Clark that the increasingly powerful executive branch be held in check. He sought to ensure that the executive could not run roughshod over other branches of government or the people. Clark aimed to decentralize power, from the hands of the few, such as the PMO, to the hands of many, as embodied in parliament. Though an ardent federalist, Clark A Man of Parliament; Selected Speeches from Joe Clark, edited by Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon. Montréal and Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press, Queen’s Policy Studies Series. © 2019 The School of Policy Studies, Queen’s University at Kingston. All rights reserved.
2
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
also fought to ensure that Canada remained a decentralized democracy in which the federal government remained strong but was held in check by regional centres of power. The collected speeches in this book attempt to highlight Joe Clark’s diverse perspectives through his own words in parliament. While Clark’s fingerprints can be seen on a diverse array of policy areas, we focus on areas where his legacy is most significant. Having said that, this collection does not seek to be comprehensive; it is almost impossible to provide such a collection for a man who has devoted decades to public service. The collection contained herein instead provides a glimpse into Clark’s legacy, his achievements, and his thoughts. It is divided into eight chapters, each of which embody either important policy preoccupations or political ideals that were central to Clark’s vision and career as a politician. Throughout this collection, there is a clear thread that unites Clark’s thought. He has a deeply held passion for parliament and the importance of representative government. Clark’s views stand out in an age of widespread cynicism toward government and the capacity of the state. He has a positive and progressive view of the role of the state and sees the importance of government institutions as a pro-social force in society. Though he is still a conservative at heart, evinced by his belief in smaller government, privatization and government-as-facilitator instead of government-as-planner, Clark saw government as a net positive force in the economic and social lives of Canadians. This fact placed Clark firmly within the “Red Tory” camp on the progressive wing of what was then the Progressive Conservative Party. This orientation would put him at loggerheads with other Canadian conservatives towards the end of his career, when, after a long hiatus from power, Canada’s right began to cast around for new methods to remove Liberals from their perch as the “natural governing party.” Like all of us, Clark is a product of his family life, interests and preoccupations, successes and failures. In this introduction, we introduce Joe Clark and learn about some of these influences. Clark’s Early Life Charles Joseph Clark was born to Grace and Charles Clark on June 5th, 1939 in High River, Alberta. Charles owned the High River Times, a local daily in the small prairie town. Clark Jr. worked for his father at the paper (Humphreys 1978, 19–20) where he gained early mentorship about
Introduction
3
the power of the written word and the importance of the media as a platform for the resolution of public conflict. Journalism would remain important throughout the rest of his life; Clark would go on to be an editor and writer for both his high school and university student newspapers. Clark was also a frequent contributor to national newspapers, like the Globe and Mail, and frequently commented on public issues of the day (Humphreys 1978, 22). This experience would serve him well when he landed a job as a speechwriter for Progressive Conservative leader Robert Stanfield, a role which would be a launching pad for his political career. Though he himself asserts that he was not motivated by dreams of high office as a youth (Humphreys 1978, 22), Clark was politically active. While other teenagers engaged themselves in extracurricular activities like athletics or artistic pursuits, Joe Clark’s favourite pastime was PC party politics, a subject he alludes to in his last speech in parliament (see page 45). Clark continued his involvement with the Progressive Conservatives during his undergraduate years, joining the PC’s student group at the University of Alberta. In addition to this, Clark became involved very early on with the official party’s work; he volunteered as a canvasser and drove candidates to speaking engagements around Alberta. For many people, an attachment to politics is a consequence of a formative event that leaves a significant impression. Clark’s interest in politics was solidified when he won a public speaking contest organized by the Rotary Club branch in High River and was offered a trip to Ottawa to observe a session of the House of Commons. On the trip, Clark had his eyes opened to the rough and tumble that is parliament, which would later be so central to his life. It was the 1950s, the time of the contentious pipeline debate between the Louis St. Laurent Liberal government and John Diefenbaker’s Progressive Conservative Official Opposition. The PCs were worried that the majority involvement of American capital, as well as some of the planned destinations (in, for example, Minnesota) would undermine Canadian sovereignty and control over the pipeline. In response to these concerns, the St. Laurent government decided to invoke closure on subsequent expected debate time in order to force a vote and ensure passage of the bill. The young Clark saw this as a grievous overstep of government authority. It shocked him so much that when he returned home to High River he would declare to his mother “we no longer have democracy in Canada.” (Humphreys 1978, 19). This event would shape Clark’s political activism, demonstrated in his propensity to fight for the underdog, not
4
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
just in government, but in other areas of life as well. This meant fighting for small business against the large, and for restraint in government to ensure a balance between large cities like Toronto or Montreal and the small. This appreciation for small communities, which he said “remain the bedrock of this country” (Humphreys 1978, 244), was a natural consequence of his time growing up in small town Alberta, at “the crossing” of High River. Without overstating its importance, the lessons drawn from this first visit to parliament would resonate throughout Clark’s career. He was constantly fighting for balance, to ensure that smaller or more marginalized parts of society were empowered. The best example of this can be seen in his views on federalism and federal government relations with the provinces. Clark, like many Canadians, saw Canada as a mosaic of peoples and cultures which together were more than the sum of their parts. He was a believer in the principle of subsidiarity before it was a common idea to those interested in federalism. This principle states that local and regional governments should remain powerful vis-à-vis the federal government because they are in a better position to understand a community’s unique needs. This principle requires that the different narratives among provinces or regions be told as part of the bigger story that is Canada. In this way, the varied and diverse groups that make up this nation would not chafe under the pressure of a single narrative imposed on them by a misguided federal government. Allowed their differences and empowered to develop in their own way, the constituent parts of this country would then voluntarily remain part of Confederation and would be less likely to be stifled by an overbearing federal government. Later, in response to the “national unity” debate that was raging during Pierre Trudeau’s era, Clark proposed acceptance and tolerance of differences along with empowering communities so as to ensure equality among them. Given this position, it was then more likely that each would remain an enthusiastic member of Confederation. The idea of differences leading to equality was one of the foundations of Clark’s belief in the virtue of decentralization. In order to live together, we must first accept that we are not all the same. And in accepting that, might begin voluntarily to work together to build Canada. In his words it is evident that though he was a de-centralizer, Clark was also a staunch federalist. The first manifestation of Clark’s interest in party politics occurred when he was a student. As in much of his career, Clark took off like a rocket. Clark became president of the Young Progressive Conser-
Introduction 5
vatives during his time as an undergrad at the University of Alberta. During this time Clark became enamored with the then-leader of the Progressive Conservative Party, John Diefenbaker, who was also the first prime minister of non-English or French heritage. Clark saw “The Chief” as a revivalist, not unlike those evangelists who would occasionally come rolling into High River from across the Prairies. Clark hoped that Diefenbaker’s success could be repeated at the provincial level and lead to a defeat of Earnest Manning’s Social Credit government. Alberta was locked in a long embrace of Social Credit rule, in part because this small-c conservative brand of populist politics suited most Albertans’ views of the world. Though immersed and shaped by this political culture, Clark sought to find a way to challenge the status quo at the provincial level and unseat the permanent fixture that the Social Credit government had become. From this we begin to see an early foreshadowing of Clark’s political beliefs. His was a fight against the long-standing, entrenched authority of the Social Credit government and the abuses that arose from it. Whether it was the fight against the thirty-year Social Credit regime in Alberta, or the Trudeau Liberals who had been in power for eleven years before the federal election of 1979, Clark fought to ensure that governments remained dynamic, attentive to citizens and appreciative of the trust citizens placed in it. Early Parliamentary Career Clark was elected to the House of Commons for the first time in 1973 as member of parliament for the newly created Rocky Mountain riding. It was during this time that he began to develop certain principles that would define him for the rest of his parliamentary career. From his first speech (page 26 of this volume) we see themes that would shape his Red Tory credentials. In it, we see Clark criticize the Trudeau government for programs aimed at employing youth. Clark believed that the problem of youth unemployment was not the fault of young people themselves but was the result of inadequate government programs that failed to assist youth in areas where they actually needed help. Clark was not criticizing the existence of a government assistance program but instead focused on how it was being executed. Not surprisingly, youth would be a common theme on Clark’s road to the Prime Minister’s Office. It would serve him well too, for it was during his first session of parliament that R. L. Stanfield, the leader of the Progressive Conservatives at the time, would appoint Clark the chair of an opposi-
6
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
tion caucus committee on youth. Clark’s Albertan roots would have a profound impact on his politics, specifically in his fight to ensure that provinces were well heard in their relations with the federal government. For Clark, influenced by his days working at his father’s newspaper, local institutions were of paramount importance. This was because Clark saw small businesses, service groups, and other institutions as intimately connected to the people. Though this most often manifested in advocating for the rights of the provinces and territories, Clark did not forget the municipalities and towns for which he felt an affinity. For example, his Rocky Mountain riding contained within it both Jasper and Banff national parks, both of which contained “townsites”—small towns that were permitted in the park subject to more extensive development restrictions because of their locations. Interestingly, because of their location within a national park, these townsites were under the direct jurisdiction of the federal government, to which the residents had to appeal if they had a problem (Nolan 1978, 91). This is unlike every other town in this country, which has a municipal government chartered by their respective provincial government. This means that if residents of Jasper or Banff have grievances, they must take them to the federal government, which in the local sense was represented entirely by Clark in his constituency office. Knowing this, he fought tirelessly to ensure that his constituents were not ignored or lost in the bureaucratic web of federal departments in Ottawa. This form of intra-federal representation was not something that Clark reserved for his own riding and province. Such was his belief in the local, and the dignity of Canada’s subnational political units that he often spoke in defence of the powers of such units and groups in relation to the federal government. Clark’s belief in the necessity of equal federal-provincial relations made it a common theme of his speeches during his tenure as a member of parliament. This volume contains several speeches that touch on this theme. The vigour and youthful voice that characterized Clark’s speeches caught the ear of the party establishment. It would be less than three years from his first speech in the House of Commons that he would be elected leader of the Progressive Conservative Party and step into the limelight to take on the juggernaut that was “Trudeaumania” in its twilight years. Party Leader and Opposition Leader From his first election victory in 1973 to being sworn in as prime min-
Introduction
7
ister in 1979, Clark’s political ascendency was impressive by any measure. A mere six years had passed from the time he made his first speech as a backbench MP from Alberta on July 23, 1973 to his first speech as prime minister on October 10, 1979. In this short time, Clark rose from the bottom to the apex of Canadian federal politics. This rapid ascent had its downside as well though. Clark reached the summit so quickly that he was largely unknown to a large portion of the Canadian electorate, something the Canadian media exploited mercilessly. Emerging from the backrooms of the party and suddenly catapulted into the national limelight, Joe Clark became known, rather derisively, as “Joe Who?” It would also be inevitable that Clark was compared to Trudeau whose presence had dominated the national stage for so long that Canadians may have come to expect their politicians to dazzle in front of the television cameras and socialize with movie stars. Clark may have appeared stolid and dependable but lacked in charisma when compared to Trudeau. It was no longer enough to be a party apparatchik who could control the diverse elements of the political and parliamentary party in order to ensure political success. If one wanted to be successful, one had to win over the mass media and public opinion. It is, then, perhaps most fitting that this era of Canadian politics was named for its flashiest of practitioners. Into this never-ending spotlight would step Clark, who despite his young age would have to command the presence necessary for the country to be able to see him as prime minister. This was especially important, as this was the time when the twenty-four-hour news cycle was beginning. Leadership changed when television was introduced in the House of Commons Question Period debates in October 1977 (Nolan 1978, 91). From then on, everything parliamentarians said would not only be recorded into Hansard, but also by the unblinking eye of the TV camera and then reproduced on the nightly newscast. This was the beginning of the era of sound bites and constant analysis that is a staple of life today. It then makes sense that the Conservatives, needing to maintain relevance among new Canadians and non-traditional supporters, would lean on a young up-and-comer to widen their party’s appeal among younger voters. Who better to foster support among youth than the man from High River, who had been fighting for youth issues since his very first speech in the House of Commons? Joe Clark was elected leader of the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada on February 22, 1976. Like his elevation to the office of prime minister, Clark, at 36, was the youngest person ever elected as the lead-
8
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
er of a major federal party. His leadership victory came as something of a surprise as he was widely considered “everyone’s second choice.” Being palatable to other candidates’ supporters would prove to be a significant advantage for him. When other candidates (notably Flora MacDonald) did not perform as expected in early ballots, they threw their support behind Clark. By the fourth ballot, the contest stood between Clark from the Red Tory wing of the party and Claude Wagner, a former Liberal minister who nonetheless was a favourite of the party’s right. This victory came at a watershed moment in the Progressive Conservative Party. Having been out of power for thirteen years at the time of Clark’s election, the PCs needed to find a way to stay relevant as an alternative government to the Liberal Party. In choosing the young westerner with Red Tory leanings over the French-Canadian Wagner, the party was angling to beat the Liberals at their own game, narrowing the already thin ideological differences. Noting a truism known to students of Canada’s brokerage politics, Clark once admitted that the Liberal and Progressive Conservative Parties were more similar than different. Viewed in hindsight, Clark’s victory allows us to examine how far Canada’s current brand of conservative party has moved away from its Red Tory roots. The term “Red Tory” connotes someone who was conservative on fiscal issues while holding progressive social views and believes in a positive role for the state in national life. Some examples of this include Clark’s views on the rights of Indigenous peoples in Canada or his progressive views on gender and politics. Being labelled as such was not without risk. Throughout his campaign to become the leader of the Progressive Conservative Party, Clark and his campaign staff often had to field questions about whether or not “Red” actually meant Communist (Nolan 1978, 63–71). This was especially true in his home province of Alberta. Though it may seem odd for us today to imagine a conservative leader having to address charges of latent communism, it does help to illustrate the political context within which Clark was working to prepare his party to form a government. As any good Opposition leader does, Clark immediately began prepping his party to take over the reins of power. As his experience was primarily in the backroom organizational aspects of the party, he used his newfound power to reorganize the party to better reflect his commitments to diffuse power (to a point) and create greater openness in government. This notably included several novel innovations to allow for more open and robust caucus meetings to better facilitate internal
Introduction
9
party debate. He also expanded his staff in the Opposition office to better prepare both himself and his caucus for their new role as Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition. This was again illustrative of the general current of change that was occurring in the organizational aspects of Canadian parliamentary politics across the board. While Robert Stanfield, Clark’s predecessor, had a staff of fifteen people during his time as opposition leader, Clark surrounded himself with a staff of forty people, which was comparable to the size of the PMO during the Pearson government. This, however, paled in comparison to the eighty-six people who worked in the Prime Minister’s Office during the Trudeau years (Nolan 1978, 63). Clark would regularly use his allotted time in Question Period to remind Canadians of the Trudeau government’s increasingly centralized practices regarding the power of the PMO. For Clark, Question Period is one of the most important parts of the parliamentary calendar and integral to responsible government. As he is fond of saying, parliament is the only place where the entire nation gathers to discuss the business of the day. For him, the daily Question Period in parliament provides one of the only occasions when elected representatives can directly question the government and hold it to account. Parliament, as the supreme political institution in Canada has the right and obligation to question the executive. In that role, Clark was very effective in Question Period earning the grudging admiration of opponents throughout his parliamentary career (see the tributes to Clark on the occasion of his last speech, in the next chapter). While in Opposition, he would use his time and questions to ensure that the Trudeau government was held accountable and responsible to parliament, a tradition that he continued to respect while on the other side of the House. Prime Minister Clark’s victory in 1979 may have come as something of a surprise to many Canadians. Reflecting a truism in politics, Warner Troyer writes in his Two Hundred Days: Joe Clark in Power, that “the Liberals had not been defeated, but the Tories had been elected” (Troyer 1980, 7). Despite their victory, the Conservative’s new place at the centre of power had not unseated the Liberals from their status as a national preoccupation. As is often the case with governments that had been in power a long time, it was not so much as an endorsement of the new government as a repudiation of the old. After all, it had been eleven years since the
10
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
election of the first Trudeau government and sixteen years since the last Conservative government under John Diefenbaker from 1957 to 1963. If a week is a long time in politics, it had been a veritable lifetime since the last Conservative government. After twenty-two years of Liberal rule, it was not a surprise that change was in the air. It would turn out that this was more of a time out for the Liberals than a vote of confidence in the Progressive Conservatives. The composition of the House reflected this. On the government side were 136 Progressive Conservative members compared to the Opposition which would have spilled over on the government side with 114 Liberals, 26 New Democrats and six members from Clark’s old provincial rivals, Social Credit. In order to maintain confidence of the House, the new prime minister would have to court at least one other opposition party to support its government. The most obvious allies were Social Credit MPs, who shared both Clark’s Western roots and small-c conservative sensibilities. This, however, was a case of easier said than done, as Clark would enter a parliament in October that was not willing to extend the new government a traditional honeymoon period. The fledgling minority government had to prove itself quickly, but it did have one thing on its side. Clark and the PCs were presented with a golden opportunity because Trudeau announced his retirement as Liberal leader. This meant that the new government would have known that the Opposition would be in the throes of a leadership contest and have their attention elsewhere. The common wisdom said that the Liberals would not risk defeating the government and contesting an election without a leader, so it was full steam ahead, or so it seemed. Clark and his cabinet used the summer break to plan what they assumed would be a long-term government and sweeping policy changes. After the election, Clark invited his presumptive cabinet to Jasper to begin planning how they would approach the coming parliamentary session and to introduce his style of leadership to his neophyte cabinet. Given his view on the centrality of parliament to Canadian political life, it made sense that Clark was going to ensure that they would take the time necessary to ensure a well-forged sense of Cabinet solidarity. The speech from the throne would chart the ambitions of his government, focusing on reforming parliament, shrinking government but also making it more transparent through more liberal access to information law and for all that to happen the newly minted two-tiered Clark Cabinet retreated from the battle lines of Ottawa to Jasper, Alberta to plan the government’s campaign.
Introduction 11
One of the first issues that the government would have to wrestle with was determining what kind of conservatives they were. The PC caucus comprised business conservatives who wanted the state out of the pockets of citizens, Red Tories who believed in a positive role for the state, and western populists who were skeptical of the influence that central Canada had in the federation. This was at the time of Margaret Thatcher’s conservatism and while it was clear that the newly installed PC government would not be the same, it was not clear how to communicate that. The privatization of the state-owned oil and gas company, Petro-Canada provided an opportunity to tell Canadians what kind of conservatives they were. Clark knew he needed make some sort of gesture to his home province, where “Petro-Can” was seen as a symbol of Trudeau era excess and government regulation. Additionally, Clark, though still a Red Tory, saw this Crown corporation as an overreach by the federal government into what should be a provincial matter. Therefore, Clark was on the hook to, at the very least, attempt to dismantle Petro-Canada to demonstrate his commitment to a campaign promise. Oddly though, with his Cabinet now safely away from Ottawa, the symbolism of the policy became the primary issue (i.e., what word should be used to describe the process of privatization). Though of course wanting to privatize the corporation, Clark was concerned with appearing too heavy handed. A Cabinet debate ensued and it was decided that it would be better not to mince words. Privatization was what was being pushed for so privatization was the word that would be used (Troyer 1980). Politicians in an electoral democracy must at times do things that keep the party base happy and committed. This becomes especially difficult in Canada as the two major parties are brokerage parties and as such, have bases that include very diverse and often conflicting interests. Clark, as a conservative politician, had a base that included conservative religious voters. As a play to his more religious pro-Israeli base, Clark believed that moving the Canadian embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem would be a clear way to show his commitment to a promise made on the campaign trail (Flicker 2002). In addition, it was a way to solidify his base in the run up to the next election. Canada’s Jewish population has historically favoured the Liberal Party. As a Red Tory on the left of the party, Clark needed to carve some of this support off for his own party and demonstrate his conservative bona fides in his ardent support for the state of Israel. Unfortunately, it was a plan that would backfire with grave consequences.
12
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
From the first day after being appointed prime minister, Clark experienced pressure from both pro-Israel and pro-Palestine groups. The Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) dubbed the move “an act of aggression.” The Canada-Arab Federation called the policy “a declaration of war” against the world’s 900 million Muslims (Flicker 2002). As well, Canada’s business community was up in arms over the export business they were likely to lose in the face of a pro-Palestinian boycott of Canadian products as well as damage to the value of the Canadian dollar. The senior civil service also expressed strong reservations. Notwithstanding all of this, Israeli Premier Menacham Begin, looking to confer increased international recognition of the post-1967 status quo, pushed Clark to stay the course. This pressure resonated with Clark in his determination to not be labelled weak. His new Foreign Affairs minister Flora MacDonald restated to the press that the embassy would be moved. This imprimatur by the minister meant that the issue was front-and-centre in public debate from the time that Clark took office when parliament resumed in October. Clark, seeking legitimacy of the policy, enlisted the respected former leader, Robert Stanfield, to recommend one path or the other. Hoping to buy some time and bring in the policy when the Liberals were selecting a new leader, Clark set a timeline for Stanfield to deliver the report sometime in 1980. Upon his return from the Middle East, Stanfield urged the prime minister to decide now, as the Arab states would not discuss anything else until the embassy question was put to rest. Bowing to public pressure and with the recommendations in hand, Clark backtracked on his original position when asked by Leader of the Opposition Trudeau about the fate of the embassy. Clark stated, “the Canadian embassy will stay in Tel Aviv” (Flicker 2002). While it may have made good policy sense, the optics around this were terrible. He was forced to backtrack on a committed policy, which was seen as purely vote-seeking in the first place and his reluctance to make good on the issue did not help create the “open” government Clark wanted to create. Moreover, it reinforced the belief that the new government did not have a steady hand on the levers of policy. The Opposition smelled blood and were willing to take advantage of what they perceived to be a government that could be defeated with impunity. The long recess of parliament and the stumbles that occurred while away encouraged New Democratic Party (NDP) leader Ed Broadbent to bring a motion of non-confidence before the House of Commons. A proposed gas tax of 18 cents per gallon gave the NDP the
Introduction
13
perfect cover and they knew they could count on the five Social Credit MPs to not support the government. Two days after Finance Minister John Crosbie delivered his first budget in December 1979, the government was defeated in parliament on a vote of 139 to 133. Ever the parliamentarian, Clark rose in the House to say, “The government has lost a vote on a matter on which we have no alternative but to regard as a question of confidence. I simply want to advise the House that I will be seeing his Excellency, the Governor General tomorrow morning.” And, with that, seven months into a new government and a House that had only sat for two months, the Clark government went from governing to campaigning for a second chance. The short-lived Clark government and thirty-first parliament of Canada leads one to question what might have been if Clark had been able to maintain the confidence of the House of Commons. Hindsight lends a sort of fatalistic view in some of the analysis of Clark’s time in office. For example, the first chapter of Troyer’s account is called “Jasper: Seeds of Destruction” which gives a sense of the way that some viewed the fate of the government. Troyer gives the impression of a hapless or “blind” prime minister who was careening towards destruction without knowledge. While an easy argument to make, it demeans the accomplishments of the new government. Viewing Clark’s career through the lens of his time as prime minister distracts from his many other accomplishments during his subsequent two decades of leadership outside of the PMO. Though defeated in the 1980 election, Clark would remain in parliament for four additional years as leader of the Opposition before returning to Cabinet as part of the Mulroney government. In this, Clark joins Arthur Meighen as the only prime minister to return to the Cabinet table as a minister after being defeated as prime minister. It’s a hallmark of his tenacity. Clark picked himself up, dusted himself off, and went back to work. Cabinet and the Transition from Wunderkind to Elder Statesman Though political historians may debate whether Clark’s time as prime minister left any lasting legacies, few would deny the significant impact of his work in Cabinet under Brian Mulroney. Clark would represent Canada at international events with authority and domestically he would provide leadership on some of the most fractious and deep issues affecting the federation. When Brian Mulroney won a massive majority in 1984, he knew he would need the voice of moderation and
14
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
experience of Joe Clark and so Clark was at the Cabinet table in both Mulroney governments serving with distinction until 1993. As minister responsible for constitutional affairs, Clark was involved in both the Meech Lake and Charlottetown Accords as the Mulroney government attempted to bring Quebec into the fold through an era marked by contentious mega-constitutional politics. Internationally, Clark represented Canada during some of the most important geo-political events of the latter half of the twentieth century. As secretary of state for external affairs—as Canada’s foreign minister was known before 1993—Clark spoke on behalf of the government on events such as the end of apartheid in South Africa, the Gulf War, and the Tiananmen Square massacre. Following the Tiananmen Square massacre, Clark spoke in support of the student protestors in the need for government institutions to primarily serve and be responsible to the people and their needs, not the other way around (page 190 in this volume). As China continues its global ascendency and questions are being raised about the increased power under Xi Jinping, Clark’s words remain vital and relevant today. Clark’s work in apartheid South Africa to end a racist segregation regime is also reflective of his stance on Indigenous peoples within Canada. Clark, in his own way, was a fierce representative of the right of Indigenous peoples to self-determination, and the need for recognition of that by the Canadian government and society as a whole. The speeches on Indigenous politics (chapter 6 in this volume) are in line with Clark’s desire to represent and strengthen other Indigenous forms of representation. Throughout his involvement on the international stage, Clark understood that Canada had a role to play in international politics despite its relatively small size. Later reflecting on this time, Clark wrote “some countries have much more influence than others … Those are the nations to which others turn when there are difficult problems or challenging issues. Canada—a whole Canada—is one of those countries” (Clark 1997, 186). Clark belonged to what he called an “activist tradition” (Clark 1997, 539) of Canadian international diplomacy. As the “first international country,” Clark believed that Canada had a positive role to play in modern international diplomatic matters because of its positive international reputation and influence in shaping events. This, he believed, was more important and still vital in a world where the economic is seen as more important than overtly “political” action on the international stage. Further, as demonstrated by his speech about the United Nations Security Council resolution that led to the Gulf War (The Af-
Introduction 15
termath of the Gulf War in this volume), Clark was a firm supporter of Canada’s involvement in international organizations such as the United Nations. As he stated in parliament, “[w]hen we look for a noble and far-sighted vision for managing world affairs in what will be a difficult decade and century to come, we can hardly do better than to draw on the vision of the United Nations charter.” At the time of this speech, the Cold War was thawing, and Clark’s speech represented the hope among many that the UN charter would be transformed from a “dead letter” to the collective foundation for international cooperation to meet the challenges of the post-Cold War era. Clark was keen to emphasize Canada’s long involvement in, and building of, the United Nations. From drafting the charter to Lester Pearson and peacekeeping, Canada’s post-war international policy as a “middle power” has been tightly intertwined with the UN. Clark proposed that, at this new step in the evolution of the United Nations, Canada must again be present and strongly involved to create a “renewed United Nations” that was ready for the twenty-first century. What is perhaps most interesting though is how said speech reflects the changes which we have seen in Canadian foreign policy (and mainstream Canadian conservatism in general) since Clark’s era. In other words, Canadian foreign policy has shifted away from support for, and action through, international institutions, to a more bilateral or multilateral approach enacted outside of the UN framework. This shift has included a move away from an emphasis on peacekeeping to more traditional military operations, such as Canada’s involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan. Clark’s speeches, made decades ago, are an important reminder today of a Canadian foreign policy that was more idealistic and perhaps more effective in engagement with the wider world. Closer to home, and no less significantly, Clark was also intimately involved in two of the defining political developments in modern Canadian history. First, was the patriation of the constitution in 1982, an issue he followed and debated since the 1970s. Chapter 8 of this volume has a selection of speeches that detail his views on the constitution and its reform. They span multiple eras and roles for Clark, from his time as Opposition leader, when he debated with Trudeau on the exact structure of our new constitution, to his time in the Mulroney Cabinet, where he worked to convince Quebec to ratify the new constitution. His foresight and vision are again demonstrated in a speech to the House of Commons found on page 238, The Patriation of the Constitution in chapter 8. In it, Clark advocates that the House accept what
16
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
is known as the “Vancouver formula.” This formula contained within it the “7/50 rule” which would eventually become the amending formula that makes up one of the three pillars of the Canadian constitution. In the process of this debate, Clark renews his commitment to a decentralized government, railing against the Trudeau government for their attempts to bypass the provinces and ensure the passage and repatriation of the constitution without their consent or participation. Though Trudeau would be persuaded otherwise, and would eventually include the provinces in the process, a Supreme Court reference was required. In the end, the constitution was brought home in 1982 but the work in making it the unifying symbol it is had not yet been done. The stand of those opposed to the new formula (best exemplified by the dissenting voice of Elijah Harper in the Manitoba Legislative Assembly) would necessitate further work that would outlast the Trudeau government. After his election in September 1984, Brian Mulroney immediately set about finishing the process of constitutional reform begun by the Trudeau Liberals. Mulroney had his hands full in attempting to balance the wishes of the provinces and their diverse interests. Such was the importance of this process to his government that Mulroney appointed Clark to his Cabinet as minister responsible for constitutional affairs. The position needed someone who had authority, experience at intergovernmental negotiation, and who was widely respected. Clark, who at the time had a higher approval rating than Prime Minister Mulroney, was the ideal candidate to be an honest broker between the federal and provincial governments. The final chapter in this volume documents five speeches where Clark, both as Mulroney’s constitutional minister and prior, articulates a strong view of the role that the constitution should play in our political community. Return to Politics Clark left electoral politics in 1993 but returned five years later to lead the Progressive Conservative Party until just prior to its dissolution in 2003. He assumed the leadership of the party after its disastrous electoral showing in the 1993 election in which the PCs won just two seats. Clark’s main political opponents in this era had shifted from the Liberal/NDP-dominated left to newly ascendant parties which were coming from the right of the PC party. These parties, such as the Reform Party/ Canadian Alliance were those that uneasily coalesced within the PC Party but were invigorated by the neo-liberal stream of populist, right
Introduction
17
wing politics that had become increasingly popular in the West at this time. These parties were largely seen as socially conservative, pro-West, and anti-Quebec in their views. At the end of the twentieth century, the right wing of Canadian party politics was fragmenting as two new parties emerged out of dissatisfaction with the governing Mulroney-led PCs. Mulroney had been elected in a landslide victory in 1984, forming the largest majority government in Canadian history (winning 211 of 282 seats). He promised fiscal conservatism, the end of the National Energy Program, and a renewed round of constitutional talks designed to get Quebec to ratify the repatriated constitution. This strategy would prove unstable as westerners became angry at what they thought was too much time and attention given to Quebec. At the same time, many Quebec MPs within the PC caucus felt that Quebec was not being given enough attention. This paradox had reverberations both in and outside of parliament. The growing sentiment of western alienation led to the creation of the Reform Party, a new, more right-wing party under the leadership of Preston Manning and former prime minister, Stephen Harper. Two of its major platform points were the end of the NEP and the creation of a “Triple-E (Equal, Elected, and Effective) Senate.” Within parliament, disgruntled Quebec MPs formed the Bloc Québécois, a sovereigntist party made up of former PC and Liberal MPs under Lucien Bouchard. The Bloc was (and is) devoted to Quebec’s independence. These new parties effectively split the uneasy coalition within the PC party and caused its implosion in the 1993 election when, as mentioned earlier, its seat count plunged to two. The Canadian political landscape had drastically changed. Where there were once two major parties that traded turns in government and a third, social democratic party with little chance of forming government, Canada now had the makings of a true multi-party system. Canada had five major parties spread across the spectrum that represented a diversity of opinions relative to the previous party system. On the right was the Reform Party, supported primarily by western socially and fiscally conservative voters who disagreed with the NEP and the attention given to Quebec. Occupying the centre-right were the Progressive Conservatives, which was at this time lead by Red Tories such as Clark. The centre-left and left of the political spectrum was now occupied by the Liberals, the Bloc, and the NDP (which all advocated social democratic principles but were distinguished by their views on Quebec sovereignty). The Reform Party, though good at translating votes
18
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
into seats because of its regional concentration in the western provinces and the nature of Canada’s first past the post electoral system, found it tough to garner votes east of Manitoba where conservative voters tended to favour the Progressive Conservatives, who dominated the Atlantic provinces, as well as Ontario and Quebec. This base would be destroyed in the next election as Quebec voters would largely swing to the Bloc, giving them fifty-four seats in the 1993 election. The main reason for the Reform Party’s apparent lack of success east of Manitoba was that Canadians from central Canada (Ontario and Quebec) and Atlantic Canada often saw them as too extreme in their social conservatism, preferring the relatively more “progressive” of the two conservative parties (Belanger and Godbout 2009). Recognizing this difficulty and attempting to distance themselves from their negatively perceived image, Reform party leadership attempted a rebranding. This process culminated in electing a new leader and changing the name of the party to the Canadian Alliance. With the Reform/Canadian Alliance and PC parties now splitting the Canadian right, talks of a merger began in earnest in order to avoid vote-splitting and ensure electoral success. Clark was a leader of the anti-merger caucus within the Progressive Conservative Party that supported the Red Tory tradition. Clark believed that a merger with the Reform Party would shift the ideological centre too far to the right for Red Tories such as himself to be welcome. His argument was not successful and the parties merged to form the Conservative Party of Canada. The newly unified Conservative Party formed government at the federal level from 2006 to 2015, after which they were succeeded by a Liberal government led by Justin Trudeau. Stephen Harper’s nine years in office demonstrated that the pro-merger camp was correct about the electoral chances of a merged party. But Clark was also right in that it was not a party that he and the few Red Tories who remained could call home. They sat as Progressive Conservatives until the dissolution of parliament in 2003. When parliament dissolved in 2003, Clark resigned as party leader to be replaced by Peter MacKay, the former minister of justice, who immediately entered into merger talks with the leaders of the newly renamed Canadian Alliance party. The reasons for this merger include political rebranding, access to new political resources and greater opportunity to transform votes into seats in the house. In essence, both parties sought to get away from what they perceived as a tainted brand, viz., Reform being too extreme and PC being not able to deliver the electoral goods. Both parties
Introduction
19
wanted electoral access to regions and voters currently dominated by the other. (The PCs dominated in provinces east of Manitoba as did Reform in the West and BC). Finally, both wanted to ensure that votes received in elections would be easily transferable into seats in the House of Commons. Neither wanted to stay small and with new campaign finance laws now in effect they had the chance to pool their resources. The outcome was the creation of a new brokerage party on the Canadian right that proposed to speak for all Canadians who identify with the moniker “conservative.” The success of this merger at least in electoral terms is undisputed; the new Conservative Party of Canada (CPC) went on to win three consecutive election campaigns. It has also held onto power quite successfully. Under Prime Minister Stephen Harper, the CPC created the longest serving minority government in the history of Canada. This was then rewarded in 2011 with the first Conservative majority government since the Mulroney era. Sensing the profound ideological shift within the Canadian right, Clark took this opportunity to gracefully bow out of electoral politics, deciding not to run for re-election in 2004. Clark’s experience and principled stand as well as his years of service to the Red Tory tradition, that is well enumerated in this collection, serves to illustrate just how far Conservative Party politics had shifted rightward since Clark’s time. Many of the speeches collected here do not fit in the same ideological mold as current Conservatives. Their place in this volume serves as a reminder of a party that may bear the same name but have little in common with the present Conservative party. As Clark said as he exited parliament as an MP the last time, “I’m very troubled by the disappearance of my party.” Conclusion Though only having served as prime minister for about a year (with only two months of that sitting in his beloved parliament) Clark’s political career was foundational in establishing some of the political issues and topics of debate that resonate today. In his brief time as prime minister, his signature achievement was creating the legal blueprint for the Access to Information Act that would be passed by Trudeau early on in his second term. Though his version of Bill C-15 was killed on the order paper with the fall of his government, Trudeau would revive it in essentially the same form when he took part in the grand Liberal tradition of borrowing legislative ideas of those parties not in power. Access
20
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
to information is one of the fundamental tools that Canadians can use to hold their governments to account. While this is a significant policy, Clark’s legacy includes the broad and varied policies he shaped after his term as prime minister. This volume is a testament to that legacy and a kind of conservatism that is no longer evident at the federal level. Clark’s contribution to Canadian political life is broad and deep. He fought for political goals and reforms that we as Canadians are either still debating or (as in the case of Access to Information) take for granted as an essential element of our Canadian political system. His twenty-three years of public service outside of being prime minister are a testament to a man intensely committed to parliamentary debate and the unequivocal importance of the House of Commons. As a conservative, Clark spent his career ensuring that the government remained restrained. Along with his work to ensure representation of lesser heard regions, the equality of the provinces in relation to the federal government, Clark was a stalwart supporter of Canada’s principle of responsible government. Throughout his time as leader of the Opposition, Clark used his position to ensure that the government remained accountable to the people who elected it. He worked tirelessly to counter the concentration of power within the Prime Minister’s Office, as is discussed throughout this volume. Clark worked to ensure that power to deliberate and discuss national issues reside in the parliament which he loved so much as the only “forum of the nation.” This struggle to ensure the diffusion of power among many different nodes is admirable, for as he himself so often recognized, “small is good and worth preserving” (Humphreys 1978). Clark was both our youngest prime minister and one who held power for a very short amount of time. Yet, Clark achieved great things during his years of public service and was involved in the events and debates which shaped politics as we know it today. Despite certain limitations and failures, Clark was still able to accomplish policy and political goals that have become permanent parts of our Confederation, such as the amending formula of our constitution. As we move away from his time in parliament, his reputation has been widely recognized as a voice of reason and compassionate conservatism. This collection is a legacy and reminder of those policies and goals by giving a fresh look at some key speeches of a great Canadian parliamentarian. It also highlights the personal attributes of a public servant who was dogged in perseverance, modest in touting his successes, and
Introduction
21
saw politics as conciliation; some might say hallmarks of a quintessential Canadian. We have compiled some of his words here but perhaps the best way to understand Joe Clark is to listen to him speak. Additional Reading Belanger, Eric and Jean-Francois Godbout. “Why do Parties Merge? The Case of the Conservative Party of Canada.” Parliamentary Affairs (December 2009): 1–25. Clark, Joe. “The First International Country.” International Journal 52 (4) (Autumn, 1997): 539–545. Clark, Joe. How We Lead: Canada in a Century of Change. Toronto: Random House, 2013. Flicker, Charles. “Next Year in Jerusalem: Joe Clark and the Jerusalem Embassy Affair.” International Journal 58 (1) (Winter, 2002/2003): 115–138. Humphreys, David L. Joe Clark: A Portrait. Canada: Deneau and Greenberg Publishers Ltd., 1978. Nolan, Michael. Joe Clark: The Emerging Leader. Don Mills: Fitzhenry & Whiteside, 1978. Troyer, Warner. 200 Days Joe Clark in Power: The Anatomy of the Rise and Fall of the 21st Government. Toronto: Personal Library, Publishers, 1980.
1
Milestone Speeches This book is arranged by theme based on policy areas, but in this chapter we have chosen to highlight three of Clark’s important speeches that were delivered at important benchmarks in his career. The first speech is Clark’s maiden speech to the House of Commons, given on July 23, 1973. Second, is Clark’s first speech to the House as prime minister of Canada, which took place on December 10, 1979. And finally, we have included the last speech Clark gave to parliament on May 13, 2004. Despite the fact that almost thirty-one years separate Clark’s first and last speech, they include remarkably consistent themes. And therefore, more than any other set contained herein, the speeches serve as a fitting overview, and bookends, to the public life of Joe Clark. Clark’s first speech is full of youth, both his relative youth as well as the subject of speech itself. In the early 1970s, hoping to test the talents of their new MP, and wanting to avoid the image of being a party of and for older Canadians, then-leader Robert Stanfield appointed Clark to head youth issues in his shadow cabinet. Wasting no time, Clark got right to work in demonstrating his party’s commitment to youth. At the time of his first speech, youth accounted for half of all those who were unemployed in Canada; youth unemployment was at crisis levels. This first speech established Clark’s Red Tory principles and belief in the capacity of citizens. Read from a contemporary perspective, it was a breath of fresh air to hear to hear a youthful MP extol the virtues of young Canadians. Clark argues that the government’s responses to the crisis of youth unemployment were insubstantial and ill-suited to the problem at hand. He noted that the energies and abilities of Canada’s young were not being harnessed effectively as a consequence of insufficient job opportunities or programs to address unemployment. Clark argued that new programs must be created if worthwhile opportunities were to be made available to channel the eagerness and energy of youth. A Man of Parliament; Selected Speeches from Joe Clark, edited by Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon. Montréal and Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press, Queen’s Policy Studies Series. © 2019 The School of Policy Studies, Queen’s University at Kingston. All rights reserved.
24
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
Fast-forward a mere six years and the fresh-faced youth shadow minister had most definitely stepped from the shadows of those who came before. Addressing the House of Commons following the Speech from the Throne in his first speech as prime minister, Clark laid out the priorities that his government would seek to achieve during its tenure. Speaking of parliament, Clark felt that “this Parliament is not now as strong as it needs to be because too much power rests with the executive of Parliament.” To combat this, Clark proposed several measures that would increase the power of both private members and committees, vis-à-vis the Cabinet. Going so far as to create conditions that “will provide a latitude to private Members of the House of Commons that can be used, if the Members choose, to obstruct all progress here.” In proposing these measures, Clark demonstrated a concern with transparency that would remain consistent throughout his career (this is taken up more fully in chapter 7) Clark hoped these measures would create an atmosphere of openness and accountability, but he would later see what happens when a parliament in a position of power gets “in a mood” as he described the actions of parliament in bringing down his government. Looking beyond the confines of parliament, Clark also proposed a plan of “spending restraint” and privatization that would set the course of federal governments up to the present day. However, this would not be an imposed austerity. Instead, Clark sought an “easing” of federal-provincial relations through such measures as giving coastal provinces access to off-shore natural resources and other agreements. Raising the spectre of the federal-provincial jurisdictional split, Clark set the stage for one of the central parts of what was then and would be on-going constitutional debates about federal-provincial jurisdiction. These debates would not be his to guide from the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO). However, he would remain engaged on the issue for close to twenty-five years after his minority government was defeated. And in a subsequent defeat, Clark demonstrated another worthy aspect of his character. Rising for the last time to address his beloved parliament in 2004, Clark’s last speech to the House of Commons was, in his words, his “least controversial.” However, the context in which he was speaking was certainly not. Five months had passed since the Canadian Alliance Party (formerly known as Reform) and the Progressive Conservative Party had merged to form the new Conservative Party of Canada (CPC). Wary of the direction that this new party was going under the
Milestone Speeches 25
leadership of Stephen Harper, Clark elected, along with two other MPs to sit as under the banner of “Progressive Conservative” for the remainder of the session. Despite having lost his party and place in the political landscape Clark, ever graceful, maintained good humour (at least in this case) and joked of the party’s demise to the assembled members. Perhaps it was the good feelings brought on by nostalgia, tribute and reflection but in spite of all the controversy and political infighting Clark, as seen above and throughout, spoke for parliament one last time. That given the sheer size and diversity of Canada, without strong places in which we could gather, our geographic distance can create social distance. Clark illustrated the importance of gathering places perfectly because for him, parliamentary life was a door to communities and realities he might not have known otherwise. But perhaps most importantly, Clark used his last minutes in parliament to call for a unity of purpose. In his words “Parliament is more than a school. It is the place where everyone in the Canadian community can take action together.” His last speech in this volume follows a different path from the rest of the book. Rather than focus exclusively on his words, Clark’s speech is put in context of the tributes from all parties in the House. In this speech, in terms of presentation and form, Clark’s speech should be understood as a response to the others which precede it but also to highlight the way his long-time adversaries viewed him and his legacy. Having been involved in all aspects of Canadian political life, the high and lows, the harmony and discord, the best and the worst, Clark’s words resonate. Having been a member of parliament in almost all possible capacities in which one could sit in that House, the wisdom he provided was profound. And this is perhaps the usefulness of this chapter. While the remainder of the book goes into more granular detail about the specifics of Clark’s political vision, this chapter allows us to view in broad strokes the vision of a man who devoted his life to building Canada into a strong and unified, yet diverse, imperfect and diverse community.
26
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
First Speech as a Member of Parliament House of Commons Debates 26 February 1973 29th Parliament, 1st Session: Volume 2, 1662–1664 Mr. Joe Clark (Rocky Mountain): Mr. Speaker, it is a great privilege for me to rise in this House. This is virtually my first chance to speak in the House of Commons, although I have had the opportunity to ask one or two questions even though I am not a parliamentary secretary. I have also had the opportunity once to speak briefly in the late show at a time when the House was slightly less full than it is now, if that could be imagined. When one takes his place in this chamber it is with some feeling of trepidation. One cannot help but be aware of the traditions of this chamber, and one cannot help either but be aware that this is one of the few institutions in the country that is capable of drawing together citizens from across a wide and varied land. I just wanted to note in passing how appropriate it seemed to me the other day to hear the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) talking about dinosaurs. That is obviously a subject of natural interest to his party. Indeed, it is difficult to think of any other group in this House which has a greater philosophic affinity to that era, or a better prospect of becoming extinct. It is a remarkable coincidence that whenever the leadership of the NDP encounters a crisis of conscience at home, they suddenly perceive some greater evil at another hand. Faced with the challenge of principle embodied in the Waffle, their leadership conjured up the corporate bum, whom they have now embraced. And now, caught in an alliance, which they consider a lesser treachery than electoral defeat, their leadership has decided that we are dinosaurs. They remind me of the itinerant evangelists we used to get, from time to time, in the towns on the Prairies. They would come in the night, usually having just created their own theology, and proceed to bilk the wealthy widows of the town with promises either of a new cathedral or a new Jerusalem, and when suspicion grew about their purposes, they would suddenly be seized of the great dangers of fluoridation, or Argentina, or some other scare. They usually lasted about five months, these prophets of phony fear, and then were never heard of again. So, in every particular, they remind one of the NDP. On February 15, I asked the Prime Minister what plans his government had to find jobs for young Canadians. He replied with charac-
Milestone Speeches 27
teristic boldness and foresight and said his plan was to wait for the budget. Now, we have the budget and presumably the government’s answer—which is that it intends to do nothing at all to break the pattern which has made Canadians under 24 the chief victims of unemployment in Canada throughout the life of the Trudeau government. The most recent figures for January this year, indicate that a total of 688,000 Canadians were unemployed. Fully 300,000 of those were under the age of 24—almost half of the total number of unemployed in the country and one in nine of the people in that age group who wanted to work. That figure is appalling enough on its own. What is worse is that it is part of a clear and evident pattern that even the government has recognized. The proportion of unemployed in that age group has been rising gradually for several years. But in recent years it has been nearly 45 per cent of the total, despite the fact that many people of that age who might have been looking for work have been drained off into technical schools or CEGEPS, or colleges and universities. There is some indication now that this safety valve is closing, because young people who go into training for better jobs are finding too often that they graduate into unemployment. The result of their diversion is just that they have better skills to waste. That pattern has been clear throughout the life of this ministry. They were warned by the Economic Council of Canada. They were warned by the Canadian Council on Social Development, by the Committee on Youth of their own Secretary of State (Mr. Faulkner), and frequently by editorialists and by spokesmen of this party. Their only answer has been to fake a response. They claim that Opportunities for Youth was created to meet this problem. But Opportunities for Youth last year employed about 3,000 non-students for the summer. If applied today to the January figures, that would amount to the stirring figure of one per cent—a one per cent response—except that OFY does not work in the winter. That is about the only thing that program has in common with the young people it is supposed to help. The government’s only other response to unemployment in Canada, the LIP program, works less well among the young than among other age groups of the unemployed. In 1971–72, 41 per cent of LIP workers were under age 24 but 46 per cent to 47 per cent of the unemployed were under that age. In hard figures, LIP that year created only 37,000 temporary jobs for Canadians under 24 and there are 300,000 out of work today. The more serious fault of the LIP and OFY programs in relation to
28
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
youth employment is that they provide the government with an excuse for doing nothing effective about the problem. LIP and OFY embody a potential for innovation and involvement which is as important now as it was when that principle was introduced into Canadian legislation in the ARDA program. They are important programs. But they are not youth employment programs. Yet every time the statistics are cited in this House which prove that this government’s economic programs are victimizing the young, the government answers by pointing to LIP and OFY. The most innovative aspect of these programs is the use the government makes of them to avoid meeting their responsibility to young Canadians who want to work. In so far as youth employment is concerned, LIP and OFY have been used principally not to innovate action but to avoid it. It is very easy when discussing unemployment statistics to lose sight of the human consequence involved, and forget that each one of these 300,000 young Canadians is a single case of need. One way to gain perspective on the youth employment problem is to realize there are about twice as many young Canadians out of work today as there were in the great depression. Now, if you treat people as statistics, you can say that is not significant, because the work force has grown but if you regard people as people, you might remember the record of personal hardship and bitterness spawned in that period when so many people started what should have been their working lives without work to do. What is particularly cruel about unemployment among the young is that so many young people have no other resources to fall back on and no real preparation for being unwanted as workers. And what is particularly dangerous about unemployment among the young is that the experience and attitudes which young Canadians develop now will last their lifetime. If they are herded into welfare or if they are taught that their energies are unwanted, that will shape their lives and could deprive our nation and themselves of their creative participation. There is another aspect of this question. It is a myth that has grown up, the myth that kids in Canada are lazy. I think that the existence of that myth protects the government against its clear responsibility to take action to end the high and unacceptable rates of unemployment among the young. One of the tragic aspects of this is that the Prime Minister himself has contributed, perhaps not deliberately, to the view that kids in Canada do not want to work when he made his offhand remarks that anyone who wanted work in Canada should go to Thompson, Manitoba or some other distant spot. The people who suffer most
Milestone Speeches 29
from this misleading suggestion are the young people in the country. Prior to those comments, there was some substantial sympathy for the problems of the unemployed young, but that sympathy evaporated when the Prime Minister casually entered the fray. In fact, Mr. Speaker, while the work ethic may not recommend itself to a barefoot boy from Outremont, a study by the Canadian Council on Social Development of young Canadians who applied for social assistance in November, 1971 indicated: The young social assistance applicants who were interviewed have by no means rejected the concept of work and its central importance to their development and self-fulfillment. They do not reject work, they just cannot find any. So long as the government caters or contributes to the opinion that they do not want work, their problems will continue to be ignored.
We are dealing here with a budget, which will do much less than it pretends. It is the budget of a parlour magician, relying on illusion, trying to trick the people who are watching. The minister held out the illusion of using tax cuts to put more purchasing power into the economy, yet in reality the total revenues of the government will be $1.7 billion higher this year than last. He talks buoyantly of creating 300,000 new jobs as he has talked before and failed, yet in reality is accepting unnecessarily high levels of unemployment. He talks about expansion, yet under-stimulates. He worries about inflation, yet has no response except a so-called contingency plan which he proposes to produce like a rabbit from a hat. What is wrong with this budget is its purpose. At a time when the government should be preoccupied with providing jobs and growth and some stability, it is instead preoccupied with its own political survival. So, instead of introducing measures which are bold enough to work, the government relies instead on measures which seem safe enough to serve. Other speakers in this debate have indicated how far short the minister will fall of his stated goals. My particular concern today is to underline the urgency of a goal he did not state, the goal of helping young Canadians put their energies to work and to review some of the steps which the government’s own advisers have urged as a means to break the shackling pattern of high unemployment among the young. The Hunter Committee on Youth published its report 19 months ago,
30
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
and it was heralded with that special enthusiasm this government reserves for reports it proposes to ignore. One simple, but highly valuable, recommendation of that report was that the government at least recognize that youth unemployment constitutes a special problem in Canada. At the moment, we have virtually no hard information about the special causes of high youth unemployment, about its relation to the education system, about the effectiveness of counselling or manpower, about the need and scope for new kinds and definitions of work. The Hunter Committee recommended establishing a Canadian youth employment directorate, and generally we in this party approve of that initiative, at least as an interim measure. The government has done nothing about the directorate. The report of the Canadian Council on Social Development, entitled “A Right to Opportunity” reveals a chaos in the counselling and social assistance services available to young Canadians out of work. They recommend an early federal-provincial conference, to bring some order and equity to that field. The government has done nothing. This party has suggested that LIP and OFY be given statutory authority, so that their purposes can be debated and understood in parliament and so that they can assume some permanent place in the program structure of various government and voluntary agencies, instead of being expensive itinerants whose present status prohibits integrated national programming. The government declines that commitment as, indeed, it declines any commitment to do anything at all about the continuing crisis of youth unemployment. The government has been running away from the problem and the running has to stop. We cannot afford the enormous human cost of training hundreds of thousands of young people to be out of work and on welfare. We are wasting lives and wasting potential. The problem of youth employment would be less acute in an economy performing nearer its potential. So, the approach of this party, outlined Thursday by the hon. member for Don Valley (Mr. Gillies), will help the young to find jobs and will help other Canadians. Even so, it will be necessary to take special measures to arrest or reverse the trends towards higher and higher levels of unemployment among Canadians aged 24 and under. Speaking Friday, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) underlined the most dangerous consequence of this budget, that the country will continue to mark time, because we are governed by a party more intent upon its own survival than upon the growth or progress of the
Milestone Speeches 31
nation. That is harmful to many parts and people of Canada; but no group suffers more from this government or this budget than the hundreds of thousands of young Canadians who are looking for work in this rich country and finding only frustration. If we continue to deny them the chance to contribute their best to Canada, they will quickly become accustomed to contributing their least. That is a tragedy we have in our power to avoid if this government would only put the nation’s priorities ahead of its own.
First Speech as Prime Minister House of Commons Debates 10 October 1979 31st Parliament, 1st Session: Volume 1, 37–42 Right Hon. Joe Clark (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to stand and take part in this debate for the first time as Prime Minister of this country. I must say I am pleased to find that the former prime minister is adapting so well to a role which obviously very much fits a man of his talents and temperament. On behalf of the government I want formally to express our appreciation to the Governor General and Mrs. Schreyer for the work they have done for Canada during their period of office. It has been a service that has been very energetic, one that has sought to bring the values and customs of that office to all corners of the country. I also want to congratulate most sincerely the mover and seconder of the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne. That is always a difficult occasion for new members rising for the first time to make their maiden speech on the first sitting day of the House of Commons. I join in the words of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Trudeau) in expressing our congratulations to those two members who made very direct, businesslike speeches, speeches in the tradition of the regions from which they come and in the tradition that animates and moves most members, whether they have come newly or again to this House of Commons. I want also, Mr. Speaker, after the great struggle in which we had to drag you from your seat yesterday, to congratulate you on your re-election by the House of Commons to preside over our proceedings. I am sure it will be a presidency and direction that will be as distinguished in the future as it has been in the past. We wish you well and wish all
32
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
of us well as you preside over this central institution of the democracy of the land. I must say to the former prime minister, the Leader of the Opposition, how much I appreciated his counsel and advice in the early days of my prime ministry, his willingness to meet with me, particularly in preparation for trips abroad, and his absolute co-operation in the work of transition from one government to another. It was very much appreciated. It was another signal contribution on his part to this country. I want to take this opportunity here to thank him formally and directly for that help at that time. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Clark: As I said earlier, he seems to be taking very well to his new role. It is an area in which I have certain experience. He will recognize as time goes on that there is a time to stop fighting the last election and to begin thinking about the future. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Clark: If he does not do that, there is the hon. member from Winnipeg and there are others who will ensure that the party does that for him. In his remarks the Leader of the Opposition raised the rhetorical question as to which of the premiers of Canada told me to go shake myself. Well, we all know that they all told him to go shake himself. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Clark: He raised the concern—and it is not unnatural that he would—that we have changed the system of cabinet government in the country. We have changed it principally in two ways. First, we have made public what had previously been kept secret about the way cabinets govern in this country. There has always been an inner cabinet in Canada. The difference is that with this regime, which believes in open government, the composition of that inner cabinet is public, whereas under the regime of the former prime minister the composition of his inner cabinet had been private. Again the Leader of the Opposition raised a question about the strength of the influence of the voices from New Brunswick, Manitoba, Nova Scotia and Alberta. What has happened is that distinct from the kind of government we had prior to May 22 this is a government in which voices from all of the regions of Canada count and in which
Milestone Speeches 33
influence is not reserved to a select elite accumulated around the Prime Minister, in the office of the Privy Council and in the Prime Minister’s Office. I should say to the Prime Minister— Some hon. Members: Oh, oh! Mr. Clark: I should say to the former prime minister. I wanted to raise his hopes because there is no question that none of the hon. members opposite are going to do so. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Clark: I want to say to the Leader of the Opposition that I am a Prime Minister from Alberta, and I am no less a Canadian for that. If he had recognized some time ago the fact about Albertans and, indeed, about citizens of other provinces, that we can be loyal to our provinces and loyal to our nation, he would not have encountered the difficulties he and his government did. I want to extend my personal congratulations to all members of the House of Commons elected here. I have had the opportunity to extend those congratulations personally to several of them, but I want particularly to extend a welcome to those members of Parliament who are elected for the first time because, as they will find, they are members of a very special institution which is clearly unique in this land. This is the central institution of Canada. It is the one place where every corner of a vast country has the right to be represented and the power to be heard. The traditions of the institution change, but our constant obligation here is to be the one place where the whole nation comes together, speaks frankly together and acts together. In my view, this Parliament is not now as strong as it needs to be because too much power rests with the executive of Parliament and with the executives of political parties; too many limits are placed on the right of private members to know, to inquire, to propose and to be responsible for their own actions and for their own decisions. In particular, the historic right of Parliament to control the public purse was eroded by guillotine rules which meant that each year billions of dollars of public spending went unscrutinised and unchallenged. Parliamentary committees were denied the authority and the resources to have a positive influence on public policy. Members of this House of Commons, people sent here to represent their constituents and the interests of all of Canada, were denied information which should have been made public. As a result of that, great numbers of our fellow citizens have been
34
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
turning away from Parliament and have ceased to regard this as the vital, national institution which it must be seen to be. Parliament is the only institution we have which can rightly claim to represent this whole nation. This Parliament is in danger of losing its constituency, and one of the solemn obligations upon those of us who are fortunate enough to be members of the Thirty-first Parliament of Canada is that that is a trend which we must change and reverse. That will require change in some of our rules and some of our practices, but more has to change than just the rules of Parliament. There must be a change in the attitude toward the institution on the part of all members, not just those who are ministers of the Crown. I am confident that that will occur because there are so many members here in all parties who came to this House of Commons—and I quote the words of the hon. member for Cardigan (Mr. MacDonald)—“to make Parliament work.” The government will be introducing proposals for rule changes and has already indicated changes in attitude which, in effect, will provide a latitude to private members of the House of Commons which can be used, if members choose, to obstruct all progress here. That will be one capacity. That will be one consequence which could flow from the latitude we intend to give to private members of the House of Commons. Or it can be used to make the House of Commons the vital centre of discussion and decision in this land. I hope that this Parliament might be characterized by very open inquiry. Naturally, on some questions some members have their minds made up already. So do some parties, and I am not looking particularly at the hon. member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent). However, on many of the most important questions we face there are no easy answers, yet there is an obligation to act and, indeed, in many cases an urgent obligation to act. As a government we cheerfully accept the responsibility to put forward answers when we think we have them. What is more important is that we cheerfully accept the responsibility to initiate unfettered inquiry where that might yield better answers than the ones we propose or the ones we have. I give the commitment now as we start this session in the House of Commons that this government will welcome amendments to legislation from whatever part of the House they come if their proposers can persuade us of their merits. I hope that attitude of openness will extend throughout this Parliament and to most major questions, and that this will be a Parliament where decisions are based on evidence and not on ideology. The gov-
Milestone Speeches 35
ernment itself is proposing action which questions certain long-held assumptions concerning, for example, the notion that Crown corporations, once established, must stay in the public domain forever, or the attempt to keep public information secret, or concerning the nature of relations between the central and the provincial governments. We do not expect that everyone will agree, but we hope it will not become the habit of any party in this House to resist reform just because it is new. [Translation] There is an obvious fact about the forthcoming decade: it is that a substantial part of the old formulas has become worthless. We must reconsider our procedure to develop policies in several areas and it rests with Parliament to undertake openly such a task. The drafting of the following reports is almost completed and they will be submitted to the standing committees well before Christmas: to wit, the report of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Miss MacDonald) on foreign policy; the report of the Secretary of State (Mr. MacDonald) on cultural policy; the report of the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Baker) on parliamentary reform; the report of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Crombie) on pensions and that of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. McGrath) on fisheries. A joint committee will be set up next week to consider the matter of atomic energy. Moreover, we want to complement the proceedings of standing committees by setting up select committees that will deal with specific matters. The first select committees were announced in the Speech from the Throne and I add today that we intend to suggest that the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale) be appointed chairman of the select committee on the specific needs of the handicapped and disabled; the hon. member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Wenman), chairman of the select committee on the voluntary sector; the hon. member for Mississauga North (Mr. Jupp), chairman of the select committee on foreign ownership, and the hon. member for Calgary South (Mr. Thomson), chairman of the select committee on measures necessary to prevent recurring cost overruns. We hope that those committees will be entirely set up and active next week and that they will submit their reports for the consideration of Parliament and government at the beginning of 1980. [English] If the House accepts the challenge that we are placing before it, I believe that we can make this again an instrument which is strong enough
36
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
and respected enough to reflect the diversity of an exciting country. Instead of talking about the instruments of national action and national unity, we can become an instrument of national unity and of national action, and that is the purpose of the reforms that we propose. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Clark: The Leader of the Opposition made reference to the phrase I had used during the election campaign, a phrase concerning communities. That is a matter of great concern to me. The concept is of great concern to me because in recent years the sense of community in Canada, despite the best intentions of the hon. gentlemen opposite, has become unraveled. That was evidenced most dramatically by the election in Quebec of a government explicitly committed to dismembering the country. But that erosion of common purpose has grown in other ways as well, such as in the decision of the Canadian Labour Congress that they could not trust government enough to continue in consultation; the mutual suspicion that has clouded relations between the federal and provincial governments; the growing gulf between Canadians working in the private sector and Canadians working in the public sector; a sense among private citizens that their government and their Parliament was ignoring their interests and their views. More was happening in recent years than just the development of interest groups and narrow movements which arise occasionally in every country. There was a pattern of things coming apart in Canada, of the centre being literally unable to hold, and the irony was that every assertion by the centre of its authority weakened that authority. The lesson is that this nation cannot be ordered together. This nation must be brought together, and the starting step must be to establish a basis of mutual trust, of goals that emerge from the community of Canada rather than being imposed upon the community of Canada. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Clark: As a new government we have believed that the way we should begin to knit the nation together was to establish a climate of calm and of co-operation. My ministers have travelled and consulted widely with the provinces, labour, business, co-operatives and a multitude of groups and individuals, sometimes concluding agreements, more often establishing the basis for future agreement. The fact is that the central government can lead the nation in resolving difficult prob-
Milestone Speeches 37
lems only when the central government is seen again as a leader which itself respects the other partners of the Canadian confederation. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear! [Translation] Mr. Clark: Mr. Speaker, it had been obvious for several years that continuous confrontation had become a rule, a kind of system for federal-provincial relations. As a new government, we have set a first immediate objective: the easing of the climate of federal-provincial relations. This is what we did. Action has been taken in that perspective. I think, for instance, of the agreement signed as regards Loto Canada. An agreement in principle has also been reached between the new government and some coastal provinces concerning offshore mineral resources. In the same spirit, we have decided not to reintroduce in the Commons the bill on the referendum as proposed by the former government. This measure was perceived in Quebec as an act of aggression and it is precisely the kind of attitude that my government intends to change. So, my government has the firm intention of altering the atmosphere of federal-provincial relations. Concrete measures have been taken in recent weeks and others will be in the future. We believe that it is possible to solve several problems without any constitutional amendment and without revising the constitutional tool we now have at our disposal. This is not a one-way process. In some cases, the answers we will choose might imply a jurisdictional transfer from the federal government to the provinces, whereas in others it might be a transfer from provincial jurisdictions to the federal authority. Of course, there are skeptics in this House. It is quite possible, however, with a will, with a determination to chase partners rather than conflicts, for a Canadian government to get co-operation, understanding and agreements. During this parliament, the issue of federal-provincial relations will still lead to controversy and intense debate. It is my hope there will be indeed outspoken debates. It is my hope that every member in this House will share a determination to contribute fully and outspokenly, with deep conviction but without prejudice, because, Mr. Speaker, no party can hope to have all the wisdom needed, or all the answers. The government will listen to members on this side and members opposite
38
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
who may have different perspectives and priorities. It is this government’s view that all hon. members, wherever they sit in this House, want to have a strong Canada and maintain our confederation. [English] Mr. Olivier: Say that to René Lévesque. Mr. Clark: Someone asked me to tell that to René Lévesque. In my judgment, it is the duty of all members of the House of Commons to tell that to René Lévesque. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Clark: And it is important for all of us in the House to end that personal preoccupation with René Lévesque. The message which we are interested in delivering is not to the premier of the province of Quebec; it is to the people of the province of Quebec. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Clark: We believe that there is a much wider range of opportunity for accomplishment with us as a government prepared to seek new approaches with the people of Canada than there was with the former government, which was determined to continue old quarrels with the Premier of Quebec. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Clark: If the hon. member for Ottawa-Carleton (Mr. Pepin) does not stop interjecting, I will quote sections of his report to him. Some hon. Members: Oh, oh! Mr. Clark: The results of the election in May left all of our parties deprived, in one way or another, of the balanced representation that might be considered ideal. That is a problem for our parties but it is a great opportunity for this Parliament. We can rise above narrow partisanship and help each other to achieve a better understanding of how our respective regions perceive, and are affected by, these national issues. I am not suggesting that any of the parties argue their own views less aggressively; only that in this Parliament, and especially on this subject, each of us should be more open to the views of the others. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!
Milestone Speeches 39
Mr. Clark: That will not be easy. It will require of us in this House an act of mutual trust, just as the conduct of federal-provincial relations, in our view, required a new spirit of mutual trust between Ottawa and the provinces. The test of our federalism and its strength is not in the undoubted power of the central government to have its way. Rather it is in the willingness of the partners to act together. The success of our federalism will lie in our ability to accommodate the different kinds of communities Canadians choose to live in. These communities have different economic potentials, different economic strategies, and they have different cultural and social goals. Confederation gave to the provinces not only real powers—and in some cases exclusive powers—which could be exercised in those fields, but it assigned to the provinces the sources of revenue, the economic means to exercise those powers effectively. That was the spirit in which the forests, the mines, the natural resources of another day and the revenues therefrom were assigned to the provinces. That is the spirit in which in 1979 this government agreed that the provinces which have offshore resources should control their development. The extent to which all provinces have the economic means to exercise their powers will determine their ability to pursue their different cultural, social and economic goals. The greater their dependence on Ottawa for their revenues, the less likely they are to develop that diversity which is at the heart of the Canadian idea. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Clark: In these so-called constitutional debates the real question at issue was not the law of the country but the nature of the country. Miss Bégin: It is the country. Mr. Clark: Can we afford to have Canadians doing different things in different ways in different parts of the country? I ask that of the former minister: can we afford to have Canadians doing different things in different ways in different parts of the country? Not only do I think we can, I believe we must if we are to honour the spirit of this country. One thing which is beyond debate, to my knowledge, is that everyone in the House accepts the absolute necessity of a central government strong enough to guarantee basic standards of service, instruments of growth and national co-ordination, and indeed capable of initiating and expressing national policy.
40
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
When it comes to the national interest, the final responsibility and the ultimate authority lie with Parliament. If paramount national interests were endangered by federal-provincial conflict or federal-provincial stalemate, this government and Parliament could act. There is no question that we would have the support of Canadian people in so acting. But asserting that ultimate power in emergencies is quite different from insinuating that ultimate power every day. The nation is more than the central government. The need for a national transportation policy, to take one example, is of an order quite different from the need for a national lottery. The nation will survive the provinces running the national lottery. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Clark: Indeed the nation will be much stronger if the government in Newfoundland uses wealth from offshore resources to build its economy directly, rather than having part of the proceeds recycled back from Ottawa. One fundamental fact is that there is a limit to what Ottawa can do, because there is a limit to what Ottawa can know. Ottawa cannot know the local needs, natures, and requirements of different corners of this country as well as the properly constituted governments of those provinces. The hon. Leader of the Opposition quoted Edward Blake and approved of him. I will quote Sir John A. Macdonald on a matter where— one of the few times—I think Sir John was wrong. Sir John A. Macdonald would have preferred a unitary government. That is what he wanted; that is what he dreamed about. That was the model he had in his mind, but Sir John A. Macdonald was a practical, pragmatic man. He wanted to make the nation work. He was more interested in having a nation which worked than having a nation which accorded to his theories. He recognized that the nation was not built the way he wished it was, and successful national governments since have recognized the limits of federal power. That is not matter of constitutional law. It is a matter of common sense, and it is an approach which must be applied to the economy and the culture of Canada as well as to our constitution. [Translation] Today, Canadians want to recover control of such matters as concern them in their homes, in their communities. The challenge which this government, and this Parliament, must primarily face, is that of rerouting our Canadian economy. For the better part of the last ten years, we
Milestone Speeches 41
have constantly been plagued with a low rate of economic growth, a high rate of unemployment and a high rate of inflation. And short-term forecasts promise much more of the same. Canadians have a right to ask themselves why, in as rich a country as ours, we have not been able to fare better. There is no doubt that the international situation is to be blamed in part. Today, we are feeling the effects of a slowing down in the economic activity in the United States—but we cannot blame the whole wide world for our problems. Canada is surely not in bondage. The failures in our economic policies have their roots here, not in Washington, Zurich or Jedda. We have an alternative. We may go on pretending that we cannot solve our own problems, and looking for scapegoats. That will surely result in the realization of pessimistic forecasts. Or we can take on the job, which is ours anyway, of building this country. The time has come to roll up our sleeves and build this country. [English] Our goals as a government are clear. The Canadian economy must begin growing again much more close to its potential. Job opportunities must be created for Canadians, especially for groups like young people, women in the Canadian economy, and native Canadians, among whom unemployment is especially high. We must reduce the inflation which continues to rob Canadians of their savings and the real value of their incomes. Simply continuing existing policies will not work. That is why we intend to change the economic direction of Canada in several ways. First we intend to open up economic policy-making in Canada. Under our system government does not control the economy; it can only influence it. If that influence is to be effective, economic signals from the government must be public, understandable, and certain enough so that they can be relied upon. The best way to ensure that is to lift the shroud which has enveloped the making of economic policy. That is why we propose to encourage pre-budget hearings by a committee of this House, so that Canadians can understand the economic issues and options before the government. That is why we intend to make public with each budget four-year revenue and expenditure estimates. As we indicated today, that is why we are quite prepared to have a committee of parliament look into major economic questions such as the questions relating to interest rate policy. Second, we intend to be much more specific in economic policy. We believe that management of the large economic levers of fiscal and
42
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
monetary policy should be stable and consistent. We reject fine-tuning as an effective economic option. Instead, we recognize our economy is not monolithic but consists of a multitude of parts, each with its own sectoral or regional requirements. We intend to be sensitive to those specific needs and to tailor policies to fit them. That is the approach reflected in the Speech from the Throne in its emphasis on developing regional strengths such as tourism, shipbuilding, fisheries, grain transportation, and northern mining, and in its commitment to stimulate the housing industry through tax credits for mortgage interest and property taxes and to provide new incentives for small and medium-sized enterprises. Those programs will create jobs, jobs which are stable because they are founded on inherent economic strengths. [Translation] The same objective—creating specific programs to meet specific economic requirements—served as a basis for the implementation of our other job creation programs. I am sure all members welcome the fact that in September the rate of unemployment was down for the seventh time in as many months. But we all know that this improvement is not shared by all Canadians, the rate of unemployment for women is still 2 per cent higher than that for men, more than 12 per cent of Canadians under 25 are unemployed which is nearly double the national rate. Although no official statistics are available in the case of natives we know for a fact that the rate of unemployment in that group is much higher than in others. We intend to grapple with those problems. I will present the House with an employment strategy for women based on the principle that women have an undeniable right to participate equally in all sectors of the economy. That strategy will include steps to reduce occupational segregation through better training programs and contractual clauses that will recognize the women’s responsibilities concerning the children and will increase the opportunities made available precisely to them under economic expansion programs. In addition, our programs will underline the significant part played by the government which will become a leader in this area with the introduction of specific employment policies. Still in that vein, we intend to set up a youth employment secretariat to co-ordinate and plan programs making training and job opportunities available to young Canadians. We will be reviewing the job tax
Milestone Speeches 43
credit program to promote on the job training for young people who do not have all the necessary skills and we will be introducing a better program to encourage young Canadians to serve their communities. [English] Sir, in seeking to broaden economic opportunities available to native Canadians, the government supports the growing desire among native people themselves to assume authority and responsibility for their own development. The minister and I have recently had very useful conversations with representatives of the National Indian Brotherhood concerning, mainly, other matters, but certainly opening the door for discussion by which we can work together on important work opportunities for the native people of the land. Finally, sir, I want to emphasize this government’s determination to place much greater reliance on the private sector, and private sector broadly defined, whether in terms of business or in terms of volunteer agencies, to achieve our economic and social goals. In recent years, in many ways the federal government became a burden on our economy. Record deficits and virtually uncontrolled spending were sometimes explained as being intended to spur economic growth. They were nothing of the kind. They were a drag on the economy. We are implementing in this government a program of spending restraint, not because we believe it is one easy step from restraint to lower deficits and ultimately to a balanced budget. Our restraint program is intended to free resources to the private sector to encourage investment, to encourage business expansion and to encourage job creation, which we believe is the best way to generate the revenues which in turn will help us balance the budget of Canada. We intend to reduce the burden of government on the economy and offer practical incentives to individual Canadians to build a stake in our country. I am confident that Canadians will respond to that kind of encouragement and incentive. As I have travelled this country in recent months I have sensed a growing confidence, almost an enthusiasm, among Canadians over the prospects for this country. We should be confident and we should be enthusiastic because there is literally no country in the world with a greater potential, with a greater capacity to build, and with a greater offer of liberty and opportunity to its citizens, than this country.
44
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
Some hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Clark: Sir, energy is just one example. Certainly we need a new agreement on pricing and more effective programs both to conserve energy and to increase its supply. My ministers and I, as the House knows, are discussing these questions now with the provinces, and I have every confidence we can reach an understanding that acknowledges our needs and acknowledges theirs. But, the true significance of our energy situation is not what it requires in the short term. The true significance is what the energy situation in Canada offers our citizens in the long run. This country can be self-sufficient in energy within a decade. We can be free of the insecurity that is the price of dependence on supplies beyond our control. For many years we have talked about our energy potential in this country, about the billions of barrels of oil locked away in the tar sands, about our heavy oil deposits, our frontier potential, and our 500-year supply of coal. All we could do in those days was talk; we lacked the national need and we lacked the economic rationale to develop the resources we talked about. The time for talk is over. Resources which used to be too expensive to develop are becoming almost cheap at their price for Canadians. To that extent OPEC has done us an economic favour. The economics now make sense to take advantage of our resource potential. Our national need is evident. What we require is a national will to make that happen. During his remarks the Leader of the Opposition referred to a phrase he had used often during the election campaign, a phrase to which I took the deepest exception. He suggested that Canadian should learn to lower their expectations. We disagree on many things, but we disagree on nothing more fundamentally than that, because I believe this is a time for Canadians to raise their expectations, not to lower them. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Clark: We are a nation of immense potential, immense potential in our physical resources, in the great strength that comes to a country like this by the fact that all of us, coming from every corner that is represented here in this House of Commons, have in our heritage, in our past and as part of our being a different sense of what this country can become, and a different identity that, woven together can create a vibrant and strong national identity. There used to be a time in this country when Canadians feared the
Milestone Speeches 45
regions and feared the different identities that might develop. There is nothing to fear in the regions of Canada. There is nothing to fear in the differences of Canada. Those regions, those differences, and those resources are the strengths of our country. Our challenge as a Parliament is to try to give the leadership to restore that sense of calm and that sense of co-operation that can bring Canadians together to work toward the realization of the individual dreams of Canadians across this country. What we have tried to do in the Speech from the Throne is set down a beginning agenda, steps we can take to reform this institution to make it the vital centre of the nation again, steps we can take to start Canadians along the road to feeling a part of their country and to building a stake in their country. That is the work we invite Parliament and the people of Canada to join in accomplishing. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!
Last Speech in the House of Commons House of Commons Debates 13 May 2004 37th Parliament, 3rd Session: Volume 139, 3156–60 Hon. Anne McLellan (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise today in this House to pay tribute to a fellow Albertan, and an outstanding parliamentarian and public servant, the right hon. member for Calgary Centre, the man from High River. Although we have spent years on opposite sides of the House, no one can but have enormous respect for the member’s commitment to this place and his profound belief in the importance of the democratic discourse that takes place here. Because of that commitment, the right hon. member displayed on a daily basis his love of language and his understanding of its power; its power to inform, to elevate and to inspire, and at times, dare I say, its power to irritate, to exasperate and to move to anger. Some have said that the hon. member was able to say more in 35 seconds than others could say in 35 minutes. It is perhaps not surprising that the right hon. member understands the power of language. He is the son and grandson of newspaper owners and his mother
46
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
was a French teacher. I am told that as a young man he considered a career in journalism. Indeed, he was the editor of the student newspaper, the Gateway at the University of Alberta. As a student he quickly became involved in his lasting passion, politics. I understand that at the university he debated vigorously the issues of the day with fellow students, such as Jim Coutts, Preston Manning and Senator Joyce Fairbairn. By the late 1960s, the right hon. member had decided to make politics his career. He worked for some time as a speech writer for the late hon. Robert Stanfield. The right hon. member was first elected to Parliament in 1972, becoming leader of the Progressive Conservative Party in 1976 and Prime Minister in 1979. He left elected politics in 1993 but returned as leader of the Progressive Conservatives in 1998. His commitment to progressive conservatism has never wavered. As minister of external affairs, the right hon. member represented our country with distinction around the world. I want to particularly note the important role he played, and our country played, in bringing an end to apartheid in South Africa. [Translation] While he served as the minister responsible for constitutional affairs between 1991 and 1993, the right hon. member’s commitment was obvious throughout the country, as he worked tirelessly to bring about constitutional reform through the Charlottetown accord. [English] While the Charlottetown accord was not finally accepted by Canadians, no one could ever doubt this right hon. member’s commitment to a strong and united Canada where policies like official bilingualism are at the heart of who we are and what we aspire to be. As we all know, the right hon. member has never stopped working on behalf of Canadians, both in and outside the House, either in an official party or not. For example, yesterday he asked a key question about the government’s commitment to the fight against HIV-AIDS in this country. It will be 25 years ago this week that the right hon. member became Prime Minister of Canada. On behalf of the Prime Minister, the Government of Canada and all Canadians, I wish to thank the right hon. member, his wife, Maureen McTeer, and his daughter, Catherine, for their selfless, courageous and
Milestone Speeches 47
inspiring commitment to this country and its people. Mr. Speaker, the member had the honour to lead the political party that was there at the founding of our country. Hon. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, CPC): Mr. Speaker, as Leader of the Opposition, it is my honour today to rise and pay tribute to the right hon. member for Calgary Centre and to his political career. I wish to begin by admitting that we have not always been on the same side of political issues. I think we have spent most of our careers and political lives as opponents, but in this business, while this may colour one’s perspective, it should not blind one to the abilities and accomplishments of others. Because of the rivalries that we have had from time to time, the right hon. member and myself are sometimes compared, and I am sure will be more frequently in the future. These comparisons to me are, from my perspective, not always flattering. I can give one example. A few months back I was on the road as I often am for a number of days at a time and left my family to travel alone back from the riding to Ottawa. My seven-year-old son, Benjamin, found himself seated with the right hon. member for Calgary Centre on that four-hour plane flight. Well, a few days later my harshest critic, my wife, delivered the verdict. She said, “Do you realize that lately you have been spending less time with your son than Joe Clark has?” Man, I tell you, some things hurt. However, there was a point there. As we all struggle with the challenges of living in public life, we cannot help but admire an individual who has been in public life almost his entire adult life and who has not only managed those challenges but has sustained a strong family life, an enduring and loving marriage to his wife Maureen, and a wonderful father-daughter relationship with Catherine who I understand also grew up at Stornoway, like my daughter Rachel. Today we pay tribute principally though to a long and distinguished career in public service. Whatever our differences, the right hon. member for Calgary Centre has had a career here of well over 30 years. He has by my count been elected to this House eight times. He has served with distinction in key roles such as the constitutional affairs minister and has been minister of external affairs. He twice led a national political party. He occupied the post of leader of the opposition during some of the most critical battles ever to take
48
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
place in the history of this Chamber. And it was almost 25 years ago that he received the mandate, albeit briefly as it turned out, to be Prime Minister of Canada, one of only 21 people in the entire history of this country to be so honoured. As a consequence, the right hon. member for Calgary Centre will leave here with only history to judge him, which makes him a historic figure. Many people come here with the ambition to be historic figures but very, very few ever achieve this. And for that, we salute his career and we wish the right hon. member and his family health and prosperity into the future. [Translation] Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, throughout his very long parliamentary career—he was first elected in 1972— the member for Calgary Centre performed his duties with dignity, a keen sense of public interest and, I might add, a good sense of humour. He is a gentleman. In March 2002, he joined us to vote in favour of a Bloc Québécois motion calling on the government to recognize the fiscal imbalance. He advocated the rejection of the clarity bill. He did so with arguments that we do not support, but nonetheless, he urged his party to vote against this disgraceful bill. We did not always agree with his stand on the Quebec issue, as it did not meet our expectations or Quebecers’ expectations for that matter. Standing by his convictions, at the end of the 1980s, when the Progressive Conservative Party was in power, he made a sincere attempt to reconcile the aspirations of Quebec and Canada, but unsuccessfully. Nonetheless, he was always open to Quebec, sharing with Quebecers values common to both peoples. In all sincerity, I hope he enjoys his political retirement with his family, who supported him at all times. I wish him a good retirement and good luck. [English] Hon. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the NDP caucus, I certainly want to wish the right hon. member for Calgary Centre well as this Parliament comes to a close, and to thank him for his distinguished service as a parliamentarian, as a prime minister, as leader of the opposition, as a minister and as a Progressive Conservative.
Milestone Speeches 49
It should also be said that the right hon. member served Canada particularly well as Canada’s foreign affairs minister during the Mulroney years, as I, who was his assigned critic for part of that time, can well attest. It has already been mentioned the role that Canada played under his leadership and the leadership of the prime minister at that time in the fight against apartheid and I think this is a Canadian story that we do not tell well enough or often enough. One hesitates to be too complimentary about the right hon. member because some of his adversaries have said a political goodbye to him before and lived to hear their praise repeated in a different context. The right hon. member has a history of responding to duty and one never knows where or in what way duty may call again. The NDP has a relationship, probably not remembered with affection by the hon. member, with one of the most difficult moments in his political life. We moved the motion that ultimately brought down the newly elected government in 1979. We did not, however, determine the government’s tactics in response to the motion. That is a responsibility still to be sorted out. However for the record I want the right hon. member to know that I argued in caucus at the time for letting him govern for a time while we saw what he would or could do. Perhaps it was because it was my first Parliament and I was not anxious to go back to the streets, I am not sure what the reason was, but that was my position at the time and I stick to it. [Translation] I would also like to commend the right hon. member for setting an example for western Canadians by being truly open to and aware of Quebec’s aspirations and the reality of a bilingual Canada. Although we could debate certain constitutional matters at great length, I think the example he set in this regard is and will be part of the legacy of the right hon. member for Calgary Centre. [English] I think the right hon. member was also precocious in his attitude toward women, championing the cause of women’s equality long before it was always popular to do so. Finally, I want to commend the right hon. member for his appreciation of the role of Parliament and, in particular, the role of the House of Commons. Remarks have already been made by the leader of the Bloc
50
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
Québécois about the right hon. member being a gentleman and about his sense of humour. What I want to say of him and what I think is one of the highest compliments that can be paid a member of Parliament is that he is a House of Commons man who took seriously this place, its procedures and its possibilities, no matter what side of the House he was on, and saw the importance of doing the nation’s business in this chamber and not across the street in some other contrived, unelected and unaccountable venue. We hope he will write a book, for few have more to teach us about the nature of political commitment, through all the ups and downs that political life offers, than the right hon. member for Calgary Centre. [Translation] Good luck and thank you very much. [English] Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join in this tribute to a man who, for over 30 years, spanning four decades, has dedicated his life to serving the public interest. Canada is a complex country. It has been said that if other countries suffer from having too much history, Canada has too much geography. All that geography makes our great country a place in which diverse and sometimes divergent views and interests coexist and in fact flourish. Throughout his political career, the right hon. member for Calgary Centre strove to understand that diversity and bridge those divides. The son of a newspaper man from High River, Alberta, it would have been easier for him to be a man of his roots. Instead, he became a man of the world, always reaching out to the other, whoever the other happened to be. The right hon. member learned to speak both of Canada’s official languages. He named the first woman to serve as foreign affairs minister and the first black cabinet minister. He has always been an ardent supporter of human rights. He fought Canada’s fight against South African apartheid. He was instrumental in Canada securing an acid rain treaty with the United States, and he welcomed the Vietnamese boat people. The constitutional accord he negotiated would have, for the first time, recognized aboriginal peoples in our basic law. In each case there was a political risk and a political price to pay. Not all of these initiatives were in fact successful but together they
Milestone Speeches 51
speak to his unwavering commitment to make this country a place anyone can call home, no matter their history, no matter their background. He spoke of Canada as a community of communities long before the concept was fashionable. Indeed, our recent history has shown how truly prescient his vision was. [Translation] When I was young, I observed the right hon. member, who served our country as party leader, prime minister and then secretary of state for foreign affairs. He played a role, in a number of ways, in my decision to enter politics. His commitment to Canada and his protection of the public interest are an inspiration to us all. [English] Too often political pundits, media commentators describe what we do in this chamber in terms of winners and losers. That is, of course, important to our system. At its core, our system is in fact adversarial. It starts, after all, after an election, but that, dear friends and colleagues, does not tell the whole story. At its best, politics is about making the big play in the interest of Canada. In an age of careful political leadership and government by opinion poll, the right hon. member for Calgary Centre stands out as a man who in every circumstance tried to make the big play. Far removed from the back rooms, focus groups and polling questionnaires, he had a vision and he made his case to Canadians in public places, but more often than not in this House of Commons. He is a fierce opponent in question period and a formidable debater. On occasion, Mr. Speaker, you may have recognized that he is capable of being a tad partisan as well, but his motives were never in question. At all times and in all things he was motivated by the desire to make Canada a better place. I would be remiss if I did not take a moment to acknowledge his wife and partner in this long political journey, Maureen McTeer, and my friend, Catherine. Political life, as we know it, is hard on families: long hours, time away, stress and hectic schedules, but their approach has always been a team approach. His achievements are their achievements as well. This House of Commons and indeed this country will always be in the right hon. member’s debt, both for the things he did and for the things for which he stood. He has taught me a great deal about the
52
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
country that we serve and I think we all collectively are better parliamentarians for having known him. Thank you, Joe. Right Hon. Joe Clark (Calgary Centre, PC): I have to say, Mr. Speaker, that I preferred these parliamentary tributes when they were about someone else but I appreciate deeply the tribute that the House has paid. I thank my fellow Albertan, the Deputy Prime Minister, for her remarks. I want to thank the Leader of the Opposition and, more particularly, his very engaging son, Benjamin. [Translation] I would of course, like to also thank the leader of the Bloc Québécois . He is right, we do not see eye to eye when it comes to certain basic issues relating to Canada, but I think that we both, myself as much as he, appreciate each other’s sincerity of commitment to our objectives. He is a little less bilingual than I, but these things happen. [English] My colleague, my friend and, dare I say, former youth member of the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada, when there was such a thing, has now, I am pleased to see, confessed his collaboration or the collaboration of his party with the Liberals in bringing down my government in the beginning of our life. I have to express a particular appreciation to my friend and my colleague in the other part of the Progressive Conservative caucus in the House of Commons, the member for Fundy-Royal. I admire him as a parliamentarian and an individual, and I very much appreciate his words today. Mr. Speaker, I think this will be one of the least controversial interventions of my career. I want to begin my remarks where I began my career, which is with the men and women who elected me in the four constituencies in two provinces which it has been my privilege to represent here in the House of Commons. I am immensely grateful to the voters of that spectacular but shortlived riding of Rocky Mountain in Alberta; the riding of Yellowhead, which I had the privilege to serve for so long; and the riding of KingsHants, from which the Deputy Prime Minister comes as does her now colleague, the current member for Kings-Hants; and of course my constituency of Calgary Centre.
Milestone Speeches 53
I want to express my thanks to literally thousands of other individuals in Canada and abroad, in this House and outside, who have helped me in good times or in bad times or in both. Everyone here knows, and it has been acknowledged, just how much members of Parliament owe to our families. That is always true but I have to say that in no case has it been more true than in the case of Maureen McTeer and of Catherine Clark. Maureen sought election here herself, in a difficult constituency and time. She would have been a formidable presence in this House of Commons. It may also be appropriate for me to say, and this is perhaps the most controversial thing I will say today, that Maureen, Catherine and I, under fire, have learned something about family values. The spokesman for the NDP referred to the defeat of my government in 1979. I have had the privilege of several dramatic moments in this House. I will not recite each one of them. I remember clearly how that defeat came about after a vote on our budget in 1979. On that vote, the Liberal Party wheeled in every member who could draw breath. They literally evacuated the hospitals. Members of Parliament, on whose desks cobwebs had grown, showed up miraculously to vote. The present Prime Minister should have seen it because I learned that night that just because a member of the Liberal Party might be worn out, battered and beaten up, he can still come back to haunt you. Now, almost everyone who serves here leaves with a larger vision than they brought. The diversity of Canada becomes a personal experience which lifts most of us beyond the natural Canadian boundaries of region and language and local experience. The real privilege of working here goes beyond service to our constituents or to our country. In an age of invention and uncertainty there is no other profession so consistently subject to change and to surprise. In an era where people are always learning, there is no better school than public life. [Translation] I learned the other official language here, learned it in my fashion. That helped me understand that the distinct society is not a dead phrase in a constitution, but the living reality of most of French-speaking Canada, and a defining feature of our history and our future. Serving in this Parliament became my passport to communities and realities I would otherwise never have known so well: aboriginal Ca-
54
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
nadians, Canadian Jews and Canadian Arabs confronting ancient tensions, farmers seeing their way of life threatened, the transforming imagination of our artists and scientists. But this Parliament is more than a school. It is a place to act. It is the principal place where the Canadian community can act together. [English] This House can reflect our country at its worst or at its best. I have been here for both experiences. At our best this House of Commons defines the public interest of Canada. That happened, I believe, when we argued for and against specific constitutional changes in at least two Parliaments; when we argued for and against a free trade agreement; and when we acted together, as others have mentioned, as a Parliament in a practical campaign against apartheid. In such debates there are bound to be deep disagreements, because that is in the nature of a diverse country that is continent-wide with roots and interests reaching literally everywhere. That very diversity makes it imperative that there be a place where broad public interest can be expressed. There are plenty of voices for private, regional or special interests. At our best in this House of Commons, the whole community can find its Canadian voice. I have been honoured to serve here. Maureen and I look forward to the next chapters in our lives. I hope my colleagues in the House are able to draw as much satisfaction from their public service as I have from mine.
2
Economic and Energy Policy The following chapter about economic and energy policy, though the shortest, is also perhaps the most multi-faceted of those included in this volume. In two speeches, Clark showed his firm grasp of the complex nature of our Confederation, the tension between balancing a strong national government with encouraging provincial control of energy. These debates continue today. What does not continue today is the Red Tory tinge evident in Clark’s approach to the issue. Taken from the perspective of a Westerner, it has added significance as it demonstrates the careful balance between his view of Canada as a united federal state but also the importance of decentralization. This theme is picked up in the next chapter which includes a speech on the importance of federalprovincial consultation on energy policy. In the following speeches, delivered during and shortly after his time as Prime Minister, Clark discussed the problem of energy provision in Canada. The most recent collapse in international oil prices and ongoing pipeline debates reminds us that this is a perennial one in Canadian federalism. In the first speech, Clark staked his claim that if the oil industry was nurtured, Canada could have energy self-sufficiency by 1990. Demonstrating the liberal nationalism that was part of Red Toryism, Clark argued that he hoped that Canada “would be much better protected against the vagaries of the international market” and from “national decisions of foreign governments taken for their own reasons and with no thought of Canada in mind” through the implementation of his program. This sort of rhetoric would no doubt make most contemporary conservatives balk and demonstrates how the Conservative party has shifted since Clark’s time in the House of Commons. The protectionist sentiments seem out of place from the present day when free trade is the norm in Canadian politics, even among nominally left-wing parties and governments. And it may have been these sorts of statements that emboldened the more right wing critics of Clark’s A Man of Parliament; Selected Speeches from Joe Clark, edited by Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon. Montréal and Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press, Queen’s Policy Studies Series. © 2019 The School of Policy Studies, Queen’s University at Kingston. All rights reserved.
56
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
day who were frightened that the Progressive Conservatives had elected a “Red.” However, despite his call for increasing Canadian ownership of its energy sector, Clark remained a Tory at heart. It was, after all, a private sector solution that he proposed. He was not arguing for nationalizing ownership by the federal or provincial governments, nor bringing about worker ownership of the refineries and wells. Instead, he simply stated that Canadian capital should be owned by Canadian businesses. And further, Clark proposed that the Trudeau government of the day should be subsidizing companies to expand production and protecting them until Canada stood on a solid, self-sufficient energy foundation. Given that Clark spoke with the 1973 OPEC crisis fresh in everyone’s minds, such a moderate response was understandable and commendable. What is further commendable is that in his response to the fallout of a crisis Clark refused to turn this into a one-man show. He did not raise “the spectre of unilateral action” nor brandish “an emergency power or a declaratory power” with which to threaten the provinces. This instead was meant to be a roundtable process in which Clark elicited the opinions of not just his fellow first ministers but also those of the wider Canadian public. Through a national conference on economic development Clark aimed to bring in relevant stakeholders such as “industry, the unions, the credit unions, the farmers and other individuals concerned with the economic development of Canada.” This conference demonstrated Clark’s belief in the small and local given form. It is unfortunate then that it never saw the light of day as Clark’s minority government was defeated before it, or as his energy plan as a whole, could be put into action. With the federal government’s duty to consult, his commitment to consultation was ahead of his time. While it was a principled position, for Clark it was also a practicality and necessary for maintaining the very fabric of the Confederation. His concern for the federation may also have a lot to do with the timing of these two speeches which appeared shortly before and after the first Quebec referendum on May 20th 1980. Separated as we are from these momentous events and with the Quebec sovereignty movement at low ebb, this perhaps does not carry the same weight for us today. But this was the beginning of an era that would culminate in Quebec remaining in Confederation by less than 1 percent of the second referendum vote. And as we saw in the recent British EU referendum vote, these things can easily go the other way. For Clark, this was an attempt to create a new kind of Confedera-
Economic and Energy Policy
57
tion promised to Quebeckers by Prime Minister Trudeau following the referendum in order to not just convince Quebec to come along, but to remain in. Viewed another way, the energy debate was not simply about the end of securing our energy supply but it was also about the means by which it was secured. This was a consultation that sought the co-operation of Confederation’s constituent parts in order to create a solution that was greater than the sum of its parts. In his words, it was the creation of a “genuine national package reflecting a genuine national consensus and pursuing genuine national goals.” It is unfortunate then that in failing to follow his advice in crafting the National Energy Policy, Prime Minister Trudeau would help foster the rise of a new kind of conservative (and a new kind of Conservative), one fueled by a sense of Western alienation to which Clark alluded in this chapter. While hindsight is always 20/20, perhaps we should have followed his advice on the importance of an inclusive process then.
Energy Supply House of Commons Debates 6 November 1979 31st Parliament, 1st Session: Volume 1, 1005–1008 Right Hon. Joe Clark (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker, I was very interested in listening to the attack of the hon. leader of the New Democratic Party on the Liberal party. I will not try to create the suspense the leader of the NDP did, and I will announce at the outset that I intend to oppose this motion. Regarding the speech of the hon. Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Trudeau) who introduced the motion before us today, I suppose the part which struck me most, and that I found frankly saddest about his remarks, was that frequently he urged this government to come back to the policies of his government, to return to the policies of his government, to look backwards. Fundamentally that is the reason why there was a change in government on May 22: Canadians had had enough of a government looking back. They wanted a government that was looking forward, that was prepared to come to grips with the challenges and the problems of the Canadian people. That is why we were elected. That is true.
58
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
Some hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Clark: I want to deal directly with the questions laid out in the motion, even though they were not all addressed by the Leader of the Official Opposition. [Translation] I would like, first, to deal with the question of oil supplies to Eastern Canada, namely Quebec and the Maritime provinces. I believe the best way to describe the situation at this time is to say that it is tight but under control. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Hnatyshyn) as well as the chairman of the National Energy Board have been constantly monitoring the situation for weeks and months. We did not wait until we had a crisis this winter to act, and concrete steps have been taken to deal with any major problem that could occur in coming months. That is why the volume of our exports of crude oil abroad have been reduced considerably, in fact nearly eliminated so as to fully meet the demand by Canadian refiners. With the approval of the government, the National Energy Board is allowed to swap Canadian western crude for additional supplies of foreign oil to eastern Canada. The National Energy Board recently approved swaps totaling 2.5 million barrels that will practically all go to Quebec refineries. In addition, the National Energy Board asked Interprovincial Pipe Line to amend its regulations so as not to penalize corporations that have not done business with it in the past. That will have a direct effect on a group of heating oil distributors in Quebec who are thus given access to 450,000 barrels of crude oil from western Canada. Other steps that would take too long to enumerate here today have also been taken to ensure as much as possible the security of oil supplies to Quebec and the maritime provinces. However, I would like to add that if we were to face major interruptions in coming months we will not hesitate to use the powers we have under the Energy Supply Emergency Act. I do not believe this will be necessary but if the situation ever called for it, my government will not hesitate to act so the citizens of Quebec and the Maritimes will not have to face an oil shortage this winter. [English] I think there was probably no stranger part of the motion than the
Economic and Energy Policy
59
condemnation of the government for “its failure to support existing intergovernmental agreements on oil pricing and supply.” All members of the House and the Canadian public should be very clear as to exactly what that means. It suggests that this government and this Parliament should be content to rest with the status quo, that we should ignore the need to face the facts of the Canadian future, that we should be content to rest in the past and to put up with policies which have failed in the past. That is the recipe, the prescription, of the former government opposite, that backward-looking group which earned its way out of office and now is forgoing any possibility of getting back into office because it refuses to look to the future and continues to be preoccupied with the past. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Clark: Let me spell out for the House and the country exactly what the oil policies of the old government have achieved and would achieve for our country if we were prepared simply to put up with the status quo. The policies of the old government have reversed dramatically Canada’s traditional strength in international oil trade. In 1974 we had an oil trade surplus of $1 billion. Last year we had an oil trade deficit of $1 billion. If existing policies are left in place, we could have an oil trade deficit of $6 billion by the mid-1980s. That is the prescription of the Liberal party. That is not the future this government will accept for Canada. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Clark: Because of those policies and because of what they have done to our dependency on imported oil, the cost of oil has become a major contributor to the federal deficit. This year alone it is costing the Government of Canada $1.8 billion to offset our dependence on imported oil. Under the policies we inherited, that cost would double to $3.6 billion by 1985. The policies of which those opposite are so proud produced last year a shortfall of 345,000 barrels a day between Canadian oil production and Canadian oil needs. If we followed the advice of the former government simply to look to the past and ignore the needs of the future, those policies would widen that shortfall to 640,000 barrels a day within five years. The old policy has resulted in a widening gap between Canadian oil consumption and the discovery of new Canadian reserves. Since 1974, when OPEC alerted any government which had its eyes open to the
60
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
need for strong national action, we have been consuming in this nation an average of 648 million barrels of oil each year and adding barely 100 million barrels to our known reserves. Those same policies of the old government have done little to restrain energy demand in Canada or to encourage Canadians to eliminate waste and inefficiency in their consumption of energy. We remain the largest per capita consumers of energy in the western world. During the first nine months of this year, our consumption of gasoline was up more than 4 per cent. Not only does that represent virtually no progress in energy conservation, it threatens the commitments Canada made to its world allies through the International Energy Agency and at the Tokyo Summit. Those are the principal results of the policies of members of the old government who want to turn back the clock and say that we should leave them untouched. They are a prescription for energy failure in a country which has a rare opportunity for energy success. They may be acceptable to the Liberals and the New Democrats, but I say to the House of Commons that they are not acceptable to this government and the people of Canada. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Clark: Because they are not acceptable is precisely the reason we have been conducting extensive negotiations with the provinces, to try to come forward with a new energy package that will not only deal with price but will deal with other instruments and other aspects of a policy and a package which can make this nation self-sufficient in energy by 1990, which can make energy a building block for the future of Canada rather than an obstacle to our growth, as has been the case with the policies followed and still pursued by the old government. I want to deal with the accusation of an inability to conclude an agreement on energy pricing. My government is working towards agreement with the provinces in ways that were perhaps contemplated by the last government but were rarely pursued by them. We are making progress and we are confident of reaching agreement on an energy package soon. Obviously, with our discussions continuing, it is not appropriate for me to get into the content of an energy package today. But it is probably worthwhile, and even instructive to members opposite, to examine the process that we have followed. We are not, and we do not pretend to be, miracle workers in getting agreement in a complex federation. It takes time to reach agreement in
Economic and Energy Policy
61
an atmosphere of reasonableness and in an atmosphere of co-operation. On the rare occasions when the last government talked to the provinces that must have been evident to them. I remember a day in 1976— An hon. Member: Have you talked to Saskatchewan? Mr. Clark: The leader of the New Democratic Party asks if I have talked to Saskatchewan. Yes, I have, and I wonder if he has. Some hon. Members: Oh, oh! Mr. Clark: I remember a day in 1976 when the then minister of energy, mines and resources reported that more than six months of talks and meetings had preceded decisions on new oil and natural gas prices. His statement to this House in May of that year made reference to meetings as long before that as December, 1975. Far more often, unfortunately, the government of that day, the old government, could not be bothered with that kind of consultation, although it occasionally paid lip service to it. The prime minister of the day talked from time to time about not wanting to act unilaterally, about bringing the provinces into discussion, but what happened? What happened, as demonstrated clearly by the events of 1977, was that he would set a price agreement and then his government unilaterally broke that agreement, and consequently poisoned relations on energy questions between the federal and provincial governments. Some hon. Members: Oh, oh! Mr. Clark: Sir, we do not operate that way. We are working with the provinces towards building a stronger Canada. We are planning and we are building together, and the current discussions on energy are part of that process. We are not raising in this chamber the spectre of unilateral action. We are not running around suggesting that we have an emergency power or a declaratory power with which we can threaten the provinces. That is what we are advised to do by the old government opposite, and that is exactly why, because they followed that approach, the old government opposite was so unsuccessful and failed so dramatically in getting agreement among the provinces of this country and the national government on how we can make use of our unique and virtually limitless, in all of its aspects, energy potential. Let me be quite clear that we are prepared to accept our responsibility as a federal government to move by ourselves if we have to, but
62
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
we do not use that as a club or as a threat or as a weapon. I believe that we must try, and must try 110 percent, to get agreement by agreement before resorting to other alternatives of menace or of threat. We have not yet reached that limit. Indeed, we are making positive advances towards agreement. Indeed, I can report to the House that we have now reached a point in the discussions with the provinces where I think it would be useful to bring together the first ministers of Canada to discuss energy matters; a broad package of energy matters. I will be convening a meeting on Monday next, November 12, here in Ottawa of the first ministers. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Clark: Sir, our principal objective in working towards a new energy package with the provinces is first and foremost to achieve energy self-sufficiency for Canada by 1990, so that by then no Canadian will have to depend on insecure or unreliable foreign sources to heat his home or to drive his car. In moving toward that fundamental goal we also want to reinforce the commitment of this nation to a new era of co-operation with the provinces, to demonstrate our belief that, given clear and stable direction, the private sector can meet Canada’s energy needs, and to use the opportunity that self-sufficiency provides significantly to increase Canadian participation in the development of our nation’s energy resources. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Clark: Sir, no one in this House is satisfied with the degree to which our energy development in Canada is dominated by firms controlled outside Canada. But it is important as we lament and oppose that situation that we understand how it happened. That situation arose because of past government policies, going some distance back, that made it more attractive for foreigners than for Canadians to develop our resources. It was reinforced by existing fiscal policies which, without any offsetting initiatives, tended simply to reinforce the status quo. Sir, we in this government are determined to change the status quo in terms of Canadian participation in Canadian energy development. The additional investment resources that will be available through changes in pricing policy will provide us with an opportunity to do that, and we intend to seize that opportunity to help more Canadians control more of the Canadian energy industry.
Economic and Energy Policy
63
Some hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Clark: Among the elements of a new energy policy under discussion with the provinces we are proposing the creation of a national instrument to provide a significant source of capital investment in major new energy projects across Canada. That concept appears to have general approval among the governments involved and we are hopeful that such an institution would have broadly based support from those governments. The creation of an institution like that will provide a specific source of funding, separate from other claims on the fiscal resources of government, to support projects ranging from coal development in Nova Scotia through a gas pipeline in Quebec and the development of additional hydro resources in Manitoba and Newfoundland. By placing a strong public financial commitment at the front end of those projects, their development will be more certain, their development will be quicker, and they will come on stream to serve the interests of Canadians much more quickly than they would without that instrument. In supporting those policies, in supporting those projects and in investing those new financial resources, it will be a basic principle of this government to encourage the maximum possible Canadian participation. We all know, those of us who are prepared to look at the facts of what is happening in the energy industry, how the use of special incentives by the government of Alberta in regard to in regard to increased exploration and development of natural goas led to a considerable increase in the role of Canadian-controlled companies in that area. Some hon. Members: Oh, oh! Mr. Clark: The leader of the New Democratic Party scoffs. I ask him to check the record because the record is there. It was a method that was brought in and it has resulted in Canadian control to an increasing degree of an industry that has too long been controlled by foreigners. I sympathize with the leader of the New Democratic Party. It is often difficult when reality collides with ideology, but this government is determined to govern on the basis of the real situation and the real potential of this country. We differ from the New Democrats in that we are not caught up in ideology. We differ from the Liberals in that we are not preoccupied with the past. We are determined to build a Canadian future in this country.
64
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
I had referred to the experience in Alberta, and I say to the House that I am convinced that an ability to back up the entrepreneurial skills and technical expertise of Canadians with major financial support can be equally productive in strengthening Canadian participation in other important energy developments. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Clark: The last item in the Leader of the Opposition’s motion concerns interest rates. No one in this House, and I am sure no Canadian, likes high interest rates. We all want them lowered and this government is determined that they be lowered, not by instant magic, because there is no magic, but by taking the tough decisions now that are essential if we are going to restore the Canadian economy to the kind of strength that will allow more moderate rates of interest in the future. That, sir, is our medium-term goal and we are dedicated to it. However, the issue in this motion is the short term—whether the government had any immediate alternative but to accept the advice of the governor of the Bank of Canada and, indeed, what the consequences following an alternative course might have been. The hard reality is that the economic circumstances we inherited from the old government left us with no short-term alternative. In fact, on becoming the government it became apparent to us that the mess was even worse than we suspected and that our immediate options were even more limited than we thought they were. We knew that we were inheriting a budgetary deficit of $11 billion, the largest in Canadian history. We knew that we were stuck with a balance of payments deficit of some $7 billion, the worst per capita deficit in international dealings of any western nation. But let me tell the House a few of the facts we found out only after we became the Government of Canada. First, because of the previous government’s commitment to secrecy, we did not know that the trend in government finances was exactly opposite to what Canadians had been told by the old government. We found that long-range forecasts, which we made public for the first time, showed the federal deficit increasing to $14 billion by 1983 and the public debt actually growing dramatically again with the next five years. Secondly, we had been told by the former minister of finance, as recently as his last budget, that the Canadian economy was entering into a period of, to use his words, “sustained expansion.” What we found in fact was an economy here and in the United States sliding toward a recession, not moving toward sustained expansion.
Economic and Energy Policy
65
The third thing we found was that the accounts of Canada, as presented by the old government, simply did not represent the true financial position of the country. In the Accounts of Canada Adjustments Act, the previous government proposed to write off some $3.5 billion in dubious assets, an action which might not affect cash requirements but which certainly had an impact on the country’s net debt and debt servicing costs. Similarly, we found Crown corporation borrowings of as much as $1.5 billion which were not entered in the accounts, even though they were a contingent liability of the government. We found a number of capital projects with costs virtually out of control, from the Prince Rupert grain dryer, where costs had multiplied five times, to the Mirabel Airport losing $1 million a week and requiring expenditures of hundreds of millions of dollars before it could even achieve solvency. [Translation] Mr. Speaker, faced with this legacy, no responsible government had any other alternative but to accept rising interest rates. Our government made a difficult but responsible choice. Let me also tell you the other solution we could have adopted. The Liberals as well as the New Democrats have hinted to the Canadian public, without ever making their position clear, that there was an obvious way out, which as Canadians should know, which had the full support of the opposition, namely, to reject the advice of the governor of the Bank of Canada. Such a decision would have had dire consequences. The governor might have felt he had to resign, as the government’s decision would amount to a lack of confidence. Given the present economic situation, such a resignation might have provoked a wind of panic on the Canadian stock exchange dealt a hard blow to Canadian currency. Even without the Governor’s resignation, our dollar would have been affected by our $7 billion trade deficit, followed by a drastic depreciation of our dollar and serious inflationary consequences for country. Such was, Mr. Speaker, the short-term choice the government had to make. I hope the representatives of the two parties opposite will have the courage to rise before this debate is over and tell this House and the Canadian people that it was the option they supported. [English] We are faced here with a ritual motion of non-confidence from a government that is so preoccupied with its past that it will—
66
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
Mr. Munro (Hamilton East): Government? Some hon. Members: Oh, oh! Mr. Clark:—by a group who consider themselves a government and who are so preoccupied with the mistakes that they made in the policies to which they were committed in the old days that they refuse to face the future of Canada. We on this side of the House are not afraid of the future of Canada. We will not accept the advice of those opposite, that we either succumb to ideology suggested by the New Democratic Party, or we lock ourselves in the past and shut our eyes to the future that can be gained in this country. We have in the energy resources of this nation a tremendous potential upon which to build as a nation. It is a potential which was there under the old government, but which it refused and failed to take advantage of. We do not intend to perpetuate that failure or to continue in the path of shutting our eyes to the great energy potential which exists in this country. We are a nation which need not depend on foreign sources. We are a nation which need not subject the people of Quebec and Atlantic Canada to an increasing dependence upon unstable foreign sources. We are a nation unique among nations of the world which has the possibility to build upon our own energy strength. This is what this government intends to do. If those opposite want to risk a general election on a question of the past versus the future, then we will go with confidence into that election, speaking to the future and certain that the people of Canada, given a choice or forced to make a choice between a government that wants to govern and a party opposite that wants to politic, will share with us the confidence that my ministers and I have in the future of this country. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!
Economic and Energy Policy
67
Energy Policy Security and National Interest House of Commons Debates 18 July 1980 32nd Parliament, 1st Session: Volume 3, 3116–3119 Mr. Clark: The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) promised that his spending would not exceed the real increases in gross national product. That was his promise during the election campaign. He broke his word, as it has become the habit of the Liberal party to break its word to the people of Canada. Mr. Chénier: Look who’s talking. Mr. Clark: That casual attitude toward honesty damages the very fabric of Canadian democracy, but in no field does the failure to face facts honestly more endanger the future of this country than in the field of energy policy, because we are a nation with immense potential and immense good fortune. We are also a nation which is blessed by individuals who have gone out to acquire skills and who have turned their skills to innovation, to creativity, and to opening and building a land. That is part of the legacy of this great nation, but our good fortune cannot be allowed to obscure two fundamental facts. The first is that no one else will look after Canada. We Canadians have to build on our good fortune, and we have to do it ourselves. Sometimes that means taking hard decisions, and always that means honesty. If we back down from hard decisions, our country will slide down the scale of nations. The second reality is that energy, which can be the source of Canadian security and success, can also be the cause of Canadian decline. If we build on our own resources, we can be the strongest nation in the world. That is if we build on our own resources, but if we expose ourselves weakly to the world, we can be cut down by revolutions in Iran, by invasions in Afghanistan, and by national decisions of foreign governments taken for their own reasons and with no thought of Canada in mind. Any of us in this House of Commons who are honest and knowledgeable about the facts know the frailty of the world energy picture. We know that demand is rapidly exceeding supply in the world. We know that the foreign policy of the Soviet Union is focusing more and more upon securing energy supplies at whatever cost to world stability. Hon. members of this House of Commons also know that we in Canada are unique among nations in our ability to protect our future
68
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
against hostile foreign decisions and to protect our future by making realistic Canadian decisions here at home. That is the reality facing any Government of Canada, but the response of Canada’s two recent governments has been dramatically different. My government faced those facts and for the first time in post-war history in Canada prepared a comprehensive national energy policy which would build upon the energy strengths of this energy nation. A federal-provincial agreement on that package was two days away when the Liberals and the New Democratic Party combined again to bring our government down. An hon. Member: Poor Joe! Mr. Clark: Since then there has been no comprehensive energy policy at all advanced by the Liberal government. Negotiations on a narrow but important part of energy policy, the part concerning price, are apparently under way. The producing provinces, naturally enough, are insisting that they receive the same net benefits from this government that they would have received from the agreement we had prepared. That is understandable, but the point for this Parliament to underline is that all the people of Canada also have the right to expect that Canada will get equivalent benefits from the Liberal agreement, equivalent to those benefits Canada would have received from the agreement two days short of signing by the Progressive Conservative government defeated last year. The Prime Minister is apparently meeting the premier of Alberta. He may well have a proposal to make. He has an adjournment ahead of him. I want to suggest some items for his agenda during that adjournment as they relate to energy policy. I would like him to bear in mind, as I believe the Canadian people are increasingly bearing in mind, the important elements of the comprehensive energy proposal which we made and which the Liberal party and the NDP, for their own narrow political reasons, voted against. Some hon. Member: Oh, oh! Mr. Clark: Those elements of that proposal were designed to build Canadian security, were designed to ensure Canadian supply, and they included some of the following. First, they included a pricing regime which would be sufficient to lead to exploration in this country, including non-conventional exploration in areas where exploration has not occurred successfully before, and which would lead the producers of this country to go forward and to guarantee security of Canadian sup-
Economic and Energy Policy
69
ply, because we believe that Canada, with the resources available to it, with the initiative of its people and of its industry, is eminently capable of becoming self-sufficient in energy by the year 1990. That was our goal, that should be the goal of Canada, that can be the goal of Canada, and that is a goal which apparently has been abandoned by the Liberal government and which I recommend that they adopt, not in my interest but in the interest of the nation that they will govern for a few years more. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Clark: Second, that energy package put together to secure Canada’s energy future, to take advantage of the rare resource we have as an energy nation, provided—and I say this for the special information of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources who, unhappily is absent—a force majeure clause which would have permitted the Government of Canada to separate Canadian price, to an even greater degree than was in the agreement spelled out, from the changes that might occur in world price, in prices by OPEC. That force majeure clause was an item of protection which was in our agreement, and we have no way of knowing what protection, if any, will be in the agreement signed by the Liberal government, if indeed there is one. Third, we recognized as a fundamental element of an energy policy for Canada that there had to be help to those Canadians who were going to be hit hardest by the increases in price that increases which were inevitable in a modern world economy. So, we introduced an energy tax credit which would have been available to the lower income and harder hit Canadians across the country, an energy tax credit, I would remind the House, voted against by the NDP and voted against by the Liberal party, but introduced by this party, introduced by the government we formed, as a fundamental element of a national energy package— Some hon. Members: Oh, oh! Mr. Clark: I am being heckled by the hon. member for Timmins-Chapleau (Mr. Chénier). I wanted to say the hon. member for Hollywood, but it is Timmins. His interjection was a complaint against the tax credit. I am not surprised that he should interject against the tax credit since the other night he applauded the imposition of an increase in the price that his constituents have to pay for home heating oil, an increase they would not have had to pay under our government.
70
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
Some hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Clark: We introduced those measures of aid to help Canadians who would be hardest hit. That was another major element of that program. Again we recognized that there were in some parts of Canada energy generation which depended excessively upon petroleum. So we offered special help to the province of Nova Scotia and to the province of Prince Edward Island so that they would be better able to deal with the increases which were inevitable in the current international energy situation. We proposed an energy self-sufficiency tax which would have yielded some $6 billion. We proposed a tax that the NDP voted against which would have taken $6 billion from the large multinational oil companies of this country. The NDP voted to spare multinationals from a $6 billion tax burden which we proposed to introduce. Some hon. Members: Oh, oh! Mr. Clark: That energy self-sufficiency tax imposed upon the energy industry was to have been directed entirely to energy supply and to developing conservation in this country. We proposed the establishment, as part of that package, of a Canadian energy bank which would encourage individual Canadians and Canadian-controlled companies to invest in Canadian energy projects. Again there has been no mention of that important factor, no similar instrument spelled out by the Liberal party. This party stands committed—and we proved it with the energy bank—to the concept of Canadian ownership of the Canadian energy industry. That is a principle which was voted against by the NDP, it was an initiative which was voted against by the Liberal party, but we believed in it and we set it forth in the energy package which was brought forth by us as a government. We believe in Canadian ownership of Canadian energy resources, and we gave Canadians a program which would have accomplished that goal. Some hon Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Clark: Those are some of the elements of our energy package, and the NDP was caught in the act of voting against Canadian ownership, of voting against low-income Canadians, of voting against energy security, so they are making a great deal of noise in this House. No doubt they are trying to shout down the revelation of their record, but as a party they voted against lower income Canadians, they voted against
Economic and Energy Policy
71
Canadian ownership, and they voted against Canadian security of supply. If they do not like hearing this now, they had better get used to it because they are going to hear a great deal more about their actions against Canadian interests. Some hon Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Clark: Indeed, as one of my colleagues pointed out, they will be hearing a great deal more about their actions against the steelworkers, their actions against unions. Mr. Skelly: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think the record clearly shows that it was the Canadian people who in fact voted against the Leader of the Conservative Party (Mr. Clark). Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is a point of debate, not a point of order. Mr. Clark: I regret that in the uproar which was being caused by the hon. member’s colleagues I did not hear his remarks, but my colleagues who did hear him tell me I missed nothing. Some hon Members: Oh, oh! Mr. Clark: I want to speak for a moment not simply about the contents of that energy package, important as they were because they faced, for the first time since the war in Canada, the great possibilities that existed for this nation to become self-sufficient in energy. I want to speak for a moment, for the benefit of the Liberal party, about the process that was followed in working out that package because I happened to read a most extraordinary chronicle in the life of Canada the other day, an interview given by one Pierre Elliott Trudeau to, of all people, the Toronto Globe and Mail. I thought that wonders would never cease when I read the account of that interview, until it became clear why exactly that interview had been given by that individual to that particular medium. The reason was that he wanted to build up the idea that there is no alternative approach to the confrontation politics which he has practiced for so long at such a high cost here in Canada. He suggested that what he termed as the non-confrontationist approach of my government has not worked. I want to give him one instance where it did work, and I wish him as much success as we had. When we began the process of working out an energy agreement which would speak to supply and security of supply for Canada, we consulted with the premiers of the country, Premier Buchanan, Premier Blak-
72
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
eney, Premier Davis, Premier Hatfield, Premier MacLean, and Premier Lougheed. We consulted with the premiers of the country. We did not take them a package which was a fait accompli, but we said, “Look, here is the goal for this country, a goal for a price which Canadians can afford and will have to face, but a goal also which will take advantage of the great resources that are here and will build on those resources.” I went to them as prime minister to premier and I said, “This is not a closed book, this is an arrangement, an agreement which conserves the interests of the whole community of Canada which we commonly serve.” I received from those premiers several proposals that became part of that agreement and that were very helpful to the final package which was proposed. For example, it was the Premier of Ontario who suggested first that there be a relation that would not go above 85 per cent of world price and would naturally be protected after that by the force majeure clause. We did not go to a province, as the Trudeau government so often does, and say, “Take this or leave it.” We said, “Here is a proposal. How can it be improved?” Premier Davis made a suggestion that improved it significantly. We went to the Premier of Nova Scotia and said, “Here is a proposal. How can it be improved?” Premier John Buchanan and Premier Angus MacLean of Prince Edward Island co-operated with us in having the energy package that was brought forward reflect the special requirements of their parts of Canada. There were other items where we went to the premiers and listened to the advice of other governments, because we wanted a package which would not simply be a package that bore a party name, that would not be something that was forced down the throats of Canadians by a national government, but in effect would be a genuine national package reflecting a genuine national consensus and pursuing genuine national goals. That kind of consultation will work in this country. That kind of consultation came within two days of working out a national energy package. If that package had been adopted this country would be much more secure in energy supplies than we are now, this country would be much better protected against the vagaries of the international market and against political changes which may occur in countries we cannot control, than it is now. That was a national policy worked out by a national government that was prepared to treat the provinces as partners sharing common goals, rather than as enemies who are there only to be confronted.
Economic and Energy Policy
73
Some hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Clark: One other dimension of the energy negotiation which is important to recall to the attention of the House and the Canadian public at this time is that we recognized, as I think most Canadians do, that the question of pricing cannot be separated from the question of changes in the equalization formula of the country. I will say to the House that we received advice from public servants and from others that the only way to approach that problem was to approach the two issues together. I considered that advice and I knew it would fail. I knew the only way we could get agreement on those two important and fundamental questions in the country was to approach them in the proper sequence, and to recognize that in western Canada for a variety of reasons there had grown such a deep suspicion of the national government that there would not be a ready agreement on equalization until there was seen to be a fair agreement on an energy package first. That is why we proceeded in the sequence of getting agreement first on energy. We would have had that agreement on the Saturday after the government fell, and on the Monday after the government fell we had scheduled a first ministers’ conference at which we had prepared for presentation to the premiers the proposal of a new review of equalization in the country based upon the Rowell-Sirois report, recognizing the fact that 40 years after Rowell-Sirois it was necessary for us to re-examine root and branch the equalization system in this country. We proposed the innovation that instead of just simply being a commission imposed upon the provinces by the government, it should be a commission jointly appointed, with members appointed by both provincial and federal government, because that is the way to make a federal system work—not to argue about commas in a law but to recognize we share a common country and we want to build this common country together. That was the approach we took to equalization. I know we have heard nothing of the reforms in the equalization agreement which will expire in less than two years. We have heard nothing of that from this government. To our knowledge and to the knowledge of the House of Commons, it is doing nothing about that fundamental problem. Had we been successful—and we were not; that is history—not only would we have had an energy package that would have moved this nation toward energy self-sufficiency by 1990, also I firmly believe we would have had an agreement on an amendment to the equalization formula which would have taken account of resource
74
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
revenues in a way that would have truly shared, not by imposition but by agreement, the resources and wealth of this whole nation. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear! [Translation] Mr. Clark: Mr. Speaker, I think that we have thoroughly discussed national unity during recent years. I think, however, that we may have overlooked some means available to a national government. We have decided, for example, that it was not sufficient to convene the provinces and the federal government merely to discuss constitutional matters. We must also co-operate to consider modernizing other Canadian institutions. This is why we have advocated the establishment of a national conference on economic development in Canada. The purpose of such conference would be to gather for the first time in Canadian history all the representatives and spokesmen not merely of the federal and provincial governments but also from the industry, the unions, the credit unions, the farmers and other individuals concerned with the economic development of Canada. It is by working together that we can have a united country. The constitution alone or discussions dealing exclusively with legal matters will not do it. I referred earlier today, Mr. Speaker, to the actions of the Liberal government on energy matters and I indicated and there was evidence of it as recently as last night, that the word of the federal government is worth nothing or is not acceptable and that the people cannot rely upon it. Finally, the Liberal government is specializing in policy flip-flops and we just had a new example with energy. That is very serious, particularly when we think of what the Prime Minister said during the referendum campaign. He solemnly committed himself to achieve a new Canadian federalism. He promised it to Quebeckers and other Canadians. But now that the referendum campaign is over, can we truly believe that he has really changed, that his attitude is different from what it was in the past and that the proposals made by his government constitute the slightest opening onto a genuine reform? Unfortunately, the answer is no. In fact, all the Prime Minister has managed to do up to now is to cause a lot of people to worry, from Claude Ryan to Roy Romanow. It augurs no good at all for the future, and I hope that the Prime Minister
Economic and Energy Policy
75
will be able to pull himself together in the next few days and will realize that the time has come at last to keep his word and to take concrete steps toward the renewal of the Canadian federation. [English] I close by reminding this House that we are a nation with great opportunities. We are a nation which, as well as its natural wealth, also has a wealth of good will and a wealth of common interest. We are a nation which can be brought together, but also we are a nation which can be driven apart. We need, as a nation, national projects. We need, as a nation, co-operation among levels of government and among individual Canadians. We need, as a nation, national leadership. We have had none from this government in the first session of this Parliament. They have sought and are receiving an adjournment. I would hope their agenda for an adjournment would include having a budget ready for the early days after we come back in mid-October, would include having an energy agreement concluded which gives the people of Canada at least the benefits that would have been available under ours. Having regard to the time, I wonder if I might conclude my remarks by moving, seconded by the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker): That this House continue to sit this day beyond the ordinary time of daily adjournment in order to complete its consideration of the motion of the President of the Privy Council now under consideration.
Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!
3
Federal-Provincial Relations As previously mentioned in the introductory chapter, Joe Clark had (and has) a keen interest in defending the rights of the small provinces and less well heard regions of our Confederation. This is illustrated in his speeches on the proper nature of federal-provincial relations. As an Albertan, Clark has a particularly acute sense of the awareness that Canadians living beyond the Highway 401 corridor can feel towards the rest of Canada. In the following chapter, five speeches illustrate Clark’s understanding of the impact of federalism on diverse parts of Confederation. In the first one, Clark articulates his view of Canada in classic pluralist terms as a “community of communities.” This is perhaps one of his most memorable phrases and articulates a united Canada of shared but distinct identities, where our loyalty lies in our most immediate neighbourhoods. While this speech was from an Empire Club address, the others were made throughout his parliamentary career, in parliament from both sides of the House, as opposition MP to the Prime Minister’s Office. Clark spoke on a wide range of issues, from the importance of small town newspapers to the overall relationship of the federal government to the territories. Outside of his political career Clark worked as a journalist, both at local papers such as the High River Times and wrote for larger papers such as the Globe and Mail. This experience helped to lend perspective on the importance of local businesses and the news media in helping to build the “distinctive sense of community” (see page 97). Clark believed that this could not be fostered by institutions with a cross-country reach because their scope did not recognize the unique peculiarities of the federation. Clark made a point to demonstrate that what is also important was not just federal government support for these initiatives but the ways in which federal government support is given. Both means and ends were important to Clark; these concerns are demonstrated throughout this chapter. A Man of Parliament; Selected Speeches from Joe Clark, edited by Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon. Montréal and Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press, Queen’s Policy Studies Series. © 2019 The School of Policy Studies, Queen’s University at Kingston. All rights reserved.
78
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
Because our federation was originally intended to be centralized, with the federal government playing a dominant role in governing, the provincial governments have often had to fight to ensure they didn’t get run roughshod by an activist federal government. Clark worked within this tradition from his earliest days as a parliamentarian. Though he was a federal MP, his actions suggest that his allegiances lay often with the provinces in their efforts to get a fair share of revenue from their resources. In the third speech presented in this chapter, Clark was up against a government that, in his words, was beginning to act like a “bull in a china shop,” flouting the duty to consult with provinces on matters that directly affect them. Here the debate was over the federal government’s ability to raise export taxes (as is their constitutional prerogative) to the detriment of the Alberta oil industry. In this case specifically, Clark was indignant about the federal government backtracking on an agreement with the Alberta government to establish a schedule for the gradual increase of said tax. It was when this schedule was subsequently disregarded that Clark rose to speak for Alberta. The economy of Alberta, in the international oil boom of the post Arab oil shocks of the 1970s, was thriving but still needed to be nurtured. Clark understood the strategic importance of this province’s resource and believed that its importance was inextricably linked to Canada’s economic health. He believed that the oil industry was the one “strong card” Alberta had to play in its attempt to “become a strong, industrialized province which would contribute to the industrial strength of the whole of Canada.” This speech provides a glimpse into the early stages of a debate (i.e., the role of the extractive industry in our economy) that is still front and centre in our national conversation today. As becomes apparent throughout the speeches in this chapter, for Clark, the federal government is at its weakest when it tries to interact on a smaller, local scale in place of provincial or municipal government. This principle, which we now refer to as subsidiarity, suggests that the government closest to the delivery of services is the one that is in the best position to deliver them. It allows for diversity in policy and sees the federal government as fostering that diversity, whether it’s economic or social. We see this articulated by Clark not only in his defence of the oil industry, but also in his assertion that the “control of resources means control of the future of the province of Alberta.” Clark believed that this control should be firmly in the hands of whichever province or territory was most affected. Unlike their provincial government counterparts, the territories of
Federal-Provincial Relations 79
Canada do not have any constitutionally entrenched powers. Instead, the territories only have authority in areas given to them by the federal government. This leaves them particularly vulnerable to the vagaries of the federal government. The speech included herein deals with a bill before the House which would establish a precedent for how national parks would be established in the territories but, for our purposes, speaks to Clark’s thoughts on power arrangements between national and sub-national governments. As Clark puts it, “if you wanted to establish a national park in Ontario, you must ask the local government; but if you wanted to establish a national park in the Yukon or Northwest Territories, you tell the local government.” He uses this policy to eloquently point out one of the fundamental weaknesses in our federal arrangement: that is, the double standard which exists between the federal government and the citizens of a province and those of the territories. In order to address this imbalance, Clark gave a defence of the need for increased self-government in the territories, an issue which, given the majority Indigenous population of the territories, is woefully absent from our contemporary discourse. Clark’s mission, as demonstrated in this chapter, was to ensure that the provinces and the diversity of regions within Canada maintain a fair and equal relationship with the federal government. In his view, it was only in this way that Canada would be able to develop and grow to the benefit of all its different regions. Aside from this defence, Clark weighed in on debates that continue to this day, such as energy independence and self-sufficiency. Clark’s work for more equal intra-federal relations is admirable and no doubt timely in a federation that is increasingly decentralized. This would please him as the last thing he wanted was for the provinces to become simply creatures of the federal government in Ottawa.
80
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
Building a Nation (Community of Communities) The Empire Club of Canada Addresses (Toronto: Empire Club Foundation, 1979), 318–327 What I want to do today is speak to you, not simply about some of the issues in the election campaign, but also some broader questions of approach to the country. I think we recognize that in every election there are important substantive policy differences, whether about mortgage deductability, or about energy self-sufficiency, or about the fundamental question of whether Jean Chrétien can count. There are always those important questions. But there are also, occasionally, elections which involve a choice between two quite different ways of seeing the country. As you will know, I think a central issue of the general failure of his [Pierre Elliott Trudeau’s] government is that he did not understand, and sometimes did not try to understand, other aspects of Canada’s very complex reality. Too often, he and the quite similar people he drew around him tried to change the country to fit their theory about what the country should be. In economic policy, in constitutional policy, in their attitude towards the instincts of the individual Canadian citizen, they have been governing against the nature of the nation. To govern a nation, one must first understand it. I want to sketch briefly my understanding of this nation, Canada, as we enter the 1980s. First, as the Commission of which Mr. Robarts was such a distinguished member found, our diversity in this country is both utterly inescapable and immensely valuable. It’s typical, I think, that our official emblem—the maple leaf—is not indigenous to two of our provinces and two of our territories. For there are thousands of happy and productive Canadian citizens who are most at ease when they speak neither of our two official languages. We are a nation that is too big for simple symbols. Our preoccupation with the symbol of a single national identity has, in my judgement, obscured the great wealth we have in several local identities which are rich in themselves and which are skilled in getting along with others. If that truth has been lost on Ottawa’s planners, it is not lost on the people of Canada, whether those people are artists like Alden Nowlen or Monique Leyrac or W. O. Mitchell or Gordon Lightfoot or Emily Carr or the Group of Seven, whose work evokes their locale, or whether they are citizens who are starting heritage societies, starting history clubs,
Federal-Provincial Relations 81
organizing walks through their own back yards. In an immense country, you live on a local scale. Governments make the nation work by recognizing that we are fundamentally a community of communities. Of course the national government has to be strong, particularly on economic questions. But it must also be sensitive to the damage that neat theories can wreak upon a diverse country. There is nothing new to that view. Indeed, the successful prime ministers of Canada have incorporated that idea into the makeup of their governments, ensuring that every region had senior ministers who were strong enough to keep the government in touch with local realities. That is a fact of life in Canada to which we must return. A second thing that is important is my view, and that of my party, that our economy in Canada is potentially one of the strongest in the world. We have in abundance resources which are elsewhere in short supply, whether of food or energy or minerals. Capital will come to us, and come to us in ways we can control. So will as much population as we want. Our challenge in this country is not to cope with scarcity. Our challenge is to build on abundance. Other nations might well be forced, legitimately, to contemplate limits on growth. But our very different challenge here in Canada is to plan and to manage growth. Finally, our people are ambitious. Whatever cultures we come from, whatever heritage we bring to these shores, we are all of us North American in inspiration. We want to build. We want to grow. Generally, the goals of Canadians are personal goals. A few people in our history have helped build our nation by consciously pursuing national goals, but many more have built this nation by pursuing the personal goals which the nature of this nation allows. The personal goal of most Canadians has been freedom and some security for their family. That caused the settlement of new regions, caused the immigration of new citizens, caused the transplanting of old roots to new ground. A policy designed to make the nation grow must build upon and must not frustrate the instinct of most Canadians to build a stake for themselves. So what we propose in this election campaign is not just a change in government, but a fundamental change in the very direction of this country, a change that would reflect the value of that cultural and regional diversity, that would build on the natural strengths of our economy, and would recognize that the best instrument of national achievement is the individual initiative of the private citizen and the private sector in this country. Through the last decade, government has been properly concerned
82
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
with services to citizens, and now we have a good basic system of services in place. But the challenge of this next decade is to make our people grow in understanding of the great good fortune that we have here in Canada. We can do that. I come, as your Chairman said, from the foothills of Alberta, and I have learned late the second language of our country, mais je peux le parler à High River sans danger, sans risque, mais avec le véritable avantage que maintenant je peux comprendre le Québec assez bien a communiquer les aspirations des Québécois aux Albertans, aux Ontarians et les autres Canadiens et je peux, je croix, communiquer aux Québécois les aspirations, l’intérêt, la détermination des Canadiens des autres provinces de bâtir une pays avec le Québec. L’avenir du Canada est plus qu’une question de loi. C’est une question de volonté et de compréhension. Il y a deux jours j’étais applaudé quand j’ai défendue le bilinguisme devant un auditoire de la Colombie Britannique. Le peuple canadien a eu assez de toutes les querelles plus ou moins artificielles entre gouvernements. Ils cherchent un terrain d’entente. Ils cherchent des objectifs communes qui respectent la diversité des traditions de chacun. The great need now, whether it is in constitutional policy or economic policy, is for momentum in this country. In constitutional terms, the fact is that a new national government can get agreement on several changes—more likely changes in practice than in law—but several changes and soon, and that will break the impasse of distrust. Once trust is restored to federal-provincial relations, we can begin toward the more profound reforms, reforms whose end purpose must be to confirm national leadership in economic development, and to confirm provincial leadership in the development of the cultures that are strong in the regions and the provinces of this country. The national government cannot impose those goals, but only the national government, only the government of all the people of Canada, has the authority to bring together the economic partners whose agreement is essential to any effective new national policy. Even more important, we intend to change the attitude in Ottawa. We intend to create in Canada an atmosphere in which the innovator and the entrepreneur are encouraged to go out and to build in the world. No one who travels in this country, no one who knows it, can escape being impressed mightily by the great potential that is here, and by the knowledge on the part of the people of Canada that we are a fortunate
Federal-Provincial Relations 83
nation, a fortunate people of unparalleled potential. There is a tremendous potential upon which to build here in Canada. There is no doubt that the people of this country are seized with that spirit of potential. What we need is a government in Ottawa that will encourage and recognize how essential to our future it is that the policy, the attitude, the approach of government get in line with the attitude and the hopes of the people, that we have a government in Canada that is as confident and proud and as buoyant about the future of this country as are the people themselves.
Federal-Provincial Consultation on Energy Policy House of Commons Debates 12 November 1979 31st Parliament, 1st Session: Volume 2, 1219–1220 Right Hon. Joe Clark (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker, perhaps at the beginning I might have the permission of the House to lay on the table two copies of “An Outline of Proposed Initial Stage of National Energy Strategy,” a background paper that was published earlier today in both official languages. Some hon. Members: Agreed. Mr. Clark: I would like to take the opportunity to express my apology to opposition spokesmen on the other side in that it was only recently that we were able to get a copy of my statement to them. This had to do with the relatively short time between the conclusion of our discussions and my desire to come and report as directly as possible to the House of Commons. I want also to indicate, sir, how much I appreciate the courtesy of members on both sides in providing unanimous consent so that I might report to Parliament on my meeting today with other first ministers. As hon. members know, today’s discussion centred on the proposals put forth by this government to achieve our goal of making Canada self-sufficient in energy by 1990. Those proposals previously had been the subject of extensive consultation between Ottawa and the provinces, and I believe the positive tone of discussions today reflected the value of frank and extensive consultation in a federal system. Sir, that is a pattern we intend to continue.
84
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
I am pleased for our country, to be able to report substantial agreement among first ministers on the major outlines of a comprehensive energy policy for Canada. The first ministers unanimously endorsed our central goal of energy self-sufficiency. We agreed it is dangerous to the economic future of our country to ignore a situation where so many Canadians, especially in Quebec and in Atlantic Canada, are dependent on unreliable foreign oil supplies. The important element of price remains to be negotiated. As I told the conference, that is, jurisdictionally, a decision for the producing provinces and the national government, but we want to take the pricing decision only after we had the opportunity to hear from other parts of Canada and know how price increases would affect those regions. I was impressed by the realism of the first ministers in recognizing that, while price increases are never easy, the consequences of failing to act would be much more serious for Canada. They would expose us to supply interruption which could devastate the economy of Canada and could leave Canada relying upon unstable foreign sources of oil—sources which simply cannot be counted on. Against that background we will be meeting representatives of the producing provinces this week to seek a pricing regime for oil and natural gas, designed to increase Canada’s ability to supply our own oil and gas, to encourage conservation, and to encourage substitution of alternate fields. Sir, today we proposed a special tax on incremental oil company profits to help finance Canadian energy development. Officials of our government will be consulting with provinces and the industry to design the most effective tax. We proposed a Canadian energy bank to help Canadians invest in long term and essential Canadian energy projects. Several provinces, I am pleased to report, have agreed to take a look at contributing equity financing to that bank. The federal government itself expects to contribute about $1.5 billion to equity, over the next four years to help build Canada’s energy potential. Officials will also meet to identify conservation projects where work can begin immediately. I indicated our intention to propose a co-operative program to help individuals retrofit oil-burning furnaces. We would be prepared to contribute to an industrial energy conservation program in Atlantic Canada. Regarding home insulation, several provinces have indicated that local needs would be better served if the Canadian Home Insulation Program, CHIP, were under provincial control, and we are prepared to work out arrangements under which CHIP
Federal-Provincial Relations 85
would be transferred, together with increased federal funding. [Translation] First ministers strongly supported the need for new initiatives to encourage increased substitution of more plentiful energy sources for oil. Particular attention was given to the opportunity for expanded natural gas markets in Ontario, Quebec and perhaps the maritime provinces, but there was also recognition of the other sources available in particular regions for example, greater use of wood waste in British Columbia, increased coal production in Nova Scotia, further hydro production in Manitoba, Quebec and Newfoundland, and expanded development of renewable energy sources across the country. Officials of federal and provincial governments are beginning work immediately to identify areas where substitution can start in 1980. [English] We have also discussed with first ministers means to help Canadians who will be least able to deal with price increases, and so deal with other specific problems. Those measures will be dealt with either in the federal budget, or in connection with the next first ministers conference which has been rescheduled for December 17 and 18. That change in date will allow officials to conclude the work flowing from today’s conference and will allow first ministers to also deal with other matters. [Translation] Leaders of 11 governments met to discuss a complex and difficult subject on which there are some legitimate differences of view. Those differences were aired honestly and openly—but without acrimony and within an overall spirit of partnership. I want to express my appreciation publicly of the positive spirit in which provincial premiers came together. [English] As I said at the conference, Mr. Speaker, Canadians have a choice. We can ignore realities, or we can face them. We have before us the opportunity to provide Canadian industry with a permanent cost advantage over American competitors. We have before us the opportunity to ensure all Canadians have reliable and se-
86
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
cure energy supplies “made in Canada.” We have before us the opportunity to launch a major new era of energy development and a major new commitment to energy conservation in which all Canadians can share. On the basis of today’s discussions, Mr. Speaker, I believe Canadians have every reason for confidence that their governments will choose to seize the energy opportunity that is ours. We have further discussions to continue; we have further negotiations ahead of us, but I wanted to come directly from the conference to report to the House of Commons upon the progress that was realized today. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!
The Export Tax House of Commons Debates 8 November 1973 29th Parliament, 1st Session: Volume 7, 7675–7677 Mr. Joe Clark (Rocky Mountain): Mr. Speaker, I wish to applaud the initiative of the hon. member for Champlain (Mr. Matte) in introducing the motion we are debating. Many members who have spoken before me in this debate have made specific reference to constitutional discussions which have been before us and which have been of concern for some time. I do not intend to repeat what they said or to speak particularly about the direct method of repatriation in a discussing the constitution. I want, instead, to turn my attention tonight and the attention of the House to that atmosphere of co-operation which is necessary before there can be an amendment of the constitution and which is necessary, indeed, before the constitution can be made to work. I was interested in hearing the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) indicate this afternoon that a debate on this topic is usually a debate which is of special interest to members of this House from the province of Quebec, because in that province there is a special interest in constitutional matters. Sir, it used to be that members of this House from Alberta were able to more or less take a spectator’s seat in those discussions on federal-provincial relations. That is not the case tonight. It is natural that I should view and enter this debate against the context of the current deep dispute about energy matters between Alberta
Federal-Provincial Relations 87
and Ottawa. No Albertan could escape that context because, sir, there is an anger in Alberta now that exceeds in intensity anything in my memory or in the memory of older men than I. It is not anger that other people would want to use our oil, our resources. We want them to. Moreover, we want Canadian consumers to have a better price and better access to our resources than nationals of other countries. The Premier of Alberta has made that clear. Instead, sir, the anger in Alberta is about the methods this government has used to implement a policy which, while it is important to every region of Canada, is most important to Alberta because it affects not only our price of fuel and our prospects of warmth but our capacity to grow and to industrialize. This is not the place to debate the merits of particular federal proposals regarding energy. Those have been debated on other occasions in this House, and will be again. The debate inspired by this motion concerns, not the merits of a particular case but the methods by which our federal system works. In many ways, this is the most appropriate forum for a review of the Alberta situation, because whatever disagreement might exist about the merits of the actions proposed by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald), what inflames Alberta opinion most is the method by which these decisions, of vital importance to Alberta, were imposed—clearly without consultation and, one must assume, without consideration of the impact the measures will have upon Alberta’s capacity to grow. Whatever disagreement there might be about the things the minister of energy has done, the anger in Alberta today is about the way he has done these things. And the concern for Canada is that the method he has applied here—the method of a bull in a china shop—is a warning of the way in which other provinces might be treated on other issues by other ministers at other times. That warning, sir, is more profound because, while the minister of energy has a special talent for provocation, the style of confrontation which he has adopted toward Alberta is a style which before the last election was becoming a trademark of this government and which apparently now is being renewed. Sir, no Canadian should need reminding of the diversity of our country. That diversity is the reason we have a federal system where provinces and the national government distribute most powers and share others. This federal system was not imposed upon Canada. It grew out of our nature and is the only system which can hope to unite a diverse country and yet allow its individual parts to find their own identity and strength. By the very nature of our country, we are bound to have in-
88
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
terests which conflict. That means that a particular obligation lies upon our politicians to try to unite differences, not excite differences. And if that is an obligation upon those of us who sit on the backbenches of parliament, it is an obligation with a particular weight for those who occupy ministerial offices. Yet in this dispute with Alberta that is precisely the obligation which the minister of energy has affronted and ignored. I want to review for this House the sad record of what has happened, in the name of consultation, on this export tax. But first let me try to make this House understand the particular importance of this question to Alberta. What we are worried about here is not simply revenue, although of course that is important. What we are worried about, as well, is the sense—and we have the sense—that control of resources means control of the future of the province of Alberta. It is very much less a matter of price than it is a matter of future. We have primarily relied, in the province of Alberta, on primary production, on agriculture. We have the opportunity to industrialize and we have begun to industrialize. But we are working with certain regional disadvantages. Freight rates are one, population distribution is another, market distribution is yet another, the habit of investors to invest in central Canada is another. We have one strong card—petroleum. It provides us with the opportunity to develop petrochemical industries and jobs. Sir, this opportunity would help us to turn the corner and become a strong, industrialized province which would contribute to the industrial strength of the whole of Canada. However, we have no reason for confidence that this goal will be accomplished by Ottawa directing policy, and we have no reason for confidence after looking back at the history of tariffs, at the present discrimination in transportation and at a variety of other matters. What I should like to do tonight is try to convey a state of mind which it would be folly for other parts of Canada to ignore, just as it would have been folly for other parts of Canada to ignore the state of mind that began manifesting itself in Quebec in the early 1960s. This House should remember that the export tax was one of two barrels which hit Alberta in early September. The other was the prospect that Syncrude might be denied the kind of tax treatment which other oil producers in Alberta would receive and that Syncrude consequently might well be held up. Moreover, sir, the export tax seemed to be a device aimed particularly at Alberta and at Alberta’s major resources and not applied, as it might have been, to the resources of other provinces. It was a partic-
Federal-Provincial Relations 89
ular attack on a particular province. In September, energy ministers of the Alberta and Canadian governments were in Ottawa at a meeting which had been arranged some time previously. The apparent attitude on both sides was conciliatory. The first item on the agenda was the need for close and continuing consultation. The ministers discussed that first item and agreed to maintain close contact and consult one another thoroughly. The federal minister of energy made the point that in this field events develop quickly and that consultation could not be considered as constituting a right to veto. Naturally, that position was accepted by the representatives of Alberta. The discussion progressed to other items on the agenda. Then sometime between 11 a.m. and noon the federal minister of energy announced that the National Energy Board would be imposing an export tax of about 40 cents and that the announcement would be made publicly later that day. Alberta ministers had no warning that was coming and no opportunity to make comments or suggestions which would materially affect the decision. Scant minutes after affirming the need for consultation, the federal minister presented Alberta with a fait accompli. That was not consultation. That was mere advice. Any province, treated that way on a matter of such vital interest to its future, would have responded in anger. Indeed, any federal government which enshrined the habit of treating provinces that way would face a breakdown in all of its relations with all of the provinces of Canada. That was the first export tax, the 40-cent tax. The second act in this charade of consultation began on Monday, October 29—again in Ottawa. Four senior ministers of the government of Alberta came to Ottawa to meet with the federal Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and the federal Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner). They were briefed by officials of the Department of External Affairs on developments in the Middle East. They had general discussions concerning plans Ottawa might have for a pipeline to Montreal. They discussed the possibility of staging-in price increases. On the export tax, the Alberta ministers took the position that since they disagreed with the idea of the tax, they saw no immediate point in discussing how its proceeds might be distributed. It is clear there was no discussion at all of any prospect of an immediate rise in that export tax, and certainly not any discussion of a proposal to more than quadruple the amount. Indeed, the federal minister of energy said that events might develop that would mean an export tax might not have to
90
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
be imposed. The federal minister indicated to his provincial colleagues that, in his view, the export tax proposal “was not written in stone.” The ministers then repaired to a joint press conference at which the provincial minister of intergovernmental affairs went out of his way to make clear Alberta’s interest in adopting a “Canada first” position. Four senior Alberta ministers left those meetings agreed on three clear impressions. Their first impression was that serious consideration was being given to the staging-in of increases. The second impression was that there was now a genuine commitment to consultation on the part of the federal ministers. The third impression was that if there was to be any change at all in the export tax, the change would be in the direction of removing the tax. It is conceivable that one of these ministers might have been wrong, but it is surely stretching credulity to suggest that all four ministers were wrong on all three impressions. Four days later, on Thursday, November 1—a week ago today—the federal minister of energy rose in his place to announce that the export tax had been more than quadrupled. Alberta officials were advised a matter of hours before the public announcement. Again it was advice, not consultation. However, this second case was worse than the first. In the first case, the export tax had come out of the blue. In the second case, it came four days after a meeting in which Alberta ministers believed they received a message that the export tax might go down, or it might go out, but at which no indication at all was given that the tax might go up so exorbitantly. There might be some members of this House who do not like Albertans. I do not say that there are, but that there might be. That really does not matter because these tactics could be applied to any province, not just Alberta; and on any matter, not just petroleum. I hope that members of this House and of the public generally, no matter how preoccupied they might be about the price of fuel or the extent of foreign ownership of any other extraneous question, will remember that we are dealing here with a method of the application of federal power that could be imposed as arbitrarily upon any province or any interest as it has been upon Alberta. It is interesting, for example, to conjecture what the response would have been had federal involvement in the financing of higher education been approached in the early 1960s in the spirit which marked the federal imposition this fall of an export tax upon petroleum produced primarily in one province. I said at the beginning that the purpose of a federal system, and par-
Federal-Provincial Relations 91
ticularly the federal government, must be to unite differences, not inflame them. The reason that is important is that it is easy, in Canada, to inflame differences among regions. Particularly when emotional questions are involved, as emotional questions are involved here, it would be relatively easy to unite most of Canada against one part of Canada. However, that would be a destructive unity which would lead inexorably to the disintegration of the nation. I utter that caution not simply to my colleagues in this House but also to the press gallery. One problem inherent in our system is the natural tendency of the national press to take Ottawa’s view in a dispute with the provinces. That is not due to prejudgment so much as to the fact that journalists are locked in here in day-to-day contact with one side in a national dispute. I believe it has been harmful to Alberta that this disagreement broke out at roughly the same time that a general election was in progress in Quebec, which meant that several journalists from that province, who have reason to know that Ottawa is not always even-handed in its dealings with the province, were preoccupied at home and thus did not have the opportunity to visit the province and the people of Alberta to learn Alberta’s side of this story. The real tragedy flowing from the methods of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources is that it has created an atmosphere of confrontation on a question where federal-provincial co-operation could have prevailed. Alberta wants to co-operate with other provinces and other Canadians to ensure supply and arrange a better price for Canadian consumers. The premier and his ministers have made that clear. They have been calling for some time for a national federal-provincial conference to work out the priorities and the policies that Canada and the provinces might follow to meet the challenges raised by energy questions. However, co-operation is a two-way street. Ottawa must demonstrate a willingness to work with Alberta. That would have been much easier two months ago, before the actions of the minister of energy gave Alberta ample cause to distrust that minister and anyone acting in his name. But it is not impossible to achieve now. The language of this motion deplores the tactics of confrontation and fear which have marked the approach of this government to federal-provincial relations. Of course we deplore that approach, but we must do more than deplore. We have to turn the practices of this government around and insist, as a parliament, upon an atmosphere of co-operation with the provinces instead of the present atmosphere of confrontation.
92
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
It might be more amusing to have the luxury of a full-scale feud between a province and the central government, but that is very literally and clearly a luxury we cannot afford. Not only is there the danger that this atmosphere of confrontation might prolong disagreement about national energy policy; there is also the very real danger that this tactic, if practiced continually by the federal government, will lead to a reaction in some regions that will make national unity very difficult to maintain. However important laws might be in Canada, the thing that finally unites this country is the will to work together. If the federal government indicates by its actions that it would sooner fight than agree, that attitude will become contagious. I hope that the government as a whole, and the minister of energy in particular, will recognize that the leadership they are supposed to offer is leadership in the direction of co-operation, not confrontation.
Jurisdiction around National Parks House of Commons Debates 4 April 1974 29th Parliament, 2nd Session: Volume 2, 1159–1160 Mr. Joe Clark (Rocky Mountain): Mr. Speaker, I will not take much of the time of the House. The minister is proposing a return to the original language of the bill, language which in the considered judgment of the committee was inappropriate, language which the committee acted to strike out, to amend. The original language would have written into law a statutory double standard. It provided that if you wanted to establish a national park in Quebec, you must ask the local government; if you wanted to establish a national park in Ontario, you must ask the local government; but if you wanted to establish a national park in the Yukon or Northwest Territories, you tell the local government. Provisions like that make a mockery of any claim of belief in more self-government for the territories. We, in my party, do not propose to pass a mockery into law. The minister has made the point that this matter can be discussed in committee during study of another bill. The point remains. There is language in the bill before the House today with which we, as a parliament, must deal today, in considering this bill. It is language in this bill, not in any other, which expresses the attitude of the House of Com-
Federal-Provincial Relations 93
mons of Canada on the status and potential of governments in the territories of the north. You cannot get around this by saying that it should be dealt with in another bill. If this should be discussed during the consideration of another bill, the minister should not have introduced the word “consultation” into the present bill. He did. It is that with which we are dealing. A principle is involved which, although it might arise on other occasions and in other bills, has arisen here and cannot be blinked away. Actually, it is known to members of the committee that there has been agreement by the councils for the particular parks established. There is no threat to them. What we are doing is establishing the attitude of parliament, the view of parliament, that there should be an increase in the powers of self-government existing in the northern territories. We also think that this bill would set a precedent for the establishment of future parks, so that if more parks are to be established in the north there must be approval by the elected representatives of the people and not merely some kind of consultation. We, in the Progressive Conservative party, introduced an amendment which would, for the limited and special purposes of establishing national parks, give the people of the territories the same rights as the people of Ontario, Quebec and other parts of Canada, an amendment which would treat them as citizens not as subjects. Instead of consultations, we proposed that there must be the agreement of the elected councils of the territories before any large part of a territory could be taken away and used as a national park. My colleague from Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett), a member of the NDP, preferred a gentler word than agreement. He preferred “approval,” an amendment requiring that the elected territorial councils approve of any proposal to permanently remove lands from an area that will soon be a province. We accepted his softer language. It expressed the principle that democracy means something in the Yukon and the Northwest Territories. So, the amendment approved in committee is an amendment in the language of the NDP, and it is that which the minister proposes to strike down today. We oppose that action by the minister, that strike against democracy, and will look forward, when the voting comes, to having the support of the NDP in sustaining an improvement which the NDP itself proposed. It is apparent to me, sir, that the minister and his advisers find it inconvenient to treat the people of the territories as though they are citizens. The minister and his advisers concocted a phony argument in
94
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
committee, that to give the councils of the territories a say on whether a national park is to be established in this region is somehow to give them absolute control over all the natural resources of the north. That, sir, is an absurd argument, which ignores the very special nature of national parks. I, as the representative of a constituency with national parks in it, have every reason to know that when a national park is created, all manner of administrative problems are created too: Native rights are affected; normal jurisdiction over municipal highway and other matters is suspended or changed; planning becomes very difficult. That is evident in Alberta and wherever else national parks exist. The establishment of a national park very much alters and affects the future of the region in which the park lies. The word “consultation” would mean that the territories concerned would have no right to influence that territory’s future direction. “Approval” would at least allow for a chance to shape that future. Sir, the larger question of resources is not affected at all. Elected spokesmen of the territories have made it clear that the status they want is a status—I quote Ken MacKinnon of the Yukon Territorial Council, in testimony to the standing committee in Whitehorse in December: Without the immediate control of natural resources, the reason being that we think we have to prove to the people of Canada and to the government of Canada that we are as capable of dealing with the resources of the province as any other area of Canada.
So, there is no question at all about control of resources. There is, however, sir, a basic question which must be faced, the question as to whether we are going to trust the judgment of Canadians who happen to live in the two territories. Are we going to say that when it comes to establishing parks we trust the premier of Quebec more than we trust the elected representatives of the Yukon; that we trust the premier of Ontario more than the elected representatives of the Northwest Territories; that we trust the premier of Nova Scotia more than the duly elected representatives of the north? That is what it comes down to. Perhaps it is a hard question, because so much land is involved. I remind the House that there is also a lot of land in the north of several provinces, and while it might be inconvenient for the minister and his advisers to have to deal with elected representatives in the province before taking land away forever and creating a national park, we put up with that inconvenience because we are a democratic state. The amendment here, by the minister and his advisers, would have democracy stop at
Federal-Provincial Relations 95
the border of the territories, so far as national parks are concerned. The real question facing us is: Are we prepared to endorse that double standard and write it into law, or will we extend to the citizens of the territories the same trust on the limited question of national parks that we extend to the citizens of the rest of Canada.
Regional Identity and Community Newspapers House of Commons Debates 29 October 1973 29th Parliament, 1st Session: Volume 7, 7338 Mr. Joe Clark (Rocky Mountain): Mr. Speaker, I want to turn to a matter which was first raised in the House on June 18. That, you will recall, was when the country discovered the Minister of State who is a little bit responsible for multiculturalism. You will recall that the minister spent about one-tenth of his total budget on an advertisement which featured a campaign picture of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and purported to advertise a program of grants which was already oversubscribed. To add to the excitement, the minister had been chastised by the assistant undersecretary of another department who, it turned out, had more authority over the minister’s program than did the minister. That storm has blown over. The minister’s assistant who authorized the ads has disappeared. The assistant under-secretary has remained firmly in control. The minister has come back to the House, anxious to resume any responsibilities anyone will give him. An agency, controlled at least 50 per cent by prominent Ontario Liberals, is counting its commission on the account, and the most enduring moment of the affair is the response of the Minister of State who, having been asked why no tenders were called on the ads, said that he was “not aware of any tendering procedure for advertising programs of the federal government.” That flurry erased several important issues. One of them was the attitude the government should take toward the ethnic and periodical press of the country because, apart from patronage and politicking, the other reason for the ads was that they provided a means by which the government might provide some tangible support to the Canadian ethnic press. I want to argue their case tonight, not just in relation to the ethnic papers which generally deserve and require support, but also
96
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
in relation to the community press generally in Canada which serves needs which larger media cannot meet and which has special problems some of them caused by the government. Government support to the community press should be open and above board—by the front door, rather than by occasional back door subsidies in the form of the extravagant and pointless advertising program we saw this June. In passing, I should also point out that even the present program of advertising in the ethnic press seems to treat some periodicals, like the Toronto Jewish press, in a less favourable way than other periodicals. Mr. Haidasz: That isn’t true. Mr. Clark (Rocky Mountain): There are two kinds of newspapers operating in Canada today, the large and the local. They are generally distinguished by their size, their wealth and by the intensity with which they serve their particular readership. The dailies might help us to understand the world; the weeklies help us to understand ourselves. They are called ethnic or community papers and they are particular to a heritage or a place. Both kinds of papers need ads to live. At one time, governments and other advertisers treated both kinds of papers almost equally. But in the 1950s and 1960s, as our attitudes became more urban and international, the people who place and pay for ads became bemused by mass markets, and the so-called “institutional ads”—the ads an editor could get a loan on—drifted away to mass media. That was done thoughtlessly, without examination either of the relative impact of an ad in a local or a mass medium, or an examination of the effect upon the vitality of the particular communities these local papers serve. The government was as guilty as anyone. There are signs that times are changing, and I want to take this opportunity to congratulate the government for giving the community press a fair shot at the ads concerning both the new tax form and the LIP program. But those cases are exceptions; they are not a policy. I understand that the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury), that great progressive, has a proposal before him to gather data on the effectiveness of advertising in the community press. Member papers of the CCNA were enthusiastic about the proposed study and were geared up to cooperate, but the President of the Treasury Board is sitting on the initiative and the enthusiasm of editors is beginning to wane. There are other problems. The Post Office has established a so-called free zone within a 40 miles radius of small communities and within that
Federal-Provincial Relations 97
zone cheap postal rates apply to local papers. But in Ontario and British Columbia, changes in provincial law have created new local government boundaries, incorporating several towns. They change the status of a town but not its nature, and the Post Office Department, legalistic to the last, has denied free zone status to small towns so incorporated. Again, newspaper plants which do not have a printing press are disqualified from eligibility for IDB loans, yet the offset revolution, leading to a different style of printing, means that most plants ship out their printing to a central press and so cannot go to the Industrial Development Bank. These are accidental prejudices; just as it was accidental that advertising shifted to mass markets and made survival more difficult for local papers. We need these local papers, just as we need a multitude of strong ethnic groups and places which have a distinctive sense of community. I ask the government to recognize that need directly and to encourage the various local media of Canada at least as much as we encourage book publishing, the arts and other activities which contribute to a sense of Canadian identity.
4
Parliamentary Supremacy Joe Clark, “a man of parliament,” believed that there is no greater, or more fundamental component of Canadian democracy than the House of Commons. From the beginning to the end of his career, Clark extolled the virtues of the House of Commons for representing the geographic and demographic diversity of Canada and for bringing the entire nation, in a microcosm, in one place, under one roof. While often imperfect and messy, the ideals of parliament were worth striving for. This chapter examines several of the areas around parliament that were a preoccupation for Clark. Under the theme of parliamentary supremacy, the following seven speeches range from discussing the powers of the PMO to multiculturalism and Clark’s assertion that the supremacy of parliament as the “forum of the nation” and the foundation of responsible government was vital to Canada as we know it. Procedural fairness, equality and the importance of dialogue were the issues about parliament that first caught Clark’s attention and he would return to them throughout his career. In a speech given early in his career in December of 1974, Clark describes what lies at the heart of our system of responsible government. He argues why the executive branch of Prime Minister, Cabinet and Crown must have the approval of the House of Commons to continue to govern. Clark saw this as necessary not only for legitimacy of our representative institutions but also as a bulwark against the extra-parliamentary power centres that robbed parliament of its elan. Put bluntly, parliament must remain supreme against the worrying growth in both size and scope of the PMO and PCO (a trend which continues to this day) as well as the lack of parliamentary oversight of these new positions and policies. Two specific examples are the fact that the prime minister need not appear before standing committees (as we have seen with the Jody Wilson-Raybould affair), and the increasing reliance on first ministers’ conferences to deal with issues deemed too complex for A Man of Parliament; Selected Speeches from Joe Clark, edited by Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon. Montréal and Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press, Queen’s Policy Studies Series. © 2019 The School of Policy Studies, Queen’s University at Kingston. All rights reserved.
100
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
the House. These were not the only examples of this trend, a fact that concerned Clark. As Clark himself noted, despite the “first among equals” theory, the prime minister has never been a weak position within the Canadian parliamentary system. Clark specifically notes that through a concentration of power the prime minister (whoever that may be) was increasingly able to act over the heads of those meant to hold them in check. The Cabinet, the governing party, and parliament itself were weakened in their ability to hold the prime minister accountable. One primary cause of this, Clark noted, is the increasing influence of mass communication such as television and now the internet. The ability of the prime minister to go over the heads to the people’s representatives in the House and communicate directly with the people via televised address led to a concentration at the “apex of power.” Given that those at this apex often came from specific socio-economic classes, occupations, and indeed a specific gender, Clark thought that this was detrimental to the diversity that the federal system should represent. The third speech in this chapter begins with a discussion of the influence of money in politics and then shifts to a discussion on the improper use of public money by a government. Specifically, Clark argues that a government should not be allowed to use public money for partisan purposes, on the campaign trail or in between elections. Speaking on the Canada Elections Act, Clark suggests that by not addressing this blurring of the lines between party and the national interest, and by failing to address the abuse of public funds by governing parties, opposition parties would be weakened and the result would have negative implications for equality in the House of Commons. The use of public money without the approval of parliament was not just to do with smaller expenditures but with the larger budget itself. In a speech given during his time as leader of the Opposition, Clark discussed how increasingly the government was able to avoid the House because it has been slowly stripped of tools by which to hold the government to account. Clark notes that to some extent this is necessary as government has grown in size, but this development also makes oversight significantly more important. For this is in fact the primary purpose of parliaments the world over, i.e., raising and approval of the budget which the executive then spends on government priorities. This loss of supremacy can have wider consequences for the rest of the system. As Clark notes “[t]his parliament is the only institution in Canada which legitimately speaks for all the people of Canada. It is our only
Parliamentary Supremacy
101
national institution. But it can have effect only if it has power. It can be respected by the people of Canada only if it is respected by the government of Canada.” The legitimacy of our system then, requires a strong parliament. The last speech included in this chapter provides remedies to strengthen parliament and mitigate the likelihood of governments getting away with scandalous behaviour. Given the fused nature of legislature and executive within the Westminster system, without a strong parliament, Canada lacks the checks and balances that are found between legislature and executive in presidential systems. To illustrate such, Clark listed a sampling of the scandals which Pierre Trudeau’s government had been involved in up until that point. He then goes on to suggest ways to address problematic behaviour, such as giving “independent initiative” to committees to be able to start investigations of their own accord. His first budget also championed openness and access to information legislation which also helped parliament be held accountable. These are discussed in more detail in chapter 7. Without such formal restraints, the convention-based nature of our system often caused a lack of accountability to parliament. It’s fair to say that for Joe Clark, parliament formed the central fulcrum around which the other themes and goals of his political career coalesce. It is the House where the various constituent parts of Confederation can gather and make their wishes known. As the primary representative of the citizens of Canada to their government, it is necessary that parliament be empowered to hold said government to account, and prevent such as abuses as mentioned above. Clark’s words remain extremely timely to our present day, as the concentration of powers in the Cabinet to the detriment of parliament is a trend that has continued since Clark’s time. This is unfortunate, as it may be a contributing factor to increased feelings of disempowerment and disillusionment among the wider public about their efficacy within the Canadian political system.
102
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
Parliamentary Reform House of Commons Debates 18 March 1982 32nd Parliament, 1st Session: Volume 14, 15579–15583 Right Hon. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition) moved: That in the view of this House the future effectiveness of Parliament as a democratic assembly, representing the needs, beliefs and aspirations of the people of Canada, requires that an immediate review of all its rules and practices proceed without further delay, and this House therefore urges the government to refer the document “Position Paper: The Reform of Parliament,” tabled on November 23, 1979, to the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization as a basis for commencing discussion, along with proposals for reforming the budgetary process.
He said: Mr. Speaker, given the tensions that have crystallized since March 2, this is not an easy time for any member of this House to speak calmly to the House of Commons. But I think it is an essential time for us all to speak about the House of Commons. We must do more than speak; we must begin to act on reforms that will make Parliament both more efficient and more democratic. I emphasize both of those goals, the goal of efficiency and the goal of democracy. They are both important and I will come back to the importance of both later. But first, let us be frank about emotions, both in Parliament and in the country. We talk a lot in Parliament about a sense of collegiality and about good will in this institution, but that pretence has prevented us from facing Parliament’s own problems squarely. There is anger in this House. There is frustration here and there is a certainty that we are not doing the job that Canadians expect of us. That state exists among members of all parties on both sides of the House. It is confirmed whenever we go home to the people who sent us here and stand accused of being powerless to do the job that we were sent here to do. One member of this House used the phrase the other day that private Members of Parliament are regarded as— [Translation] — poor little parish priests. [English]
Parliamentary Supremacy
103
Unhappily, that member is right. We all wear the clothes of authority but only a handful of the members of this House, the central ministers, have any real authority. That, sir, is wrong. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Clark: One of the reasons there was such support in this country for the ringing of the bells is that Canadians know that such centralized authority is wrong and want it changed. [Translation] In Le Devoir of March 17, editorial writer Jean-Louis Roy said the following, and I quote: After the absurdity of federalism without provinces, Canadians have been treated to government without Parliament. In fact, Mr. Speaker, we have been without a Parliament for quite a long time. No matter which party is in power, our rules and practices allow the government to impose its will on Parliament and to govern by orders in council and by regulations without even consulting Parliament. Worse, the system practically prevents ordinary members from having their own concepts or proposals adopted by Parliament. Private members’ motions are seldom passed, and when they are, the reaction is usually one of surprise. Hon. members know cases where some of their constituents are on the verge of bankruptcy. What can they do for these people? Others are in danger of losing their homes. What can they do for them? In every riding in Canada, Canadians are losing their jobs. How can we help them? Many members have good ideas that Parliament would do well to consider. And why not? What it boils down to is that most members can do no more in the House than rise, speak and bow. Is that democracy? [English] When the government House leader was first appointed, he indicated his interest in parliamentary reform. I look forward to hearing his proposals today, and I hope he will agree to allow the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization to start immediately on a wideopen consideration of the ways we can renew parliamentary democracy in Canada. We put forward some proposals as a government in a position paper published by the then president of the Privy Council, the hon. member
104
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker). Those proposals include a fundamental strengthening of the power of parliamentary committees, including the power to initiate inquiries into questions that the government might not want investigated. We proposed a major change in the power of private members to have their proposals considered seriously and at length in the House of Commons. We proposed a system to re-establish Parliament’s control of spending by extending debate on the estimates of any two departments which the opposition might choose without prior advice from the government. We proposed a means to require parliamentary consent to regulations before those regulations can take effect. In the interests of efficiency, we proposed to limit the length of speeches in the House to 20 minutes each, and to establish more regular sitting periods for Parliament. I make the point, sir, that these significant changes, to increase the power of Parliament and to reduce the power of the executive, were made when we were in government, yet they reflected, I believe, an understanding of the way governments can abuse their power. These proposals go a long way toward reform, but they were designed then to begin the discussion, not to limit it. Our attitude today is the same. We suggest these proposals be considered as the basis for commencing discussion in the standing committee. I am obliged to note that the reason this paper was not referred to committee in 1979 was that the present Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen), then the Liberal House leader, indicated the Liberal Party would want to debate for some time the question of a reference to committee. I can indicate to the government House leader now, that providing the reference to committee is wide enough to allow full and positive consideration of fundamental reforms in Parliament, there would be no such delay from this party. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Clark: Canadians will also know that we have proposed a major change in the way budgets are prepared, a change to ensure that in the future there will be full public discussion in advance of significant tax changes so that the government on the one hand, and individuals, companies and organizations on the other hand, can assess the impact of those changes and plan their implementation. That recommendation did not arise simply from this party. That recommendation arose
Parliamentary Supremacy
105
as a result of a series of public hearings held in 16 communities across Canada by a special committee of the Progressive Conservative caucus on the budget and the economy which heard representations from 168 organizations and hundreds of individual Canadians. We would want that proposal, to open up the budget-making process, to be considered as well in the committee as a means to protect Canadians against a process which resulted in a budget which the government’s own ministers now describe as a disaster. It is worth pausing on the question of the budget because it demonstrates that when Parliament is weak, bad law is the result. The budget was a major mistake. It underestimated the depth of the recession in Canada. It introduced tax measures which look good in theory but were a disaster in practice. It has driven job-creating investment out of Canada and contributed directly to Canadians losing their homes, businesses, farms and their confidence. It happened because Parliament let a group of civil servants make decisions which the House of Commons should be making. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Clark: The only time the government asked people who knew whether what they were doing on the budget was right was after the government bad acted and committed itself to a course which is proving disastrous, not only to them politically but also to hundreds of thousands of individual Canadians who face the prospect of losing their jobs, homes and businesses, or simply losing the kind of hope which has been the fuel of growth in this country. If this government had asked those questions first, many of these measures would not have been brought in and we would have avoided some of the bankruptcies, foreclosures and some of the thousands of lay-offs in Canada. The point is that when Parliament works badly, Canadians get hurt. That is not just a question for Members of Parliament; it touches directly the lives of people who are affected by what Parliament does or indeed, fails to do. What has happened with the budget has happened on other questions. For example, why was Parliament shut out of any consideration of the VIA Rail closings which affected so many communities across this country? How can orders in council be passed giving the government the power to establish internment camps without the House of Commons being consulted? Why should the government have the power to change the express will of Parliament and make the metric system
106
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
mandatory when the House of Commons said it would be voluntary? Some hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Clark: These are not just questions for Parliament; these questions affect the lives of individual Canadians, sometimes profoundly, and yet their Parliament has no role. That is wrong, and if we in this House have any self-respect, if the hon. member heckling opposite has any self-respect, if indeed he has any respect for the people who sent us here, then we will change that system and take advantage of those changes. [Translation] Mr. Speaker, I mentioned the need for democracy, and that is one of our requirements, but Parliament must also be effective. Our country has changed tremendously since confederation, and its problems are more numerous and often more complex. We cannot solve today’s problems with nineteenth century tools. There must be a way to agree on limiting debate. Common sense and mutual respect must prevail if differences are to be resolved. We have proposed a number of ways in which Parliament could be made more effective, and we are willing to give serious consideration to any proposals from the other parties, especially proposals that stress respect for democracy and a desire for effectiveness. We are convinced that agreement is possible if we demonstrate our good faith and if we share the conviction that Parliament has a central role to play in governing Canada. [English] Sir, I have outlined the specific proposals put forward by my party and by us as a government. I would like, if I might, to speak a little more personally, on the basis of an experience which is widely shared in this House, as someone who has had the opportunity to serve as a private Member of Parliament, as Prime Minister and head of a government, and as the Leader of the Opposition. I should say at the outset that there will always be, at the base of discussions about the role Parliament should play, a difference of view as to whether Parliament is here simply as the body to which the government is responsible, or whether parliamentarians themselves should be involved directly in the formulation of public policy. Arguments can be made on either side. As someone who had responsibility for leading the government of this country, my own view, very strongly held, is that
Parliamentary Supremacy
107
Members of Parliament should be here not simply to be reported to, not simply to hold the government accountable but to participate directly in the formulation of the public policy of this country. In my view, that is our role. I believe, sir, that the weakness of Parliament is a major threat to the country, indeed a major danger, because this House is the only national institution to which every corner of the country has a claim, to which every corner of the country sends a representative, and in which every corner of the country has a voice. As a consequence, we are the only national institution which can speak with legitimacy in expressing the will of Canadians and in responding to their needs. That is in the nature of this institution, and it is ours uniquely and ours alone. We are, for many individual Canadians, the only connection they have with their government. Public servants are not that kind of connection; government advertising programs are no substitute for Members of Parliament. We are the only connection that most people have with their government, the only ones they can call to account for reflecting their needs and aspirations. Therefore, this House has to be at the centre of the people’s government or else it is a government which responds to something other than the will of the people. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Clark: In my view, the weakness of this House is based on three major developments. One of those has been that, as the business of government has become more complex, instead of turning to the talent, understanding and experience of members of this House, consecutive governments have turned to the public service and ceded more and more of the decisions of responsibility which should rest here to professional and unelected experts. Second is the proliferation in number and subject matter of federal-provincial conferences and consequently the number of decisions which reflect directly upon the business of this House, yet those decisions are taken elsewhere before they come to this House and agreements are made before they come to this House. There has been a significant and dangerous movement of the power of decision-making away from the public and their Parliament to the private quarters of federal-provincial conferences. The third, and perhaps most crucial development, has been the natural tendency of those who hold power to try to keep it, indeed to try to enlarge upon it. The most recent victim of that tendency, I regret to say,
108
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
has been the freedom of information legislation which, when we were piloting it through the preparation stages of government, encountered time and time again objections from various vested interests in the government who did not want the public to know. My colleague, the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker), as government House leader, prevailed to ensure that the balance was struck much closer to the needs of the public, and perhaps exposing and putting at risk some of the preserves of government. That unfortunately has changed, because the private sources of power in Ottawa have again been exercising their influence to ensure that the power of the executive expands and the power of both Parliament and the people of Canada diminishes. I also regret to say, but it is germane and important to say it now, that that same tendency, that same determination of those who have the power to keep it or to enlarge it, has been at the base of most of the proposals for parliamentary reform which have come from governments. There is a natural preoccupation on the part of governments to enlarge the power of the executive, to focus on the need for efficiency. There is no doubt at all that this institution needs to be much more efficient than it has been. We all agree with that. However, efficiency can be won along with democracy, not in the teeth of democracy. I want to propose ways, psychologies and attitudes which, in my view, can accomplish that goal. However, those three developments— the determination to hand public servants, not elected members, the power to resolve questions which grow more complex; the growing role of federal-provincial conferences; and the perhaps natural but, nonetheless, resistible temptation of those with power to enlarge power—have fundamentally changed Parliament and raised real weaknesses, real dangers and real menaces for our country. I believe that since those changes have been fundamental, the reform and the renewal of Parliament must be equally fundamental. Let me now express a view in which my colleagues may not yet want to join me. I do it as a party leader. I do it as a former Prime Minister. It is my view that we can afford to limit radically the mandate and the control that parties exercise over individual hon. members of the House of Commons. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Broadbent: You are fired, Joe! Enough of that! Mr. Clark: You have had enough of that, Ed?
Parliamentary Supremacy
109
Mr. Broadbent: What heresy! You are out of the club now! [Translation] Mr. Clark: Someone just suggested that I talk to an independent member. I am in the House to speak to all members, because I feel the problem is one facing all parties and all the members of this House. I feel that it is a very basic problem for the House of Commons, and I hope that the Liberals will show the same determination I have seen here, namely, to put a priority on democracy and the rights of regular members and their constituents. [English] Let me just pursue that further for a moment, if I may. I think on the question of what constitutes a matter of confidence, I see no reason at all why it should not be possible for us, for a Parliament, for a government, to sit down with its members before a session begins or shortly after the Speech from the Throne has been published or given, and we should be able to say: “Here are the measures which are of fundamental importance to the government. Here are the questions on which we will stand or fall. Here are the questions on which party lines will be enforced and the whips will be imposed.” They would be a minority. We should be able to say: “But here are the other questions which will arise in the course of our mandate, questions which have already arisen concerning the public view and on which the party has no strong consensus.” I see no reason why there could not be a division made and stated at the beginning of a session by a government as to which will be the fundamental questions of confidence on which its existence, its lifestyle will depend or fall and which will be those question which can be addressed directly, independently, if you will be individual members of the House of Commons. As a party leader and former Prime Minister, I have no fear of that. I have no fear of the judgment of my colleagues, whether my colleagues in this party or my colleagues in the whole House. I happen to have faith in the collective judgment of the elected members of the House of Commons, if those members are allowed to express their judgment. That is what I seek to have achieved. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!
110 Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
Mr. Clark: As to those other matters which are not questions of government confidence, let them be considered on their merits. Let them stand if they deserve to stand. Let them be rejected if they deserve to be rejected. What in the world is wrong with that? That is the way most of the people who elect us think this Parliament works. That is what they think Parliament is. They would be shocked if they knew the degree to which party voting is imposed here on all sides of the House. They would be shocked by that, and so should they be, because it is unnecessary and a betrayal of the trust that all of us hold as individual members of the House of Commons. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Clark: I seem to have won some support for that view from at least my colleagues and, I gather, from some hon. members of the NDP, including their leader, as well as a couple of hon. members on the Liberal side. I am pleased to see that happening. I hope there will be more of that and that we can carry on in that spirit in the parliamentary committee. However, let me suggest that an approach of this kind can lead to at least two results. One would be a more extensive participation by elected Members of Parliament in the formulation of public policy. Personally, I see no reason why we should not prefer the public judgment of elected people to the private judgment of appointed public servants. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Clark: I recommend that the government House leader and his colleagues most seriously consider this second point. I believe this would create a much more positive attitude toward the work of governing on the part of hon. members on all sides of this House. I am not speaking here of the role of government. There is no doubt that some of my colleagues, and perhaps I myself, would act most quickly to introduce sunset laws and other pieces of legislation which would reduce the scope of government. I am speaking here of the work of governing. There is no doubt that one consequence of frustration in this House is that many members on all sides feel that they cannot contribute to it so they should stop it. There is no doubt that that is an attitude which has taken root in this House of Commons. There is no doubt that it is wrong and against the generally positive nature of most of the people who are elected here. I believe that if individual Members of Parliament were given much more opportunity to play a larger role in the formulation of public poli-
Parliamentary Supremacy
111
cy, then the government’s problems with respect to getting bills through would diminish. The question of time would not be as contentious as it is now. I believe that if we give Members of Parliament from all parties positive things to do, they will concentrate on doing positive things and will not be interested in finding nits to pick. Instead, they will be concentrating their efforts on ways in which to advance the public interest of the country. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Clark: We are not speaking here entirely theoretically. A preceding government to this one, a Liberal government, allowed Members of Parliament to help formulate an immigration bill and, indeed, allowed public hearings across the land. That was a highly complex bill which, if my memory serves me correctly, passed through this House in four days, despite its complexity, because Members of Parliament and the people of Canada had been involved in its formulation. They had a chance to speak on the content of the bill, not simply to say “yea” or “nay” at the end. That is a model for the future, in my view. Sir, the events of the last few weeks have been unusual only in degree. It was the first time that a government had sought to act on such an omnibus measure. It was the first time an opposition had used the bells that way. However, the issue has been building for a long, long time. Our system has been changing for a long time, gradually giving more power to governments and parties and gradually limiting the rights of Parliament, the rights of private members and of the people we all represent. If that continues we will waste the talent of the hon. members who serve here, lose the trust of the people who sent us here and gradually erode our democracy. We cannot let that happen. We are here to pass good laws and to prevent bad ones; but we are also here to protect the symbol and the instrument of democracy in a free country. Suddenly, in a way which no one could foresee, large numbers of the Canadian public have become aware that there is something wrong in Parliament. They know that the people with power will not listen and that the people who listen cannot act. They want this institution renewed and they count on us to renew it. I believe that the great majority of hon. members in all parties in the House genuinely want a Parliament which is both democratic and effective. I hope we will seize this opportunity to begin that most basic reform. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!
112 Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
Powers of the Prime Minister’s Office House of Commons Debates 18 December 1974 30th Parliament, 1st Session: Volume 3, 2375–2378 Mr. Joe Clark (Rocky Mountain): It is a particular pleasure for me to follow in debate the hon. member for Scarborough East (Mr. O’Connell), not merely because of the eminent qualities he possesses as a member of parliament but also because of the place whence he has come. This is probably as close as we shall get to a man who has, in effect, been the deputy minister of the Office of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), an office responsible to the Prime Minister, which, like the Privy Council Office, is not answerable to this House. Mr. O’Connell: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order, to say I have not been the deputy minister. I have to reject that assertion at once. My function was a political function, not a staff function of the kind performed by a deputy minister. Mr. Clark (Rocky Mountain): I appreciate the clarification, but my point stands whatever the description of the office—the closest we get as a parliament to people who serve in the Office of the Prime Minister or in the Office of the Privy Council is when those people leave real power and come to parliament, as the hon. member for Scarborough East has just done. I think there is a natural temptation for someone from the Province of Alberta, like myself, when addressing a question of the kind before us today to speak about the present unfortunate circumstances in federal-provincial relations between that province and the federal government. I shall not do so today, and I do not intend to take much time in this debate. But I do want to draw attention again to the very serious institutional aspects of the bill which has been brought forward and, more particularly, the very many changes which have occurred in the federal structure in relation to the Office of the Prime Minister in particular, for which there has been no legislation. I think it can be suspected that the reason we have the bill before us is to provide a post of status for Mr. Gordon Robertson, whose qualities have been attested to by members on both sides of the House. The reason this was necessary, I suspect, has very much to do with the ripples which were caused in the public service by the appointment of Mr. Michael Pitfield to replace Mr. Gordon Robertson.
Parliamentary Supremacy
113
In my opinion the Pitfield appointment was an unfortunate one in its implications for the public service generally, quite apart from causing or inspiring the legislation we have before us today. But I do not wish to dwell on this point, Mr. Speaker, although other hon. members may wish to do so. The point I wish to make, sir, is that there have been, over the last several years, a multitude of changes in the de facto structure and nature of the Government of Canada. We have seen the growth in size and power of the Prime Minister’s Office. We have witnessed the growth in size and power of the Privy Council Office. We have been treated recently to the simultaneous resignation of five senior public servants—and we in this House can only guess, what was the cause of those resignations and what the consequences will be. We all recognize that in the last few years there have been major changes of the kind to which I have referred in the way the Government of Canada works. We might, on different sides of the House, disagree as to the importance or significance of any particular change, but it is clear that the Privy Council Office has grown, that the Prime Minister’s Office has grown and that the power of the Prime Minister has grown. Yet it is highly significant that today, as we deal with the measure before us, although there have been a multitude of changes, this is the only one which has been brought before the House of Commons. All the other changes, though in effect they have altered the nature of our government, have occurred beyond our reach. We have not been asked to approve them. We have received no legislation in respect to them. We have not had the opportunity which is now given us to debate legislation. Mr. Darling: They’ve been slipped in through the back door. Mr. Clark (Rocky Mountain): As my hon. friend from Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Darling) has said, “They’ve been slipped in through the back door.” And whatever the implication of that, Mr. Speaker, I believe it is agreed by all members of the House that this is not a satisfactory situation for the Parliament of Canada. The other day I introduced a private member’s bill to try to take the very simple, elemental step of establishing a parliamentary committee which would look into the powers and prerogatives of the Prime Minister. Such a committee might have been able to work out ways in which that office, and the offices which have grown up around the Prime Minister, could be made responsible to parliament from which, in theory, all
114 Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
the Prime Minister’s powers are supposed to flow. Some sympathetic noises were made on the other side of the House in relation to that bill but, as happens with so many bills which propose changes for which the government is not ready, it was talked out. There is a temptation, sir, for me to repeat at this time the arguments I made during my eloquent address on that subject during the private members’ hour— Some hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Clark (Rocky Mountain): I should say to hon. members to my immediate left that the temptation is even greater now because there was not a quorum present in the House of Commons when I spoke on private members’ hour, as customarily there is not a quorum present during such periods. However, I will resist the temptation to repeat that argument, except to summarize by saying that not only has the size of the Office of the Prime Minister increased numerically, as we can see from the size of the staff for which the hon. member for Scarborough East was recently responsible, but that its power, too, has grown, simply because the role of government has grown. This applies also, of course, to the Privy Council Office, but bearing in mind the extent to which the media concentrate on the Prime Minister, the accretion of power has been particularly substantial in relation to the Office of the Prime Minister. I should say one more thing in this connection. The hon. member for Scarborough East, in response to a thoughtful and important speech by my colleague from Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Roche), said there was no need for a special minister of inter-governmental affairs or federal-provincial relations. He said the reason such a need did not exist was that there is already a minister—the Prime Minister. Well, sir, one of the alarming facts about the Office of the Prime Minister and about its responsibilities is that the Prime Minister, alone among ministers, does not appear before a standing committee of this House to answer questions. He is not subject to questions except during the generally unsatisfactory exchange which takes place in the course of the question period, when the possibility of intensive inquiry is seriously limited. He is not directly responsible for answering questions in a standing committee, as are other Ministers of the Crown or as a minister responsible for federal-provincial relations would be. This relates to the whole question of the growing disproportion between the power of the Prime Minister and his cabinet and the power of this chamber, one which has diminished substantially in recent times.
Parliamentary Supremacy
115
I made the point the other day, and I repeat it now, that in a very real sense this parliament has more control over the president of the CNR or of Air Canada or of any other Crown corporation than it has over the Prime Minister. I say this because the holders of those high positions are expected to appear before standing committees and explain what they are doing, while the Prime Minister is not. This, I suggest, is a serious deficiency. I say, too, speaking personally, that I sympathize with the motive of the Prime Minister in expanding the Prime Minister’s Office and the Privy Council Office so as to allow him, as the elected political head of the government, to balance the opinion of an appointed public service. I think there comes a time in the growth and size of government when that sort of thing is necessary, and we have reached that time here. So I sympathize with the motives. But I do not sympathize at all with the literal irresponsibility of those opposite, and the fact that they are beyond the reach and effective scrutiny of the members of the House. That is not acceptable. Neither, I believe, is it acceptable that we place the highly important question of federal-provincial relations within the ambit of responsibility of the Office of the Prime Minister, who does not appear before standing committees, or is not in the practice of appearing. Mr. O’Connell: Would the hon. member permit a question? Mr. Clark (Rocky Mountain): Yes. Mr. O’Connell: Does the hon. member mean by his allegation of irresponsibility on the part of prime ministerial staff that members of the Prime Minister’s Office, for example, like members of the President’s office in the United States, should be called before committees and examined? Is he suggesting that we move to the presidential system? There is a minister responsible for every person in the Prime Minister’s Office, and that minister can be questioned here—similarly with all other ministers. Mr. Clark (Rocky Mountain): My point here—I apologize if I have not made it—is that with most ministers we have two chances to ask questions. We have the inadequate opportunity here in the House of Commons during the daily question period, but the real opportunity that we have to gather information about the day-to-day operations of their departments is in the standing committees. Neither the Prime Minister nor the senior staff is in the habit of appearing before standing committees. If my recollection is correct—the hon. member will know because
116 Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
he was in that office at the time—last year the Prime Minister declined an invitation to appear before a standing committee. So we do not have an opportunity to question his officials in the same way that we have an opportunity to question the officials of other ministers. This opportunity is particularly important in view of the immense power they wield as co-ordinators of the officials in the Privy Council Office and the Prime Minister’s Office. The hon. member for Scarborough East used the word presidential. That is his word, and is his system. It is my fear that what we are developing is, in effect, a presidential system under which the Prime Minister can operate without any real responsibility to this House, under which he cannot be questioned and his officials cannot be questioned. The reason one worries about this, and the reason it is of concern now is not simply that the Prime Minister of the day happens to belong to a party other than my own. It might be that as the universe continues to unfold we will move across to that side of the House and we will have a Prime Minister from our party. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Clark (Rocky Mountain): So my concern is not about a particular individual or group of individuals, it is about the system that we are establishing, the institutions that we are developing, and the way we are changing the nature of government in Canada. As I said earlier, I agree with the motives of the Prime Minister in trying to establish around him as political head of the government what has been called, in the words of a former editor of Cité Libre, a countervailing force to the public service. But I make the point that there is in our system another countervailing force to the power of government, and it is this House of Commons. The danger is that a serious imbalance is growing between the power of the Prime Minister and the cabinet and the capacity to countervail that power in this House of Commons. I raise these matters now because, despite the scope of the change that we have seen in the way we are governed here, this bill is unfortunately the only specific opportunity that we in this House have to discuss this very serious change in the nature of the government of Canada. That is to say, it is unless the Prime Minister, when he brings forward the changes in the rules that he is proposing—or perhaps I should say threatening—also proposes a means by which we, as an institution, can control those new agencies that have grown up to create the imbalance between the power of the ministry and of this parliament.
Parliamentary Supremacy
117
I want to speak very briefly about those fellows and the very few women in the public service who earn so much more than do members of the House of Commons, namely, our senior public servants, particularly those who are appointed at the discretion of the Prime Minister and who do not have to go through the Public Service Commission. I repeat, I can understand and approve personally of the Prime Minister’s desire, as political head of the government, to try to control and direct his own government and not let the job be done by senior public servants. But I think it would be wrong for us to ignore the fact that there has been in recent days, indeed years, reason for suspicion that appointments to senior positions have been for reasons other than merit. I suggest these reasons have also to do with loyalty, not necessarily loyalty to a party but loyalty to a point of view that might be embodied in a minister. I think it would be a very real danger, particularly in a country of such diversity, and frankly such fragility, as Canada, if we developed, in effect, a personal public service at the senior level. The appointment of Mr. Pitfield clearly raises the fear, as do the consequent resignations—I use those words deliberately—of other senior deputy ministers in tandem, that we are developing a public service that is chosen not simply because of its competence but also because of its loyalty to the particular point of view that happens to occupy the treasury benches at the present time. That is a serious situation for our system of government to face. There is one other aspect I want to touch on today and it relates also to parliament and our powers and prerogatives. It is very clear to me, and I think to many members on this side of the House, that the growth in formal relations and conferences between the federal government and the provincial governments, indeed the various levels of government, seriously threatens to undercut the authority and the role of the House of Commons. There is the inexorable danger that these new processes that we are developing will bypass parliament and will mean that decisions are taken at some place other than this place; and it is this place where, under our system, decisions are supposed to be taken. Reference was made earlier by my colleague from Edmonton-Strathcona to the discussions that took place at the Western Economic Opportunities Conference in Calgary in the summer of 1973. At that time issues of great importance to western Canada were raised by the premiers, and commitments were given by various ministers. Many of those commitments have not been honoured, but that is not really the
118 Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
point. The point is that the demands made during those few days in Calgary by the premiers were demands that had been made time and time again, year after year after year, by members of the House of Commons. The difference was that in Calgary, in speaking to the premiers the ministers gave commitments; in the House of Commons, speaking to members of parliament, the representatives of those regions, the government was evasive or gave no answers at all. Mr. Mazankowski: Contempt of parliament. Mr. Clark (Rocky Mountain): That is a very serious undermining of the power and prerogatives of this place. My colleague for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) calls it a contempt for parliament, and I think that is literally what it is. I do not think it is the purpose of ministers deliberately to tear down parliament, but I think this is what is happening. Over a period of time they have started to pay more attention and to attribute more seriousness to issues raised by premiers, in private or public conferences, than to representations made by the people who are elected to this House from those regions where these issues arise. There is a danger that, by creating this special office we are speaking of today, we are going to contribute and add to that process of bringing down the authority of parliament, and making it easy for the government to bypass this place which is, in theory and in fact, the most effective arena and institution to control a government given to excess. The hon. member for Scarborough East spoke about complexities when he defended the establishment of a special office for federal-provincial relations. As I recall from sitting in the gallery at that time, the present Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald), when he had responsibility as House leader, spoke of the complexities which parliament and the government must face when he proposed the changes to the rules of this House. Whenever there is an attempt to downgrade or bypass parliament the excuse is complexity, that events are coming on too fast and are too complicated for this Chamber to handle. That bespeaks the assumption that parliament cannot deal with complexity, and that assumption, so long as it is in the saddle, is literally fatal to this system. That assumption ensures that we will continue to be undermined and that the powers of this institution will continue to go down. As I say, I think that is a danger in the institution we are establishing today, particularly since this new office will be answerable only to a prime minister who is not in any practical way answerable to this House of Commons.
Parliamentary Supremacy
119
I want to repeat what we all know, that we are not a federal system by accident, we are a federal system because we have to be. This is a highly diverse country which requires a government that is in tune with its diversities. It is certain to all of us, I think, that this parliament is the best representation of diversity, drawing as it does individuals from every locality in the land, and paying attention, as its tradition insists, to the rights of those individuals to speak on behalf of their localities. No other agency of government does this, and it cannot be guaranteed in the public service where people in order to become promoted to levels of effective decision making have to live here so long they forget where they came from, Mr. Speaker. This cannot be done either in private conferences, involving various premiers. It cannot be done with guarantees in any other but this forum. The strength of parliament is not an academic thing at all. It is important to the very roots of this federal country. Every time we wear it down or bypass parliament, and every time we set up agencies to deal with problems that are too complex for parliament, we literally put federalism into danger, as well as damage the parliamentary system of government to which we claim allegiance. My point in this intervention, which has gone on longer that I intended, is that there has been a range of serious changes in the way in which we have been governed in this country in the last ten years. Since I came here in 1972, and during the longer period when I was watching events from the gallery, this is the only time at which parliament itself has had the chance to pass judgment on the growth of power. The other powers have been developed without recourse to parliament, and without our having the opportunity to debate them and to express whatever concerns we had. What is remarkable about this bill is not that it has come before us, but that so many other bills which should have come before us did not. With so many of the powers of the Prime Minister and the executive being developed in this country without recourse to the House of Commons, this is a very serious situation. I hope that when this bill reaches the committee we will be able to review not only the powers that will attach to this new official, not only his relation to the Prime Minister, but also we will be able to review the range of powers of people and agencies appointed by the executive, so that we can begin to achieve the balance which was written into this system when it began—a balance between the executive and elected representatives of this very diverse country.
120
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
Economic Policy and Parliamentary Supremacy House of Commons Debates 9 December 1976 30th Parliament, 2nd Session: Volume 2, 1824–1830 Mr. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition) moved: That this House vigorously protests the manner in which it has been deprived of a genuine role in the discussion of estimates and fiscal and monetary policy, objects to the secrecy of economic studies and projections, deplores the fact that key recommendations of the Auditor General will not be implemented in the foreseeable future, and condemns the government for it inept handling of the public finances of Canada.
Mr. Speaker, I think that I and other hon. members of the House noted with particular interest your remarks immediately prior to our coming to this item of business when you indicated that later tonight we would be following the usual procedure and the House would be concurring in supplementary estimates and other expenditures of the government of Canada. I think that one of the major reasons we have chosen today to introduce this motion in the form we have is precisely that the usual procedure of the House of Commons, being simply to concur in, and not being able to call the government to account for its expenditures, has created a situation which has raised very severe questions about the competence of parliament to carry out its traditional role as a guardian of the public interest and as a controller of the public purse, which has been, in concert with other actions by this government—highlighted most recently by the report of the Auditor General—a further source of a decline in public confidence in the public institutions of Canada, a decline which should not affect us merely in our capacity as members of those particular institutions but also should concern us as it is an indication of a weakening of the ability of national institutions to earn the respect which alone can draw the country together. I should say, in passing, that the respect for public institutions, particularly for parliament and for the conduct of governments, was not helped at all by suggestions which were made a couple of nights ago, and which have been repeated, dismissed this very valid request by the hon. member here by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald), that somehow in this country it is unpatriotic for the provinces of Canada to adopt a common position which is a compromise position on all their
Parliamentary Supremacy
121
parts in the face of a consistent tactic of the government opposite of attempting to divide the opinion of the provinces of Canada in federal-provincial relations and trying to triumph by a tactic of divide and conquer. Mr. Stanfield: Blackmail; that’s what it is. [Translation] Mr. Clark: For some time now, Mr. Speaker, Canadians have been more and more concerned and asking questions about the value and merits of their national institutions. Unfortunately we must admit that they are right to ask those questions. Their very existence depends on respect from the people. It is the duty of the government and of Parliament to earn for them the respect of Canadians. However the attitude of the present government is about to jeopardize the credibility of our national institutions. [English] I think, sir, that we have all been concerned with the practice that has become evident again today in questions relating to the public nature of the federal-provincial discussions which will occur next week and those which occurred earlier this week. We in Canada now face a situation where to an increasing degree decisions of fundamental importance to the future of the country are taken by small groups of people who theoretically are responsible, but who in practice are meeting in secret to make decisions in secret which are relayed back to respective legislatures, whether the parliament of Canada or the legislatures of particular provinces, for ratification. That has rather seriously changed the system of government we have had in this country. It raises serious questions about how the parliamentary system functions and the way the system was established, namely, to allow members elected from the various constituencies of the land to control in a real sense the actions of the executive of the day. Parliament must begin with information, and it must involve influence. If the parliament of Canada continues to be denied information and influence on the activities of the government of Canada, we have strayed a serious distance from the original purposes of the parliamentary system. Today the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) raised a very legitimate question when he asked the Prime Minister (Mr.
122
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
Trudeau) by what authority, in terms of the long history of parliament, the decisions of import to the country—those that were under discussion earlier this week and will be again next week—should be made, in effect, in secret by a group of people who, while theoretically responsible, have the capacity to impose their private decisions on the various legislatures of the land. The Prime Minister who is probably the expert in the House of Commons on strawmen dismissed this very valid request by the hon. Member for Edmonton West as setting up a strawman. It is not that at all; it is a question of real concern to all of us who want to see the parliamentary system in Canada function and represent the people of Canada. Unfortunately, the practice of secrecy which the Prime Minister, at least, is not prepared to initiate breaking down in relation to the federal-provincial conference next week has become a practice very close to the heart of this government. As my colleague, the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) has pointed out on numerous occasions, this is a government almost obsessive in its secrecy. We have seen it refuse, not simply to make information available to people who should be informed both by formal right and informal right, but we have also seen it frequently make decisions which suffer because they are based on the narrow range of information. We have seen this most recently in the Speech from the Throne which began this session of parliament. The government proposed to begin consultations on the anti-inflation process—some 13 months after the process was brought into being—not to try to draw upon the advice of Canadians and the advice of interested sectors of the country but, instead, to try to get some help in bailing the government out of a situation it got into by acting too much in contempt of the advice that could and should have been offered by various interested parties in the country. The federal government apparatus has quite aptly been called by the Auditor General—and, I believe, by the Prime Minister—“the largest business in Canada.” In terms of its spending impact, it is equivalent to the 20 largest corporations in Canada. Yet what we have here is this massive instrument of impact upon the conduct of Canadian affairs, a complete absence of direction, absence of leadership, an absence of purpose. In the face of that situation, this largest business in the country has become, in effect, an uncontrolled political conglomerate which, unfortunately, in its lack of purpose and lack of direction is setting a trend for other levels of government and a trend of carelessness for the public purse.
Parliamentary Supremacy
123
We believe that it is fundamental to restore fiscal control to the House of Commons and the government of Canada. We think that unless there is a demonstration on the part of the government that it is concerned about fiscal control, unless there is a demonstration that the parliament of Canada has a capacity to control the spending practices of the government of Canada, we are going to continue to invite the cynicism which is unfortunately undermining the respect for institutions in this country. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Clark: I repeat, Mr. Speaker, that if that cynicism persists it is going to have serious effects, not simply on the financial capacities and on the economic policy of the government of Canada, but it is going to have a serious and deteriorating effect upon the capacity of this institution of parliament and the institution of the government of Canada to command respect and draw together Canadians in achieving our other goals, whether they be in terms of social policy, national unity or anything else. When the Auditor General introduced his report, the attention of many of us was initially drawn to what one of the newspapers called the “horror” stories. We are aware of many of these horror stories and the failure to make optimum use or anything near optimum use of office space, transfer expenses not accounted for, inadequate control of cash received in many departments, expenditures seriously in excess of appropriations that are approved—we know about the individual horror stories. We have to recognize that the reports of Auditors General, particularly the most recent one but also those which preceded it, have to be seen not as a mere catalogue of mistakes but, instead, as a thorough indictment of the system of control that has been in place in the government of Canada for the last eight years. The recommendation of the Auditor General that a chief financial officer be appointed in each department seems to be under way, if we can judge from the responses given in this House by the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Andras) yesterday to questions the origin of which might be a matter of dispute. Mr. Stanfield: They change their minds from day to day. Mr. Clark: As my colleague, the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Stanfield) points out, they change their minds from day to day; but the problem with the House of Commons is that we still do not know exactly what
124
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
kind of system the President of the Treasury Board intends to bring in. An hon. Member: He does not, either. Mr. Clark: We do not know if he intends to bring in any system at all. If a chief financial officer is to be brought into each department of government, the House of Commons would like to know from the minister—and if he participates in the debate later, perhaps he will tell us—at what level these officers will be appointed in the departments. There is a very real danger, if they are named at a level too subordinate to the deputy minister, that they are going to be unable to exercise the kind of control that is important. If they are not able to do that, then their appointments will be phantom and their authority will be nil. We would like to know from the minister at precisely what level these officers will be appointed, and precisely what their functions and powers will be. Mr. Hnatyshyn: And whose idea it was. Mr. Clark: The hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Hnatyshyn), of course—a naturally modest man—is interested in having on the record precisely whose idea it was. Even if there is an introduction of this kind of representation, it is clear that it is only part of the step that must be taken by the government to repair a situation where its expenditures are, in the words of the Auditor General, “virtually out of control.” In addition, even if we are able to make the kinds of reforms proposed by the Auditor General of Canada, it is clear that there is going to be one part of, or one half of, a necessary two-pronged effort to restore fiscal control to the federal government of Canada. It will help only to give direction and control in a bureaucratic sense; it will not, by itself, serve to restore public confidence. The present runaway situation in public finance is associated with two developments. The first development has been the partial—I emphasize “partial”—implementation of the recommendations of the Glassco royal commission for decentralization of fiscal control. There has been a decentralization of authority without the mechanisms for control and responsibility. The other matter which is of critical importance is that there has also been, in the period since 1965, a gradual and striking removal from the House of Commons of any effective capacity to control the spending or planning of the government of Canada. In passing, it is important to dwell for a moment on the degree to which the reforms proposed by the Glassco commission have only been partially introduced. I will accept, as I am sure the House will, the au-
Parliamentary Supremacy
125
thority of the Auditor General of Canada himself when he says: However, it seems clear that the present unsatisfactory and vulnerable situation came about because certain key recommendations on financial management and control made by the Royal Commission on Government Organization (Glassco commission) in 1962 were not implemented. Perhaps they were not understood, although the recommendations relating to the decentralization of financial authorities were evidently understood and were fully implemented.
The Auditor General goes on to say: Unfortunately, the concurrent and equally important Glassco recommendation that new counterbalancing controls be instituted and that existing ones be strengthened was not implemented.
Sir, I now want to turn the attention of the House to the problems faced by this parliament in dealing with the public spending of the government and the problems faced by parliament in exercising the traditional parliamentary role of controlling, in the final analysis, government expenditure and government plans. I will not dwell long on what we can call the former situation. It is clear to all who have studied parliament and know of its force that there was a time, not long ago, when the House of Commons had a real capacity to call the government of Canada to account. It was not simply a matter of giving, as we shall be called upon tonight to give, automatic passage to expenditure requirements—not at all. There was, with the capacity for unrestricted questioning of estimates, the real ability to force the government to respond to the will of the public of Canada. One authority upon whom I shall call is Professor Norman Ward, author of the book entitled The Public Purse. He referred to that historic event in Canadian parliamentary history which has become known as the pipeline debate, when the opposition of that day was able to use its capacity to delay passage of the estimates to force the government of Canada into a difficult situation. I quote Professor Ward, who said: No one who witnessed that sitting of the House could have any doubts of the power of the weapon which the members held until spokesmen for the various opposition parties made clear that they had chosen to lay it down.
No observer of any of the processes which will occur later this eve-
126
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
ning in this House can have any doubt that the parliament of Canada has lost completely that capacity to control expenditures and approve the plans of a majority government in Canada today. There was, with that former system, an obvious shortcoming: it took too long. As government has become more complex, it is no longer possible to have the unrestrained capacity on the part of the opposition to hold up public business. Everyone recognizes that we could not contemplate, with the modern agenda of business, the kinds of delays which were possible perhaps in easier times. The difficulty is, sir, that the reforms which were introduced, particularly the way they have been interpreted by the government opposite, have substituted for delay a much more serious problem in that they have left the parliament of Canada virtually without control of the public spending of Canada, and virtually without control of the government of Canada. It is significant to note that when there were changes in methods of financial control, there were, by coincidence, at the same time changes in the rules of the House of Commons. To be consistent on the matter of questioning the estimates, it would be helpful to the House of Commons to review some of the changes which have occurred in the last few years in the handling of estimates by this government and the presentation of estimates by this government to the House of Commons. One change was that detailed information was dropped from estimates and millions of dollars were put under headings which gave little information. For example, the preface to one set of estimates says that they are to assist members of parliament in their deliberations and to assist those seeking an understanding of the purposes for which the government proposes funds to be appropriated. In 1970–71, the form of the estimates was changed with that particular goal in mind. In fact what has happened, as all know who have served on committees trying to scrutinize estimates, is that a sentence or two is placed in front of items allocating funds—a sentence or two which can be highly uninformative. For example, some in this House have recently been preoccupied with the discontinuance of the ferry service in British Columbia. I happen to have obtained a copy of the 1976–77 estimates for the Department of Transport, and I note that ferry services are defined in the following detail: Development, implementation and monitoring of programs, including participation in policy formulation, for the operation of certain coastal, ferry and related terminal services, particularly
Parliamentary Supremacy
127
those for which Canada has accepted responsibility under terms of union and confederation.
That explanation gave next to no detail, but that item cost in excess of $116 million. On the basis of a handful of words, the parliament of Canada is now supposed to pass intelligent judgment and to raise questions upon expenditure in excess of $116 million. I have cited an example which was simply drawn at random, because it is of some concern now; but it indicates the kinds of changes which have taken place in the period since 1971–72. It indicates a moving away by the government, in its presentation of estimates to parliament, from the giving of detailed information with regard to estimates, and this moving away generally makes it very difficult for the parliament of Canada to do its job. The other highly serious problem which we face as a parliament now, and which the people of Canada face as a consequence, is that the committees of parliament, and parliament itself, have been deprived of any leverage upon the government by the automatic guillotine which comes into force to conclude debate. The government has the capacity in the committees, through its control of committee chairmen—a control which exists in reality, as any realist in this House must admit—to decide who is going to testify and for how long. That is done through the steering committees. They have also the capacity to formally limit debate. Last year, as an experiment, some estimates were brought before the House, presumably for debate along the old lines. The problem was that debate was under the guillotine; it was to end that very night. Consequently, any minister under questioning knew that he had simply to turn up his collar against the storm; he knew he had only to live through that day. Indeed, he encouraged—and I say this with respect to the sensitivity of the hon. member for Scarborough West (Mr. Martin)—supporters of the government party to consume as much time as they could by asking patsy questions. That was allowable perhaps within the rules, but it was a shameful use of those rules and shameful contempt of the right of parliament to control expenditure. An hon. Member: Do you people live in glass houses? Mr. Clark: Theoretically, this House of Commons retains the ability to vote down estimates, although this very rarely happened in the past even before the rules changed. It has not happened at all since 1970–71, not even in a minority parliament. It was not possible for the House of
128
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
Commons to ratify, in the whole House, changes which had been made in the various standing committees. In June, 1973, I remember a number of committees reporting back to the House of Commons recommending specific expenditure cuts. I particularly remember being involved in one which recommended the reduction by $1 million of consultants’ expenditures for the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. That expenditure was struck out in committee. However, the government brought it back in in a form, not where it would be considered as a $1 million expenditure struck out for the reasons decided by the majority of the Standing Committee of the House of Commons, but part of an over-all estimate of $45 million. It was included with a number of other quite legitimate expenditures, expenditures which the committee was quite prepared to accept. With that kind of juggling and varying of an expenditure to which exception was taken in a body of expenditures that we were prepared to accept, the government was in a position of, in effect, blackmailing the House of Commons into supporting an expenditure which it did not want to support. That kind of trickery and deceit has an opportunity to occur only with a minority government. The point I am making is that there is a determination on the part of this government to use the changes that have occurred in the method of bringing forward the estimates to frustrate the will of parliament even though that will is expressed by standing committees of the House. I want to review very quickly a couple of other problems which exist in the present system of consideration of estimates in committee. One obvious problem is that there is very little public attention paid to the activities of standing committees, particularly when considering estimates. Second, there is a clear inability for members of parliament of any party who are interested in getting at the facts about a particular expenditure effectively to cross-examine a chairman or minister who is determined to stop that kind of cross-examination. By controlling the agenda, or having limited time, the government can effectively forestall any kind of investigation. There is, by the nature of reference, a simple inability on the part of the House of Commons to deal with a specific matter in any prolonged or coherent fashion. I see that the hon. member for Westmount (Mr. Drury) is in the chamber. In the last session, that distinguished member was a member of the government of Canada. We had an admission by that gentleman, as a minister, that the government of Canada was indulging in the practice
Parliamentary Supremacy
129
of hiding certain expenditures, particularly those that related to intelligence activities by the government of Canada. That raises the very serious problem about the ability of parliament to control the expenditures of government. We have no capacity to know what amounts of money are being spent on intelligence operations, or for any other purpose, by the government of Canada. I should say that there was an undertaking, although I do not believe it has been acted on, to give private briefings to members of parliament who were interested in that question. The far more serious problem was that the then minister admitted there had been an inflation of other estimates by smuggling in the intelligence estimates. We do not know in how many other cases this occurred. However, it is clear that the parliament of Canada was being deliberately misled as to the amount of money the government of Canada intended to spend on particular projects. The government intended to deflect part of that sum to intelligence activities which it did not trust parliament to know about. That is another indication of the abuse of the system in which the present government has indulged. This is not an academic matter. Today we face another very real concern about the capacity of parliament and parliamentary committees to investigate. I am told by my colleagues who serve on the public accounts committee that many of the documents necessary for that fundamentally important committee of parliament to examine the records of AECL may be withheld for a variety of spurious reasons. Some hon. Members: Shame! Mr. Clark: It certainly is shameful. “Wait and see,” the parliamentary secretary tells me. We will do that. The best way to answer our doubt would be to have, today, an unequivocal undertaking by the minister when he stands in his place that each and every document requested by a member of parliament in the consideration of that and other questions in that and other committees will be available and that each and every witness will be made available. I doubt that that kind of undertaking will be given. It would depart fundamentally from the practice of this government to use the committee system to frustrate, rather than assist, in any examination. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Clark: There are a number of other reforms that we think the House of Commons ought to deal with in a non-partisan manner. We are concerned, not in our capacity as members of parties but in our capacity
130
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
as members of parliament for the effectiveness of this institution. There are a number of changes which should be considered very soon. First, we must improve the capacity of parliament to control public expenditures. One way to do that would be to vest in opposition parties the capacity to select a certain limited number of departments each year whose estimates could be debated in committee of the whole without an automatic guillotine. If a minister or the government wants to introduce the guillotine, perhaps they should be left with that right. However, if there is going to be a guillotine, they should at least have to face the music by standing up in this House of Commons and making it clear that they intend to limit debate. With an automatic guillotine there is a safeguard for the ministers. No one knows they are limiting debate. They get away with murder. We think there is very real merit in giving some consideration to vesting in committees— The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner): Order, please. I regret to inform the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) that his allotted time has expired. He can continue only with unanimous consent. Does the House give its consent? Some hon Members: Agreed. Mr. Clark: I appreciate that courtesy, Mr. Speaker, and I will attempt to be brief. Consideration should be given to vest in the committees of the House of Commons some capacity to initiate investigations into matters of public interest. Right now, the capacity of committees is limited. Their capacity to investigate is limited in two ways. First, we know from experience that estimates before a committee is an inadequate means of examining the government. The second would be to receive a reference from the House, in theory, but from the government in fact. The practice is that when the subject is hot, the reference does not come. Time and time again, this parliament has sought to have the committees of the parliament of Canada empowered to look into questions of obvious public importance. Time after time the government has refused to make that kind of reference. We think it very much worth considering having some capacity vested in the committees of the House of Commons to initiate their own inquiries. They would be both extensive and educational. If we are looking for parliamentary reform, we might consider looking, not to another country but simply to the other place. It is one of the ironies of political life in this country that private members of the other place
Parliamentary Supremacy
131
have far more capacity to look into public problems than private members of the House of Commons. I want, in passing, to pay tribute to the members of the other place in recognition of some of the very important investigations they have carried out, performing the kind of function which the elected parliament of Canada should perform. I think it is unacceptable that the appointed members of a national institution should have more power and capacity to investigate than do the elected members. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Clark: There are number of other matters to which I wished to refer, Mr. Speaker, but I will abbreviate those references. I do wish to say, however, that one of the other constraints upon the capacity of parliament to secure information has been the change in attitude of the government toward the question period. We all recognize that there is no requirement upon the government to answer questions put to it in the House of Commons. But there is a requirement on the part of the government of Canada to treat seriously questions which are posed seriously in the House. Unfortunately, we have seen the development of what I think can fairly be characterized as a personal style of flippant answers, being cute with questions, of seeking not to answer, not to provide information but, rather, to evade questions and create false controversies and to send people off on tangents. We get responses, rather than answers, from ministers opposite, and I think if there were a serious desire on the part of ministers to inform the House of Commons they could start by answering seriously questions seriously posed. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Clark: This motion, among other things, condemns the government for its inept handling of the public finances of Canada. Its record in the handling of public finances is well known. When the present administration took office, federal expenditures were in the neighbourhood of $9 billion a year. Today they exceed $42 billion. When the government took office, governments in Canada claimed 30 per cent of the gross national product. Today they claim almost 43 per cent. Mr. Kaplan: That’s all government in Canada. Mr. Clark: That is right. The parliamentary secretary makes an interjection which is correct. But he would not want to pretend that the initiative for that increase came exclusively or even primarily from other
132
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
levels of government. In the last decade in particular—and this is documentable—that initiative came from the federal government. It has been the central cause of the increase in the growth of public sector consumption of the gross national product in this country. Despite all the increase in expenditures, we have so little to show in terms of public response. Rather than an increased faith in the government’s ability to help Canadians meet their difficulties, there is now an increasing growth of cynicism and a diminution of trust about the role and relevance of government policies to the economic well-being of Canada. Rather than a major increase in our well-being as a nation, we see our country has slipped in one decade from second place to seventh place in the world in terms of per capita living standards. It threatens to fall even farther down the list. Instead of there being greater sense of economic equality in Canada, we see instead a greater sense of division among the regions and among the different income groups. I do not wish to take the time of the House to elaborate on economic details about which my colleagues will be speaking later on in the debate. But there are a least two aspects of the present situation which are fundamental. The first is something I have enunciated on many occasions when speaking across the country. It is the need for us to halt, and gradually reverse, the growing claims of all governments upon our national output. I am convinced that what is often referred to as “the British disease” is a very real economic malady. I have no reason to believe that if we continue to hurtle down the course set by the government we will avoid our own particular Canadian strain of that disease. Indeed, we will invite it. I want to make it clear that my colleagues in the Conservative party and I are advocating a far different approach to spending restraint than that which is practised by the government. The government opposite bows in the direction of restraint, although the minister admitted the other day that in fiscal year 1977 federal government expenditures will increase by 14 per cent. Mr. Andras: Fourteen per cent this year, and only 11 per cent next year. Mr. Clark: The minister tells me 14 per cent this year, and 11 percent next year. An hon. Member: Dreadful. Mr. Clark: We find it interesting that the saving will be in the neighbourhood of $1.2 billion. It is both interesting and illustrative that that is exactly the figure the government of Canada, in the negotiations
Parliamentary Supremacy
133
between finance ministers which failed this week in Ottawa, is seeking to take from the provinces of Canada. So the government practices restraint, not by restraining its own expenditures but by passing its burdens on to other levels of government. That is not restraint; that is sleight-of-hand. Some hon. Members: Hear, Hear! Mr. Clark: Clearly, what we need to do is not to pass the buck on to the provinces but, instead, exercise national leadership to try to bring together the efforts at restraint to all levels of government. [Translation] There is another major difference between our approach and theirs, that is, the relation between the federal spending policy and that of the other levels of government. One of the favourite tackles of this government in limiting its expenditures is quite senselessly to shift its commitments on the provinces, and to hell with the taxpayers: they have no choice but to support all governments. In our approach, we endeavour to generate a coordinated and joint effort on the part of all levels of government with a view to moderating the overall demand on the economy. I underestimate neither the difficulty nor the complexity of that endeavour, but it is necessary otherwise we will witness no less than the abdication of the leadership. This brings me to the second point. I want to stress in this context. It is obvious for everybody, except the government, that we cannot continue making decisions which affect more than two fifths of our national economy on the basis of the arbitrary and unilateral action of eleven different governments. And yet that is what we do in Canada. The federal or provincial governments make their budgetary decisions separately, without real co-ordination, which often puts them in competition if not in opposition. [English] Of course, the ministers of finance meet, as they did earlier this week. But I do not think any of us would pretend, in the present atmosphere, that they even seek to achieve any meaningful co-ordination of the economic direction of what amounts to two fifths of our national output. This, clearly, is not a one-sided affair. The fault—if that is the term I should use—does not rest solely with the federal government. The gov-
134
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
ernment has contributed significantly to the whole problem of governments acting unilaterally in a country requiring co-operation, but it is not the exclusive agent of that kind of action. It is fair to assert, however, that only the federal government can show the kind of national leadership we need if we are to achieve worthwhile economic co-ordination within the public sector. Along with maintaining security, the management of the national economy is probably the most fundamental responsibility of the federal government. It controls the monetary system, and while it does not by any means exercise all the fiscal power, it controls the national fiscal lever and thus, in a very real way, sets the framework for everyone else. Only the national government can exercise the primary responsibility for economic management in Canada. In the name of that responsibility there must be a much greater effort, a much more concerted active national leadership in seeking to co-ordinate, through consensus and through compromise, the impact of public sector policies and demands upon our economy as a whole. That will mean, not a giving up of ultimate responsibility by the government of Canada but a greater willingness on the part of all governments to act as partners and to share information and planning before each exercises the responsibility which ultimately rests with each. I began, Mr. Speaker, by speaking about the problems that face our national institutions, such as the erosion of respect which can have consequences of very real danger to a country like ours. This parliament is the only institution in Canada which legitimately speaks for all the people of Canada. It is our only national institution. But it can have effect only if has power. It can be respected by the people of Canada only if it is respected by the government of Canada. The tragic situation today is that the government of Canada has demonstrated, through its use of changed rules, through its refusal to accept the control or the point of view of the House of Commons, which amounts to contempt for parliament which, unfortunately, is capable of being shared by the people of Canada. We believe that that kind of attitude by the government must be changed. We would hope that in the acceptance of the motion introduced today we will be beginning down the road toward a change in that fundamental attitude. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Clark: With a little prompting from my friends, in that spirit, Mr. Speaker, I want to move, seconded by my colleague for Edmonton Cen-
Parliamentary Supremacy
135
tre (Mr. Paproski): That this House vigorously protests the manner in which it has been deprived of a genuine role in the discussion of estimates and fiscal and monetary policy, objects to the secrecy of economic studies and projections, deplores the fact that key recommendations of the Auditor General will not be implemented in the foreseeable future, and condemns the government for its inept handling of the public finances of Canada.
Parliamentary Sovereignty and Powers of the Prime Minister House of Commons Debates 9 December 1974 30th Parliament, 1st Session: Volume 2, 2071–2073 Mr. Joe Clark (Rocky Mountain) moved: That, in the opinion of this House, a committee should be selected to consider the powers, prerogatives and privileges attaching to the office of Prime Minister and to report what safeguards are desirable or necessary to secure the constitutional principles of the sovereignty of parliament and the supremacy of the law.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I should point out to the House that the language of this resolution was drawn from a resolution introduced to the British House of Commons on precisely this topic several years ago. I can say, in a certain hopeful sense, that the resolution was accepted at that time in that House. I hope it will receive similar treatment here today. In the past ten years there have been a great many deliberate changes in our political institutions. New departments of government have been introduced and a range of new procedures developed from impact studies to local initiative of government spending designed to bring governments and citizens into closer harmony. Last year parliament passed the Election Expenses Act which will end the secrecy of political party financing and encourage all parties to become more active and more broadly based. The rules of parliament have been dramatically changed, and the Speech from the Throne suggested that more radical changes will be proposed. Those changes have been made deliberately, usually after extensive study and public debate. In that period the office of Prime Minister has also changed dramat-
136
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
ically, and it is one of the curiosities of our system that so little serious attention has been paid to the extent or significance of the power of that office. In the United States, books and theories and countless columns are written about the power of the presidency. In Canada, with rare exceptions, we focus for a moment on a sudden growth in staff or an expenditure on suede sofas, and then largely leave the question alone. However, it is too important a question to leave alone and the purpose of this resolution is to allow an examination of the role that should be played by the office of Prime Minister in a modern, federal parliamentary state. I underline and emphasize the fact that what is sought in this resolution is an opportunity for a committee of this parliament to examine the role of the office of Prime Minister. The resolution makes no assumptions about that role except the assumption that the powers of the Prime Minister, like the powers of parliament, should be discussed and decided in public and in the context of the requirements and the traditions of the whole country. Let me say a word about those traditions. In my view there is no tradition in Canada of a weak Prime Minister. We are told, in parliamentary theory, that the Prime Minister is merely the “first among equals” in parliament, with the assumption that Her Majesty can quite easily choose another of us equals to be first. That is the theory. In fact, the Prime Minister has always been a strong figure in Canada, with his parliamentary leadership buttressed by his party leadership and with official responsibilities and an official reputation far beyond those of his peers and at least equal to those of Her Majesty. Therefore, the tradition is not the theoretical tradition of being merely the first among equals, answerable to the Queen but, rather, the practical tradition of exercising leadership in a federal state with a parliamentary system which requires the governors to be responsible to the governed through this parliament. Nobody is suggesting that we go back to a weakness that never was. However, throughout our history there has been another tradition to balance the necessary strength of the office of Prime Minister; that is, that the powers of the Prime Minister should not be developed or exercised in isolation but must be set in a federal parliamentary context and be subject to detailed and regular parliamentary scrutiny. There is no such scrutiny today. The Prime Minister comes to the question period on most days, but the questions are usually about his judgment, seldom about his powers; and anyway there is no requirement that he answer. After the so-called
Parliamentary Supremacy
137
Pearson precedent of 1968 there is a real question whether parliament can defeat a Prime Minister by vote in this House, except on matters of obvious confidence, like a budget. If our capacity to defeat a Prime Minister is so limited, so is our capacity limited to control him by the threat of defeat. As the chief minister, he is less bound by Treasury Board than any of his colleagues, and appointments to or by his office can be made without recourse to the Public Service Commission. His estimates are brought before the miscellaneous estimates committee. However, they are not dealt with there by him, but by a parliamentary secretary to another minister. The Prime Minister reports to no standing committee and there is no statute to define his responsibilities. Ironically, parliament probably has less real control over the Prime Minister than we have over the president of Air Canada or the president of CNR, because a Crown corporation is established by statute while the Prime Minister’s Office is not, and its officials must appear regularly before standing committees while the Prime Minister’s officials do not. No matter how loosely you define “responsible” government, parliament should have some direct control over the actions of its Prime Minister beyond his mere appearance for questions in the House. If that has been important in the past, I suggest it will be even more critical in the future, for reasons I will enumerate. First, whatever the theory, the fact is that our system of government in Canada is a system of cabinet government, not parliamentary government. Occasionally, initiatives by private members are adopted by the government and from time to time members can amend a bill in committee or the whole House. However, the bulk of the power of initiative lies with the cabinet. It is the same in Britain, and one distinguished participant in and observer of the British system, the late Richard Crossman, suggested that in the system of the Mother of Parliaments, the process of a concentration of power has gone even further. Writing a decade ago in the introduction to Bagehot’s The English Constitution, Crossman said: In Bagehot’s day, collective cabinet responsibility meant the responsibility of a group of equal colleagues for decisions taken collectively, after full, free and secret discussion in which all could participate. It now means collective obedience by the whole administration, from the foreign secretary and the chancellor downwards, to the will of the man at the apex of power.
138
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
We have no expert testimony on this trend in Canada, but it is safe to assume—and certainly it is the public assumption—that the Prime Minister controls his cabinet and that it is the Prime Minister, not the cabinet, and certainly not Parliament, who regularly makes the final and the important decisions. Second, the power of the Prime Minister grows as government grows. We have increasingly an interventionist state which controls or strongly influences more and more of the processes of our society. The merits of that development can be argued another time. The simple point I want to make is that as the government becomes more powerful in the nation, so does the leader of the government become more powerful. The present Prime Minister, by virtue of his office, has much more power in Canada than did Louis St. Laurent, John Diefenbaker, Lester Pearson or any of his predecessors. The state might have got out of the bedrooms of the nation, but it has more than made up for that everywhere else, and the one office that has grown most in power is the office, in Mr. Crossman’s words, “at the apex of power.” Third, the same active agenda which has increased the role of government has decreased the power of parliament to control government. Parliament once had a virtually unlimited power to scrutinize and delay. While parties might disagree about the nature of specific reforms, all of us recognize that the old, easy rules would not have let the business get done. But we have paid a price for that reform, and the price has been that at the same time as the powers of the executive have increased, the powers of parliament have decreased; so we have less control on bigger government. The fourth factor in the growing power of the Prime Minister is television. Today, every head of government has become a star personality whose advisers cultivate the talent to manipulate opinion and whose office has the permanent opportunity to command attention. Professor Denis Smith, in his article “President and Parliament” argues, and I quote: Canadian Prime Ministers have always made their primary appeal for support not in the House of Commons, but outside, to the electorate.
That is much easier now, with mass media. All of us here, if we are realists, know that the most effective place for a Prime Minister to get his message across is on television, not in this House. That is a fact of life which adds immensely to the power of the Prime Minister and dimin-
Parliamentary Supremacy
139
ishes, again, the capacity of this parliament to control an official whose whole authority is presumed in theory to arise from this chamber. Fifth, the present Prime Minister has, in effect, established for the first time a new “Department of the Prime Minister” in the Privy Council Office and the Office of the Prime Minister. His purpose was to provide a means by which he, as head of government, could keep track of and co-ordinate the various initiatives of a mammoth government. I understand that purpose and, speaking personally, approve of it as the only means to ensure that there is, in fact, some over-all control of the direction of government by the elected politicians whom the Prime Minister commands. However, this new department was created in the absence of authority from, or discussion in, parliament. It operates beyond our scrutiny and, having the ear of the Prime Minister, it has the capacity virtually to change any direction or challenge any initiative that arises either in parliament or in the public service. Without dwelling on them too long, I would suggest that certain other forces which traditionally have restrained a Prime Minister have been weakening recently. For example, we accept the notion, without much evidence, that Canadian political parties control their leaders and, in particular, prevent them from the excesses we associate with Watergate. But when did that last happen? Did the Liberal Party in Newfoundland ever restrain Joey Smallwood? Did the Union Nationale restrain Maurice Duplessis? Parties do not behave in that way because they know that in attacking their leader they attack themselves. This is particularly true now that campaigns are so heavily influenced by national media and voting is more often for the personality of the leader than it is for the local candidate or a specific issue. Again, we have assumed that a Prime Minister can be controlled by the public which, at each election, has the chance to “throw the rascals out.” However, public control of the Prime Minister depends upon a competitive electoral system. In Canada, the electoral system is, unfortunately, not competitive in Quebec, which means, as it did in 1972, that a Prime Minister can be rejected by most of the country and still survive. Finally, there is the argument that the professional public service can provide a counterbalance to a powerful Prime Minister. That capacity also is being weakened, first by the deliberate establishment of a “Department of the Prime Minister,” precisely to confront such a capability in the public service and, second, by the increasingly frequent appointment to public service positions of individuals who have personal or
140
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
partisan loyalties to the Prime Minister. Hon. members can disagree about the extent or significance of any of the factors I have discussed today, but I think we must surely all agree that two main trends are occurring. The first is a trend toward the concentration of formal and informal power in the office and person of the Prime Minister. Second is the weakening of any effective means to control that power. In a modern state, it may well be impossible or even undesirable to reverse the first trend. But surely we cannot let that power grow unscrutinized and uncontrolled. I think it is safe to say that if we saw a corporation, a union or any other private agency accumulating the power that is developing now around the office of the Prime Minister, we would want to develop some assurances that the public interest was being served. It is particularly important that we apply that same standard of scrutiny and control to an office whose original authority was as a creature of this House. The resolution before us suggests simply that this is a matter which we cannot ignore. It does not propose a particular remedy or imply that anything improper has been done. It simply asserts that the tradition of parliamentary control requires at least a formal consideration of the powers which now attach, and the restraints which should apply, to the most powerful office in our political system. There is a danger, of course, that this discussion will be seen as simply one more step in a struggle for power between members on one side of the House and those on the other, or between the executive and the legislature. However, that is not the case, as I hope my arguments have shown. There is another dimension to the problem; it is the very real harm that can be done to a country like Canada by any concentration of power. Our federal parliamentary system was not developed by accident or by simple, blind importation from elsewhere. We are a diverse country and we need institutions which both reflect and accommodate that diversity. The best institution for that purpose has been parliament, because it draws its membership from truly every corner of the country and has traditionally encouraged its members to express the views of their locale. But parliament was never designed to be simply a talking shop; the assumption was that the Prime Minister and the cabinet, who came from parliament, would heed the views of the various locales. If they didn’t, in theory, parliament would bring them down. But parliament, the forum of diversity, has lost this control over the executive, and the Prime Minister is increasingly able to construct a government which reflects his own views better than it reflects the di-
Parliamentary Supremacy
141
versity of the country. If that double trend continues—the weakening of the forum of diversity and the empowering of a particular group— those regions and attitudes which lack power will naturally tire of the system. That is the special Canadian danger of this kind of concentration of power, and it must be on our minds as we consider the powers and prerogatives of the office of the modern Prime Minister. Mr. Speaker, I thank the House for its attention and hope that this resolution will commend itself to the support of hon. members. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. John M. Reid (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council): Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the hon. member for Rocky Mountain (Mr. Clark) for bringing this subject to our attention and also on the excellent speech he has just made in favour of his proposition. I agree with him it is important to for us to examine the institutions of government from time to time, to analyse changes which concern us and question the direction government seems to be taking, especially if it is one about which we do not feel comfortable.
Multiculturalism and Accountability to Parliament House of Commons Debates 28 June 1973 29th Parliament, 1st Session: Volume 5, 5189 Mr. Joe Clark (Rocky Mountain): Mr. Speaker, may I begin by expressing my appreciation to the Chair and to the table for their courtesy in giving priority to the matter which I am raising tonight. I also have a starred question on the order paper with respect to this matter. I appreciate that the minister has not yet had a chance to reply to it. I raise this question because of the very great urgency surrounding the affair, which I think can probably be called the Ostrey affair, involving the Minister of State responsible for multiculturalism (Mr. Haidasz), which arose in this House last week regarding a situation in which the minister was being ordered about by the assistant deputy minister of citizenship. This is important for two reasons. The first reason is the importance of multiculturalism and the symbol that the actions of last week display of the very slight regard the government in fact has for the multicultur-
142
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
al program. The second, and perhaps the even more important reason, is the question of the responsibility of the minister in parliament and the right of the Parliament of Canada to be able to go to a minister and hold him accountable for the actions for which he presumably speaks. We in this party have protested previously that the multicultural program as put forward by the government is a false front, a public relations gesture. We raised this question in 1969 when the Official Languages Act was before the House. At that time amendments were introduce by my colleague from Athabasca (Mr. Yewchuk) and were rejected out of hand by the government. Now, that concept of multiculturalism which the government rejected in 1969 has been embraced in a way that is weak, that is late and that is lamentably partisan. We believe that a multicultural policy is highly important because multiculturalism is a highly important part of this country and has to be encouraged. But tonight I want to speak particularly about responsibility to parliament. When I addressed my question to the minister, I addressed him as the minister who seemed to be a little bit responsible for multiculturalism, but I think I was exaggerating. We have not asked ourselves, what does responsible mean in terms of this minister? He clearly cannot be regarded as responsible in literal or practical terms for the activities of a department that comes under another minister. He is clearly a second-class minister who has less power than an assistant secretary of state. We have had this once before. The Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Andras) was once attached in a similar way to the department of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development when the government of that day desired to put forward a false front of wanting to hold consultations with the Indian and native peoples. The device was clearly designed to mislead. In the statute, two types of ministers of state are set out. The essential difference is that one has power and the other does not. This is spelled out in the Government Organization Act, 1971. The government at that time made the minister of state responsible for urban affairs a meaningful figure, but refused to do that with the minister of state responsible for multiculturalism. This shows that the latter is a phony department, interested in public relations and not in a program. I suggest that this matter is far more serious than the simple abuse involved in spending money on advertisements or insubordination by an assistant secretary of state. When we get into this practice of institu-
Parliamentary Supremacy
143
tionalizing phony ministers who are unable to act, who are unable to report, we are setting a dangerous precedent for parliament. I think this would be terribly embarrassing for the minister, embarrassing enough that he would want to resign rather than hold on to a façade. But if it satisfies the minister, I want to make it clear that it does not satisfy us. That kind of arrangement simply does not satisfy us because we believe that recognition of the multicultural nature of this country is highly important. To a segment of the public it is a highly important part of our past, and should be an important part of our future. It should not be played around with, Mr. Speaker. There will be some reply tonight. I have great respect for the parliamentary secretary who has the responsibility of replying. However, I think that real respect for and recognition of the importance of multiculturalism will have to come with a change in the status of the Minister of State responsible for multiculturalism. This will involve a change from the situation where he has no power into one where we have a minister of state who has enough power to deal with an aspect of our society which is recognized as being unique to Canada, and which is being played around with in a second-rate way by the government.
Partisan Uses of Public Money House of Commons Debates 12 July 1973 29th Parliament, 1st Session: Volume 5, 5566–5569 Mr. Joe Clark (Rocky Mountain): Mr. Speaker, like other members of the House I welcome the bill that is before us and I certainly support its basic principles. I think there are a number of particular faults that have been enumerated by others who have spoken before, and which will be re-enumerated by others speaking in the debate tonight. It is the clear will and intention of the House to get the matter into committee quickly so that we can give it the careful and detailed examination necessary to bring a better bill back to the House. I welcome also the interest of the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) in amendments. I am prepared to overlook the fact that he has no alternative on this issue in this minority parliament. It seems to me to be the particular genius of the President of the Privy Council to act gracefully when he has no alternative. I presume that his expression
144
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
of interest in amendments was a kind of apology in advance for the draftmanship of the bill. Clearly the bill is so riddled with holes and uncertainties as it stands that one is almost tempted to think that the cabinet ignored the services of the law officers of the Crown and drafted it themselves. The bill needs extensive tightening and amendment and this will occur during the committee stage. I think an important point to make is that this matter will not come back before us again. This is the only time we will have to consider the question of election expenses and questions of related abuses. We must therefore take care in committee to ensure that we achieve the best bill possible, and to ensure that we get it out of committee and into this House in time to be in effect before the next general election. While I welcome the bill I do not welcome the atmosphere which brought it here. That is not an atmosphere of Watergate, which is a consideration which is irrelevant, at least to my party. We were on record for the need for improvement and reform in this area well before Watergate, and on record as assigning the highest priority to this question of reform. The atmosphere I speak of is one of cynicism and suspicion which was developed deliberately for partisan purposes by spokesmen of the New Democratic Party at great cost to the public’s respect for public life in Canada. Indeed, sir, if any Watergate analogy is apt, it is the analogy between the apparent immorality of the advisers there, who believed that any means justified the end of re-electing the President, and the amorality here of the political operatives of the NDP who deliberately and over time, and virtually without evidence, sought to create a mythology of corporate control of the political process, thereby deepening cynicism and public distrust. The hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) was at it again today, drawing dark implications with his usual lack of specific evidence. I do not intend to dwell longer on this point except to say that we are talking in this debate about honesty in the political system; and if it is dishonest for a politician to be bought—as we all agree it would be—so it offends any sensible concept of honesty to suggest that one’s opponents are bought, subliminally or otherwise, when you know that they are not. That atmosphere of cynicism is unfortunate, not simply because it undermines respect for the system and the process of politics, but also because this contrived question of the influence of corporations or unions has turned attention away from the more serious question of the abuse by a party in government, for partisan purposes, of the power of government.
Parliamentary Supremacy
145
This is a far more dangerous assault upon a free and equal electoral system than all the imagined influence of multinational corporations and international unions. Moreover, it is a danger which we know exists. There is evidence as recent as the advertising campaign of the Secretary of State (Mr. Faulkner), who is a little bit responsible for multiculturalism, and as recent as the campaign for the re-election of the government of Manitoba, which campaign was so close in its results that the ambiguous use by the party in power of the advantages of office may very well have provided the narrow margin of victory. Mr. Lalonde: What about Ontario? Mr. Clark (Rocky Mountain): I will specify later some of the practices of the party in power in Manitoba. I will refrain from references to the party in power in the province from which the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) comes. The abuses of the party in power in Manitoba are a textbook warning of the extent of abuse that a government party can engage in. But, sir, the point I want to emphasize now is that the capacity for abuse and the reality of the abuse of office by a party in power is a subject on which this bill is completely silent. Mr. Baker: Right. Mr. Clark (Rocky Mountain): Only the naïve would consider that to be accidental, particularly when the bill stands in the name of the master strategist of the Liberal Party. It is no accident that the area of abuse left untouched is the area of abuse which, in federal politics, is most acceptable and most advantageous to the Liberal party. The President of the Privy Council has said that he will welcome amendments, and we will give them to him. If the NDP is serious about wanting to control abuses, they will support our efforts to limit or eliminate the capacity of a party in power to use public funds for advertising, use of aircraft and other facilities to advance a partisan cause, to frustrate the system and to attack the spirit of free and equal elections. I recognize that it will not be easy to spell out the distinction between partisan and legitimate uses, but it would be utterly irresponsible for parliament to let this bill pass without limiting the capacity for abuse of office by a party in power. As it stands, this bill is an invitation to unilateral disarmament. Opposition parties are at a disadvantage anyway in our parliamentary system. Even though the things we say make more sense than the things the government says, government statements car-
146
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
ry the promise of action and thus get more attention. For example, the proposal by the leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) to stop the tax system from profiting from inflation had less force as his proposal than it did when it was adopted holus-bolus by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) in one of the flip-flops that have come to define that man of principle. There are other disadvantages of opposition, sir, not the least of which is the danger of appearing negative because of the constitutional requirement to be skeptical of things the government proposes. These disadvantages are an inescapable part of the system, and we will live with those for the short period we remain in opposition. But, sir, they are in a category apart from the illegitimate advantage governments draw from their access to the public purse. The government proposes in this bill to limit further the already limited capacity of opposition parties to compete, while retaining unfettered the single most important weapon in the armament of a party in power—the ability to abuse public funds for party purposes. This bill will be a fraud unless we add amendments to limit the government party as effectively as we limit opposition parties. I said that I would return to the question of Manitoba. The examples of abuse there are not simply examples of abuse: they also underline the fact that the NDP in practice prove that their motive in chasing the money changers from the temple is simply to take over the trade. The only way the NDP in office has changed bad practice is to make it worse. They have practised abuse with moral authority. I would ask the House to consider these facts of life in Manitoba in 1973, and to let each one of us here ask himself, what multinational corporation, or other bogey-man, has so abused power to distort the principle of an equal chance in elections? The Manitoban election was in June. From January into May there was an accelerating program of advertisements on radio, television and in the newspapers, ostensibly telling how to apply for an education rebate, but in practice extolling the program. Mr. Faulkner: What about the practice in Ontario? Mr. Clark (Rocky Mountain): The Secretary of State is responsible for the campaign to do with multiculturalism. During the same time, a general and accelerating increase in government paid advertising in Manitoba by various departments and agencies was explaining, of course, what wonderful things the Manitoba government was doing as a prelude to the election. In May, in the mail box of virtually every
Parliamentary Supremacy
147
farmer in Manitoba, there mysteriously appeared a government brochure forecasting the great plans of the government for agriculture, at public expense. The same month, a week before the election was called, a personal letter on the stationery of “The Office of the Premier” was mailed to every resident in the province advising of the removal of the medicare premium. Prior to that, on the same stationery, with the same taxpayer paying the post, a personal letter was sent from the premier to every citizen whose home improvement grant was approved. This personal approach, over the signature of the premier, was made in a province where, you will remember, the party in power was anxious to hide its own name, and emphasize the premier’s name, at public expense. In the campaign itself the premier flew around in a Saunders Aircraft plane. An hon. Member: Davis did the same in Ontario. Mr. Clark (Rocky Mountain): It is interesting to hear from the NDP, those paragons of virtue, that somebody else was as bad as they were. Saunders is controlled by the Manitoba Development Corporation, and the NDP had the plane rent free, on lease, from a middleman, who had it rent free from Saunders. When he was caught, the premier offered to pay, overlooking the fact that Saunders is not licensed by the Ministry of Transport to charter, and thus not eligible to collect. This is not to mention the numerous executive assistants to ministers who managed campaigns, or the other public officials who worked to sustain the party in power, or the very severe pressure brought to bear to contribute upon people who are doing business with the government. It has been pointed out in interventions in the House that that pattern is not limited to one province. A similar apparatus is being established in British Columbia, and certainly it exists in Saskatchewan. It is clearly here in Ottawa, although the Liberals here have not been so sanctimonious about condemning others for the things they do themselves. There was an order for return made to a question of the hon. member for Colchester-Cumberland North (Mr. Coates) indicating the abuse during election campaigns whereby aircraft of the state were engaged by ministers on partisan campaigning activities. There is the ad of the Secretary of State, sometimes responsible for multiculturalism and, indeed, the whole program of that minister who, from time to time when it is safe, appears in the House. It appears to be a contrived program, contrived for partisan purposes, even to the point of assigning to the
148
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
minister an executive assistant whose chief former function was partisan, even though it was not always successfully partisan. There has been recently in the House on the part of the very minister who introduced this legislation, a refusal to conduct a public inquiry into the harassment connected with the ITT contribution, harassment that is only possible when it is supported by a party with the force of government behind it. There was the reference yesterday by my colleague, the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Roche), to the partisan use even of Her Majesty’s visit. I do not begrudge the Liberal candidates in Alberta an audience with the Queen. The point is that no one attends state dinners in a personal capacity. Guests are chosen as representatives, and the significance of this most recent event is that 15 of the duly elected federal representatives of the people of Alberta were deliberately excluded, their places taken by individuals who represent nothing more than the Liberal party in Alberta, which in Alberta is not very much. That is inexcusable partisanship, particularly when it involves Her Majesty unwittingly in an embarrassment she has no practical power to resist. In terms of this debate it is one more graphic instance of the developed practice, the habit, of the Liberal party in power to use prerogatives which attach to the government for purposes which are narrowly and simply partisan. This is a habit we must break, and since no amount of exhortation will reform the Liberal party, legislation must. The danger here goes far beyond elections. Mr. MacEachen: The hon. member would save our souls. Mr. Clark (Rocky Mountain): There has been for several years an important confusion among Liberals about the distinction between their party and the government of Canada. That, perhaps, is natural because they have been in power far too long, for most of the last 75 years. In a system such as ours there is usually and hopefully a healthy strain between the public service and the government. Here, instead, there is consistent inbreeding. Consider the way in which during the question period one can look across the way and see the former deputy minister of the department of trade and commerce, now the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp), conferring with his front bench seatmate, the former deputy minister of defence production, now the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury). There are others who have moved, without changing their style or attitude, from the public service to the front benches or backbenches of the Liberal party.
Parliamentary Supremacy
149
Mr. Stanbury: Has the hon. member anything against the public service? Mr. Clark (Rocky Mountain): I have nothing against the public service, but I think there is a very unhealthy attitude when there is no distinction between the public service and the party in power, as in the case here. An hon. Member: That does not apply in all cases. Mr. Clark (Rocky Mountain): There is the exception which proves every rule. Mr. Speaker, I remember once overhearing a conversation by the predecessor in parliamentary gymnastics to the President of the Privy Council, the Hon. J. W. Pickersgill, who had gone to that reward he designed for himself but has now retired. He referred in passing to what he called an unfortunate interlude in Canadian history, the unfortunate interlude being the six years of Diefenbaker government, because they interrupted what he and his colleagues had come to look on as the normal state of affairs in Canada; that is to say, a state of affairs when a Liberal government was in office. That is the same man whose great regard for parliament, when he sat on this side of the House, was such that he developed obstruction to an art form, indicating the extent of his commitment to parliamentary government. There are other instances throughout our history of confusion in the Liberal party about the distinction between the public interest and the interest of the Liberal party. There is the suspicion that persists that it was the Liberal party, which caused the death of “This Hour Has Seven Days” from the CBC. Some hon. Members: Oh, oh! Mr. Clark (Rocky Mountain): Members opposite can laugh. It is interesting to record the degree of seriousness which the Liberal party attaches to the independence of the CBC. I am particularly sorry to see joining in that revelry the Secretary of State (Mr. Faulkner) who is responsible for reporting to the House for that corporation. There was the emasculation of the Company of Young Canadians when it became inconvenient to honour its mandate. There was the subtle attack by the former minister of finance who has now gone to that preserve for defeated Liberal politicians. There was the sudden attack on the independence and capacity of the Economic Council of Canada. There is the attitude which is evident in this House right now.
150
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please. I hesitate to interrupt the hon. member, but he seems to be ranging somewhat further afield than the purposes which are being considered, namely the amendments to the Canada Elections Act and certain other acts. Mr. Clark (Rocky Mountain): I can respect that comment, Mr. Speaker. The point I am trying to make is there has been consistent confusion in the minds of the Liberal party between the partisan politics of that party and the public interest of the nation. This bill, if it is to have any sensible effect and treat all parties in this country equally, cannot remain as silent as the draft which was introduced. The omission of any reference to the abuse of power by the party in government was not accidental. It has to be seen in the context of the way this government has acted in recent years. There has been the change in rules which has seriously limited the powers of parliament and the incident the other night when the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) frustrated the right of parliament to object to specific expenditures. It must be seen in the context of Information Canada with the simple and singular purpose of advancing the cause of the party in power. It must be seen in the context of the attitude of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), before his temporary repentant period, when he referred to members on this side of the House as nobodies. This bill is one more weapon of the Liberal party against democracy. It limits the capacity of other parties to compete, leaving their own party and their own capacity to campaign untouched. This is the major weakness in a bill which is good in principle and which has several useful reforms which members of my party have advocated over the years. However, it has several flaws. We clearly need to give it detailed and careful consideration in committee. This matter will not come back before us again. We must deal completely with it now. We must not deal with only half a bill such as the government has brought forward, which serves its own interest and leaves its own greatest weapon unhampered; we must deal with a bill that includes the reforms we intend to propose which will place real limits on the capacity for abuse by a party in power of the prerogatives of office. We are willing to prepare positive amendments to make it a good bill. I hope there is a general disposition in this House to support them in committee.
5
Foreign Affairs International relations and foreign affairs is perhaps Clark’s most important and cherished role in both his post-prime ministerial and post-public life. Serving as secretary of state for external affairs (now known as Global Affairs Canada), Clark oversaw and directed the Canadian response to some of the defining events of the late twentieth century. The speeches included here were chosen for the significance of the event as well as demonstrating Clark’s principles on the global political stage. Leading and informing Canadians on events ranging from Panama to Cambodia to Kuwait, Clark continued to “build Canada,” this time in front of the world. Perhaps it speaks to how important he found this work that Clark used his last speech in the House to discuss the fall of apartheid. More than anything Joe Clark represents a tradition of Canadian foreign policy which, while certainly not dead, has fallen by the wayside in recent years. The role of peacekeeping and dispute resolution mediated by the United Nations has become less important to Canadian foreign policy. Despite Clark’s optimism that the “dead letter” of the United Nations Charter would be revived by the end of the Cold War, institutional multilateralism has perhaps not been the focus of Canada’s foreign policy in the early twenty-first century. This change was made clear when Canada was passed over for a non-permanent seat of the UN Security Council in 2010, a seat that we have held more often than any other non-permanent member. Clark discusses this shift in priorities in more detail in his most recent book entitled How We Lead: Canada in a Century of Change. The lament for a bygone era is evident when he writes about the Harper government’s international priorities: That disdain for multilateralism was evident from the government’s early days and was only reinforced when Canada was defeated in its 2010 bid to be elected to the Security Council. This A Man of Parliament; Selected Speeches from Joe Clark, edited by Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon. Montréal and Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press, Queen’s Policy Studies Series. © 2019 The School of Policy Studies, Queen’s University at Kingston. All rights reserved.
152
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
attitude is not specific to the UN but is also reflected in a generally passive presence in other multilateral organizations like the Commonwealth, La Francophonie and the Organization of American States (OAS), where Canada has previously been an active leader (29).
He would make the same kind of plea for greater international engagement in policies as diverse and distinct as the end of South African apartheid and the run-up to the First Gulf War (see page 154 and 171, respectively). Clark proposes that the best way to reach a peaceful settlement is through negotiation and (if need be) sanctions involving all parties engaged in a conflict. The example of apartheid is perhaps the most clear example as it was the use of sanctions by the international community that quickly sped up the dismantling of the apartheid regime in the early 1990s. We see this most clearly when looking at Clark’s speech before the beginning of the First Gulf War when Clark proposes that “force will have been authorized” but only as a last resort and “on behalf of the international institutions Canada has spent five decades to design and to defend.” Indeed, Clark emphasizes this point, arguing that “[to] abandon those institutions now, to abandon the unanimity and the consensus that has been found in the United Nations now, would be to abandon all hope for the rule of law in world affairs.” Now of course to some, this deep belief may have been taken to non-pragmatic, perhaps even dogmatic levels when Canada would negotiate and work with authoritarian regimes undeserving of the gesture. Two examples mentioned by Clark are the Khmer Rouge Cambodian regime of Pol Pot and the post-Tiananmen Square Chinese Communist party (see pages 180 and 190, respectively). The crimes of the regimes, some might say, surely deserve a more aggressive, if not overtly military response. And this may very well be true, but not by Canada alone. As a middle power Canada has always had to walk a tightrope between the great powers of whatever age and the institutions of the prevailing international order. And while of course appeasement is never necessary, this sort of approach allows Canada to carefully pursue its own interests rather than be pulled upon as a junior partner into the next coalition of the willing. Even when Clark discussed something as relatively minor as a proposed research institute on international peace and security (see page 158), he attempts to create the proper institutional structure (at arm’s length from the government of the day) so that Canadians might think
Foreign Affairs 153
deeply about the requirements of peace. This emphasis is especially relevant today in our world so obsessed with “security” in all aspects of our political-economic and social lives. Clark’s focus on peace is refreshing because his speech reflects just how far we have come from the ideals of that time. For without this proper institutional framework, increased power in the hands of a state can quickly become abusive. We need look no further than the People’s Republic of China of 1989 where eleven years of “Reform and Opening” had in no way democratized China to allow the citizenry real contestation with the ruling Communist Party. It would of course be false to equate Canada with China, but the warning is there nonetheless. Strong institutions are necessary to counterbalance the potential abuse of power by the government of the day. Despite all his good work accomplished during his tenure as secretary of state for external affairs, perhaps the work that affected Clark the most was his work with Nelson Mandela in support of dismantling apartheid in South Africa. In an interview from November of 2013, Clark spoke of a private moment he shared with Mandela soon after his release from prison, when he addressed the African National Congress in exile. His compatriots were being critical of his captors but Mandela called for empathy saying “we must remember how hard this is for them.” Such empathy in the face of such grievous oppression and violence was no doubt unearned by his jailors. It is clear in Clark’s recollection of this event and the impact it had on him, that empathy, compassion and were integral to his international political beliefs, ideas, and actions.
154
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
Apartheid House of Commons Debates 7 March 1990 34th Parliament, 2nd Session: Volume 7, 8922–8924 Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs): Mr. Speaker, a week ago today, I had the distinct privilege, on behalf of Canada, to meet with Mr. Nelson Mandela on his first voyage outside South Africa since he was confined to prison 27 years ago. I want to report to Parliament on our conversations, and also on my brief visit to Namibia, in whose struggle for independence Canada has played such a vital role. Lusaka, Zambia is the headquarters of the African National Congress in exile. Mr. Mandela came to consult with his national executive, some of whom he had never met. He wanted also to meet those countries and institutions which have played a leading role in the struggle against apartheid. The Prime Minister, whom I represented, was one of the first invited to Lusaka, which is a sign of the respect that Canada has won among the people on the front lines of the fight against apartheid. That is a tribute to the resolve of people throughout this House and across the country. But it also creates a responsibility for Canadians to continue our leadership in new circumstances which, will more promising than the decades of impasse on apartheid, are also more challenging and complex. [Translation] The House knows the changes which have swept South Africa in recent months: — the historic Harare Declaration of the African National Congress which accepted the desirability of peaceful, negotiated change in South Africa; — the election as President of South Africa of F. W. de Klerk, a man who seems committed to initiating real change; — the unbanning of the African National Congress; — and the triumphant release of Nelson Mandela from prison on February 11. The stage is now set for historic progress towards a truly democratic and non-racial South Africa. But we have only just begun. The state of emergency is still in force. Political prisoners remain detained. The pillars of apartheid remain. As Kenneth Kaunda said in Lusaka, Mr.
Foreign Affairs 155
Mandela is now free, but he is free only to live in an apartheid system. [English] I think it important that Canadians understand the spirit in which Nelson Mandela approaches this phase of events in South Africa. He referred to his meetings with President de Klerk, and the Ministers of Justice and Constitutional Affairs of South Africa, and said he is convinced that they are true reformers who seek a new social contract in South Africa. But, he noted, these are but three men who face the same party structure responsible for the development and the maintenance of the repressive regime of apartheid. They deserve to be encouraged, but neither he nor the world could ignore the history of the national party or the forces of retrenchment which lie in waiting. Mr. Mandela believes that pressures must be maintained until real change occurs. Expressions of intent are not enough to warrant relaxation of pressure. Mr. Mandela was unambiguous on this issue: the greatest assistance which could be offered by the outside world to the African National Congress is to maintain sanctions. Indeed, he spoke of intensifying sanctions, and I have asked him to indicate where and how he thinks this should occur. Commonwealth heads of government, in Kuala Lumpur last year, agreed that Commonwealth pressure would remain unyielding until there was “evidence of clear and irreversible change.” The Commonwealth Committee of Foreign Ministers, which I chair, will meet in Nigeria, in May, to assess the evidence of change. The African National Congress has agreed to work with us in that process. The headquarters of the African National Congress will return to South Africa and the organization, unbanned, will lead the effort to secure a non-racial democracy in South Africa. Thousands of ANC members and followers will have to be relocated inside South Africa. Offices will have to be established. A new infrastructure must be built. The ANC, at the same time it is negotiating, will also have to focus on equipping the black leadership in South Africa for the responsibilities of economic management and political governance. The ANC asked me for Canada’s direct assistance in meeting the costs of its reintegration into political life inside South Africa. I noted the firm policy of successive governments of Canada not to support political parties in other countries. We will, naturally, continue to support specific humanitarian, education and other programs which meet the
156
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
needs of the ANC. A delegation from the African National Congress will come to Ottawa within a month to discuss specific areas of co-operation. I also made the point that there are thousands of private citizens in Canada who would want to support the return home of the African National Congress. This resource should be tapped, and I have initiated discussions with representatives of the three parties in Parliament to identify individuals and strategies which can be offered to the ANC to help them secure substantial private Canadian support. A great challenge facing the ANC is to level the playing field as it approaches negotiations with the government. The South African government will be able to draw on all the wealth, expertise and resources which apartheid has put at its disposal. The ANC is dispossessed and disadvantaged in this regard. Successful negotiations will require a greater equality of resources and expertise. That is an area where Canada can help. Finally, the ultimate success of a non-racial South Africa will depend on the capacity of both blacks and whites to exercise both political and economic power. Economic exploitation lies at the heart of apartheid and, by and large, black South Africans have been shut out of the experience of running industries and businesses. Therefore, I told Mr. Mandela that we will look urgently at additional programs to provide potential black leaders of industry with practical experience in running large corporations in both the private sector and the public sector. In their telephone conversation of February 13, the Prime Minister invited Mr. Mandela to visit Canada. He has suggested that it might be appropriate for Nelson Mandela to address this free Parliament. Mr. Mandela looks forward to coming to Canada to express directly his appreciation of the support of Canadians. The impression I took away from two days of meetings is of a man who is strong, serene, wise and generous. He is a person of principle, but also of practicality and flexibility. To emerge from prison after so long a punishment and to retain an understanding of the concerns of his jailers is extraordinary. Mr. Mandela disproves the notion that history is made only by impersonal forces. The course of South African history will be determined in large measure by this man and by his counterpart in Pretoria. Canada will maintain sanctions until there is clear evidence of irreversible change in the apartheid system. But we intend also to encourage President de Klerk in his courageous and moderate course. Foreign
Foreign Affairs 157
Minister Pik Botha has written to me suggesting that Canadian experience might be particularly helpful in developing negotiated solutions for South Africa. I have responded by proposing that Mr. Ted Lee, the head of our legal branch, and Canada’s former Ambassador to South Africa, visit the region to assess areas where Canadian expertise might be of use. I made it clear to Mr. Botha that any expertise we might offer must be available to all parties in the negotiations. Mr. Lee will be in South Africa in early April to consult with the government, the ANC and other relevant parties. The nature of the South African challenge has changed. The opponents of apartheid outside South Africa must be as sensitive and generous in encouraging the process of change as Nelson Mandela has been in leading it. Canadian non-governmental organizations have brought great honour to Canada in their fight against apartheid. I will be meeting with them within the next two weeks to discuss how Canadians together can best pursue this fresh prospect of finally ending apartheid. After my meetings in Lusaka, I paid a brief visit to Namibia, which will celebrate its hard-won independence on March 21. Canada will be represented at the independent celebrations by my colleague, the Minister of External Relations and International Development and by a small all-party delegation from Parliament. For years, Namibian independence was a hostage to apartheid; now Namibia is leading the way for its neighbour South Africa. It is a remarkable example of a successful transition to a non-racial democracy, of the holding of successful free elections, of the drafting of a constitution without peer in Africa. The Namibian success points to what is possible when reason overcomes emotion and compromise replaces prejudice. During my conversations with President-elect San Nujoma and his ministers-designate, I expressed both Canada’s congratulations and our intent to continue to contribute to the development of a stable and prosperous Namibia. When I was called to the platform to welcome Nelson Mandela to Zambia, President Kaunda said that Canada, though far away, had earned the right to be considered a “front line state” in the fight against apartheid. Because we are a western democracy, a diverse society, a successful economy, our role may be even more important in this sensitive new phase of the campaign to establish a non-racial democracy in South Africa.
158
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
Canadian Institute for International Peace and Security House of Commons Debates 17 April 1984 32nd Parliament, 2nd Session: Volume 3, 3118–3124 Right Hon. Joe Clark (Yellowhead): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be back in debate. I am pleased to be able to rise to speak on this Bill because I think there can be no question anywhere in the country that the concept of the establishment of a peace institute centred in Canada is of great importance to us. That concept enjoys wide support. I think I owe it to the House to say at the outset that we believe the Bill that has been presented which sets up this particular institute is fatally flawed. While there have been some consultations to date with regard to improving the Bill, those consultations have not resulted in the kinds of changes that we hoped to see. We need changes that will guarantee the independence of this agency, changes that will guarantee its accountability to the House of Commons and Parliament, and changes that will ensure, more than the words of the Minister have, that there will be a complementing of the activities of agencies and institutions already engaged in the field of peace research in the country rather than a supplanting, directly or indirectly, of those agencies. The House will know that last fall the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Mulroney) asked me to undertake certain inquiries with an eye to making recommendations to him as to the policy that would be useful for a new government to follow in the field of arms control and disarmament. I have interpreted that mandate to involve public hearings across the country. I came to this debate from five public hearings in five Canadian centres—Vancouver, Montreal, Halifax, Edmonton and Toronto—in which we had the opportunity to receive some 70 briefs from Canadian organizations and hear 92 witnesses. The most particularly valuable witnesses were those who came forward in an open session to make their contributions and to participate and express their views on an issue which they considered to be of deep concern to them. I have also had conversations with a wide range of Canadians and people outside the country regarding appropriate policies and institutions which should be established. Without question, there is in Canada a deep and growing concern about the possibility of nuclear conflict and a deep and growing concern about whether our country is acting as effectively as it might to
Foreign Affairs 159
inch the world away from nuclear destruction. I will be reporting fully to the Leader of the Opposition later on my inquiries and recommendations. I think it might be helpful as we consider this institute if I touch on some of the testimony and bring to the House of Commons some of the views I heard in public hearings from concerned Canadians across the country, people who are not sitting in the House of Commons and are not part of the policy making, but who consider themselves very much affected by the issues that we are here discussing. I would like to begin with a reference to testimony from a young woman who came from Great Island to the open forum at the hearing in Halifax, Nova Scotia. She came at considerable inconvenience to herself because she felt involved in these issues and wanted an opportunity to have her views expressed. She said that where she lives unemployment and poverty were very high. She said that disillusionment, apathy and despair were widespread, especially among the young, and that that disillusionment, apathy and despair were based primarily upon a deep sense of powerlessness. She suggested that many of her neighbours believed that the hearings which we were holding were simply meant to try to defuse the public’s concern and play to their undying belief in the democratic process, but that nothing would be done. That was her fear when she came. She said that she came nonetheless because she dissents from that prevailing cynicism. She believes that governments and parliamentarians will listen to people on the peace issue and will try to translate the wishes of concerned ordinary Canadians into realizable policy. She said she would go back to her community and try to convince her neighbours that it is not hopeless, that parliamentarians and governments will listen and will respond. She spoke for herself, but she spoke for much more than herself. She spoke for a wide feeling of powerlessness, concern and a sense of being isolated in the country. As we discuss institutions which we might establish, we the Parliament of Canada, must be conscious that we are responding to the concerns of Canadians like the woman from Great Island and others who have nearly given up on the system if they see us put in place something that appears to be strong but in fact is not, something that appears to be independent but in fact is controlled by the government. One of the startling pieces of evidence that came before our hearings concerned the growth of fear among children in the country. Many of us who have children know from our own experience the extent to which they are preoccupied and concerned about these questions. My
160
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
daughter, who is seven, began one or two years ago to ask me when the war is going to come, when is the world going to end? I have no recollection of putting questions of that kind when I was six or seven, nor do most of us in the House. That is not just random observation. That expression of fear is now common in the country. Coming before our public hearings across the country were trained psychologists, some of them based at McMaster University where there is now a cross-Canada study being conducted of the effect of the threat of nuclear war upon the attitudes of young people. Most of the evidence that has now been gathered is evidence that has come from the United States. It is compelling! In a study published in 1982, 3,500 American children were asked what they expected if there were to be a nuclear war. Most responded eloquently and simply by saying “I will die. We will all die.” They expressed bitter resentment against adults who had already lived a full life and were putting their chance for a full life at risk. J. C. Mack, publishing in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists in 1981, after a survey of 1,000 school children, concluded: — young people are growing up without the ability to form stable ideals or the sense of continuity upon which the development of stable personality structure and the formation of serviceable ideals depend.
In Vancouver we heard from the Physicians for Social Responsibility whose testimony in part I will read to the House: Scientific data indicate that a nuclear war would result in a catastrophe of degree and magnitude beyond comprehension, and that there could be no meaningful medical response to such a catastrophe. We believe that it is our responsibility, as physicians, to do all in our power to prevent what would be “the final epidemic.”
There is a very real fear in the country among the sophisticated and among the innocent that we will destroy ourselves. I recognize, as does the House, that fear is no basis for foreign policy. But we recognize also that that fear is a wholly understandable reaction to a situation in which negotiations between the superpowers are broken and suspended. The number of nuclear weapons states is growing, not reducing, and the world is vulnerable to nuclear terrorists or accidents. Canadians have cause to be afraid and, as their representatives in
Foreign Affairs 161
government and Parliament, we have a duty to address and reduce the causes of fear. I believe there is not much point in spectacular gestures. I believe we are more likely to find real progress by proceeding in a steady, sober, consistent, balanced way. The second concern that was raised during the hearings quite consistently was a concern about how effective Canadian policy is now in responding to concerns that exist in our public and around the world. I want to summarize some of those concerns about our effectiveness that are germane to this debate. One that was repeated frequently is that government interest in these issues is sporadic and not well co-ordinated. That testimony is saying two things. It is making the observation that one year we have for a while a suffocation policy, then it lapses. Later we have proposals for a five-power conference, a tour and consultations, and then they lapse. But there is none of the persistence now in Canadian policy which helped former governments achieve agreement on test bans, which helped the former Prime Minister, Mr. Pearson, contribute to the establishment of the United Nations peace-keeping operations. They are saying that there is a sporadic, inconsistent nature to our public positions on policy. Second, there is the concern that expertise is spread around in government. Internal expertise is not co-ordinated. Much of it is concentrated in the Department of National Defence, for example, whereas the Department of External Affairs is supposed to be the lead Department. A second theme that was consistent is that we have a greater capacity than we are using to develop and advance specific responses to particular problems on the path to peace or on the path away from tension now. Canada is, of course, doing important work in a multitude of fields, but we are not organized to contribute up to our potential. A third concern has to do with individual Canadians, whether they are experts or simply worried citizens, who believe that they are outside our system, that they are affected by our failures, but have no impact upon the policies we follow. They have neither the information they require nor the influence they require. Finally, and it is very important in the context of this debate for it to be understood, there is a very real concern—the Minister made reference to it—that there is an imbalance between the emphasis on defence studies funded and encouraged by the government, carried on across the country, and the need for studies that deal particularly with the question and with the perspective of peace, and that that imbalance has
162
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
to be corrected if we are going to be as effective as the country can be in moving the world, in inching the world, away from conflict. I think these concerns provide a useful context for the consideration of this Bill. We are not discussing here a series of policy initiatives. There was to have been a resolution presented to the House. That resolution was the subject of extensive consultation among the Parties, but that resolution has not come forward. It dealt with the general question. We are here dealing with a very specific question. We are dealing with a specific Bill to establish the Canadian Institute for International Peace and Security. It is a Bill to establish one agency in a field where several agencies exist. It is a Bill that has to do with one initiative on a question where several initiatives are needed. I make the point to the House that what we do with this institute will affect what we are able to do in other ways to increase security and world peace. If the widespread concern of Canadians over the possibility of nuclear war is addressed, if what I call the fear issue, the force of fear in the country, is addressed, that can be a means of bringing Canadians into our foreign policy debate generally. This involvement of Canadians should not be seen as a threat to Canadian policy. It should be seen as it is, as an unparalleled opportunity if we choose to avail ourselves of the strong, sophisticated, deep interest that exists in these questions in the Canadian public. On the other hand, if we choose to ignore public concern in the hope that it will simply go away, we run the risk of souring the public on the ability of their elected representatives to provide leadership on this crucial issue. They will turn then, in my view, from the tone of seriousness, of sophisticated responses, a tone that marked the hearings I held, and opt for more radical or for more unilateral solutions. It is essential that we find ways to bring interested Canadians into the discussion of what their country should do in a field of policy which affects them vitally. Of course, the issues are complex. That complexity is not only a limitation to the participation of Canadians outside Parliament; that complexity is a limitation upon the ability of Members of this House to be as informed and as effective as we should be. Elected representatives, as well as the general public, have a great need of being better informed on the technical issues relating to peace and security questions. In short, the essence of the challenge facing elected representatives is to improve the quality of knowledge upon which we might act and then enlarge, in the country and in the House, the will to act. What is needed is an institute designed to encourage and facilitate
Foreign Affairs 163
informed debate and to produce independent, non-partisan research and information, a world-class research and public information institution on international peace and security questions, not merely on the narrower question of arms control. [Translation] Mr. Speaker, we believe that the Canadian Institute for International Peace and Security could play a very useful role. It can make a very positive three-fold contribution to world peace and the Canadian policy: by helping the world nations to draft policies and plans likely to minimize the risk of nuclear conflict; by keeping Canada’s own politicians and population well informed so as to increase their influence over public policies; finally, by symbolizing the commitment of the Canadian Government and Parliament to make the quest for peace one of our great national priorities. Those are all worthy endeavours. In the course of this debate, we must stress the fact that the institute must have the independence, credibility and determination required to take up that challenge. In our view, this Bill does not give it the necessary independence and, therefore, restricts its credibility. We also believe that we are duty-bound to establish clearly to what extent the activities of that organization would mesh with our national objectives to foster international peace and security. Other measures must be taken as well. The government’s internal structure must be much more coherent about any peace-related issue. The independence and integrity of research institutions already active in Canada must be maintained and protected. The Government itself must be much more open with Canadians and aware of the deep and sincere concerns about international peace. [English] I think it is very important, sir, that we distinguish very clearly in this debate between the idea of an institute and the proposal that exists in this Bill. In our view it is important that there should be an independent institute centred in Canada to study peace and security. That is unquestioned; that is very clear. But we have a very deep and profound concern about this Bill, Mr. Speaker. There have been extensive inquiries by the government prior to this proposal being brought into the House of Commons. I rather regret that
164
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
the full conclusions of those inquiries, the full range of alternatives, prepared for the government were not presented to this Parliament. This, after all, is a parliamentary matter. We are establishing here a Canadian institute, not simply a governmental institute. It would have aided immeasurably the parliamentarians who have to make decisions on this question to have had access to the recommendations presented to the people making the inquiries by the government and indeed to have had access to the recommendations made to the government by those representatives. There are, as the House will know, broadly two kinds of agencies, broadly two kinds of institutes in the world, two kinds of models, speaking generally, of approach to this question. One focuses internally. It is inward-looking. It serves the government. It is, for example, like the National Security Council in the United States. Its purpose is to pull government advice together. Its purpose is to ensure that there is a balance in government decision-making internally to protect, for example, against an unusual influence from the military side or an unusual influence from somewhere else. It is an internal agency. That is one model, which could be followed by an institute established by this Parliament. The other model is external—encouraging independent research, encouraging public information and having its focus beyond government rather than being locked into government. Those are the two models, broadly, which exist in the world. They play very distinct roles. They are very different. However, what we have here in this institute is an attempt, in effect, to combine both approaches—not to have an agency which is strictly internal, not to have an agency which is independent and external, but to have one which combines features of both. Our concern as we look at this Bill is that, in attempting to combine features of both, the government creates a very real confusion about exactly what kind of agency we will have here. That confusion will almost certainly continue. That confusion, if it does continue, as I believe it will, could cripple the institute. If we are not careful in debate today, we could place upon this institute, if we adopt the Bill as it sits, restrictions which will severely, perhaps fatally, handicap its future. This institute has to be done right the first time. Mr. Trudeau: Could you tell us how? Could you be more precise? Mr. Clark (Yellowhead): Yes. I am pleased that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) is involved in the debate. Yes, I will be telling him how. The
Foreign Affairs 165
Prime Minister already has some recommendations from the Leader of the Opposition, most of which he has ignored. I will come to that later on. Mr. Trudeau: Most of which have been listened to and respected. Mr. Clark (Yellowhead): “Listened to”; that is exactly the point. That is exactly the fear one has here, and that is exactly why it is so important to have an independent institute. We do not want to have something which goes around listening to people and then ignoring them. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Clark (Yellowhead): The Prime Minister has put his finger on the essence of our concern. Mr. Trudeau: Yes. Mr. Clark (Yellowhead): Well he should and well he could, because it is a concern which is born in part by the practice of the government in so many other fields. We cannot afford to sacrifice this institute, which is so important to goals shared by all people in the House, to the practice and the fear of independent activity which exists on the government side. This institute has to be independent or it is nothing. That is the point. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Trudeau: Tell us how to make it more independent and we will do it. Mr. Clark (Yellowhead): All right. If that is a serious offer— Mr. Trudeau: Yes. Mr. Clark (Yellowhead): You will do it, all right. I would like to see the clause which indicates that the Minister can direct the institute as to what it should do— An hon. Member: Clause 28. Mr. Clark (Yellowhead): I will depart from the normal rules since I have been asked a question by the Prime Minister and quote precisely the clause. Clause 28 now reads: On request therefore, the Institute shall undertake research for or provide advice to the Minister in relation to any issue involving
166
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
international peace and security.
I would like to see the word “shall” changed to the word “may,” because that leaves the decision in the hands of the independent institute. Mr. Trudeau: Just move an amendment. Mr. Clark (Yellowhead): Oh, no, I do not want an offer from the Prime Minister that we move an amendment. I want an undertaking from the Prime Minister that he will accept that amendment. Do I have that undertaking? Mr. MacEachen: Come to the committee. Some hon. Members: Oh, oh! Mr. Clark (Yellowhead): We are not discussing here a detail. We are discussing the fundamental independence of this institute. We are discussing a fundamental principle which affects the effectiveness of this institute. The Prime Minister has intervened. He has said that he will act on what we propose. I have just made a proposal which would guarantee, or take a step toward guaranteeing the independence of this institute. Will the government accept that proposal? Mr. Trudeau: If that is all you want, yes. Some hon. Members: Oh, oh! Mr. Clark (Yellowhead): No, but it is a start; it is a start. Mr. Trudeau: That is what we want to hear. Don’t tell us about the ladies in Halifax. Mr. Clark (Yellowhead): The ladies in Halifax, the women in Halifax, have an interest in this issue because it is their lives and the lives of their children which are affected by what we do here. It is their future which is limited— Mr. Trudeau: They do not want you to talk out the institute, which is what you are trying to do. Mr. Clark (Yellowhead): —if we create here an institute which is not independent, which is not credible and which intrudes upon the independence and credibility of agencies already in the field. They are very much involved. The Prime Minister would serve us all well if he showed less contempt for the women of Halifax, for the people of Can-
Foreign Affairs 167
ada and others who are very much concerned about this issue and this institute. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Clark (Yellowhead): I was saying that this institute has to be done right the first time because institutions define their nature in their very early days. This Bill has the following faults. First, it is confused as to what kind of institute the government wants. Second, it is far too dependent upon government. Third, it is not accountable to Parliament. Fourth, it is not clear, despite the Minister’s words, how this institute would relate to other agencies which now exist in the field. Those are all major flaws which have to be corrected now while we are defining the nature of the institute. It would be irresponsible to let the measure proceed with these defects which could be crippling. Those of us who unfortunately have had experience in this House with offers across the floor which are not backed up in practice will require a little more than casual statements by the Prime Minister from his seat before we will be satisfied that we have an institute which guarantees the independence that is essential to this kind of undertaking. Let me very quickly review some of the limitations upon the independence of the institute in the Bill as it now sits. I have spoken about the most dangerous of them, Clause 28, but there are also others, Clauses 6 to 8 speak about the appointment of a board of directors. Under this provision Cabinet will appoint the directors and the executive director. We have had an offer that there will be consultation with the Opposition Parties. What use is consultation when the government makes the decision alone? This Bill gives the government the power to make this decision by itself. There has been a proposal put forward—and the Prime Minister is interested in proposals —which would have the board of directors appointed by consensus of the standing committee of the House interested in external and defence policy. That would provide independence. That empowers the committee to appoint. It does not merely permit them to be consulted, it empowers them to appoint. That gives a much greater degree of independence than does the present measure. Clause 14 of this Bill, which limits the kind of independent institute that we need, gives Cabinet alone the power to fix the fees of board members and fix the terms and conditions of employment of the executive director—very powerful instruments in the hands of Cabinet. The Cabinet determines where the principal office will be. That is a fairly
168
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
minor matter, but why should Cabinet decide it? Why should that not be decided by some agency more independent than the Cabinet of Canada? In Clause 26 Cabinet has the power on its own to direct the board to make, amend or repeal any of its by-laws. In other words, what the board does after due deliberation, Cabinet can come in and has the power to undo. The effect of Cabinet coming in and undoing it is final. In effect Cabinet controls the by-laws of this institution. I have spoken about advice to Ministers under Clause 28. Clause 29 regarding funding indicates that the institute’s funding will come from “moneys appropriated by Parliament for the purpose,” so it says. No other details are given, but in our view if we want to guarantee some kind of independence, consideration should be given to provisions for funding on a basis longer than one year to facilitate longer-term planning and, again, to promote the institute’s independence from the Government’s priorities for research. We have had very serious and disappointing experiences with the problems of agencies that are supposed to be independent but in fact are not. There is, for example, a very clear danger in this Bill as it is written that this institute would be encumbered with political appointees who will either be reluctant to provide objective, independent analyses of, and information about, peace and security issues where such analyses would conflict with government policy or, should they be inclined to show that kind of independence, they could find themselves in the kind of situation that Doris Anderson found herself in when, as President of the Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women, she dared to suggest that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms as originally tabled in the House did nothing for Canadian women. We have had too much experience with agencies that were supposed to be independent but were not independent in fact. We cannot afford to risk the independence and credibility of this institute by imposing upon it the kinds of restrictions and limitations which have so weakened institutions in other fields of policy in the country. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Clark (Yellowhead): The Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen) suggested that we should approve this Bill in principle here in the House and then work out the details in committee. What the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for External Affairs called details go to the very heart of this Bill. They con-
Foreign Affairs 169
cern fundamental questions of independence and accountability. This Bill as it is written would allow the government to control absolutely the work of the institute. The government alone appoints its directors. The government alone decides how they are paid. The government alone has the right to dictate to the institute, to tell it what to do and then require it to do so. That is not the kind of independence which Canadians expect of this institute, nor is it the kind of independence we were led to believe this institute would have. This Bill creates an agency which the government can transform gradually, easily and completely into an instrument of government propaganda or indeed into an instrument of Party propaganda. If a government chose to do what this bill gives a government the power to do, the effects would spread well beyond this particular institute. This Bill effectively gives the government the power to limit the independence of existing agencies which are working now for peace because the institute we are discussing here can move very quickly to centre stage. It will have an immediate and permanent profile high above private agencies already working in the field and it can become the standard against which they are judged. I remind the House that this institute has behind it more than the power of example. It has the power of money. If this institute which has the power to fund other agencies or individuals is to be truly independent, no strings will be attached to that funding. But can it be truly independent when the government alone appoints its directors, when the government alone sets its salaries, when the government alone can tell it what to do? That, sir, is not independence. Without independence, this institute has the power to do more harm than good. The power this Bill gives the government to control this institute and, by extension, to influence unduly the tone and direction of research carried out by other agencies interested in peace and security is one fatal flaw in this Bill. Another fatal flaw in the Bill is that while this Bill gives the government the power to control the institute, it does not give Parliament the power to hold the institute accountable. There is no accountability provision here. The minister may lay on the Table a report. Many reports are laid on the Table of Parliament. There is no accountability of this institute to Parliament. There is instead tight and very fundamental control by the government of the day. That is inconsistent with the purposes of the Bill and is a very unfortunate aspect of it which we simply must see changed. Reference was made to consultations that have occurred and to rec-
170
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
ommendations that have been made by the Leader of the Opposition, some of which have been adopted. Clause 5(a) of this Bill as it now reads reflects a recommendation of the Leader of the Opposition to create a national library and database on peace and security agencies. Clause 5(e) reflects a recommendation of the Leader of the Opposition to provide facilities for conferences, seminars and funding for some other bodies. There have been important but minor agreements to proposals put forward by the Leader of the Opposition as a result of consultations. However, we must ask two questions about these consultations. Why did the government agree only on the relatively minor questions and not agree on the questions which provided accountability or independence for the institute? Why did it agree only on the minor matters and disagree on the major ones? The other question we must ask is why did the consultations end so quickly? The Prime Minister knows that there was a long process of consultation with regard to a resolution on the peace initiative, a consultation in which views were put forward by the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the New Democratic Party, many of which were accepted. The Prime Minister shakes his head. Am I incorrect? I can speak only for the proposals put forward by the Leader of the Opposition. The Prime Minister now tells me that I am correct. I appreciate his correction. There was a very fruitful process of negotiation on that question. I gather that problems with members of the NDP have made it difficult to bring the resolution forward, but agreement was reached on major matters between the government and the Official Opposition in the House of Commons. The process of that kind of genuine consultation works. It began in relation to this Bill but was then suddenly stopped. Why was it stopped? Why did the government bring this Bill into the House now rather than carry on the discussions that had begun to be fruitful regarding the production of a Bill which could come into the House and be accepted by all Parties in the House? The Parliament of Canada approves the concept of a peace institute. We want to see something established along the lines of what was referred to in the Speech from the Throne. What we have here is something very different from what we were led to believe by the Speech from the Throne would be brought forward by the government. It is different because it is not independent. It is different because it is not accountable. It is different in fundamental ways that go to the heart of
Foreign Affairs 171
the capacity of this institute to be seen as a credible institution in the Canadian community. Because we have had too much experience to do otherwise, we are going to require from the government some guarantees now that it is prepared to make this institute independent and that it is prepared to build in accountability. We do not want to see the government sabotage its own institute by imposing upon it limitations that will kill its credibility in the country. If we do not do this right the first time, the institute may well be doomed. We think the issue is too important to allow the Government’s concerns about independent activities to doom this institute.
The Invasion of Kuwait House of Commons Debates 28 November 1990 34th Parliament, 2nd Session: Volume 12, 15859–15864 Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs) moved: That this House, noting that the Government of Iraq has not complied with the United Nations Security Council resolutions concerning the invasion of Kuwait and the detention of third country nationals, supports the United Nations in its efforts to ensure compliance with Security Council resolution 660 and subsequent resolutions.
He said: Mr. Speaker, today we are on the eve of another important Security Council vote. I think it is right for Parliament to consider the implications of the crisis that prompts this vote. It is the intention of the government through this crisis to consult as much as possible with the people of Canada and with Parliament, just as we have been consulting extensively with our allies. I intend, in the course of my remarks, to report briefly upon some of the conversations that I have had over the last 16 days with countries involved directly as Canada is in the gulf. We tried, in this extraordinary crisis, to offer candour to the House and to expect from the House and to ask from the House understanding of the larger international implications of the grave issues that face us. We are trying to approach this issue step by step. It is in that context that I want to take this opportunity to set out the thinking of the gov-
172
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
ernment on the decision that is before us in the Security Council tomorrow and my view of the context in which that decision will be taken. I expect there will be other debates in this House as the situation evolves. This vote, sir, comes near the end of Canada’s two-year term on the Security Council. It is our fifth such term, a record for non-permanent members of that council. That is an appropriate record because, I dare say, no other country has been as loyal a supporter of the ideals of this world organization in whose founding Canada participated actively and creatively. When we look for a noble and far-sighted vision for managing world affairs in what will be a difficult decade and century to come, we can hardly do better than to draw on the vision of the United Nations charter. The great sadness of our times has been that the charter was a dead letter for 40 years, because of the paralysis of the cold war. The cold war is over. I was in Moscow the week before last, and I found an extraordinarily different country from the austere monolith I had visited five short years ago. Sadly, their problems in the Soviet Union are enormous but they have a country and they have a leadership and they have a people with great reserves of strength. Nations like Canada will and must help them where we can. The tremors of the Gorbachev reforms have allowed profound change through eastern and central Europe that not only helped end the cold war, but set the stage for the CSCE summit in Paris last week. In some respects, that summit marked the formal end of the Second World War. I would like to communicate, in passing, one of the remarkable moments of that CSCE conference. Vaclev Havel, prisoner, playwright, president, sitting at his desk in that debate, said to others around the room and around the world that this summit was the pre-eminent moment in his life because it brought to pass so much of what he had struggled for through all of those years. That was the context in which we met to bring in effect a formal end to the Second World War. The Paris summit should have been an unqualified celebration of the new possibilities before us, of our shared determination to build a new European common home, to be secure from Vladivostok to Vienna to Vancouver, as Eduard Shevardnadze has said. It should have been a celebration of the growing willingness to use the United Nations in the way it had been intended, to bring peace and to bring greater security to this world. But the celebration in Paris was muted, because we all understand
Foreign Affairs 173
that a terrible breach of faith and a breach of law and a breach of order has happened: an act of war by Iraq which imposes on the world community the burden of a great challenge. If new and more hopeful vistas for world peace are at last to open, we as the United Nations have to be equal to the challenge which Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait represents clearly to all of us. This challenge goes to the heart of Canadian interests and Canadian diplomacy, not just now but for 50 years: the building of a workable world organization able to prevent or able, if necessary, to reverse the most blatant and dangerous of international offences, which is the acquisition by force of another country’s territory and, in this specific case, an effort to extinguish a UN member in its entirety. The challenge has gone even beyond these transgressions of international law, as Iraqi authorities have threatened the use of terrorism and of chemical weapons which they have used in the past, with terrible consequences, even against their own people. That is the evil that countries historically arm themselves against. That is the evil that causes proliferation, which is responsible for an arms race which in large part diverts the resources that should be going to the poor of the world and denies people in developing countries the right to live decent lives. That this evil has occurred in the most heavily armed and the most volatile region in the world only amplifies its gravity. I have just come from the Middle East. The potential for death and for destruction in the Middle East is very real. Members of this House of Commons should have no illusion about the danger, or about our obligation to try to moderate that danger. Most of Israel’s neighbours remain in a state of war against her. The Palestinian people, despite the intifada, despite their acceptance of resolution 242, live in a pressure cooker of frustration with thousands of new migrants forced home from the gulf. There are the larger questions of democracy and decision-making in the Middle East. There are quarrels between families and regimes who each want to leave the Arab world. There are shocking gaps in income between opulent wealth and the most terrible poverty. There are chemical weapons, biological weapons, almost certainly some capacity for nuclear weapons, and there is the steady flood of conventional arms. In the midst of all that, in a region where the institutions of modern government have shallow roots, there is generally the common link of the noble religion of Islam which, if it became radicalized, could have
174
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
devastating consequences around the world. President Gorbachev—the Prime Minister and I know from our conversations with him—is aware of those consequences. King Hussein is aware of them. Presidents Ozal and Mubarak are and, of course, Prime Minister Shamir understands the threat of Islamic extremism. That the Iraqi aggression affects security of access to the most vital of commodities further compels our attention. But make no mistake about the importance of the principle we intend to defend, the principle of international order where international law is respected, and the United Nations is used and the United Nations works. Canadians, historically, have been at the cutting edge of the practical measures which have won respect for the United Nations. We helped draft the charter. Professor John Humphrey of McGill was a principal author of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Lester Pearson guided the ideal of peacekeeping, against Canadian critics who said it was an inappropriate use of the United Nations, and 83,000 Canadians wore and wear today the blue beret, with pride and with effect, to build peace and to maintain peace. Now we are at a new step in the evolution of the United Nations, a time in which at last the members of the Security Council are working together on resolutions which involve enough compromise on all sides to allow this diverse world to act together to keep its house in order. And yet, at the same time as being prepared to compromise to come together, the Security Council of the United Nations has taken actions which are clear in their intent and respected in their application. It is hard to think of a time when the United Nations worked better and we, Canada, want to keep it working because that is the only way to advance peace and prevent war. Since the beginning of the crisis the United Nations has shown that blatant disrespect for international law can be met with a response that is firm in its resolve and unbending in its respect for international order. For Canada some of the basic precepts in which our foreign policy is deeply rooted are being challenged by the gulf crisis and they just may be vindicated by its resolution and its aftermath. The rule of law and the establishment of a stable international environment have been key objectives of ours since the end of the Second World War. [Translation] Since the beginning of the crisis, the government of Canada has kept
Foreign Affairs 175
the same objectives in constant view: to make clear the unacceptability of Iraqi behaviour and Canada’s determination to play its part in the collective response; to reinforce the rule of law in international affairs and support a renewed United Nations in its first post-cold war response to a gross violation of its charter by a member state; and, of course, to protect Canadian lives and Canadian interests put in jeopardy by the invasion and annexation of Kuwait. Following from those objectives, we have been trying for three months, in co-operation with the other countries joined in a united stand against Iraq, to ensure that the UN-imposed sanctions are made as effective as possible; that the international consensus is sustained; that the humanitarian and economic problems created by the crisis and the sanctions are addressed quickly and sympathetically, both as an intrinsically important goal and one supportive in sustaining the international consensus; that the international community explore peaceful means to end the dispute, while enforcing UN resolutions. [English] Well, sir, where are we today? Iraq is still occupying Kuwait, in spite of universal condemnation and the near universal application of sanctions. We, of course, hope that sanctions will help to persuade Saddam Hussein to withdraw. We continue to believe that they help make clear our resolve, but we also now recognize that sanctions in and of themselves are not sufficient to force a withdrawal, if the Iraqi government places a higher priority on holding onto its territorial gains than on the resumption of normal life for its citizenry. We simply have to face that fact. The government in Baghdad, as the House knows, has been using innocent civilians of third countries, including Canada, in its efforts to wrest concessions from the international community and to try to win propaganda points with its own supporters. It has proceeded at the same time with a ruthless program to annihilate all traces of Kuwait’s separate existence. In short, Iraq has repeatedly ignored the demands of the international community in successive Security Council resolutions passed since August 2. It has failed to comply with the obligations incumbent upon it on the basis of international law, on the basis of the principles of civilized behaviour, and on the basis of its own membership in the United Nations.
176
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
I have, as I said, Mr. Speaker, in the last several days been in the Middle East. That trip followed intensive talks that both the Prime Minister and I had with the leaders of the Soviet Union, the European Community and the United States. In the Middle East I spent many hours in discussions with Iraq’s neighbours, including the president of Turkey, the King of Jordan, the Prime Minister of Israel, and with the ministers of foreign affairs of those countries. I also met at length with President Mubarak of Egypt, and with his foreign minister, Dr. Abdul Mequid. Several weeks ago, I met with other foreign ministers from the gulf area, from Saudi Arabia and Qatar. I set out for all these interlocutors the view of this government regarding the unacceptability of Iraq’s invasion. It is important for the House to know that every head of state, every head of government, and every minister with whom we have met shared that view, that the occupation of Kuwait is unacceptable. The view in Canada, in the region, and throughout the world is the same. Iraq is isolated. Iraq has behaved abominably. It has invaded a small neighbour, and it has done its utmost to ensure that its restoration would be impossible. It has taken thousands of hostages, including Canadians. This destruction of a small country is, in the words of President Mubarak, “unbelievable.” That was the word President Mubarak conveyed to me when he told me of specific and categoric assurances that had been given to him personally by Iraq’s president only days before Iraq unleashed its military arsenal against Kuwait. From the beginning of this crisis, we have all hoped that peaceful means would produce the necessary Iraqi compliance with Security Council resolutions. Indeed, Canada has been working strenuously since the beginning of August to seek just such a peaceful solution. We have done so in the United Nations, we have done so in the region, and we have done so in close consultation with all the members of the Security Council. Officials of my department have been travelling around the world regularly, particularly to Security Council members—including the people who rarely vote with Canada—to try to encourage a unanimity and a consensus that will allow the United Nations to be effective in these circumstances. I am sure that I speak for all Canadians in hoping that a peaceful solution may still be possible. Time, however, is running out. Tomorrow at the United Nations in New York, Canada will, as a
Foreign Affairs 177
member of the Security Council, participate in the formal consideration of a new resolution that has been under discussion for some days now. This new resolution will almost certainly authorize the use of whatever means are necessary to remove Iraq from Kuwait and to restore to Kuwait its own destiny. For Canada and for others, what is at stake is the integrity of our international order and the credibility of international law and of our multilateral institutions. We must recognize, however, as I have seen over the last few days, that the neighbours of Iraq have another interest in ensuring that Iraq’s deed is undone. Mr. Speaker, we in Canada, far from the scene of the battle, far from the immediate site of those terrible tensions, must realize that there will be no safety and there will be no stability if Saddam Hussein gets away with his annexation of Kuwait. All countries would prefer a peaceful solution, not a deal which rewards the aggressor, but full and swift compliance with the resolutions of the Security Council. Regrettably, many believe that a peaceful solution is not attainable, whatever their preference. The leader of Iraq does not seem to grasp the dimensions of the problem he has created. Consequently, he does not seem to understand the strength of the resolve to see justice done. He thinks the world is bluffing. The purpose of the United Nations resolution, which Canada and other members of the Security Council will consider tomorrow, is to ensure that Iraq understands that this is not a bluff. Tomorrow’s resolution will demand full compliance with previous council resolutions. If Iraq does not fully implement those resolutions, the text will authorize member states co-operating with the government of Kuwait to use all necessary means to see they are implemented and to restore international peace and security in the area. Does this mean that force will be used? That is up to Iraq. That resolution will probably be approved tomorrow, November 29. In normal cases, that would mean the capacity to act, with whatever means, would exist tomorrow, November 29. Now there is a serious and constructive proposal that the resolution build in a pause between the day in November when the authority is vested, and some specific later date on which it might be used. That proposal reflects the call for a pause which Canada and other countries proposed after discussions during the United Nations General Assembly. A deadline which implied an ultimatum could be counterproductive and artificial, and that is not what is proposed. As the Prime Minister said yesterday, what is
178
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
contemplated is, instead, a pause of goodwill to allow Saddam Hussein one more opportunity to reflect on his options. Naturally, that time must be used by all nations to seek a basis for the peaceful acceptance of Security Council resolutions. But, in particular, it gives Iraq an opportunity to seek a peaceful end to the war it began when it invaded Kuwait. In passing, Mr. Speaker, I should say, that that proposal for a pause indicates one of the very real fruits and benefits of the new atmosphere within the Security Council, when countries that had not previously worked together were prepared to work together in these circumstances to ensure that there was a basis on which the world could act together. We certainly hope that Iraq will take this opportunity. If Iraq does so, will the international community in any case insist on the elimination of its leadership or its entire military capacity? No, there is a willingness in the region to live with Iraq, warily to be sure, but on a basis of international law and internationally guaranteed frontiers. Does Iraq have legitimate concerns which should be discussed? Perhaps there are some. That is up to the Government of Kuwait to negotiate or for Iraq to pursue in the many international fora which adjudicate exactly such disputes. The possibility of such a negotiating power is contained in Security Council Resolution 660, the very first passed by the Council in responding to this invasion. We urge Saddam Hussein to pursue this option. Would military action in the gulf be an exercise of only western will? Absolutely not. The coalition includes such partners as Pakistan, Morocco, Czechoslovakia, Argentina, as well of course as Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia, the Gulf states and dozens of others. An Arab force could see to the future defence of Kuwait with international peacekeeping components as necessary or as desirable. Canada would certainly consider seriously a request to participate in the cause of peace. Will there be further attempts to resolve existing tensions in the gulf and Middle East regions? Yes. During my discussions in the Middle East the Arab-Israeli dispute was also raised, specifically the Palestinian question. I believe that one of the consequences of the current gulf crisis could be a new sense of urgency about solving other problems facing that troubled region. We have of late witnessed a pattern of successes within the Security Council in addressing regional issues, not just in the Middle East, but also in Cambodia and elsewhere. If that pattern continues, if we do not lose it here, if we can maintain the strength of the United Nations which we have so carefully built over the last
Foreign Affairs 179
years and particularly the last months, if that pattern continues, then a just, lasting and comprehensive solution to the Arab-Israeli dispute, which Canada views as necessary and urgent, may at last be possible. This is a matter than can only be addressed, however, separately from the current crisis. Iraq’s offence is sui generis and its undoing, according to the highest principles of international law and the highest interests of international security, is essential. But resolution of all territorial disputes in the region on a just and equitable basis is urgently required, if peace and security are to apply in a durable way in a region which may be the most volatile in our world. We will also have to turn our collective attention to the need for arms control measures which deal with weapons of mass destruction that threaten the whole region. Sustaining the new unity of the international community is the only hope, the best hope, that these problems can be resolved with speed. There may be the elements of a peaceful resolution of this crisis. I was more encouraged than I thought I might be by the conversations I had in the Middle East. I was encouraged by the determination of people ranging from Israeli leaders, to King Hussein, to the Palestinians to look for ways in which this experience may lead to constructive responses to other issues. So we hope that there will be means found to resolve this crisis. Otherwise, force will have been authorized by the world community, and on behalf of the international institutions Canada has spent five decades to design and to defend. To abandon those institutions now, to abandon the unanimity and the consensus that has been found in the United Nations now, would be to abandon all hope for the rule of law in world affairs. The world agrees with that. The question is: “Will Iraq agree with that?” The resolution we will be voting on tomorrow in New York is the desirable option that I have sought and that many here have sought, the UN authority to use force if Iraq rejects the option of a peaceful withdrawal. The House will remember, and no one in our country should forget, that the use of force began on August 2 when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait. It is now up to Saddam Hussein to determine whether the international community will have to use the authority of the United Nations to achieve our collective goals through further force. Some hon. members: Hear, hear!
180
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
Cambodia and the Khmer Rouge House of Commons Debates 25 January 1990 34th Parliament, 2nd session: Volume 6, Appendix 1–3 Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs): I want to provide a progress report to the House on international efforts to end the violence that has gripped Cambodia for fifteen years. The Cambodian people have suffered greatly from invasion, unparalleled abuses of human rights, and civil war. We wish to ensure that Canada does its part in helping to break the cycle of suffering in Cambodia. There are measures Canada can take to address the suffering of Cambodia, and which will contribute to the building of a lasting peace. The recent history of Cambodia is a saga of unending war, turmoil and death. During the Vietnam War, approximately 600,000 Cambodians were killed. At war’s end, in April 1975, the Khmer Rouge forces overthrew the Cambodian government of Lon Nol. The criminal acts perpetrated afterwards by the Pol Pot regime between 1976 and 1979 were condemned by the international community and by Canadians of all walks of life. The expulsion of the Khmer Rouge by the Vietnamese in 1979 resulted in a long civil war opposing three Cambodian parties to a government put into office by the Vietnamese army. Eleven years later, despite diplomatic efforts, the war is still raging on and more Cambodians are dying. The limited resources of Indochina are tragically wasted on the battlefront. In September 1989, Vietnam withdrew its troops from Cambodia. Since then, the civil war has intensified. The front lines have changed somewhat, but, in general, have remained the same as those drawn up eleven years ago. In many instances, military solutions have been sought instead of political solutions. The victims remain the same: the people of Cambodia, and indeed all of the people of Indochina who have borne too long the burden of protracted military struggle. From the beginning of the war, Canada has helped fund the efforts of the United Nations and its agencies to care for the 300,000 Cambodians seeking refuge on the Thai-Cambodian border. Our commitment continues to these people, and this fiscal year it will amount to $3 million in food and other aid. We also recognize the need to assist the 8 million Cambodians still
Foreign Affairs 181
living in their country whose lives have been disrupted by the armed struggle. Their needs are immediate and real. A response to their suffering must not be held forever hostage to progress towards a political settlement. With that in mind, the government is now in the process of re-establishing the eligibility of Cambodia, Vietnam and Laos, the three countries of Indochina, for official Canadian development assistance. The exact nature of this aid is now under study by CIDA. As part of that process, an officer from our Embassy in Bangkok is currently in Cambodia with representatives of Canadian non-governmental organizations to examine how best to resume an aid relationship there. In the short term, these programs will be small scale and focused on humanitarian needs. Over the longer term their expansion will be predicated on progress towards peace and the political realities in the areas affected. We will not have Canadian aid channelled into the military efforts of any group. Nor will we permit it to be used by groups or governments whose records demonstrate a fundamental disrespect for basic human rights. We will, for example, insist that no Canadian aid be distributed in areas controlled by the Khmer Rouge. The central problem in the Cambodian conflict remains how to deal with the Khmer Rouge in an eventual settlement process. The reign of terror of the Pol Pot regime was one of the most brutal chapters in human history. Each position we, as a government, have taken on the question of Cambodia has been grounded in a determination never to allow the Khmer Rouge back into power. We have called upon the Chinese, Soviet and other military suppliers to the Cambodian parties to cease their support. There is no benefit to Cambodia to be found in the further import of weapons. The people of Indochina have seen enough implements of war to last for all of history. Two major developments broke the old impasse respecting Cambodia. The first was the recognition by the Parties themselves, and countries close to them, that war would yield no winner, but would hold back the development of Cambodia and its neighbours. The second was the decision to treat the search for peace as a regional responsibility and lift it beyond the immediate combatants. Seminal to that process were the Jakarta informal meetings which brought the six nations of ASEAN directly into the process, working with the Cambodian Parties, Vietnam and Laos. The next step was to make that search for peace a genuinely international preoccupation, moving beyond the region, to involve permanent
182
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
members of the Security Council, and other countries with a particular interest or contribution. The Paris Conference was convened. Canada was invited because of our unique experience in peacekeeping, our extensive relations in the region, and our acknowledged reputation as a trusted and moderate nation. The Paris Conference succeeded in getting the agreement of all parties to involve the offices of the United Nations, in the form of a fact-finding technical mission sent to Cambodia. It also made substantial progress in the design of an international control mechanism and in refining the complex of tasks that such a mechanism will have to address. Canada co-chaired that Committee with India, and Parliament can take pride in the skill and effectiveness of the officials in the Canadian delegation. That first Committee produced the agreement that could well be the basis of further progress now. The Paris Conference may resume, and Canada and other countries may be called upon to participate in UN-led peacekeeping and transitional arrangements. It is important that potential participants be adequately prepared. As part of this process, officials from my Department and the Department of National Defence are reviewing Canada’s recent experiences in Namibia and elsewhere. Lessons learned there can be applied to improving the planning and organization of future peacekeeping operations such as in Cambodia. The collection, exchange and assessment of peacekeeping information with both existing and potential peacekeepers, as well as with the UN itself, can only serve to strengthen the UN’s effectiveness and reputation as a peacemaker. In October, I dispatched a mission to Indochina led by Ambassador Alan Sullivan, head of our delegation for most of the Paris Conference, to explore and encourage the resumption of negotiations. One of the major messages delivered by Ambassador Sullivan in Hanoi and Phnom Penh was that of the importance of accepting a major role for the UN in any settlement. In November, the Government of Australia proposed the establishment of a UN interim administration for Cambodia. That proposal has Canada’s full support. It overcomes the problem of how to share power between the Cambodia parties, by delegating to the UN the responsibility for administering the country in an interim period prior to elections. Like the UN-based settlement recently achieved in Namibia, this proposal would effectively guarantee that no Cambodian party would retain or acquire political power sufficient to disrupt the process leading to free and fair elections. That is the most flexible and reasonable
Foreign Affairs 183
proposal currently in play. It has been welcomed by all the key players in the dispute, with the exception of the Khmer Rouge. Indeed it is becoming increasingly clear that the Khmer Rouge and its two non-communist coalition partners no longer speak with a unified voice. At the same time, Canada and other countries recognize that the current regime in Phnom Penh—the Hun Sen regime—is more than simply one of the four factions. Over the last few years it appears to have provided adequate government, and its record in most areas is far better than that of the Khmer Rouge government which preceded it. Nowhere is this more evident than in the field of human rights and in basic respect for human life. The peace process was moved forward in Paris last week in a meeting of the five permanent members of the Security Council. The meeting resulted, for the first time ever, in a significant level of agreement between the mentors of Cambodia’s warring factions. Their views were summarized in a 16-point communiqué highlighting an enhanced UN role in the resolution of the Cambodian problem. China’s decision to agree to the communiqué represents a significant concession and suggests that China may move away from its long-standing insistence that the Khmer Rouge have a major role in the interim government. Such flexibility from the Chinese, who are the principal backers of the Khmer Rouge, is an important ingredient in ensuring the co-operation of the Khmer Rouge in the peace-building process. As I have said in the past, we all wish that we did not have to deal with the Khmer Rouge. Unfortunately, the Khmer Rouge remain a major military reality, the strongest among the three resistance factions. To exclude them a priori from the peace would leave them no option but to continue fighting a civil war. We must instead find a way to include them in the process of peace while removing their ability to either wage war or to seize power and return Cambodia to the living hell it experienced under Pol Pot. The next weeks will be crucial as details of the potential UN role are further discussed, and as options for resolving other key questions such as a cease fire and transitional arrangements are explored. Canada will be active in that process. Should the Cambodian Parties return to the negotiating table with the kind of flexibility and commitment demonstrated by the permanent
184
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
five in Paris, it is probable that a resumption of the Paris Conference will follow as a next step. As a co-chair of one of its key committees, we expect to be closely involved in the preparations for a new Paris Conference. We will continue to work closely with our friends in Asia and elsewhere to help create the best possible environment for peace-building. We will stress that a new window of opportunity to build a lasting peace has been opened, and that all the Parties to the conflict must approach the upcoming discussions willing to seek and make the compromises which will be required if Cambodia’s long nightmare is to come to an end, and peace is finally to be brought to this once gentle and tranquil land. Peace for Cambodia must become a priority for the world community. Canada has the experience, ability and commitment necessary to play an important role in the peace process. I can assure the House that we will do so.
The Aftermath of the Gulf War House of Commons Debates 15 March 1991 34th Parliament, 2nd Session: Volume 14, 18534–18537 Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs): Madam Speaker, may I begin by expressing to my colleagues who are critics for other parties in this House my regret that there was a brief delay in my transmitting a copy to them of the statement I intend to make. As members of the House will know, this has been a long week and I apologize to them for the 10 or 15 minute delay in delivering that statement. Over the last seven and a half months, the Kuwait crisis has riveted our attention and engaged much of our debate. Today Kuwait is again a free country, though deeply scarred by its ordeal. I visited free Kuwait five days ago. I raised over the Canadian Embassy there, the flag our diplomats so reluctantly took down when they were forced by lack of food and water to leave on October 19. I wish now to report to the House on that trip which began, quite deliberately, with a call on the Secretary-General of the United Nations
Foreign Affairs 185
in New York and which took me to Jordan, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Syria and Iran as well as Kuwait and the United States. I met with leaders of those countries and with the foreign ministers of Egypt and of Italy, and with leading Palestinians from the Occupied Territories. In Jordan, I visited the headquarters of United Nations agencies working with the casualties and the consequences of the conflict. The Canadian government is contributing to many of their activities, but I want to draw the attention of the House and of Canadians to the United Nations Children’s Fund operated by UNICEF for humanitarian assistance for the children who are victims of the conflict. The government has contributed an additional $550,000 to that fund and I hope individual Canadians might make their own contribution to that special Gulf Disaster Relief Appeal, organized by UNICEF Canada to provide medical and humanitarian assistance to mothers and children suffering the effects of that conflict. My colleague, the Minister of National Defence, and the Chief of the Defence Staff, also visited Bahrain, Qatar, and the field hospital at Aljubayl, to express the gratitude of Canada to our troops and to the countries which hosted them. My purpose was to look beyond the liberation of Kuwait to the issues this crisis has underscored. The fundamental problems remain, but there are now new possibilities which need to be nurtured. My interest, as the foreign minister of Canada, was everywhere understood and welcomed. As a member of the coalition of countries who, through the United Nations, came to the aid of Kuwait, Canada’s commitment to the liberation of Kuwait was clear. But Canada also represents a lifetime of commitment to the United Nations. My primary mission was to try to ensure that the sort of world consensus which emerged to free Kuwait be further mobilized to prevent such aggression in the future, and to strengthen the chances of enduring peace and security. That is the first lesson of this crisis. There are other lessons. As the Prime Minister said on February 18, one such lesson is that reckless transfers of arms must come to an end. Canada’s commitment and record on arms control entitle us to place this item high on the world’s agenda. I reviewed with leaders of other countries of some of our proposals to reduce the flow and risk of arms. Progress, of course, will be slow, but everyone I met in the immediate aftermath of a decade of conflict in the gulf acknowledged the need to address this problem, and to do so practically and persistently. The House should know that in some gulf countries the immediate reflex
186
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
may be to buy new arms to deal with threats they believe will continue. That underlines the need for countries like Canada to advance proposals like those the Prime Minister has set forth. But for real peace and security to emerge and for arms transfers to diminish, the underlying causes of tension have to be resolved. These tensions, many of which relate to enduring disputes between Israel and her neighbours, were a major topic of my discussions. Madam Speaker, no one in the Middle East has forgotten a single moment of history, and there is a lot of history to overcome. There is now, however, an opportunity—now, but not for long. The world must not lose that opportunity. [Translation] Many of us have said that the recent events have changed the Middle East forever. Canada’s purpose has been to make those changes for the better—to strengthen the United Nations, to increase the control of arms and to reduce the risk of war, and to resolve the tensions at the root of insecurity in the Middle East. I congratulated Mr. Perez de Cuellar, on behalf of the people of Canada, for his resolution during this crisis. He thanked Canada for our support, and believed that Canada had set an example for other states by our determination to settle this crisis through the United Nations. He informed me that the United Nations is poised to police the separation of forces, once an official request is received from the Government of Kuwait. He also urged us to try to heal some of the wounds of this crisis by helping leaders with whom Canada has close ties—such as King Hussein of Jordan. He was concerned about the Palestinians whose leadership had been so criticized, but whose right represent a continuing challenge to the reputation for fairness and effectiveness of the United Nations. Indeed, this issue dominated many of my subsequent discussions. On my way to the region, I also met with Secretary of State Baker, just before he embarked on his own tour. He shared our view that there is a psychological moment of opportunity to be seized on the agenda for arms control. His immediate concerns were with the arrangements for regional security which would enable the United States to withdraw its ground forces from the theatre and bring the troops home. Even as we spoke, of course, the Foreign Ministers of the Gulf Co-operation Council were meeting in Damascus with the Foreign Ministers
Foreign Affairs 187
of Syria and Egypt to reach agreement on the stationing of Syrian and Egyptian ground forces in Kuwait, to replace Coalition ground forces, once a definitive ceasefire with Iraq was arranged. [English] Madam Speaker, I believed that my trip to the area should begin with the government of Kuwait. The Emir of Kuwait was still in Taif, in Saudi Arabia, where he had spent the occupation. His appreciation for Canada’s contribution to the liberation of Kuwait was heartfelt. The Emir was deeply concerned at the damage to his people and to his state. Plans are already beginning for the massive reconstruction of Kuwait and I welcomed the clear assurances that the expertise of Canadian companies will enjoy opportunities commensurate with the important role Canada played in liberating Kuwait. The senseless damage to Kuwait must be seen to be believed. Across the limitless desert landscape burn innumerable fires, each set deliberately with powerful charges of high explosives. Downtown, on the waterfront, are burned-out building after building, looted store after store, museums, homes, things of value or merit, trashed. This was not war damage; this city was put to the torch in the last 48 hours of occupation. For the Kuwaitis, the ending of sanctions against Iraq is therefore a major problem. Should oil exports again earn revenues for Iraq when Kuwait remains crippled? On the other hand, Iraq itself is badly damaged and needs to finance its own recovery. One idea being explored by countries of the region is the dedication of a proportion of Iraq’s oil revenues to repair the damage Saddam Hussein has done. Much will depend on what kind of regime survives in Iraq. Saddam Hussein is now being challenged by his own people. But through the force of arms and oppression he can cling to power. As long as he does, the countries of the region will be wary of his designs and will want continued sanctions on anything enabling him to rebuild his armies. In Kuwait, there is a mood calling for change in the way the country governs itself. The government says it is anxious to open up the regime, to institute more democracy. I encouraged that development and urged that particular care be taken to allow the reintegration of Palestinian residents of Kuwait, many of whom, most of whom, were intensely loyal to Kuwait. Almost everyone with whom I met indicated that the Palestinian problem is the key issue to be resolved in the region. The answer will
188
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
have to be found in greater security for all states of the area. The issue has three essential elements which all must be respected. They are the security of the state of Israel, the rights of the Palestinians and territory. Sequence and relationship—which goes first, and what is tied to what—could consume thought, discussion and negotiation for years. Meanwhile, were that to occur, the despair of the refugee camps would find more radical expression and the arms race would go on. I sought in my discussions in Jordan, in Syria, in Israel, and in the home of a leading Palestinian, Faisal Husseini, to promote appreciation of the need to build confidence in the collective ability of states and peoples to live together in acceptance and security. Eventually, a healthier state of mind can be built. There is not a lot of time. The countries and peoples concerned could make gestures, take initiatives, not of a kind which bear upon their fundamental security interests, but which build up a habit of working together. That is the message I left with all those with whom I met. Could not Lebanon be the theatre of such co-operative action to further strengthen the authority of the government of Lebanon? Could some progress be made among the states and parties on water projects? Can peoples see their welfare in terms of a shared and more harmonious future, instead of a bitterly divided past? Madam Speaker, it is not clear that they can. But that is the best way to build trust. Much time in this discussion is devoted to technique, to whether it should be an international conference, at the United Nations or not at the United Nations, or whether it should be separate bilateral negotiations, and whether discussion between the Palestinians and the Israelis should be part of that or separate, and, in any case, who should represent the Palestinians, and so on. On that last point, Canada can only agree with the Secretary-General of the United Nations; the Palestinians should be represented by the organizations or representatives they choose. Our distaste for the support for Saddam Hussein by the leader of the Palestine Liberation Organization should not disqualify Palestinians from coming to their conclusions on what we have always said was fundamental; their right to choose their own leadership in the search for realization of their legitimate rights. As I said in Jerusalem to the Prime Minister of Israel, we are among the closest friends of that country.
Foreign Affairs 189
Canada will not let Israel be put at risk. As the Prime Minister of Canada said on February 8, and as President Bush said a week ago, there is no security in geography. I also went to Iran. My meeting with President Rafsanjani was productive. Of course, we discussed problems—human rights and hostages for example. But we did so in a way which gave me hope that Canada can work well with Iran. These countries are all neighbours of Iraq. They are not disinterested in the outcome of the current uprising there. Indeed, Syria, Saudi Arabia and Iran have brought together in Lebanon the leaders of the various groups representing the masses of people wishing to be done with Saddam Hussein’s tyranny, not just the Shiite majority in the south, not just the Kurdish minority in the north, but others as well. We have always said that the future of Iraq is up to the Iraqis. I encouraged other states in the region not to intervene. I have been encouraged by all the leaders I spoke with. They want a durable peace in the region. They are however not yet ready to move beyond the liberation of Kuwait to address the age-old problems on which they have been so long divided, except with wariness and with distrust. But move they must. Or the arms race will spiral, and the United Nations will lose the lustre of its concerted action to liberate Kuwait. That would be our common loss. By its nature, this is an interim report to the House, and I will be coming back to the standing committee as early as next week. My conversations last week gave me a more direct understanding of attitudes in a region whose conflicts are deep and dangerous. They reinforced Canada’s ability to play a constructive role in calming those conflicts and in using the end of a war to begin a real peace. I know that all members of this House share our commitment to that goal. As our ships head home from the gulf, proud of our contribution to one victory, we are seeking now to address the sources of that conflict. Last July no one foresaw the invasion of Kuwait; no one foresaw the unprecedented response of the United Nations. We cannot foresee the developments of the next several months except to say that they offer a real chance to resolve the most intractable conflict the world knows, and it is in Canada’s interest to make the most of that opportunity. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear.
190
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
Tiananmen Square House of Commons Debates 5 June 1989 34th Parliament, 2nd Session: Volume 2, 2596–2599 Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I want also to express my appreciation to you, sir, for granting this emergency debate and to commend the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner), the Hon. Member for Windsor-Lake St. Clair (Mr. McCurdy), and other Members of the House who have sought this debate tonight. I know that all Members of the House of Commons and, indeed, all Canadians share a deeply felt sense of horror and of outrage at the events that have unfolded over the last few days in China. We have watched a country’s Armed Forces turn on its own citizens in an indiscriminate and brutal fashion. We have seen unarmed students and citizens gunned down and overrun by tanks. We have witnessed troops shooting from behind at fleeing crowds. We have heard of military units dealing summarily with even non-violent acts of resistance. Tiananmen Square, which has been the site of so many important historical events over the decades and over the centuries, now adds to its legacy one of the most tragic occurrences of modern China. The situation is evolving very rapidly. The latest news we have had from our Embassy in Beijing only minutes ago is that the violence which started in the Chinese capital is now spreading across the country. There is growing evidence that the military is at odds with itself. We have received reports that there is now fighting between various factions of the military. The appearance is one of military chaos. Those forces who unleashed the initial program of violence against the students in Tiananmen Square appear to have set in train a chain of violence that cannot now be easily contained. How could this have happened? As the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition has said, we had hoped and believed that China was on the road to extensive and fundamental reform. For 11 years the Chinese leadership has been pursuing a range of policies aimed at opening China up to the outside world. Hallmarks of this welcome reversal of earlier centralism and isolationism have been the decentralization of decision making, the encouragement of private enterprise, and the welcoming of increased trade and economic exchanges with Canada and other western democracies.
Foreign Affairs 191
During the past few years we have also seen welcome change on the political front, even if the depth of reform has been less than in economic areas. We have seen more freedom of the press, more freedom of speech, more freedom of association, less control on travel, more flexible policies on emigration, and even some tentative signs of willingness to accept legitimate political action expressed through vehicles other than the Communist Party. Indeed, the last few weeks of political difficulty were in some ways a signal of the great strides that China seemed to have taken. Students in great numbers were tolerated in the non-violent expression of their desires for further change. Their cries for greater democracy, for the establishment of basic rights and freedoms appeared to be getting through to the government. We watched some of China’s leaders express sympathy, understanding and, most important, respect for the objectives of the intentions of the students. Those were positive signs of a nation in the process of change. Many among us believed that China would somehow manage this pressure for change by becoming more democratic, more open and more respectful of its own people. When the tanks and the troops moved in on Tiananmen Square on Saturday night, it was clear that the forces of darkness and not of light had triumphed. It was clear that leaders who had urged restraint were being brushed aside. It was clear that the aspirations of a few were being placed ahead of the aspirations of the many. It is very much because of the great strides forward which China has taken over the last decade that the events of the last few days are so tragic for China and so tragic for those principles and freedoms which we hold dear and which we had thought were starting to find their proper place in Chinese political life as well. [Translation] Mr. Speaker, our relations with China have been very important to us and they still are. In 1970, we were one of the first Western countries to resume diplomatic relations with the People’s Republic after that country’s twenty years of isolation. Since then, our relations have become such that anything that happens in China is a matter of great interest to Canadians. Exchanges involving scientists, students, cultural groups and teams of athletes became common and have been encouraged by both sides.
192
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
Our two countries have organized the twinning of many provinces and cities. All this has enabled us to have high level discussions with the Chinese leaders on matters of common interest. Such matters might range from regional disputes to protecting the environment and how to make the world trading system more sensitive to the needs of our two economies. Our trade has benefited both our countries. Thanks to our development assistance program, we have expanded China’s ability to modernize and we have introduced in China the Canadian way of doing things. I firmly believe that the range and intensity of our relations with China has enriched both our countries. [English] The extent of the friendship between Canadians and Chinese that has grown over the last decade makes the carnage in the streets of the Chinese capital particularly difficult to accept. As we examine what our response should be, however, we must remember that we will cherish our friendship with the Chinese people, that we are not going to become in this country anti-China. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear. Mr. Clark (Yellowhead): Our condemnation and our outrage should be focused on the violent and aggressive actions that we cannot and will never condone and on those who initiated and encouraged those actions. As soon as the military strike against the civilians in Tiananmen Square became known to us on Saturday, we made clear our abhorrence of the unnecessary and indiscriminate use of force against unarmed students and citizens. As the events unfolded and the extent of the violence and the killing became clear, we called on the Chinese government in the strongest possible terms to take steps urgently and immediately to stop the aggressive and senseless killing by its Armed Forces. Yesterday at noon I had the Chinese Ambassador called in to underline the seriousness with which we viewed the situation and to ensure that he passed to his authorities our call for a stop to the killing and also passed to them the depth of our outrage. We, of course, have not been alone in calling on the Chinese leadership to stop the carnage and to return to peaceful methods to resolve
Foreign Affairs 193
their political crisis. Most western Governments, Governments from around the world, even Communist Parties in other countries, have joined in condemning the brutality of the methods chosen to clear Tiananmen Square and to crush all and every expression of dissent by the students and other civilians once the military action had begun. This government remains ready to offer humanitarian assistance or supplies if those are requested or needed. In assessing the actions which should accompany our condemnation of the violence and the killings, we must bear in mind the need to safeguard Canadian lives, as well as the need to build pressure on the Chinese government. At the time of the outbreak of violence there were approximately 600 Canadians resident in China, roughly half of whom were in Beijing. In addition, there were a number of business visitors and tourists scattered around the country. Our first concern, because of the violence, has been the security of those in the capital. As a precautionary measure in case of further military action against the universities, our Embassy evacuated all Canadians from the city campuses and is currently providing temporary accommodation to the 75 or so students who are affected. We are in constant contact with our Ambassador Earl Drake, and we have contingency plans for the evacuation from Beijing of the students, other Canadians, and the staff of the Embassy. We have put into place arrangements whereby aircraft can be made available at short notice for evacuating Canadians to nearby Asian cities, and then onward transportation arrangements can be made after that if necessary. After consultation with officials in Beijing, we decided about an hour ago to advise Canadians in Beijing to leave that city now. Our Embassy will be assisting them in making their departure. I will of course keep the House advised if we decide to proceed with a complete evacuation. I should take the opportunity to indicate to Canadians who might be concerned that if they have questions to raise, we have established an 800 number, 800-267-6788. I know there are many Canadians who have relatives or friends in China who would want to call officials. We will hope to provide them with as accurate information as we can. With respect to bilateral actions that we might take in response to the crisis, we have already deferred or cancelled all events that were planned in the immediate future. We have postponed the signing of a series of memorandums of understanding on development assistance projects which were to be signed later this week. We have suspended the nuclear co-operation consultations that were begun after
194
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
China joined the Atomic Energy Agency and which were to proceed early next week. We will be taking similar action with respect to other scheduled negotiations and discussions. We are advising the provinces and non-governmental organizations with planned consultations with Chinese counterparts to follow suit. Although there are no high level visits in either direction planned for the coming few weeks, we would deflect such visits until a more appropriate time. At the multilateral level I have asked our Ambassador at the United Nations in New York to begin immediately consultations with other UN members and with the Secretary-General on means by which the moral suasion of the United Nations might be brought to bear to support the voices calling for moderation and restraint in China. Canada fully supports the statement issued by the Secretary-General today calling for restraint. With respect to the large numbers of Chinese students in Canada, and I believe there are some 4,500 here at the moment, we recognize the troublesome time for them. While we trust that before long the situation in China will no longer be repugnant to them, we understand their concerns. As my colleague, the Hon. Minister for Employment and Immigration announced earlier today, we will be sympathetic to any requests for extending their stay until calm returns to their homeland. My colleague has also taken steps to suspend for at least a two-month period all removals to China under the terms of the Immigration Act. Some countries have announced the suspension of programs of bilateral military co-operation and sales to China. Canada does not have any such formal arrangements and has sold in the past only very small amounts of non-lethal equipment to the Chinese military. I can assure you, however, Mr. Speaker, that the government would not grant export permits for military sales of any sort in the current situation. Furthermore, I have asked that the modest program of defence relations between the Canadian Armed Forces and the People’s Liberation Army which saw a visit to China last year of the Chief of the Defence Staff, I have asked that those relations be suspended immediately. Sir, what is transpiring in China is tragedy of global proportions. Let us hope that the events of the coming weeks see China and its great people emerge without unnecessary bloodshed and with renewed commitment to fundamental rights and freedoms in an increasingly democratic country. I only wish that I could find greater cause for optimism at the moment. There have been consultations among the Parties in this House, and
Foreign Affairs 195
I believe you would find that there is unanimous consent to adopt the following motion which I have the honour to put, seconded by the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition and the Member of Parliament for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent): That this House, noting that: — the relationship between Canada and the People’s Republic of China is important to Canadians and has been of benefit to both countries over the past many years; — authorities in the People’s Republic of China have directed the armed forces of China to attack the unarmed civilian population of Beijing in contravention of all humane principles of conduct; — the students and citizens of Beijing were peacefully advocating democratic principles and human freedoms as is the fundamental right of all peoples of the world; and — the authorities of China resorted to the use of excessive and indiscriminate armed force on a scale and scope which appalls all Canadians and has resulted in the tragic deaths of large numbers of innocent civilians; therefore: unequivocally condemn this brutal use of force against the peaceful populace of Beijing and call upon the authorities of China to cease this senseless killing and immediately adopt a course of dialogue with the people of China.
Some hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Speaker: Does the Hon. Minister have unanimous consent of the House to move the motion? Some hon. Members: Agreed. [Translation] Mr. Speaker: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? Some hon members: Agreed. Mr. Speaker: Motion agreed to.
196
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
Panama House of Commons Debates 20 December 1989 34th Parliament, 2nd Session: Volume 6, 7285–7288 Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs): Mr. Speaker, there was agreement among members of all parties earlier this afternoon that it would be appropriate for the three parties in this House of Commons have an opportunity to express their position on the events in Panama. I have the honour to present a ministerial statement which is a little untraditional. I apologize for not having circulated advance copies to my hon. colleagues in the House but they will understand the circumstances that prevented that. I thought I would try to do three things. First, report upon the situation in Panama as we know it at this stage; second, review the chain of events which led to the American decision last night; third, present to the House some observations about Panama. That includes the possibility of developing a stable, democratic system in that country, a country and a region which, with less drama than we see in Eastern Europe, is setting a remarkable example of democracy and of economic courage. It is important that parliamentarians in this House and countries like Canada help Panama assume its rightful place in that invaluable process. First I will deal with the situation in Panama, as we know it. The House will perhaps know that there are 131 Canadians who are registered as resident in Panama. Some of those are Canadians of dual nationality. We have been in touch, or sought to be in touch, with all of them by telephone, either through our honorary consul in Panama City or through the embassy headquartered in Costa Rica. To the best of our knowledge and our most recent consultations all Canadians are safe. None is in danger. An official of the embassy based in Costa Rica will be going in to Panama as soon as conditions allow that to be done effectively. Fighting is falling off in Panama City, although there has unhappily been an outbreak of looting now. Perhaps that is a natural consequence of the kind of disorder that can arise in those circumstances. Forces loyal to General Noriega have moved into the countryside. Noriega himself has not been captured. If there are further developments I will try to have them brought to
Foreign Affairs 197
the attention of members who are interested or will establish a system over the period of the recess in which either members of Parliament or certainly Canadians who have family or interests in Panama will be able to be kept informed. [Translation] As a founding member and signatory of the United Nations Charter and as a recent signatory of the Charter of the Organization of American States, Canada fully and unreservedly subscribes to the principle of non-interference in the domestic affairs of States. The use of force is clearly a very serious matter. The Canadian government has already clearly expressed its regrets with respect to the U.S. intervention in Panama. However, we must not forget the pressing reasons that forced President Bush to authorize the intervention of U.S. troops. [English] Over the past two years the world has been witness to one of the most systematic betrayals on record. It is a betrayal in Panama of those democratic values which we hold dear in this House and, indeed, which are respected by most of our neighbours in Latin America and in the Caribbean. Even before that, the governments of Presidents Barletta and Del Valle were very much subject to the whims of General Noriega as commander-in-chief of the Panamanian Defense Forces. Canada has not traditionally maintained the most cordial relations with those successive regimes, which we regarded as being democratic in name only, but we were able to carry on correct business-like relations with them based on mutual interest. In 1987, when General Noriega was indicted by an American court on narcotics trafficking charges and the United States imposed an economic embargo, we did not follow suit. When the May 1989 elections were called, we held out some hope that the Panamanian people would be permitted to express their democratic will at the polls. When, however, it became obvious that those elections were going decisively against Noriega’s chosen candidate, the regime abruptly had the process declared void. Canada condemned that denial of free elections. All of us were shocked by the images of the violent public beatings of the leaders whom the people of Panama had chosen to govern them. It was a temptation then to respond with violence. That temptation was strong and
198
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
outspoken among some in the United States. It was resisted, it was resisted everywhere including, principally and most importantly, by the United States administration. Various efforts were launched to achieve a peaceful solution to this very difficult problem. Some of them were bilateral, some of them were individual efforts by leaders of other countries. One of the most important was through the Organization of American States. On July 20 of this year, the Organization of American States passed a formal resolution which called for a transfer of power, taking effect on September 1 this year, from the Noriega regime to the people who had been elected in the May elections. The OAS also launched a diplomatic mission headed by the foreign ministers of three of its member countries who travelled extensively and worked hard to try to find a peaceful way in which this transfer of power could be achieved. What is lamentable, but evident, is that that peaceful solution did not work. There was, as we all know, recently an aborted coup. In the past week there have been developments that were particularly alarming, would be to anyone in this House and were to many of us, including the statement by General Noriega that Panama is in a “state of war” to use his words, with the United States. That declaration unilaterally by General Noriega was followed by harassment of Americans stationed, by treaty, in Panama. Indeed, it was followed by the murder of an off-duty member of the American services and threats to the family of that individual. It is important here, sir, to emphasize two facts which distinguish the situation in Panama from that which might exist in other parts of the world. One of those facts is that the United States presence there is a result of a treaty. It is not a presence that is the result of an occupation. It is not a presence that is the result of an uninvited presence by the United States in that country. The American troops are there as the result of a legal agreement. They are there as the result of an international treaty. They have a right to be there and they have a right to be protected while they are there. That is one distinguishing factor and feature about the situation in Panama today. A second fact that I want to underline is that peaceful solutions had been sought and peaceful solutions had failed. In fact, what was remarkable for so long was the willingness of the Bush administration to put its faith in mediation, to put its faith in negotiation, to put its faith in peaceful processes. The response to that was the declaration by Gen-
Foreign Affairs 199
eral Noriega, unilaterally, of a state of war. The response to that was the murder of an off-duty American stationed there. The response to that was threats to Americans who had a right to be there and who had a right to be protected while they were there. The Government of Canada today, in my name, issued a statement that made essentially two points. The first is that the government regrets the use of force by the U.S. in Panama, but understands and is sympathetic to, the American action in the circumstances, particularly given the legitimate American concern over the escalating threats to American citizens in Panama. People have a right to be there and had a right to be protected. Second, we made the point very clearly that intervention by force is a dangerous precedent and we note that the United States relied on force only in the last resort, only after the failure of attempts to resolve the situation in Panama peacefully. The question is: What now? What now occurs? What now should be done? I want to mention three things that I think should be on our minds as we try to look forward. One is that we have to work and use all of the influence and standing of Canada to ensure that intervention not become a precedent. There were unique factors here and if they can justify actions that were taken early this morning by the United States, it is the uniqueness that justifies them. There is not a precedent established here that this Parliament or this country would approve in other circumstances. I think that, sir, is a particularly important assurance to be given to the people and to the Government of Nicaragua, where elections are imminent and where every effort must continue to make those elections free and make those elections fair. Second, we believe it is important that we help the government that was elected in May in Panama to establish stability and democracy in that country. That was the theme, I can tell members of the House, in many of the consultations I had today by telephone with Latin leaders of the Organization of American States. They are interested in taking advantage of the opportunity that has been created now to try to sink some of the roots of stability and a democracy that will be important if Panama is to assume its place of significance in a region where those qualities have come to be more evident and more valued. We intend to send a team of Canadian officials to Panama as soon as that would be productive to see if there are specific ways in which Canada can contribute to that process.
200
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
Third, I think there is a lesson here of the real need to strengthen the regional institutions in Latin America, particularly in Central America. It is clear that the Organization of American States, despite its efforts, did not work in Panama. They were not able to achieve the peaceful solution that they sought and that others sought. But I think it important to note that the OAS made a serious attempt to succeed and that, Mr. Speaker, was a change in itself. It demonstrates a new resolution among members of the Organization of American States that Canada can push forward and, in our judgment, must push forward. The point to underline, sir, is that Central America is not anybody’s backyard. Central America consists of sovereign countries, with ambitions of their own, histories of their own, qualities of their own. It is a region which is remarkable for the will that has been demonstrated by its leadership, particularly in the last two and three years, the will to work together and the will to work together against quite extraordinary odds, including the pull of their own history in that region. Traditionalists have asked, why would Canada want to focus on Central America, why would we be in the Organization of American States, why would we play the active role that we are in ONUCA, the United Nations Peacekeeping and Verification Agency, that is playing a potentially critical role in the region, why would we maintain our aid and development assisted relations with the five countries involved in the Esquipulas arrangement? We do that, sir, because Central America and Latin America as a whole are changing, changing by their own will. Carlos Andrés Pérez, the President of Venezuela, repeated again to me this morning when I spoke to him to talk about the events in Panama, his profound belief that Canada has a crucial role to play in that region, both of stability and a democracy that will be important if because of who we are and because of who we are not. The role, in his judgment, can be critical if the institutions and the instinct to reform that had been evident there are to become as effective as they can be. We have a role to play in helping to prevent Noriegas. We have a role to play in helping to provide alternatives to intervention because our presence can strengthen initiatives and institutions like the Organization of American States. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Clark (Yellowhead): In a calmer part of the Question Period today, I had the opportunity to say to my friend from Winnipeg Transcona
Foreign Affairs 201
that I think it is time for all of us to engage in some new thinking about international events, and I meant that. I think he shares that view, as do others in the House. That means that we have to move away from stereotypes, whether those stereotypes are about the Americans and their motivations or whether they are about proud countries which we cannot dismiss simply because they are small. For anyone interested in the future of Central America, interested in the principles of democracy, this has been a hard day for anyone concerned about this hemisphere. It involves a situation which we in the government believe is unique. We think, sir, that we Canadians have a responsibility to make the most of the new situation which has been created by events in Panama, and that is the intent of this government.
6
Indigenous Relations One of the tasks of this collection is to see, through Joe Clark’s speeches, how the Conservative party has all but forgotten its Red Tory roots. One of the policies in which this is evident is what used to be called “Indian Affairs”—now correctly referred to as Indigenous politics. It is this area which arguably highlights the changes in Canadian conservatism in recent decades most clearly. The first significant aspect of Clark’s politics in this issue area is his awareness of history. In his speeches, Clark spoke with a refreshing candor of the largely violent history that has characterized the relationship between Indigenous peoples and the Canadian state. For example, in one speech, Clark recognizes the role that the Indian Act system has in creating the poor economic conditions found in Indigenous communities in stark contrast to inaccurate stereotypes that do not account for poverty in which most Indigenous people find themselves. It’s noteworthy that he argued against and attempted to refute these stereotypes throughout his career. Clark’s remarks remain both relevant and topical, reverberating in discussions and issues that still characterize settler-Indigenous relations today. This came to the fore in 1985 when Parliament was debating repealing the “marrying-out” clause in the Indian Act. This clause meant that, until 1985, an Indigenous woman who married a non-Indigenous man would lose her Indian status and all of the associated rights. The same was not true for men who married non-Indigenous women. Clark delivered a powerful intersectional argument before Parliament. In this particular speech, Clark recognized that Indigenous women face a unique situation of discrimination as it relates to both their racial and gender identities. He put forward that these parts of one’s identity can cause unjust problems on their own but when brought together create a different, unique form of discrimination. This kind of awareness and understanding of the complexities of identity in the Canadian context is A Man of Parliament; Selected Speeches from Joe Clark, edited by Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon. Montréal and Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press, Queen’s Policy Studies Series. © 2019 The School of Policy Studies, Queen’s University at Kingston. All rights reserved.
204
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
something that other elected politicians would be wise to heed. He was able to recognize these dynamics while still formulating a conservative position. The revisions to the Indian Act in 1985 would go on to fuel the politics of many Indigenous communities to this day. Many women applied to regain their lost status, while others within Indigenous communities resisted this change as they felt it would violate their traditions and infringe on their autonomy vis-à-vis the federal government. This tension is the focus of the second speech in this chapter. For though Clark recognized the oppression of Indigenous women in this case, he also wanted to ensure the autonomy of the band councils to determine their own affairs. He was well aware of the paternalism that often characterized the relationship between the band councils and Indian Affairs. And, as ever, he sought to empower the government closest to the delivery of services so that it might develop solutions most effective for the different needs of people in diverse communities. Refreshingly consistent, Clark included not just provinces or municipalities in this vision, but band councils as well. This awareness and compassion was something that Clark demonstrated throughout his career. In a speech given in April 1973 (not even six months after his first election to the House of Commons) Clark gave an impassioned argument for the recognition of Indigenous rights and title through a Parliamentary resolution. This would prove to be the early stages of the debate that would eventually contribute to the enshrining of treaty rights in Section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. Still relevant in our current political climate, Clark recognized that if settler-Indigenous issues could not be “resolved by negotiation, in an atmosphere of mutual trust and goodwill, they will arise in more inflammatory ways.” This has proved surprisingly prophetic in light of the rise of movements such as Idle No More and the strength of Indigenous resistance to resource exploitation through pipelines. This indignation was made manifest, perhaps sooner than Clark thought, in the confrontations at Oka and Burnt Church. This chapter reminds us both how good arguments stand the test of time but also how far Canadians have to go to realize Indigenous reconciliation. Clark wanted to more honestly and openly confront our history of “colonial dominion” and build an order which more readily respects the autonomy of Indigenous peoples and their right to self-determination. These problems have not disappeared and Clark’s words over decades remind us how long these issues have been on the public agenda.
Indigenous Relations
205
The Indian Act House of Commons Debates 1 March 1985 33rd Parliament, 1st Session: Volume 2, 2652–2654 Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I wish to begin by complimenting both the tone and the content of the speakers who preceded me, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Crombie), the Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior (Mr. Penner) and the Hon. Member for Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands (Mr. Manly). That tone indicates not only their own interest but is also an indication of the seriousness with which this historic matter is taken by all Members of the House. Indeed, this is one of the few pieces of legislation to come before this House which can genuinely be described as being historic. It does not solve all the problems, as the Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior made clear, but it is nonetheless an historic and important Bill. The Bill ends a discrimination against certain women, a discrimination that all of us now find unacceptable. It marks a large step away from a colonial mentality that has scarred the relations between Indian and other Canadians and marks a step—just a step, but an important one—toward greater autonomy for Indian bands. It proceeds in a way that is simultaneously reasonable, tolerant and principled to resolve dilemmas that have been divisive at home and have been embarrassing abroad. As the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development noted, this is not a Party matter. It is a uniquely profound Canadian question, rooted in the traditions and the rights of our original people, raising the principle of equal treatment, which is at the core of our free society, and resolved by reason, consultation and compromise. I address these questions in several capacities, including my capacity as Secretary of State for External Affairs. In this 40th anniversary year of the United Nations, I celebrate and commend legislation that brings the laws of Canada into harmony with the international covenant on civil and political rights. In addition, as the House will know, I have had other incarnations in this Chamber. In October, 1979 I had the honour to include in the Throne Speech of that year a commitment to remove Section 12(1)(b) of the Indian Act. Then later, on November 20, 1981, I had the honour to move the adoption of the paramountcy clause, Section 28, of the
206
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In another capacity, my most important capacity as an individual Member of the House of Commons, more than a decade ago in the company of the present Minister of National Defence (Mr. Nielsen), the present Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) and the former Member for Skeena and others, I was part of a parliamentary committee that for the first time in the life of Parliament achieved agreement between Members of the House of a definition and acceptance of aboriginal title. The real reason I rise now to offer counsel to my colleagues here and my friends across the country is that those of us who know the emotions this question can arouse have a special obligation to bring balance and understanding to this debate, as all of the participants so far have done. This Bill is about more than an end to discrimination. It is also about a practical beginning to local band control of local band affairs and the challenge has been to respect the principles of equality and autonomy at the same time. It would be relatively simple to embrace one principle and abandon the other. It would be simple, dangerous and a betrayal of our elemental duty to bring Canadians together and to help all of our people understand the complexities of our country. Questions concerning the equality of women are better understood today than they were a decade ago but there is not yet as wide an understanding of the special sense of community of our Indian people and the importance they place upon defining and controlling their own identity. In addition to suffering more than their share of disease, indignity and early death, they have for a century had their destiny controlled by others. The children of the Eden Valley Reserve west of my hometown were as free as I was to run, to ride and to be children. However, when we stopped being children, the youngsters of Eden Valley were not as free to be themselves as the youngsters of High River because to be Indian in the land which the Stoneys, the Blackfoot and the Cree discovered was to have your life run by someone else. There is somewhat more freedom now for the Stoneys, the Cree and the Blackfoot, but their memory and our legacy was of Ottawa running Indian lives, Ottawa setting Indian standards. Against that background, Members of the House can understand why local bands were worried about proposals to have Ottawa again change their traditions and define their members. To many Canadian Indians, the principle at stake was not the equality of Indian women
Indigenous Relations
207
but the autonomy of Indian bands. Our challenge in this Parliament is to respect both principles together, to end the discrimination that everyone agrees should end and to reinforce the autonomy and identity of communities that were treated like colonies for a century. This Bill is the result of careful and sensitive consultation across the country. The Minister has invited Members to come to committee with proposals they might think better. On this question more than on most, Members who might find fault with the Bill should accept the responsibility of proposing practical remedies. [Translation] Section 12(l)(b) of the Indian Act, in its present form, contravenes international obligations that Canada has freely assumed. Some of these obligations were contracted in 1976, when Canada ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, one of the UN’s fundamental documents concerning the rights of the individual. Canada also agreed to be bound by the provisions of the Optional Protocol to the Pact which stipulates that the Human Rights Commission may examine claims filed by individuals who maintain that their rights have been violated by their own government. The House will recall that in 1977, Mrs. Sandra Lovelace filed a complaint with the Committee that because of the existence of Section 12(l) (b) of the Indian Act, she had lost her Indian status in May 1970 … French is occasionally a problem for the boys from High River and Eden Valley, especially figures. That is why I am the Secretary of State for External Affairs and not Minister of Finance… As I was saying, Mrs. Lovelace had lost her status when she married a non-Indian. She alleged at the time that she was the victim of a violation of certain rights laid down in the covenant. Hon. Members may recall as well that, in July 1981, the Commission on Human Rights concluded that Canada had violated Article 27 of the covenant because Indian Act Section 12(1)(b) had prevented Sandra Lovelace from living on a reserve. Here is Article 27: In states where there are ethnic, religious or linguistic minorities, people belonging to those minorities shall not be deprived of the right to have, along with other members of their group, their own cultural life, to practice their own religion, or to use their own language.
208
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
In the summer of 1983, Canada advised the Commission concerning the steps it was taking to correct that violation. Specifically, our representative gave the assurance that Canada was committed to delete from the Indian Act any discriminatory provision related to sex. The government is now about to honour that commitment. It would seem that, on the occasion of the United Nations Decade for Women, we are finally going to do away with a provision which discriminates against women. One of the happier results of that decade is undoubtedly the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women which was ratified by Canada. Section 12(1)(b) contravenes a certain number of the convention provisions, particularly Article 10 which reads as follows: State parties shall take all appropriate measures to eliminate discrimination against women in all matters relating to marriage and family relations—
By having the House adopt this Bill, Canada will meet its obligations and eliminate that discrimination. [English] With this measure we have confronted one injustice, an injustice to Indian women and one that over the course of the last decade and a little longer has become well known nationally and internationally. However, as others in this debate have emphasized, there are fundamental injustices which we must still face and resolve. Indeed, while discrimination against women is an unhappy characteristic of many societies, the colonial treatment of the Indian people is a particular Canadian injustice. It is a scar on our society and on our conscience. We have talked about it for a long time. In recent years we have begun to act more seriously to establish the self-respect and status of the people who were here before any of the rest of us. The work of the standing committee in the last Parliament was courageous, creative and constructive. I think it would not be improper to mention the particular contributions of the hon. members for Cochrane-Superior, Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands, Wetaskiwin (Mr. Schellenberger) and Brampton-Georgetown (Mr. McDermid). The tone of this debate has demonstrated that this commitment to change and to self-respect, reaches throughout this Parliament. If I may compliment a colleague, I think the fact that this Bill has been introduced so early
Indigenous Relations
209
in the life of this Parliament demonstrates the determination and the influence of the Minister of Indian affairs and Northern Development and the priority of this government. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Clark (Yellowhead): My colleague from Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands quite properly raised the question of cost. That is a matter which will be dealt with by the government, and of course by the parliamentary committee. It cannot be dealt with in legislative form in this Bill, as the House understands, because of the nature of the Indian Act. But the government accepts and understands that the rules cannot be changed without helping the capacity of the Indian people of the country in responding to the changing rules. We accept that we must help to meet the implications of the changes which are under way. But we know also that the question of determining the cost, and determining the method of dealing with the cost, is one which will take some time and, by its very nature, can neither be anticipated nor applied as though there were no differences from reserve to reserve or from band to band. The Minister, his officials and the committee will be looking very closely at the question as to just exactly what must be done. I can say to the hon. member, on behalf of my colleague and the government, that this government will address this issue in a reasonable and sympathetic way to be as much help as we can to the Indian people in responding to this reality, which is sought not only by all of us, but sought and accepted—because they oppose the idea of discrimination—by most Indian people of the country. I have been involved for a number of years in issues concerning equality for women. More Canadians have been involved in that issue than have been involved in the question of concern for Indian bands and Indian status. Indeed, sometimes in the development of this debate there has been the risk of an apparent conflict between those who were concerned about the equality of women and those who were concerned about the problems and the nature of Indian communities across the country. In fact, the issue at the base is the same. The issue is a determination to have identity respected and advanced. I think we have made a step forward in the House today, not simply with the tabling of this legislation, but also with the tone of the response by Members on all sides of the House. If I may speak to one aspect, in concluding, of the challenge yet ahead of us, it has to do not simply with our colleagues in this House; it has
210
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
to do with those millions of Canadians who over the last several years have become concerned about the question of equality for women. I hope that they too will recognize that there are other inequalities. I know they do, but I hope that in their recognition of the other inequalities that exist in Canada they will join with the Minister, the hon. member for Cochrane-Superior, the hon. member for Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands and others in the House to ensure that progress is made much more quickly than in the past in improving the status, the self-respect and the capacity to contribute to the future of Canada and the Indian people of our country. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!
Indigenous Affairs and the Constitution House of Commons Debates 2 December 1980 32nd Parliament, 1st Session: Volume 5, 5267–5269 Right Hon. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I have always been proud to number among my constituents, in the two constituencies I have represented in this House of Commons, citizens of both status native background and Métis background. I am pleased my colleague from Wetaskiwin (Mr. Schellenberger) has introduced this motion. It has allowed us to recognize today that in an age and in a country of increasing affluence, and at a time when the air is rife with talk of rights, the basic ability to live of our first citizens has been marked by a movement backwards—not by a movement forward. The figures are stark, they are known and are shocking to all of us who have followed Indian affairs. The life expectancy of native people in Canada is, on average, about ten years less than that of other Canadians. That is a figure which is worse than the figure of ten years ago. We are not moving forward, we are moving backward. Pre-natal and infant mortality is 60 per cent higher among native people than the national average. Again, this is a situation which has not improved over the last nine years. Among the native people the suicide rate is three times the national average. The rate of violent death is also three times the national average. In terms of unemployment, chronically, the figures run to 20 per cent or 30 per cent; at certain places at certain periods of time the figures for unemployment among native people run in excess of 80
Indigenous Relations
211
per cent. In 1960, 20 years ago, 10 per cent of native housing units were in need of major repairs. By 1977, 24 per cent of native housing units were in need of major repairs. Fire deaths are about seven times the national average. I was interested to hear the hon. member speak about post-secondary schooling. The fact is that the proportion of Indian children aged 14 to 18 in school has been continually declining, since 1973 to a point at which almost 50 per cent of the Indian children in that age group are no longer in school. That is a dismal and frightening fact. Pre-vocational training attendance is down from 3,400 in 1973 to 1,000 in 1979. Those facts, sir, are all the more damning for this Parliament since the status natives of Canada are the one group of people whom the federal division of powers least affects by statute, treaty and tradition. They are citizens for whom the Government of Canada is particularly responsible. Their education, welfare and rights are indisputably federal responsibilities. There have been instances when those responsibilities have been shamefully betrayed by their guardians in the Government of Canada, as the native people of James Bay were betrayed when the Liberal government gave only the most limited support in a crucial conflict where Ottawa had absolute and unlimited responsibility. But the deeper condemnation is that at a time when the federal government is trying to extend its powers into fields occupied previously by the provinces and the private sector, the health and the dignity as well as the rights of these people for whom the federal government is now responsible have deteriorated steadily and disgracefully. Mr. Speaker, I say to you that if the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Trudeau) had given the cause of native Indians one-quarter the priority he has given his own personal preferences for constitutional change we would have made more progress as a nation against the shameful spectacle of Indian poverty, suicide, infant mortality and the indignity which has become a part of life for the original citizens of this nation. I specify the Prime Minister because he is the head of the government and his priorities prevail. But the condemnation, sir, extends to all of us in this House. Most of us have been too ready to allow other priorities to intrude. We have been too ready to turn our eyes away from the problems that the system of dependency on others has incubated among the native people of our land. No realistic thinking person will pretend that these problems are easy to resolve. Those of us who are experienced in this area are more
212
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
aware of their complexity and difficulty. Those problems began with bad decisions more than a century ago. The reserve system has steadily drained status Indians of initiative and dignity. But the native people themselves have begun to reverse that trend. They have begun to take steps, some of them halting and some of them very dramatic. These steps will enable them to regain their pride and regain their place in Canada. For their pains and the work they have done they have been excluded from the decision about their constitution. They have been confronted with both paternalism and prejudice. I want to speak tonight about paternalism because it is within the direct responsibility and control of this Parliament. I have particular cause to know that we have excellent people serving Canada in the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, as we have in the rest of the public service. But federal bureaucrats will always be tempted to think they can make better decisions than the natives can. Occasionally they will be right, but usually they will be wrong. There is no department in the Government of Canada where the temptation to run others’ lives is stronger and there is no department where the consequences of succumbing to that temptation are more ruinous for the people involved. When my colleague, the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp), who is now sitting on the constitutional committee, was the minister for Indian affairs we began to implement a deliberate decision to change the direction and orientation of Indian affairs policy across this country, to move more responsibility to the band councils themselves so that native people could grow in responsibility by exercising responsibility. We recognize that the most legitimate organization in the Indian community is the band council. It is a council which is elected by and responsible to the Indian people themselves. We tried to build up the force, the influence, the role, the independence and the autonomy of those band councils. I draw attention to that policy, Mr. Speaker, only because it appears to have been abandoned and replaced by new forms of paternalism. Under the policy announced by the hon. member for Provencher, when he was the minister, the department would increasingly move back to an advisory role. This new approach would help Indian people carry out the programs that they propose. It would not tell them what to do and control their lives by controlling the purse strings. Three major reforms were announced and were in the process of implementation by the government which it was my honour to lead. First, we made it clear that band councils would be given the power to control their own
Indigenous Relations
213
social and economic development. They would no longer be told so rigorously what to do by the people in Ottawa or elsewhere. Second, a process was being established so that planning and development of programs would begin at the local level. It would start with the band council and not be forced down upon the band council by someone with less knowledge but more authority. Third, the Indian Affairs department would move gradually away from its administrative role and, instead, would provide resources to assist programs begun by the band councils. Regrettably, this new approach which would have broken the cycle of paternalism appears to have been abandoned by the Liberal government. That is a betrayal of the people whose interests that department is supposed to serve. Whereas self-management and the exercise of responsibilities at the local level were characteristic of our approach to the programs of the department, full consultation and participation was the basis of our approach to constitutional renewal and the role of native people. As prime minister I met with Indian leaders to present our government’s view that Indian representatives would participate fully in all deliberations of the consultative committee of ministers on the constitution where there was a clear Indian interest or where the result of such discussions could affect Indian people significantly. Indian, Inuit and Métis leaders would be called upon to participate in the development of the agendas for first ministers’ conferences. We explicitly stated our hope they would join at some very near time with first ministers in the discussion of specific issues. Similarly, last August my party suggested that if the first ministers’ conference of September broke down, as in the event it did, a constituent assembly be formed to deal with constitutional renewal. In the event of such an occurrence we made specific provision that native spokesmen be included in addition to members of Parliament and members of provincial legislatures and territorial councils. The president of the National Indian Brotherhood responded to this suggestion stating that it was a very, very attractive progressive proposal. This record of consultation and participation contrasts sharply with the dramatic events in this city this past week—a constitutional process which, only at the last minute, under duress, allowed for Indian presentations before the special committee on the constitution, a process in which the Prime Minister has refused to meet with Indian leadership to discuss his constitutional proposals, a process which has so angered and so alienated the Indian people that they have felt compelled to go
214
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
to the parliament of another country, the parliament of Great Britain, to present their case. Indian rights and Indian concerns should be debated here in the Canadian Parliament. The Constitution of Canada should be decided here in this country by the people and representatives of this country and in a way in which all the people can be heard. I raise the constitutional matter because the conditions of poverty and of suffering which we all know to be too real a part of Indian life in this country are linked inextricably to the constitution. While the problems are specific—alcoholism, unemployment, school drop-outs, prostitution, to mention a few—the matter at base comes back to human dignity. When a community has so essential a sense of the dignity of a people, that is why the constitutional questions which draw native people here from across this country are so central to the human, social, and economic problems which have been discussed throughout this day. The Indian, Inuit and Métis people of Canada regard themselves as being part of a community, with community or tribal rights as well as individual rights. These people cannot be taken out of their history. Their history rolls out of their imagery, it rolls out of their language and out of their connection with the land which was once theirs alone. To most of us whose ancestors came after the aboriginal peoples, a constitution is a document of convenience, a way of ordering our lives. To the Indian and Inuit people, the Indian Act and the treaties are the only guarantees of their survival against a majority culture which, by threat of arms or guile of argument, took their lands and their livelihood and, inexorably, took their dignity. What they have left as a people is memory and legal claims and status which they feel are menaced by this constitutional approach. And now, happily, a growing pride and a growing sense of purpose. I make the point that their documents are more important to them than our constitution is to us. If we say that their rights can wait while language rights are addressed, we are saying that guarantees which are sacred to them are secondary to us. Naturally, for the Parliament of Canada to say this will only breed anger and resentment. But, more dangerous still, that approach could destroy the growing sense of pride which is the only way this original Canadian people can find the will to work its own way back from the despair which causes indolence, alcoholism, prostitution and those shocking facts of infant mortality. I am no romantic about Indian affairs. The mythical days of Crowfoot and the other ancient chiefs are long gone, together with other myths.
Indigenous Relations
215
But a people remain; a people as innately strong as any other, a people who once owned this continent and managed it well, a people who, like any other, can lift themselves up only if they start with dignity. In his days Chief Crowfoot commanded the plains and foothills where my father and I were born. When I was young and growing up, the people of Crowfoot had fallen from the pride which he symbolized. But in these last two decades, that has changed and the pride and strength that ruled a continent is becoming evident once more. If we worry about young people dying, about unemployment rates that can sometimes be in excess of 80 percent, and if we want to reverse the shameful legacy of the reserve system then we must encourage that pride and that strength where we find it. We must encourage local native leaders to lead. That is why the tool of economic development exercised with local autonomy is so important, and that is why the rights, the source of identity and dignity of our original people cannot be treated by the Parliament of Canada as something secondary. In our judgment, particular programs in the Department of Indian Affairs are wrong because they have turned away from the idea, the ethic, that decisions are more effectively taken when they are taken by band councils with local knowledge and local responsibility. But what is most wrong is that the priority we have given the Indian and Inuit people, who are the special responsibility of this Parliament of Canada, is too low. Their standing, in our view, their place in the work that we undertake, the priority which we assign them, is wrong. This must change if we are to accept our responsibilities as a Parliament to the native people of Canada for whom we are the only and ultimate guardians and spokesmen.
216
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
Recognition of Aboriginal Rights House of Commons Debates 11 April 1973 29th Parliament, 1st Session: Volume 3, 3219–3221 Mr. Joe Clark (Rocky Mountain): Mr. Speaker, I think that since all parties in the House have now had an opportunity to express their views on this resolution, and since we are all anxious that it be brought to a vote as quickly as possible, if there is agreement in the House that we now proceed with the vote I am prepared to sit down. Mr. Lalonde: If you have anything to say, say it. The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel): I was not in the chair when the hon. member made his proposal, so would he please repeat it? Mr. Clark (Rocky Mountain): Mr. Speaker, my proposal was that if it was agreeable to the House that we proceed immediately with the vote, I will surrender my time and sit down now. The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel): The hon. member might make that suggestion, but it is not the responsibility of the Chair to find out whether another hon. member wishes to speak. I do not think the procedure that we have followed in the past should be forgotten, namely, that any member of the House is entitled to express his view on any subject matter before the House. If the hon. member wants to take the risk of not participating in the debate, he can do so. Mr. Clark (Rocky Mountain): Mr. Speaker, I take it that my hon. friend in the Liberal ranks is rising to speak and thus prevent a vote by talking the motion out, so I shall proceed. I was interested to hear the minister say that his government had recognized the rights of the native people as never before. I am moved to comment that his method of recognition is so original that it is invisible. Certainly he has not been in touch with very many of the native groups which have made special recommendations. I have just had a note that the Union of British Columbia Chiefs have yet to hear from this government. Although the minister said he has been in touch with the province of British Columbia in regard to their representations, he has not been in touch with the native people themselves. I also think it was a signal accomplishment for the minister to be able to speak beyond his time in this House without referring for one
Indigenous Relations
217
instant to the resolution that is before us, because what the resolution asks, and all that the resolution asks, is that this House recognize the concept of aboriginal rights so that the proceedings of the committee and the deliberations of this House will have some authority and we can proceed with our discussion knowing we are discussing something that has a point to it, knowing that this is not just another aimless study of the matter. I want to put this debate in context. I think we recognize, as my colleague from Kingston and The Islands (Miss MacDonald) has suggested, that governments in other countries are taking native claims seriously and are starting down the road to settlement at the very time that we in Canada, under this government, have been turning away from the road to settlement and backing away from some recognition of aboriginal rights. I think we acknowledge, and without very much pride, that the native people of Canada in times past were victims of white trickery, when land rights and other rights were often traded for blankets, beads and other pittances. I suggest that the treatment accorded to our native people now is no less shameful. There has been the fraud of consultation in preparation for the white paper, now thankfully withdrawn. There has been the establishment of the claims commissioner who has to his credit now one settlement of one ammunition agreement concerning one treaty in Alberta, but who has clearly been established to delay settlements of claims, not advance them. There has been the shameful treatment of native people in the area of James Bay, an area where the minister has a clear responsibility to help an unsophisticated group of native people who are threatened by a government-sponsored corporation. The minister’s only response has been to give these people a little conscience money to get them into court, so that he and his colleagues can escape discussion of the question on the ground that it is sub judice. I hope that the minister might apply some of his own responsibilities to end native people’s representations with the moral fervour that he has brought to the suggestions of the government of the province of Quebec regarding what they should do after the fact. That is the context of trickery within which we now debate. I think the significance of that is not merely that the government is acting, if I may use the minister’s own word, irresponsibly; the real danger is that the native people cannot be expected to put up forever with this kind of duplicity. No group would. But the native people have before them the temptation to respond with violence when gentler methods fail. They
218
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
have the lessons of other countries where other minorities have felt they were being deceived, and so responded violently. I think the minister drew a red herring deliberately when he suggested because there are regional differences we cannot act in support of this resolution, indicating a commitment to the principal concept of aboriginal rights. There is a need to establish aboriginal rights under a national policy which recognizes the elementary principle that aboriginal rights exist. It is simply a falsehood, I suggest, to say that we cannot proceed now to enunciate that commitment of having a national policy because individual settlements that might occur will differ from region to region. It seems to me the one remarkable fact about Canada’s native leadership is the strength with which they have resisted the temptation to abandon consultation. They have put up with far more than many other groups in Canada would have accepted. I ask if you can imagine the Canadian Labour Congress or the Canadian Chamber of Commerce coming back in good faith to deal with a government which has consistently deceived them? Yet the native people, with their present leadership, have come back and are prepared to negotiate in good faith in spite of the way they have been treated before. I simply suggest that their moderate response cannot be counted on forever. There is a matter related to this which I want to raise. It has to do with the fear, by many white Canadians, that Canadian Indians have been so broken down by the paternalism of the department they will never be able to stand on their own feet. If that is true, it is a tragedy. If it is not true and if, as we believe, people who have been victimized by paternalism can be brought back to pride and independence, then surely it is time to start. If we hope to end a system of paternalism whose cost is extravagant both in dollars and in dignity, surely we must begin by dealing seriously with the native people. That is what this resolution proposes, a beginning. It proposes simply the recognition of a concept of aboriginal rights and a recognition that there is a claim here to be settled. The minister, for reasons of his own, is proposing that the resolution involves much more than that. In his celebrated television interview he said, “There are some cities that have been built on land that is perhaps not Canadian land.” He went on to suggest that there might be a claim for the whole of the province of British Columbia. That is simply a scare tactic. It is simply a device, well known in this parliament and that party, of taking the most extreme possible consequence, pretending it is the
Indigenous Relations
219
norm and using it to scare people, thus avoiding honest debate. This is the resort either of a desperate government which knows it has no case, or an arrogant government which does not care about the facts and which would dismiss contrary opinion by saying, as the minister said of one of his colleagues during that television interview, “He does not know very much.” The tragedy is that the minister can scare Canadians. If he wants to arouse false fears, this clearly is an issue where he can do so. Not only can he arouse fears, he can animate a prejudice against native people which we would be some time settling down. I personally hope the minister will abandon that course on which he has begun and will focus on the issues we must face, rather than the fears he can arouse. I want to repeat the fact that acceptance of this resolution means only the acceptance of the concept of aboriginal rights. No cities are in danger. No province is to be given back to the Indians. At this stage there is not even a commitment to dollars; there is simply a commitment to deal in good faith and as equals with people who have claims older than any other claims this parliament considers. This will be a long process, a process of years rather than months. That is one reason it is so urgent to make a formal beginning now and not to continue to delay. The issues involved are serious. The settlement, when it comes, could involve the payment of millions of dollars—the end of the costly and colonial dominion of the department of Indian Affairs, the recognition of historic rights and the re-establishment of the dignity and sense of worth of hundreds of thousands of native people whom our society has abused. These issues are more than serious; they are also inescapable. At some time some parliament of Canada must face the issues involved in aboriginal rights. No magic is going to spirit these issues away and no mere lawyer, even if he is also a prime minister, is going to dismiss them with ingenious argument, because these issues are based on claims which are rooted in the history of the country and perhaps in her conscience. If they cannot be resolved by negotiation, in an atmosphere of mutual trust and goodwill, they will arise in other more inflammatory ways. So the real question about aboriginal rights is not whether we will face them, but when and in what spirit. Delay might appear to buy time, but it is more likely simply to destroy the good will which still characterizes most of the native leaders of Canada, in spite of the treat-
220
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
ment which too often they have received. Of course, the people who must be convinced about aboriginal rights are not the native people but the whites. The time will come when parliament and the government will have to advise native leaders about certain realities within the white community, namely, what we think we can afford. No doubt that will be difficult, although it will be easier if native leadership is reasonable, as generally it is today, than it would be if we drive out reasonable leadership. But the case which the government and parliament must make today is to the white Canada, and there is no doubt that many Canadians outside the native community are concerned about the concept of aboriginal rights. I think their concern is based upon two fears: first, a fear that any settlement might be too extravagant for the national treasury to bear; and second, a fear that any payments made under a settlement would be wasted, spent foolishly by people who have not yet learned to manage their own affairs. I want to address myself to those two concerns. First, it is important, as we begin the formal stage of this debate, to make it clear to everyone concerned that there are limits upon the settlement the national treasury can afford. We do not intend to give away the country, or give it back, depending on your point of view. What we seek is a fair and reasonable settlement and it must be fair and reasonable to both sides. On the question of costs, the point deserves reiteration that we are involved in costs now, heavy costs. In direct dollar terms, the annual budget of the Department of Indian Affairs, as the minister so readily boasts, involves the expenditure of hundreds of millions of dollars each year. In indirect dollar terms there is the high and recurrent cost of provincial welfare and other programs serving native populations. In human terms, which dollar calculations cannot compute, we pay the staggering price each year of human potential wasted or destroyed by an imposed system which neither challenges the individual Indian citizen nor allows him to follow the course he would choose. So there are high costs today, and while a settlement based on recognition of aboriginal rights would not suddenly eliminate those costs, or perhaps even eliminate some of them, it would lead to the extinguishment of some existing claims and could lead to the breaking down of the hand-out psychology which has made too many native people the wards of state instead of contributing citizens. This brings me to the second fear of many white Canadians, the fear
Indigenous Relations
221
that native people cannot manage their own affairs or do not want to. It is an inescapable fact, in my province at least, that this fear is greatest among people who live closest to reserves. They have simply seen too much evidence of Indian people whose behaviour confirms the unhappy stereotype of the lazy Indian. It is my experience that the anger of the whites toward the lazy Indian is mild when compared to the anger and resentment of industrious Indian leaders and people. It is also an inescapable fact that, while examples can be found of lazy Indians, so can examples be found of industrious and creative citizens. We meet them virtually every time the standing committee assembles and every time we visit reserves. In a sense, the industrious Indian is the more to be marvelled at because he has overcome a system of paternalism which is designed to break down dignity and independence. Anyone acquainted with the treatment of native people in Canada must at least accept that lazy Indians are lazy because we made them so. This is a condition which white society and the predecessors of this parliament have helped to create. We have established and imposed a system which has locked too many Indian people into the stereotype and into the fact of aimless dependence upon the state, and the architects of that system are at least as much to blame as its victims. There is no point in laying blame upon the past, but surely we cannot refuse to deal with the just claims of Canada’s Indians simply because some of them have slipped into the trap of dependence which our society helped to set for them. To do that would be to guarantee that Canada’s Indian people will never escape a welfare trap unless they do it violently. Indeed, that might amount to an invitation to violence, because our refusal to deal reasonably with the moderate men and women who constitute much of the modern leadership of Canada’s Indian people would almost certainly undermine the authority of these leaders and set up less responsible replacements. At the least, such a response would break the growing spirit of Canadian Indian people to stand on their own and make their own contribution as individuals and as a people to the development of Canada. In fact, one consequence of the eventual settlement of aboriginal claims is that Canadian native people will then be forced to stand on their own, because once the settlements are made, the claims are gone. If money received in settlement is wasted, that will be it. There will be no big brother to go back to. Knowing this, knowing that the settlements which are reached will have to be lived with, will itself force native people to face basic questions about their status, about the reserve sys-
222
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
tem, about other matters, and force them to face those questions with a seriousness which cannot exist in the present phony atmosphere of so-called consultation, when they naturally believe their opinions are being sought only to be ignored. What the settlement of aboriginal claims will mean to the Indian people is not simply money or land but, more important, responsibility in a much fuller sense than exists in the paternalistic system we have today. Beyond that, a recognition of aboriginal rights is a matter of simple justice, made more urgent by prolonged delay. These are the people who first occupied this land. We took it from them, seldom by conquest, sometimes by agreements which were unfair then or are inadequate now, sometimes without settlement at all. After taking this land, we took their dignity and independence. In simple terms, we owe a debt. If we believe in any sort of justice in society, we must recognize our obligation to Canada’s native people. The way to begin that movement toward justice and responsibility is to deal with Indian people as though they are capable of responsibility; to deal with them as we would deal with other Canadians who have a claim. This resolution today asks no more than that, and we in our party believe that the Parliament of Canada can do no less.
7
Openness One of the principles of democracy is to have a government that is open, accountable and transparent. In order for it to be accountable, citizens need to be informed. Joe Clark, from his earliest days in parliament, wanted to ensure parliament was open and accessible to Canadians. He maintained that a government must remain honest about its dealings between citizens and their representatives. This is especially important in a parliamentary democracy, given its conventional and organic (as opposed to codified) nature. The role of convention can contribute to opacity as the steps taken by a government in actions such as appointments are never explicitly laid out. For Clark, this was not good enough for Canada or its system of responsible government. In the first speech in this chapter, Clark defended the rights of the House of Commons. He argued that it should not simply be left to the whims of the government of the day to decide what the people’s representatives in parliament are allowed or (more importantly) are not allowed to see. Clark was surprised, as a relatively new MP, “at how often I am told that the public business has to be kept from me, that I cannot be told about this or that, that I cannot be trusted with certain information.” The lack of transparency was evident in a number of ways that included not only in what could be discussed in the House but also if major policies would be announced in the House, thereby circumventing debate. And while Clark did acknowledge that “a degree of confidentiality, has, of course, to apply” he held that governments could do much better, and were often hiding behind convention and privilege. In addition to circumventing the people’s representatives, governments would often not be entirely honest with their image presented to the Canadian public. While it was important to tell Canadians what the government was up to, it had to do so in a non-partisan way and Clark recognized that it often wasn’t so. In this first speech, we find Clark disA Man of Parliament; Selected Speeches from Joe Clark, edited by Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon. Montréal and Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press, Queen’s Policy Studies Series. © 2019 The School of Policy Studies, Queen’s University at Kingston. All rights reserved.
224
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
cussing the dangers of propaganda, this time coming from the offices of Information Canada. He regretted that, rather than also attempting to “gather opinions from the country and feed them back to Ottawa” the department was simply a “big machine spewing out propaganda year after year.” The trouble with this was that, as Clark saw it, the one-sided view that materials released could “not be trusted to reflect the facts,” to the detriment of citizens who may rely on that information. All this perpetuated a cynical view of Canada’s democratic system because, in Clark’s words, “you cannot trust politicians to tell the truth.” A certain amount of cynicism in politics may be a good thing. But Clark saw cynicism beyond this threshold as “cancerous,” particularly when coupled with the fact that “decisions are taken by a tight little group whose practices of secrecy allow no ventilation. That is, because of the diversity of viewpoints espoused by the many different regions and peoples of this country, the secrecy demonstrated above and narrow view leads to decisions that do not reflect the needs and requirements of this country, and it can serve to disunify us, perhaps drastically.” In the aftermath of the FLQ crisis in which Clark was speaking, ensuring unity and trust in Canada’s federal institutions was of paramount importance. It was important to Clark that information be presented not only in an open and honest way, but also in a way that was consistent and easy to understand. To this end, the other two speeches included here show Clark discussing and critiquing the arbitrary way in which governments in Canada make their decisions. In the first instance, Clark is discussing an Air Canada contract and the confusing way it was eventually presented to the House of Commons. At first it was considered confidential by the government. However, the next day as if “by some act of magic” it was deemed acceptable to present to the House. Clark saw this reversal as a perfect example of the trouble with government procedure. In that, “it demonstrates, as nothing else can, how arbitrary is the information policy followed by the government and the complete lack of consistency regarding what will be kept secret and what will be made public.” These often-unknown guidelines made it very difficult to hold governments responsible to MPs and to the public at large. In the second instance (and third speech in this chapter) Clark went after Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau himself. Trudeau had appointed Michael Pitfield (a close personal friend) as clerk of the privy council, the most senior civil servant in Canada. Clark saw two main problems in such an appointment. First, because no guidelines were given to the
Openness 225
House for the appointment, it reflected a dangerous new trend in the growth of power of the PMO, a topic dealt with in much greater detail in chapter 4 of this volume. Second, the appointment had the potential to do damage to the civil service as a whole. Clark argued that Prime Minister Trudeau was “bypassing merit, undermining morale, compromising an essential independence, and eroding the protection of regions or groups whose interests are not represented by the political government of the day.” What was at issue here was not patronage, but the integrity of the Canadian civil service. It was because of the above arbitrariness and lack of transparency that during his short time as our prime minister, Clark would table the first Access to Information Act in our country’s history. Unfortunately, because his minority government was defeated soon after this, the bill would die on the Order Paper. However, the bill no doubt had some ideas with bipartisan appeal, as a very similar bill was tabled by the subsequent Liberal government, once again under Pierre Trudeau. And so as was usual throughout Clark’s career, he did not need to be in the PMO to profoundly affect Canadian political life.
Secrecy in Government House of Commons Debates 10 April 1975 30th Parliament, 1st Session: Volume 5, 4697–4699 Mr. Joe Clark (Rocky Mountain): Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by referring briefly to the remarks just made by the hon. member for Welland (Mr. Railton) and to say that I noted, though I was not particularly impressed by, the idea that the public is the patient in its relationship with the Government of Canada. I think the analogy the hon. member used was inapt in that particular, and I do not think it an apt analogy for another reason, that is to say, the reason for which this debate was generated being exactly opposite the case of someone, say, the Secretary of State, going to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang) and seeking a legal opinion. What happened in this case was that the Minister of Justice sought to impose upon his colleague a legal opinion which was not requested. That surely changes any client relationship, even if the client relationship were a valid analogy for keeping from the people and the Parlia-
226
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
ment of Canada important exchanges of which this is only one symbol. The point was made by my distinguished hon. friend from FundyRoyal earlier when opening this discussion, that what is at issue here is not the content of this particular letter but, instead, the practice which has unfortunately become deeply ingrained in the government of keeping information from parliament and from the people of Canada. I am following in this debate, and I am honoured to do so, two hon. members, for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fairweather), and for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin), who have won the respect of parliament and of observers of parliament for their knowledge of the rules and procedures here. I participate as a junior member of parliament who has been surprised in my short time in this House at how often I am told that public business has to be kept from me, that I cannot be told about this or that, that I cannot be trusted with certain information. I am told this often, as we all are as newcomers to this House. As members of the House of Commons of Canada we are in the category of restricted people who cannot be trusted with information. Surely that is a situation which should not be allowed to continue. The problem with respect to the insistence on secrecy does not apply simply to the failure of the government to produce papers. I spoke recently to an assistant deputy minister, someone who, incidentally, is earning more than any of us here, and he told me that he didn’t wish to be quoted but that if he followed the habit around here he would have to stamp “secret” on the toilet paper because that particular classification was so much in use. Mr. Beatty (Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo): Probably because it was bought from a Liberal without tender. Mr. Clark (Rocky Mountain): There are a number of other instances of secrecy here. I want to deal quickly with some of them. The point was made earlier about consultants’ reports. We now contract out a great deal of the responsibility for decision-making to consultants. Nearly a billion dollars is being spent on consultants’ fees. Yet very many of the reports which are received, reports which should be public information, are hidden from us. They are hidden from members in this House. We are not to be trusted. We are not to be trusted with these reports which are provided by consultants, at an annual fee of a billion dollars, to advise the government. That is one instance. I want to go back to something my hon. friend from Peace River mentioned when he talked about the report which inspired the develop-
Openness 227
ment of Information Canada. There was heavy emphasis in that report on a sort of ombudsman role, a role which would not simply involve a big machine spewing out propaganda year after year from Ottawa to the country, but which would somehow go out and try to gather opinions from the country and feed them back to Ottawa. The report envisaged that someone would go out and try to find grievances and make sure they were corrected. But that part of the report was ignored. The part which was acted upon was the part dealing with propaganda. So we have a very serious situation now in which Information Canada only sends out the approved version of information which, in many cases, and I say this with regret, cannot be trusted to reflect the facts. As well, Information Canada has led to an immense duplication of information facilities. For every member of the press gallery there are ten or 15 information officers dumping stuff on their desks, sending out the approved versions, elbowing up to them at the bar of the Press Club to make sure that the approved version is communicated to the country. That is a very sophisticated and large propaganda machine, something which should be of concern to everyone in this House who is worried about the right of Canadians to know what is going on in the country. Another developing practice has been that of making important announcements outside the House instead of inside the Commons. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) today, for example, announced his new economic policy, which I remind hon. members on the other side is an incomes policy. He did not make his announcement here in the House but outside the House. Again, we have witnessed the frequent practice of answers to serious questions being given flippantly in the House so that another means of access to information is cut down. We even get from our distinguished and well-respected Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen), now that there is a fixed time limit to questions in the period, answers given by him to every question very, very, slowly so as to consume as much time as he possibly can. This cuts into our capacity to elicit information through the question period. During the last few weeks a very surprising experience relating to questions of national security happened to be discovered by chance. We were putting questions to an unprepared minister in a standing committee and it came to light that it was the practice to fudge the estimates, not to be honest with the House of Commons and the people
228
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
of Canada in the estimates which were brought forward because the government hides votes for security services in a range of departments. When that matter was raised in the House the minister, the Minister of State for Science and Technology (Mr. Drury), announced the government’s preparedness to set up some kind of arrangement by which members could be briefed on questions of security. Yesterday I sought leave to introduce a motion to urge the House leaders to go ahead with that arrangement. But it was voted down by members of the other side. They did that at the beginning of the question period and then, a few minutes later, talking out of the other side of their mouths, they refused to answer questions on security matters on the grounds that such things should not be discussed in the House. They said under the standing order they should not be discussed anywhere; they said in the question period that they should not be discussed in the House of Commons. It is unfortunately the position of the Government of Canada that important questions relating to security as well as to other matters should not be discussed anywhere. Mr. Speaker, that is not a position which anyone interested in a democracy can accept without a great deal of fear. A degree of confidentiality has, of course, to apply, perhaps in all matters and certainly in security matters. But that is a quite different principle from the principle which is enunciated and illustrated by the government, which says you cannot trust parliament and you cannot trust the people with anything except the approved versions sent out under the imprimatur of Information Canada. I recall in 1968, Mr. Speaker, in the election campaign of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), the heavy emphasis that was placed upon the phrase “participatory democracy.” There was a heavy emphasis placed on getting people involved. Well, we all know that the basic essential element to participation is information. You cannot have participatory democracy, both words, unless the people are informed. If you are going to have the people receive only approved versions, you are going to have participatory something else. It won’t be participatory democracy. The danger is that it will be neither. I make the point—I emphasize it—that it is not just members of this House who suffer from the prejudice which is illustrated in the refusal to publish the letter which gave rise to this debate, it is also the people of Canada generally, and our very system, because as my colleague from Peace River said earlier, the system of democratic and parliamentary government is suffering seriously from the cynicism which has been engendered across this land in part by the feeling that you cannot
Openness 229
trust politicians to tell the truth. They will give a partial truth, or if there is some information which is important for them to keep they will stamp “secret” on it and refuse to let you have it. That is a very serious, cancerous cynicism and it has directly to do, among other causes, with the insistence on secrecy of the government we have today. As a member of parliament who comes from outside central Canada, as one who comes from a rural constituency not particularly well represented in the public service, with views, attitudes and even prejudices which are perhaps not replicated in the senior public service or treasury benches, I want to talk for a moment about the danger of basing decisions upon wrong information. What we have here is not simply a refusal to publish information and to let members of parliament know. What we have here is a situation that ensures that decisions are taken by a tight little group whose practices of secrecy allow no ventilation. There is no certainty that they are acting on premises that are shared in northern Quebec or western Alberta, or in any other part of Canada that is some distance, be it in miles, ideas or views, from the cabinet or senior public service. That, in a country of such diversity and fragility as ours, is a highly dangerous situation, one that I hope my colleagues on the other side, who I believe are worried about unity and the future of this country, will seriously consider, because this insistence on secrecy leads to decisions that do not reflect the needs and requirements of this country, and it can serve to disunify us, perhaps drastically. My colleague from Welland, and the parliamentary secretary who spoke before him earlier in this debate, referred to this letter as being a legal opinion. That happens to be the dodge, or the excuse, in this case. In other cases when there are legitimate demands for information that should be in the public domain other excuses are given for not making the information available. There is always some reason why the practice is not to make the information available to the public. I think the question that we should face is not: is it the practice? Because of course it is. The government has set the practice. It is a practice designed to keep as much information as confidential as possible. Rather the question here is: why are we slaves to that practice? Why do we have it? Clearly it is wrong to keep information from the people of Canada, from the democratically elected representatives of the people. As a general principle I think we would all agree it is wrong. Yet it is the practice. And so the members on the government side of the House allow themselves to be lulled to sleep by the incantation that the wrong
230
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
that we are committing is a wrong that it is the practice to commit. I say that that is not good enough. Clearly we need a society—certainly we need a parliament—where as much information as possible is known. I think others want to participate in this debate, Madam Speaker, so I will stop now by asking the representatives of the government here today: why fear an informed parliament? Why do they fear an informed public? Why insist on a practice of holding back information that would allow the public and parliament to be informed about the facts on which decisions are based?
Access to Information House of Commons Debates 8 May 1975 30th Parliament, 1st Session: Volume 6, 5607 Mr. Joe Clark (Rocky Mountain): Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to take very much time in this discussion since the parliamentary secretary has swallowed his earlier words and is now prepared to table documents which he previously withheld. Because I think it is a remarkable development, I want to deal with the demonstration that is inherent in the action by the parliamentary secretary today and the absolutely arbitrary method in which documents are considered to be confidential. We have a situation here where an Air Canada contract was regarded as confidential yesterday. Suddenly, today, by some act of magic or some magic wand, it is deemed to be acceptable to table it in the House of Commons. Yesterday it was confidential, today we can have it. That indicates how completely arbitrary the position of this government is as to keeping public information out of the public domain. There is obviously no consistent policy on the part of this government regarding information. There is no consistent policy with regard to what is to be held back in the public interest and what is to be made available to the House of Commons in the public interest. We have known for some time that the government has no information policy except as indicated to me by an assistant deputy minister in a senior department, that is, to stamp “Confidential” on the toilet paper or any other paper which happens to be in circulation in the offices. Surely today we have underlined the complete absence of any kind of over-all policy regarding the public right to information. It has been made absolutely clear that the decision whether a document should
Openness 231
be published or should remain secret is an arbitrary one depending on such things as the state of the moon, or which side of the bed the minister or the parliamentary secretary got out of in the morning. Yesterday the document was so confidential that neither parliament nor the public could be permitted to see it. Today, by some magic occurrence, it can be tabled in the House of Commons. I welcome the tabling of the document. I welcome the latter-day conversion of the parliamentary secretary. I hope he does not disappear from our midst as a result of his conversion to the point of view that parliament has a right to obtain information with which it is properly concerned. While the decision is very welcome, it demonstrates, as nothing else can, how arbitrary is the information policy followed by the government and the complete lack of consistency regarding what will be kept secret and what will be made public. It also underlines the futility of the guidelines applied to the release of information. We now know that the only guideline is what members on the treasury benches opposite want to do. In a system which is supposed to be concerned about the informed participation of the citizenry, that is obviously not a proper viewpoint to take.
Appointment Process for Civil Servants House of Commons Debates 4 November 1974 30th Parliament, 1st Session: Volume 1, 1046 Mr. Joe Clark (Rocky Mountain): Mr. Speaker, on October 8 I raised a question with the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). I asked if he would make a statement on motions outlining the principles which were now to be followed for appointments to the senior public service. I drew particular reference to Mr. Michael Pitfield, and asked the Prime Minister to indicate whether that appointment suggested a replacement of the merit system by the buddy system. The Prime Minister ducked that question, and instead attacked my right as a member of parliament to ask about the appointment and credentials of an official who now has more influence than most members of cabinet, and whose only unusual qualification for that office appears to be his personal friendship with the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister indicated that an appointment at that level was
232
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
at the discretion of the government. Of course it is, but it is the duty of this parliament and the members here to question the judgment that is used in exercising that discretion. That is a matter of concern not only to this House, but to people outside, including the Ottawa Journal, which wrote shortly afterwards, and I quote: Prime Minister Trudeau... has shown remarkably bad judgment in choosing an intimate friend for a position so exquisitively sensitive.... A Prime Minister needs to have friends and advisers around him whom he can trust completely, who will give him their first call on their loyalty. But the place for them is on his own staff, not in the public service.
That appointment started a precedent. It is inevitable that when the present Prime Minister leaves, so will Mr. Pitfield. Some other favourite of some other Prime Minister will come in. The senior job in the Canadian Public Service has, by this one act, been made a partisan political position. That act has changed our system of government and, in one stroke, threatened the political independence of the Canadian public service. Mr. Pitfield’s appointment is the most celebrated case, but it is not an isolated instance. That is the matter which is of grave concern to this House. His appointment is part of a pattern of moving political friends into a public service which can be respected and effective only so long as it is free from the suspicion of partisanship. Not only in this last month have we had the appointment of Mr. Pitfield to his high position, we have also had the appointment of Mr. Jim Davey, late of the Prime Minister’s Office and late of the Minister of Transport’s office, to a senior public service position in the Department of Transport. We have seen the hon. Paul Martin dispatched as High Commissioner to Great Britain. These people now enter the public service to join others like Timothy Porteous, Edgar Benson, Mike McCabe, Paul Gérin-Lajoie, and who knows how many others. It is known to this House and accepted that for some time there has been a provision allowing the shifting into the public service of people who have served, in the senior executive capacity, political ministers and others. Because of the salary level at which these people shift, they inevitably go into the public service in a policy position. I placed a question on the order paper to find out how many of these people there are in the public service and what areas of policy they influence. I did this because I think it is highly important to the system.
Openness 233
The practice poses three critical threats to our system. First, it destroys the balance which is so essential between the elected politicians and the appointed public servants. At the same time it threatens and jeopardizes the long range independence of the Canadian public service. The second threat arises because it undermines morale in the service itself. It removes the incentive to excel. Indeed, it fosters an incentive simply to please one’s master because excellence is no longer the standard which determines promotion; it is friendship which is now becoming the standard by which promotion is achieved. The third threat is that it narrows the basis of advice on which national decisions are made. This is a diverse country, and the government should reflect that diversity. But it will not do so if the public service is to be formed in the image of a partisan prime minister. I asked the Prime Minister to tell us the guidelines to be followed in making that kind of appointment. He has given us no guidelines. I also put a private member’s notice of motion on the order paper in an effort to ensure parliamentary scrutiny of the growing powers of the office of the Prime Minister, which appear to be at the root of the problem we face today. What we must consider is not just a question of Mr. Pitfield’s credentials; he is obviously a brilliant person, an able man. Nor is it a question of stopping patronage, which has been going on for ever and ever. The Prime Minister, by this action, by this pattern he has established, is changing the very nature of the Canadian public service and the very nature of our system of government. He is bypassing merit, undermining morale, compromising an essential independence, and eroding the protection of regions or groups whose interests are not represented by the political government of the day. It is regrettable that the Prime Minister should have indicated, in putting aside this question, that he wants no attention paid to the process that is taking place. It is not too much to say that he is achieving by stealth changes of more significance and more permanence in our system than a change of government could bring about. I believe this is an urgent question for the House to consider both in relation to appointments to senior levels of the public service and to the growing power of the Prime Minister, and I hope the answer from the parliamentary secretary will allow us at least to begin the process of examining the way in which our system is being changed.
8
The Constitution The Constitution of Canada was long in the making. First passed into law as the British North America Act, 1867 by the parliament of the United Kingdom, it would remain in London and under its authority for the next 115 years until the passage of the Canada Act, 1982. This “repatriation” transferred amending authority to the Parliament of Canada, added the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and created an amending formula governing future changes to the constitution. What follows in this chapter is a set of five speeches given by Clark to parliament in the deliberation leading up to repatriation as well as the debates, accords, and referendums that followed. In it, Clark emphasizes his vision for a periphery-to-centre, decentralized confederation as well as discussing and arguing for laws and ideas which would eventually become part of the resulting constitution. First in this section and first chronologically is a speech that Clark gave to parliament the day after the first referendum on Quebec independence. He used the celebratory atmosphere to call for a “renewed Canadian federalism” through constitutional change that would create institutions that had the genuine respect of the various parts of Canada. This was a way to harness a post-referendum build-up of good will to create change that better reflected the realities of Clark’s time. Though he mentioned the three main parts of the forthcoming constitutional package, Clark’s main focus was on strengthening parliament, specifically the House of Commons. In this way, Clark sought to reverse the trend of increasing concentration of power which Clark believed may have caused some Quebecers to lose faith in the federal system. This is a trend which still saps support for federalism in Canada today. Of course, having the power to amend a state’s constitution means nothing if there is no mechanism detailing how it would be changed. Therefore, second in this chapter is a speech Clark gave to the House in support of what was then known as the “Vancouver formula.” This A Man of Parliament; Selected Speeches from Joe Clark, edited by Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon. Montréal and Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press, Queen’s Policy Studies Series. © 2019 The School of Policy Studies, Queen’s University at Kingston. All rights reserved.
236
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
formula, known today as the 7/50 rule, stipulates constitutional changes may be made with the consent of parliament and two thirds of the provinces comprising at least 50 percent of the population. This formula was appropriate in Clark’s eyes as it was supported by all the provincial premiers of that day. The Vancouver formula was opposed by Prime Minister Trudeau who was in favour of the Victoria formula which gave a veto to Ontario and Quebec. In this moment, the two visions of the federation are apparent. Of additional note in this speech is the forceful argument Clark gives against the use of closure to stifle parliamentary debate, a protocol he detested from his earliest days of political awareness. Clark remained committed to fighting against executive overreach throughout his political life. The third speech was given in the House a year before the constitution’s repatriation. Clark rails against the dangers of party discipline and federal overreach into areas of provincial jurisdiction and the damage this can do to Confederation. Focusing specifically on the Trudeau government’s attempts to unilaterally patriate and amend the constitution in provincial legal jurisdictions, Clark fought to ensure that party interests did not come before meaningful representation. The last two speeches included in this chapter jump forward to the early 1990s and deal with the Meech Lake and Charlottetown accords and the struggle and politics that surrounded them. Clark, as a minister in the Mulroney government, had returned to the government side of the House and sought to frame the accords not as the end of a chapter, but the beginning of one. Speaking in June 1990, Clark forcefully proposed that passing Meech Lake would be a win for both Quebec and Aboriginal rights. He argues that by passing this accord, legislatures could create “a moment when Canada came to terms with itself and decided to move forward, recognizing that, of course, all was not perfect, but the perfection could not be approached until the country was whole once again.” Fatefully, Elijah Harper did not agree and so Meech Lake died a mere three days later. No matter, for Clark was used to picking himself up after a setback. In a little less than a year, Clark again proposed the importance of Canada coming together despite its imperfection, this time relating to the Spicer commission and Charlottetown Accord. Though it hangs ominously over the speech from our perspective in time, Clark only mentioned the possibility of a federal referendum twice throughout the entire speech. Instead, what he devoted the most time to was considerations of the
The Constitution
237
ways in which the various constituent communities, societies (explicitly mentioning Quebec), and nations might work together with the various governments to create a new political order. But beyond the obviously high-flying and inspirational rhetoric, Clark also acknowledged the compromises each must make to remain a part of the greater whole which conveyed great economic, political, and social advantages. For example, he acknowledged as an Albertan that Western Canadians should accept Quebec as a “distinct society.” And, despite what many settler Canadians thought (and still think), not all issues important to Indigenous nations revolve around the improper use of public money, thus firmly putting the “progressive” in Progressive Conservative. For Clark, the second constitutional round in Canadian history was a chance to entrench a vision of Canadian Confederation. In contrast to the centralized vision of his Conservative predecessor Sir John A. Macdonald, Clark did not want to see the constituent parts of Canada subordinated to Ottawa. Instead, standing as a personification of intra-state federalism Clark attempted to ensure that the voices from outside Ottawa would be heard, be they provincial first ministers or individual private citizens speaking before the Spicer commission. Clark believed that by recognizing the distinctiveness (with a nod to Quebec) and the difference of these voices in the constitution we could be better brought together to strive for our future as one country. It is a vision we are still striving for to this day.
238
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
The Patriation of the Constitution House of Commons Debates 22 October 1980 32nd Parliament, 1st Session: Volume 4, 3936–3940 Right Hon. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition) moved: That this House supports the immediate patriation of the Constitution of Canada, incorporating only the generally agreed upon amending formula known as the Vancouver consensus, so that all other constitutional changes shall be made in Canada by Canadians.
He said: Madam Speaker, I regret that I must rise today to introduce a motion which, I believe, could move Canada from a bitter impasse over constitutional questions in the shadow of the announcement by the government House leader that the Government of Canada intends to invoke the rules of closure to stop the Parliament of Canada from debating the Constitution of Canada. Some hon. Members: Shame! Mr. Clark: I regret indeed that hon. members opposite invoke closure when there have been more speakers on the motion from the government side than there have been from the ranks of the official opposition. This matter will be discussed at greater length in the country and in the House of Commons, as indeed it was discussed during the pipeline debate when closure was used to stop the right of Parliament to debate a matter— Mr. Cousineau: And to filibuster. Mr. Clark: —which would have struck at the heart of the nation. We will discuss it more, but I want to make two points. One is that this is not the normal kind of stoppage of debate we have had. This is the closure of C. D. Howe. This is not the modified Standing Order 75C, so-called. This is pipeline closure. This is the kind of closure which was used, unhappily, in 1957 to try to ride roughshod over the rights of this House of Commons. That is what is being done again today by this government. Some hon. Members: Shame! Mr. Clark: It is interesting to note that the last time this kind of C. D.
The Constitution
239
Howe closure was used, it was used to force upon Parliament changes in the rules of Parliament. It was used then for the first time in the history of the British parliamentary tradition anywhere in the world to change the rules of parliament. Now again that extreme and extraordinary measure of closure—that full force C. D. Howe kind of closure—is being used, to stop debate which has not been excessive, because government speakers have spoken more than hon. members in this party have, it is being used not on a minor matter but on the fundamental law of the land. Hon. members opposite do not want our constitution debated. They want to cut off debate. They want to stop the right of Canadians in Canada’s Parliament to discuss the constitution of this country. That is unacceptable. Mr. Collenette: Rubbish! Mr. Clark: Because we respect both this institution and this nation, for which disrespect has been shown by the actions of this government, and because we respect the constitution of this nation, what we are proposing, by contrast, is a means by which Canadians can act today to bring the constitution of Canada home today so that Canadians can change it here in Canada. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Clark: The motion that we have introduced provides: [Translation] That this House supports the immediate patriation of the Constitution of Canada, incorporating only the generally agreed upon amending formula known as the Vancouver consensus, so that all other constitutional changes shall be made in Canada by Canadians.
[English] This motion calls for the Parliament and the people of Canada to act quickly on the one constitutional question with which virtually every Canadian agrees, that is, to have the constitution of Canada here at home in Canada. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!
240
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
Mr. Clark: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has consistently said he wants our constitution home, I have consistently said I want our constitution home, so has the Leader of the NDP and so has every other member of the House of Commons. What this motion offers is an opportunity to stop talking and to start acting to bring the Canadian Constitution home to Canada in a way that respects the rules and traditions of this House and respects the rules and the nature of this country. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Clark: More than that, this motion today provides a way to ensure that we can work with our constitution once we get it here. It allows the whole Parliament of Canada to approve an amending formula which was accepted in principle by the committee of officials working on constitutional reform through the summer and, even more than that, which was accepted in principle by all the provincial premiers when they met in Ottawa in September, and which was accepted in principle by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chrétien). Some hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Chrétien: Not true. Mr. Clark: Those are matters of Canadian agreement, agreement on having our constitution home, agreement on the Vancouver formula as the way to work with that constitution once we have it home. Unfortunately, in recent days the focus of attention in the nation has been on the disagreements which exist on constitutional questions, disagreements which are deep and which are in danger of becoming even deeper. But we should not let those serious disagreements obscure the fact that very real progress was made this summer, and that Canada is, for the first time in at least a decade, in a position where agreement exists as to both the necessity and the means of bringing our Canadian constitution home. We in this party want Canada to act on that agreement, and our motion provides the instrument to let Parliament start the action to get the Constitution of Canada home so that Canadians can work with it. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Clark: We are all aware in this House and throughout the country that discord and disagreement in Canada on how we should renew
The Constitution
241
our federation grow worse with every passing day. We know that, with budget and energy policy coming, other deeply wounding controversies may well lie ahead of this Parliament and of this country. For the sake of our country, all Canadians must come together on common, solid ground. We must do it free of partisan recriminations, and we must do it free of any kind of narrow perspective. On September 13 the first ministers’ conference broke down. Now is not the time to assess blame for that; we have had enough blaming. It is time in this country for some building, building for Canada. To that September conference all the participants came with packages of reforms which they wanted. Obviously, it would have been the best thing for our country if a balanced, comprehensive compromise package of reforms and improvements in the constitution had been agreed on. But that did not happen, as the House knows. What did happen, however, was the emergence of the Vancouver consensus as a formula accepted in principle by virtually all of the participants in a closed session in September. The formula allows amendments to the constitution, and allows them now, Mr. Speaker, not two years hence. It does not freeze the Constitution of Canada for two years, so that the people of Quebec, who might want more changes are told, “No, you cannot have them for two years.” It does not freeze our constitution for two years so that the people of western Canada who might want changes are told, “No, you cannot have them for two years; it is frozen.” Instead, it gives us a means and an instrument by which we in the country can use and change our constitution right now. It is a device we can use today. It is not a device we must wait for two years to use. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Clark: And as the House will know, that formula also protects the provinces of Canada, because it provides the fundamental guarantee that no province can be affected by an amendment unless it chooses to be affected. Thus does it reflect the essential partnership of Canada. Thus does it respect the essential nature of a federal system. [Translation] There is no ideal formula but that one has the decided advantage of having been approved, in the present context, by all the partners in federation. Given this approval in principle, it is time all partners set aside,
242
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
for the time being, all the constitutional amendments they propose. It is time they join in bringing the constitution back to Canada so that the required changes can be effected afterwards by Canadians, in Canada. Let us ask the British Parliament merely to give us back our constitution with the generally accepted Vancouver formula. Let us make that happen quickly and let us then, without the intervention of another country, promptly update our federative agreement. [English] I cannot understand, Mr. Speaker, why the government insists on a procedure that would have Britain pass amendments to the Constitution of Canada instead of letting Canada pass amendments to the Constitution of Canada. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Clark: Surely, Mr. Speaker, our constitution is our business. We should be dealing with our constitution here in Canada and we should not be waiting two years, we should be doing it now. What is so tragic about the way we are proceeding is that the Government of Canada not only wants the British to change our constitution but wants us to be prevented from working with our constitution for at least two years. Neither of those is acceptable to me. I am a Canadian, I want to have my constitution here. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Clark: I see no reason to wait. I see no reason to put in an unnecessary two-year delay, because we can have our constitution home quickly, we can have an amendment formula agreed to quickly, and we can do it quickly. If this motion is accepted, the will of Parliament will be clear. The will of the premiers is already clear; they accepted in principle the Vancouver consensus when they met in September. Mr. Chrétien: Not true. Mr. Clark: The Minister of Justice says that is not true. But he knows that is true. Mr. Chrétien: Ask Bill Davis. Mr. Clark: He suggests that we ask the Premier of Ontario. The Premier of Ontario indicated, in the last 15 to 20 days, that he is prepared to ac-
The Constitution
243
cept the Vancouver amending formula. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Clark: That is why we have a basis of agreement here. If I could speak of the one provincial government of the party which in this House agrees with the Minister of Justice, the Premier of Saskatchewan, he has indicated that he too would find the Vancouver amending formula acceptable. Those are the facts, and the Minister of Justice, if he has any respect for the truth or the federal system, should accept that fact and act on it. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Clark: Then, with the will of Parliament clear, as it could be if members rise above party and vote to support this amendment, and with the will of the premiers clear, we can work quickly on the details of the Vancouver formula, to which I will come later. Then we can work on amendments which will allow us to begin work immediately to change our constitution here in this country. If that happens, if the House of Commons is prepared to rise above party matters and is prepared to accept this motion which allows the House of Commons to bring our constitution home today with an acceptable amending formula, I believe we can then start immediately, we can start this week. Instead of bringing in closure which will divide this country, we could start this week to have officials sit down and discuss the wide range of amendments Canadians might want. The chairman of the premiers, Mr. Lyon, has suggested that it would be useful to meet again, that we should not write off all the work done this summer, that we should not let the failure of the September conference mean the failure of constitutional reform. He said that there should be more meetings, there should be more discussions. How much more fruitful it would be if those new meetings and new discussions occur in the context of agreement, not only on having our constitution here, but on the formula by which we can have it here? That agreement exists; that agreement exists. Mr. Chrétien: Not true. Mr. Clark: It was accepted in principle by all of the first ministers. The Minister of Justice says that it is not true. Perhaps his boss, perhaps the Prime Minister does not agree with it, but every premier does. Every premier is prepared to accept that formula and to use it to bring the
244
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
Constitution of Canada home. Mr. Chrétien: No, no; it is not true. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Clark: If the atmosphere is positive we can get agreement on constitutional change. If the atmosphere is negative in this country, and it shows that there is a real risk of it becoming deeply negative on this question, on energy questions and other questions, then we will not get agreement on even the simplest kind of changes. That would set back deeply and dangerously the process and the promise of constitutional change in this country. If this motion is accepted, if we bring our constitution home with the Vancouver formula, then we will have both the momentum and the means to achieve Canadian amendments to the Canadian Constitution right here in Canada. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Clark: Ever since the end of the first ministers’ conference we have been calling for precisely that approach: patriate with the Vancouver consensus amending formula and then make changes in the Canadian Constitution in Canada by Canadians. In our view it is undeniably the way to make constitutional change a source of bringing Canadians together rather than driving them apart, because they will be driven apart, and they are being driven apart by the current proposed constitutional resolution of the government. Our views on the dangers for federalism in the proposed resolution are well known, and we intend to keep on making them as forcefully as we can. If we are gagged in Parliament by the use of closure, we will carry our case to the country. A majority of provinces are now testing the constitutionality of this proposal in the courts. It is not just a few provinces but a majority of the provinces of Canada. Premiers are attacking premiers. Federalists in the province of Quebec are disastrously divided, to the joy and to the benefit only of the separatists of the province of Quebec. Western Canadians and Atlantic Canadians justly resent the second-class status and the third-class status of their provinces inherent in the Prime Minister’s redesigned Victoria amending formula. All provinces have just cause to fear the dangers to the basic federal character of Canada in the proposed section 42 where a federally written, federally timed referendum could allow Ottawa to go around
The Constitution
245
the other order of government entirely. Plans for provincial referenda multiply. What kind of a situation will we have with different levels of government asking different questions on the same subject of the same people, and getting different answers? What will that lead us to here in this country? It will lead us to chaos in this country, constitutional chaos in this country. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Clark: We have no need for that chaos because we have the means here for agreement. There is a Canadian will to have our constitution at home. There is a Canadian way to have our constitution at home in the Vancouver amending formula. What is needed is a willingness on the part of the Liberal party to rise above narrow partisanship and to support this principle which will let Canadians have their constitution home. Why does the Liberal party oppose having Canada’s constitution home this week? Why does the Liberal party oppose the amending formula which is accepted by all the first ministers? Why is the Liberal party standing in the way of the people of Canada having the constitution of Canada here at home so we can amend it, live with it and work with it in Canada? Why is there that kind of opposition? There should not be. What we need, instead, is a determination to move forward now, immediately, to bring our constitution to Canada in a way that we can work with it in Canada. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Clark: The government can introduce closure if they will. They intend to do that with the respect for Parliament that was shown by the late C. D. Howe. That is their intention. An hon. Member: What respect do you have when you filibuster? Mr. Clark: They talk about a filibuster. This must be the first time in the history of Canada or in the history of the British parliamentary system that anyone has talked about filibuster when the government has spoken more than the official opposition. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Collenette: Not true. Mr. Clark: I will admit that the speakers of the official opposition have made more sense than the speakers of the government party. There
246
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
have been 19 Liberal spokesmen and only 18 Progressive Conservative spokesmen, and they call it a filibuster. Mr. Collenette: What about the NDP? They are part of the opposition. Mr. Clark: The Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Collenette) suggests that the NDP should be considered part of my party. I am not exchanging letters with the hon. Leader of the NDP (Mr. Broadbent). Some hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Clark: But I say to members like the hon. member for Yorkton–Melville (Mr. Nystrom), the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Hovdebo), members who, I know, are concerned about the substance of the resolution brought forward by the government, and to members such as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) who, I believe, would be opposed to closure on a constitutional question, that I hope when the time comes for them to cast their votes at a quarter to six this afternoon they will consider whether they want to invite deep rancour and deep division in this country by proceeding both with closure and with a constitutional package they know is divisive, or whether they would prefer to adopt the motion before the House now which would let the Parliament of Canada act today to bring the constitution home immediately in the way that Canadians want. There are a number of merits to the constitutional amending formula which has been agreed to by the premiers. Of course one merit is the single fact that it has been agreed to. When all of the conditions that were uttered at the first ministers’ conference are set aside, when all connections to any packages are put aside, the House must ask the question: why was that formula given virtually unanimous approval in September? Why did it emerge as the only focus of ministerial consideration this summer? Why was the Victoria formula of 1971 not that focus? Why did Premier Davis just the other day acknowledge that he understood the Victoria formula was no longer acceptable? What other generally agreed on formula has ever emerged over all the last several years of debate? The Vancouver consensus is the inescapable amending formula in 1980 for this country. It is the only formula that seeks harmony in the federalism of Canada and allows unity in the national life of this country.
The Constitution
247
[Translation] The Vancouver formula applies to the realities of the day and will allow us to build the Canada of tomorrow. At present, it provides the constitutional changes may be made with the consent of Parliament and two thirds of the provinces comprising at least 50 percent of the population. However, if the amendment approved by the required majority concerns first, the powers of a provincial legislature to make laws, second the rights and privileges granted or guaranteed by the constitution to the legislature or the government of a province, third the assets or property of a province or fourth, the natural resources of a province, dissenting provinces may dissociate themselves from the amendment which would not apply in their case. [English] I want to emphasize that among those advantages of the Vancouver formula—I draw this to the attention of my colleagues in the New Democratic Party—there is a clear guarantee of natural resource jurisdiction. It is not a guarantee which can be overriden by a referendum triggered unilaterally without any other cause than the will of the Prime Minister. It is a guarantee that will endure. It is a guarantee that provinces can count on unless they choose themselves to surrender or to modify that situation. The words which I have just used to describe that proposal are drawn from the report to the first ministers by the continuing committee of ministers on the constitution, a committee which I must say was ably co-chaired by the hon. Minister of Justice and by the attorney general of Saskatchewan. There remained some details to work out, especially concerning how to deal with amendments of universal applicability, which cannot be subjected to opting out, whether constitutional provision should be made for the financial implications of opting out of amendments. Those are details. Those are details which can be dealt with. The Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) and the Minister of Justice propose to use closure to stop Parliament from debating a matter when the government spokesmen have out-numbered the spokesmen of the official opposition. The Minister of Justice is skeptical that we can work out those details. I have faith in Canada. I have faith in the capacity of Canadians to work out those details.
248
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
Some hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Clark: What is more, I believe Canadians should be given the chance. Why leave the decisions to the British? We are an independent, sovereign country. I want us to act like Canadians, not like colonials. This provision would allow us to do that. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Clark: Various proposals were suggested in the continuing committee’s report, and it seems clear that final agreement was clearly within reach with no fundamental issue of principle threatening to polarize or divide opinion. In our view those final stages of negotiation could be completed in short order. No participant in the September conference has suggested otherwise. Perhaps the Minister of Justice will today, but it will be the first time because he has not suggested otherwise before, nor have the representatives of the premiers. We do know that the Prime Minister himself was prepared to accept the Vancouver consensus if—and he applied a condition—he got agreement for his package of constitutional changes. And I cannot believe that he would have taken that position concerning an amending formula that was neither sensible nor workable. He was bargaining with it. He was bargaining with the Vancouver formula but, by being prepared to bargain with it, he knew that if his bluff was called, if there was agreement with this price, then he would have to deliver on the package. So clearly on the question of principle, on the question of the merits, the Prime Minister of Canada himself accepts the Vancouver amending formula, as did every other first minister at that table in September. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Clark: Indeed, the government’s leaked memo is at pains to list several advantages to the formula, advantages to Canada, and to minimize the disadvantages. One disadvantage, which the Prime Minister has talked about since that time, is that the opting-out formula might lead to what he calls a checkerboard effect. On page 28 of that leaked memo it said: No amendment could be made without the consent of Parliament. So there would be a federal check on any checkerboard effect that might be brought about by “opting out”: that is Parliament or the government could decline to proceed with an amendment where the provinces did not all agree.
The Constitution
249
Finally, the government’s advisers from the Department of Justice contend that—and again I read from page 29 of the document: —if the provincial consensus (on the Vancouver formula) … holds, the federal government could consider joining the majority position.
That was the secret advice, the secret decision of the Government of Canada prior to the first ministers’ conference. Why will they not accept in public what they accepted in secrecy? Why will they not let Parliament act today on a formula which they were prepared to accept in September? What has changed? Why do they want to stop Parliament from acting now to have our constitution here in Canada where we, in Canada, can work on it? The secret document went on to suggest appropriate arrangements on the side of details referred to earlier. We know now that the provincial consensus on the Vancouver formula did hold. But the Prime Minister would not agree to join that clear consensus without agreement on his package. It was then the Prime Minister who stopped agreement. As I said earlier, no partner in our federation should now hold all of Canada up to ransom for their own hidden agenda items. The way lay open in September to patriation with the Vancouver formula. It lies open now. And beyond that achievement, which could be finalized in all stages in a matter of weeks, lies the prospect of having the means here in Canada for Canadians to amend our constitution, free from hidden agenda, free from veto, free from referenda, which could override the provinces and destroy the nature of the federal system, and free from blockage. I believe we have a great opportunity here today to make the most out of unusual circumstances. There is great hope among the people of Canada that we can get an agreement on constitutional change. I remember going into the province of Quebec during the referendum campaign and speaking sincerely about the need for constitutional renewal. I know the attitude in western Canada, the region of Canada from which I come. I know there is a deep sense there that change is needed. I know that in every corner of this land there is a determination to end the colonial system that leaves our constitution in another country and that permits decisions affecting us to be taken by another government. There is a desire to have Canadians act, not only to bring our constitution home but to have it here where we can work with it. The Prime Minister has amendments that he wants. The Leader of the NDP has amendments that he wants and I have amendments that I
250
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
want. Premiers have amendments that they want. They can all be dealt with here in Canada and they can be dealt with in accordance with the Vancouver formula. I know I am approaching the end of my allotted time, and so I will conclude by saying that everyone in Canada wants to have constitutional change. Everyone in Canada wants to have our constitution here at home. The reason there is opposition to the government proposal is that they want to have Britain make changes which we believe should only be made here in Canada. They want to continue a colonial status which we want to end. But instead of holding up the House of Commons in debate, our party is today proposing a means by which the Parliament of Canada can act to bring the Constitution of Canada home, to be amended in Canada. It can be done if there is a will in the House of Commons to do it. I pray that there is that will, so that Canadians can change our own constitution here in our own country. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!
Meech Lake Accord House of Commons Debates 20 June 1990 34th Parliament, 2nd Session: Volume 10, 13055–13058 Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs): Mr. Speaker, let me begin, if I may, with the words uttered by my friend from Churchill as he concluded. He is, as he knows, a member whom I respect in the House. He said that the work of the last three years has been wasted. I think that is precisely the question that we are debating here tonight, whether or not the work of the last three years has been wasted. I think that there is a genuine feeling throughout this House that it would not just be a shame, it could almost be a tragedy if that work were wasted. There has been talk here, rather to my surprise, of bullying and of blame. As someone who has been involved in these discussions and these negotiations, and who is not myself blameless, I can certainly say that if blame were our purpose I could give you a list as thick as the Toronto telephone directory of people to whom blame can be ascribed. But surely that is not our purpose because that takes us nowhere. What we want to do now in these last hours of this debate is find some way which we can bring Canadians together to achieve, not an end, but
The Constitution
251
to achieve a beginning, first, of constitutional renewal but then, and I think this is a much larger question, the beginning of a process of national renewal because none of us who has lived these last months can doubt that there are profound problems in this country that go beyond disagreements that arose in a particular negotiation among First Ministers. These are the last hours of this debate. It is a question that is of fundamental importance to the whole country. By the turn of events the last debate will occur not in this Parliament but in the legislatures of Manitoba and Newfoundland and Labrador. I certainly do not take my place in this Chamber to try to lecture the elected members of those two legislatures. I know better than that. I tend to share something of the view of my colleague from Churchill with regard to the counter-productivity of one legislature trying to lecture another legislature. It is not any more helpful in politics than it is in other aspects of life for people to undertake that sort of conduct. But, sir, I think it is, on this question that is so fundamental to the country, legitimate that we express our views in these final hours in the hope that our views might be useful to the individual members of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba and the individual members of the House of Assembly of Newfoundland and Labrador who have this final decision to take. Let me begin with four propositions which inform my approach to this crisis in our national life. First, I believe that we are the luckiest country, the luckiest people in this world. Some of that good fortune we have earned ourselves. Some of it was given by God or was earned by others before us who surely have a right to expect that we would treasure and respect what it was that we inherited. Second, there is an anger and a distemper in Canada that is more widespread that I can ever remember before. Hatred, sir, is not too strong a word for some of the emotions that I have seen and heard. Obviously, anger that strong reveals a frustration that is profound and that is personal and we must all ask ourselves seriously why people are so angry and what we need to do to rebuild the basic bonds of goodwill that any community needs to hold itself together. We cannot repair anger by blaming others for it, but if we do not repair that anger it will feed, it will grow and it will tear this country apart. Third, Meech Lake has become far more than a document signed by First Ministers. It is a symbol. More accurately, it is several symbols. For Canadians who oppose it, it is a symbol of something they dislike—a
252
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
process, a government, a perceived unfairness; for some, unfortunately, a people. For the wider world it is a symbol of the stability of Canada, whether we are a country the world can count on or a risk. For many Quebecers the symbol is direct and it is personal. Acceptance or rejection of Meech Lake is seen as acceptance or rejection of Quebec; not Quebec as the author of five conditions, not Quebec as a participant in an amending process, but Quebec as a partner in this country. I have heard opponents of Meech Lake tell me that if Meech Lake is rejected Quebecers would be angry for a while and then would forget. Well, sir, I do not believe that. Of course, I can be wrong, as we all can. But I have spent three decades in national affairs trying to understand what makes our different communities work and work together. All of that experience tells me that this rejection of Quebec as a partner in Canada would damage this country permanently. I have no right to decide for others, but I pray that Canadians whose decisions might affect Meech Lake would consider my view and would consider the consequences if I happen to be right. The fourth proposition concerns aboriginal rights which appears to be the issue which was causing people to urge Elijah Harper to stop constitutional reform. I have some history on the question of aboriginal rights. In 1973, Flora MacDonald, Frank Howard and I moved a motion that caused the first acceptance by a parliamentary committee of the concept of the legitimacy of aboriginal title. I have been involved throughout my public life with native people. I simply cannot understand the logic which says Meech Lake must be killed in order to advance aboriginal rights. Killing Meech Lake has the opposite effect. It makes action on aboriginal rights more difficult to achieve. Aboriginal interests are, by definition, constitutional interests. If there is a constitutional impasse, nothing will be done on aboriginal rights. That is not theory, that is history, that is recent history. That is what happened when we tried to deal with aboriginal rights in 1985 and did not have the votes because Quebec, which would have voted for change, was not a part of the Constitution. The only way to make progress on aboriginal rights, on Senate reform or on the other priorities agreed to by the First Ministers is to start with what we have. To reject Meech Lake is to reject progress on aboriginal rights. Anyone who takes that action should be fully aware of the consequences.
The Constitution
253
Sir, I can fully understand why the National Citizens Coalition would act against aboriginal interests, but I cannot understand why Indian leaders themselves would do that. [Translation] Mr. Speaker, the situation is critical. There is not much time left. But there is still time to succeed if we really want to. Meech can still be signed by Manitoba and by Newfoundland and Labrador. It is not over yet. In the last three years, many have said that Meech was dead. Yet, it made it to this day. Maybe there are still some nice surprises left in Meech, one last time! I wish it were so with all my heart, for our greater benefit and for the benefit of our country, Canada. [English] Mr. Speaker, all of us watched, some of took part in that long discussion of seven days and seven nights. The most poignant moment on that ninth of June was when the pen passed to premiers whose earlier positions had put the Meech Lake Accord in doubt. Those premiers, Mr. McKenna, Mr. Filmon and Mr. Wells put their pen to paper at the end of the day, and in so doing demonstrated the best of Canadian qualities. They had travelled far, they had strong views, principled positions and deep concerns. But in the overriding interests of keeping this country together—and I trust that is the overriding interest of all members of this House—they compromised, and all First Ministers compromised. They vowed to take Meech Lake back home, to put it to the representatives of their peoples and to let democracy take its course. Other societies and other countries do it differently. They deny legitimacy to the concept of compromise. They do not accept that different parts of their societies can hold different things to be true. They prefer to resolve their differences through fiat or through fighting. That is not Canada. That is not the unique achievement which is admired around the world without reservation or without caveat. That has not been our experience, and it never can be if we wish Canada to continue. Eleven days ago, eleven First Ministers made a solemn pledge to each other, to the Canadian people and to future generations. The three Canadian premiers who had travelled so far promised to use every means at their disposal to allow their people to decide on their Constitution. That was eleven days ago. Three days from today, Meech Lake will pass
254
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
into history. It will either pass into history as a moment when Canada came to terms with itself and decided to move forward, recognizing that, of course, all was not perfect, but the perfection could not be approached until the country was whole once again. Or it will pass into history as a serious step backward for our country. As was indicated in debate earlier today, and as I believe Premier Wells has now indicated, Newfoundland will vote, either tomorrow or on Friday in the House of Assembly. As the House knows, debate has now begun in the Legislature of Manitoba. That debate was delayed longer than anyone anticipated by procedural difficulties. The fact of that unanticipated and procedural delay has created a special situation that nobody anticipated. There was a commitment to make every effort to ensure that the agreement reached, after careful compromise and discussion in the best Canadian tradition, would be moved through the legislatures of the respective provinces. It is clear that the country is counting on that. Just as procedural moves delayed debate in Manitoba, so surely procedural ways can be found to move debate forward so that the word of the three leaders of Manitoba can be honoured and so that the country can move forward to other priorities, whether those priorities are constitutional or whatever they are. Just prior to the conclusion of the last conference on the Constitution in Ottawa, I spent two days in Europe in separate meetings with the foreign ministers of NATO and of the Helsinki process. Naturally, whatever point I tried to make in advancing the foreign policy of Canada, I was asked about Canada’s problems at home. I was asked by incredulous ministers from Hungary, Germany, the United States, United Kingdom, and Yugoslavia. They could not believe that a country as envied and respected as Canada would put itself at risk, and particularly, that we would put ourselves at risk over the question of how we deal with different cultures. Because that is the signature of Canada, that is the success that is admired around the world, the success the new governments in Czechoslovakia, a united Germany, and a new South Africa, will want to copy. Nelson Mandela left Canada this morning. I had the privilege of bidding him bon voyage. He spoke to this House and to the people of Canada of his hopes for his people. He spoke of a country which would discover tolerance and compromise, which could learn to live in unity, which could consecrate itself anew as a nation among the leading de-
The Constitution
255
mocracies of the world. He spoke of the bitterness, the intolerance, the hatred and the prejudice which have governed South Africa. He spoke of Canada as a society to be admired, a concept which inspired him as he faced the enormous challenges which lie ahead. Nelson Mandela was right. What we have achieved here has been achieved nowhere else on this earth. We are a society of many cultures, many regions, many races. It is a society that has always said yes to compromise and no to intolerance. It is a society which says that different cultures, different regions and different races can more than co-exist; they can thrive and prosper in community with diversity. The history of this remarkable land has been a continuous act of affirmation. We can never forget that the existence of this country was not a given, that the building of Canada has been a task accomplished against the greatest odds; geographic, economic and demographic. Tending the community that is Canada requires great care. How ironic it would be, how wasteful if, at a time when the rest of the world was thrusting forward with vision, the people of this country were to turn away from our strength and our future. The Parliament of Canada has spoken. The Parliaments of eight provinces of Canada have spoken. The premiers of all provinces are committed to letting their people speak. Let that process proceed. Let history judge the results. Let us pray for Canada. Then, together we must define new shared goals for Canada which reflect the new realities of this new world in which we live. Everywhere in this world, there are dramatic changes that shake old conceptions and raise new hopes. People everywhere are hoping to become what we are. That is the reality. There are serious differences in this country. There are serious issues to resolve. We have to find ways to define this country that make sense to all of its people. We have not yet succeeded in doing that. That is what the bitterness of these recent months has demonstrated. In doing that, if we succeed we can preserve one of the most respected nations in the world. That is the issue now. This is the challenge that faces us, the legislature of Manitoba and the House of Assembly of Newfoundland and Labrador who have the right of the final vote to decide the future of this accord, of this process, in many ways perhaps of this country. The next step is for them. I say this as only one member with some experience here; the work is not over for us. Then the challenge to all of us is to recognize that this country is not as united as it needs to be, that the goals we have set for
256
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
ourselves are not as contemporary as they need to be, that the definition of this nation does not mean as much as it should to people in different parts of the country. This is not something which should not cause us to lay blame or to distribute retribution. It should be a challenge to us all, to get on with the redefinition of this extraordinary country. But I fear deeply that, if we fail in the challenge that is before us now, we will not have the opportunity to move to that new agenda.
National Unity and the Quebec Referendum House of Commons Debates 21 May 1980 32nd Parliament, 1st Session: Volume 2, 1264–1267 [Translation] Right Hon. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition): Madam Speaker, I wish to begin my remarks in the House today by congratulating Mr. Claude Ryan and all the members of his team who won yesterday an important victory for Canada after an honest and strong campaign which showed a deep faith in Canada’s future. I also want to commend the role played by my friend, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chrétien), by the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and by all other members who were directly involved in Quebec by their actions or by their remarks in this House during the referendum period. [English] I think that it would be well too to underline that many of the Quebecers, many of the 40 per cent who voted for the “Oui” yesterday in the referendum, were people who were not at all lost to the federalist cause. Many of those who allied themselves proudly and enthusiastically with the “Oui” option did so because, for one reason or another, they had come to lose faith in the force of federalism. I believe we can prove that that faith should not be abandoned among those Quebecers and among others. I believe it is important for Canadians across the country to know that a large number of the 40 per cent who voted for the “Oui” option yesterday are people who can be won back to federalism.
The Constitution
257
I think that we, particularly in this House, and those who serve in governments across the country, should recognize that the obligation is very heavy upon all of us to take a role of leadership in reaching out to those who, for a moment, lost faith in the viability of the federal system and to prove to them by our actions that there is a great deal of room for growth, a great deal of room for their aspirations as Quebecers and as Canadians, to be realized within the context of a broad, large land. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Clark: Also if I may, I want to commend the Prime Minister for acting so quickly after the referendum to set in train activities which will move us quickly toward real progress on the development of a new constitution for the country. I am pleased that the Minister of Justice and Minister of State for Social Development (Mr. Chrétien) will be visiting provincial governments. I would hope that he will not forget to visit the governments of the territories. Mr. Neilsen: Right on. Mr. Clark: In any consultations that carry forward, and in any machinery that is established, I hope there will be an opportunity for the elected members of the Yukon and Northwest Territories Council to play a full and an active role in those discussions. We are dealing with circumstances now which have never before existed in Canada. [Translation] First of all, as the right hon. Prime Minister said during the referendum campaign, the main federal political parties, my party, the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada, as well as the Liberal Party of Canada, have both solemnly committed themselves to a renewed Canadian federalism. The same commitment was made by the provincial premiers who were unanimous in denouncing the status quo. We were sincere in making that commitment and I am confident that the Prime Minister and his provincial colleagues were every bit as sincere as I was when they called for a renewal of the Canadian federation. Madam Speaker, we must make the best possible use of the climate of sincerity and good will that now exists throughout Canada, and see to it that our common objective, a renewed Canadian federalism, is achieved.
258
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
[English] The second circumstance that is new is that, for the first time in a long time, it is my view the public of Canada are now interested in constitutional reform. There is a genuine feeling on the part of Canadians, in whatever province, territory or region of this country, that it is time to bring our constitution up to date with the realities of a modern country. That is true and that is important. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Clark: Finally, a third circumstance that has changed and is significant is that this country, Canada, has changed in the last 20 years. It has changed dramatically. It has changed to the point where old constitutional arrangements no longer fit. In my view it is this last point which perhaps is most important—the old constitution no longer fits the modern country. That is true not just in Quebec but in other parts of Canada where real and profound changes have occurred in the last 20 years. We are not dealing now with an academic matter or a question of interest only to governments. We must bring our way of governing Canada into line with the modern realities of the country. Constitutional forms are an important part of that process. We need a new constitution. I welcome the commitment made by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice which was reaffirmed here today. It is a commitment, which I share, to a new constitution for Canada. We need a constitution that is located here in our country, a constitution that can be amended here in our country, a constitution that guarantees certain fundamental rights, and a constitution that articulates a sharing of powers that is appropriate to a diverse federal country. We now have a climate where that can be achieved. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Clark: But I make the point that more than the law and more than the constitution is at issue here. There must also be a positive attitude among citizens and among governments, an attitude which is consistent with the changes in law and the changes in form. Among the citizens of Canada there is developing an attitude of respect for fellow Canadians of different backgrounds and a growing pride in the diversity and the strength of the Canadian family.
The Constitution
259
[Translation] Perhaps I can speak more specifically of the changes that now exist in Quebec, that exist in the so-called Anglophone community in the rest of Canada, because I am very much impressed by the deep changes achieved outside Quebec especially with regard to the aspirations of the Quebec people and the respect for the French language throughout Canada. There has been a change, a new respect upon which we can build a great country in the future. [English] I must say, however, that while those attitudes have changed among the citizens of the country, it is not so clear that attitudes among governments have changed. I think it is important that we address that question frankly here today. I want to take the opportunity, in the climate of good will and of near celebration that exists in this House today after the referendum results, to point out to the Prime Minister that it would be futile for the Government of Canada to be seeking to draw provinces together to discuss constitutional change if, at the same time, the actions of Ottawa on other fronts were driving provinces and people apart. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Clark: I think we all know that the sense of being a nation is influenced as much by conduct as it is by constitutions. The success of renewal will be based upon genuine respect for the other partners in confederation. It would be both unwise and irresponsible for the Government of Canada, or for the governments of the provinces, to perpetuate an attitude of confrontation, or to seek to resolve legitimate differences by methods which erode trust or make co-operation impossible. Hopefully yesterday’s referendum in Quebec will provide very real impetus to the process of change and renewal. But the desire—indeed it is more than a desire—the demand for change is not simply a matter of that referendum and indeed not simply a matter of that province. It is a desire shared by all of the provinces and virtually all of the people of Canada. That fact must be reflected in the agenda for change which this government now has a responsibility to place before the country. It must be truly a Canadian agenda not simply an Ottawa agenda, a Quebec agenda, an Alberta agenda or a Newfoundland agenda. Other provinces and other regions have specific proposals for change to
260
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
which they are equally committed as Quebecers are, and which they have a right to expect will be debated openly and honestly by all involved in the process. Certainly patriation, an amending formula, and entrenchment of rights are legitimate subjects … more than the constitution is at issue here. There must also be agenda, but so is resource jurisdiction, including offshore resources, so is communications policy, and so are proposals to make some national institutions more effective and more representative of regional realities and regional needs. It is not simply that we have before us a rare opportunity, a rare atmosphere of openness and good will, within which to address the whole Canadian agenda. It is equally that we simply will not achieve a genuine or lasting consensus if some parts of this country or some regions of Canada feel their needs are excluded from the Canadian agenda or are given secondary status in national debate and negotiation. [Translation] I was encouraged by the remarks of the right hon. Prime Minister when he said earlier today that except for the basic principles he mentioned, all the other matters are negotiable because, to my mind, that commitment is essential to the future of the constitutional renewal process, since hon. members of the House of Commons and the Canadian people throughout the land view differently some of the constitutional proposals. [English] For example, I believe the Prime Minister and I have different views about the contribution to Canadian unity of the consciousness of being a people like the Quebecers, or of being a region like the west, or of being a province. I have a sense that he is concerned that these more local loyalties will drain strength from the larger community. I believe they are a source of strength. Some members of his party agree with me; probably some members of mine agree with him. But, that question must be addressed openly by all sides. We cannot let our work be limited by the prejudices of a Prime Minister or a Leader of the Opposition, or anyone else. We are agreed on the framework of the federal system. The people of Quebec yesterday in a massive and dramatic way indicated their agreement with a federal framework, and now we must build and go where the facts of modern Canada lead us in giving flesh and form to that federal system.
The Constitution
261
Some hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Clark: The Prime Minister has indicated his intention to consult leaders of other parties here, and I welcome that. I want to anticipate that consultation and make publicly one suggestion that I think should be very much on the agenda of change. As the Prime Minister and as the House know, one of our weaknesses as a country so far has been our failure, at least to this date, to develop national institutions which genuinely command the respect of the whole country. Some progress has been made. I believe progress was made by the late Right Hon. Lester Pearson and his government with the introduction of the Canadian flag. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Clark: I am delighted to learn that today a Standing Order 43 motion moved by my colleague, the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle), regarding a national anthem for this country, was accepted. But, Madam Speaker, we sit here today in one Canadian institution, the only one that has live and genuine roots in every corner of this land. Parliament itself can become the strongest genuine national institution, but it will not have strength until it has real power, and the tendency of the last several years has been to take power from Parliament and to concentrate it in parties, or concentrate it in government. When we were the government, as the House knows, we introduced proposals for parliamentary reform which were designed specifically to increase the influence of individual members of Parliament, and consequently to expand both the range of advice available to government, and the respect available to this institution. I would hope that the Prime Minister will recognize that one of the ways to connect the parts of this country to the whole of this country—one of the ways to ensure a genuine sense of the Canadian nation—will be to strengthen the most representative and national of our institutions, the House of Commons itself. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Clark: I said frequently during the referendum campaign that the referendum itself was a question for Quebecers to decide, but that the work of constitutional renewal was the work of all Canadians. Yesterday’s vote in Quebec ended the referendum campaign, but it did not end the demand in Quebec for change; in fact, it reinforced it vividly and reinforced it dramatically. That referendum cannot and should not
262
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
be used to silence the aspirations of Quebecers, for in fact it was an expression of faith and an expression of those aspirations. For the rest of Canada the vote yesterday was an expression of pride and belief in this country in which we can all joyfully share. It represents a demand for change in which Canadians have every reason to join and, indeed, which other Canadians have articulated in other ways for reasons of their own, or reasons relating to their own situations. That result in Quebec should be used, if I might employ that term, not to frighten or divide Canadians, and I am happy that there is no hint of that today, but to unite Canadians in a common determination to build a renewed federation which can make this a stronger country, a richer country, and a better country in years ahead. That common determination, Madam Speaker, exists among Canadians; of that I am totally confident. Indeed, as is so often the case, in a very real sense constitutional renewal is catching up to the attitude of Canadians. Canada already has changed and the people of Canada know it. It has changed for the better in our new strengths and our new maturity. What is demanded now; what is fairly and justly demanded of all of us, particularly in this House, is a political system, a federal system, that recognizes the change that is about us, and shapes that change to the betterment of all of Canada. The vote which took place yesterday, May 20, was but a date in a continuing process. It was by no means an end but a beginning, and now it is up to us in this Parliament and in the Parliaments of the territories and the provinces of Canada to implement the changes which are being sought by Canadians all across this country.
The Constitution
263
Repatriation of the Constitution House of Commons Debates 23 April 1981 32nd Parliament, 1st Session: Volume 9, 9442–9446 Right Hon. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to find the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) involved in debate. He usually comes in when the government is in trouble. I have heard the Deputy Prime Minister speak very aggressively, very much on the offensive and very much on the defensive. I find it very hard to recall a time when his speech was more lined with defensive comments than was the case in the remarks he made in the House today. They have a great deal to be defensive about. We are meeting now at the end of one phase of this debate. I must say for my party that we enter this phase of the debate with some pride, because we have waged a fight which has kept this question Canadian. The plan of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) was to have this measure out of Canada by Christmas, to have it decided in Britain before Canadian courts could consider its legality and before Canadian opinion could consider its propriety. As we all know, this Parliament or this institution exists to enact and improve good measures and to stop or delay bad measures. My party and I are proud of the work we have done in having Parliament delay and improve this resolution. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Clark: It is very clear that this most basic Canadian question about our own Constitution remains in Canadian control today only because the Progressive Conservative party stood and fought in the House of Commons and in the country. We have not yet won the war to protect Canada’s federal institutions, although we have made it possible for that war to be won, but we have demonstrated the strength of Canada’s parliamentary institutions. The government used every available instrument, from media manipulation to dishonesty about our diplomatic exchanges, to bulldoze this measure through. This party, with no help at all from the New Democratic Party, proved that Parliament is strong enough to stop bad measures being forced down the throats of the people of Canada. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!
264
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
Mr. Clark: There is one other aspect of this phase of the debate of which I am particularly proud. At a time when Quebec is questioning whether it can find a full future in Canada, the Progressive Conservative party, whose greatest strength is outside Quebec, defended and argued the cause of Quebec when its own elected members chose to be silent. Quebecers have reason to question the wisdom of trusting the Liberals, but, more important, they have proof now that Canadians other than Quebecers, from Alberta, Ontario, Newfoundland and elsewhere in our Canadian family, share and are prepared to fight for the federal principles which are essential to the survival of Quebec and Canada. The Liberal party may betray Quebec, but Canada will not betray Quebec. [Translation] I deeply regret the discipline which the Liberal party has forced upon the elected members of Quebec who, unfortunately, do not speak on behalf of that province in this House. Only the Liberal member for Montmorency (Mr. Duclos) has had the courage to put the interests of his province ahead of the instructions of his party. Mr. Lalonde: Shame! Mr. Clark: The minister says shame. Indeed it is a shame for the members from the province of Quebec to abandon their electors just as the Liberal members have abandoned the electors of the province of Quebec. What an ordeal for the people of Quebec who see the members they have sent to Ottawa to represent their interest, who see their own members remain silent or behave like sheep instead of rising against a measure which threatens the federal system, a system which is so important for Quebecers and for the province of Quebec. Is it not ironic that all members of the National Assembly decried this measure, that all the provincial parties denounced this measure? And yet the members who were sent to Ottawa to make sure that federalism would enable Quebec to grow within the Canadian family, those members do not utter a single word against a measure which undermines federalism, genuine federalism. [English] I recall that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chrétien) used to entertain
The Constitution
265
thoughts about going to the province of Quebec to win a provincial election. Well, he has done that; he and his Prime Minister, by pushing this measure through, have gone to the province of Quebec and have won an election. They won it for René Lévesque and against Claude Ryan. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Clark: It is well for us to review what is at issue here. This resolution proposes bringing our Constitution home; that is a goal which everyone supports. It proposes a means to change the Constitution when it is at home, and everyone agrees that we need an amending formula, an amending process. It proposes a charter of rights, which all parties in Parliament support. Those are the goals. But the issue is that the government has determined to pursue those goals in a way which ignores Canadian history, which abandons Canadian practice, which may violate Canadian law, and which very seriously threatens the future of a united Canada. The Supreme Court of Canada will decide the narrow legal question, although it is worth noting that the Liberal government tried every trick in the book to keep that Canadian question from going before a Canadian court. The legal question is important and it is legitimate. My colleagues and I are pleased that the government failed in its attempt to deny Canadian courts the right to decide the Canadian legal question. However, the court is only part of the process. The court can tell us whether this resolution is legal according to past law and past practice; but only we in this Parliament can decide whether it is good law and good practice for the future of Canada. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Clark: That is a decision for legislators, not for judges. The Supreme Court will decide whether the federal government now has the power unilaterally to change the Constitution in areas of direct provincial jurisdiction. Our decision in this Parliament is whether we want future federal governments to have that power, for that will be the effect of passing this resolution in its present form and through the present process. The Parliament of Canada will be asserting, as the newest and strongest precedent for future courts, that we have the power exclusively and arbitrarily to change any parts of the Constitution we want to change. That is the underlying principle of this measure and of this
266
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
process, and it rips the heart out of a federal system. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Clark: That is not just my view. That is also the view of distinguished Canadian Liberals, who sit among other places in the Senate, where they exercise more freedom to speak their minds. I want to draw to the attention of the House and read into the record the comments, for example, of the former Liberal leader in the province of Ontario, Senator Andrew Thompson, who said on March 2, 1981: Putting it bluntly and simply, my question is: are we keeping our word; are we breaking the rules by which we agreed to govern ourselves in the federation? No matter how noble and worthy the purpose of this resolution—and I believe that what we are trying to achieve is worthy—the end does not justify the means.
[Translation] Here is what former Liberal minister the Hon. Jean-Paul Deschatelets had to say, and I quote: This unilateral project goes against and negates everything in which I have believed, which I have supported and endorsed in all my years in Parliament. If Parliament agrees that we need an amending formula, an amending formula as it remains in its present form, I shall not be able to support it. In my opinion, this unilateral proposal threatens to break up, for all practical purposes, the balance of powers which has always existed between our two levels of government.
That is the opinion of a Liberal Senator, Mr. Deschatelets. [English] Then I quote the remarks made last month by Senator George McIlraith, who served with such distinction for so long in this House, including as House leader on the government side: I have served in Parliament now for the past 41 years. During that time the governments have been headed by five Prime Ministers. I have been a Liberal all my adult life. All of the political leaders I noted earlier in my remarks were leaders I respected and ad-
The Constitution
267
mired. With the exception of Sir Wilfrid Laurier and the Honourable Hugh Guthrie—whom I merely met but could not say I knew—they were friends of mine. Were they all wrong? Were all the leaders of the Liberal party in the past three-quarters of a century totally wrong, or could it be that our present government is wrong in taking a diametrically opposed course of action to the one all those leaders thought necessary and proper? Could it be that the present government is wrong in this attempt to make these basic amendments to our Constitution unilaterally, with a bare majority in the federal Parliament? I want patriation but I cannot acquiesce in the wrong and dangerous course we are being asked to follow in most of the proposed legislation before us. In the exercise of my responsibilities as a senator, I have no alternative but to vote against this resolution in its present form.
Thus spoke Senator McIlraith. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Stevens: A great Canadian! Mr. Clark: The Prime Minister has not listened to the Liberals in the Senate. He has not listened to the member of Parliament for Montmorency-Orléans (Mr. Duclos). He has not listened to Claude Ryan. He has not listened to Gordon Gibson. He has not listened to the long list of others in his party who are offended by what he is saying and what he stands for. He has not listened to the elected premiers of the eight provincial governments who oppose his measure. He rejected our proposal in the fall to bring the Constitution home with the Vancouver formula. He rejected our proposal to split the resolution and to send the charter to the provinces for consideration. Now he indicates that he will accept none of the amendments we proposed to improve the charter of rights and respect the federal nature of Canada. Instead of treating the Constitution as though it belonged to the whole country, he has acted as though it is his alone, to change in ways that are his alone to choose. Some hon. Members: Shame, shame! Mr. Clark: The Liberal party lets him get away with it, as does the NDP, sitting complacently back while the constitutional measure which is one
268
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
man’s obsession is forced through this Parliament. I do not begrudge the Prime Minister his place in history, but I would like him to leave us a country to live in when he is gone. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Clark: It is that country which his measure and his method deeply threaten. He has one more opportunity now to prove that his concern is for the country and that his motive is national and not merely narrow and personal. [Translation] The Prime Minister now has a chance to do his duty as a Canadian statesman. He has at least six weeks ahead of the Supreme Court ruling, six weeks in which to try to achieve a consensus. Once the Supreme Court decision is handed down and if the latter asserts the legality of the resolutions, at least as far as its format is concerned, the order of the House will provide the Prime Minister with two days of debate in the House, followed by speedy action in the Senate, and this will conclude the consideration of this proposal by Parliament. This time frame has been set, and we accept it. But it also allows the Prime Minister, without any delay whatsoever, to follow up on the premiers’ initiative. In September, the ten premiers made him an offer. He failed to make a counterproposal. There are now eight premiers who are proposing a detailed amending formula. He does not have to accept it in toto. But we consider it a basis for serious round of discussions, in the same way that we consider the government resolution, including the charter of rights with the amendments we propose, as a basis for serious and reasonable discussions. I maintain that the Prime Minister of Canada has the duty to call a meeting and the right to draw up its agenda. Why will he not call such a meeting? Why will he not respect the federal system? What is he afraid of? He has just been rejected by the people of Quebec. Is he afraid to face the Premier who has just served him a good thrashing? The Prime Minister of Canada should not be afraid of such a meeting. If it does not lead to any agreement, he could then follow up on his resolution unless the court finds it illegal. And if there is an agreement on the procedure to follow with respect to a charter of rights, an amending formula, and perhaps the application of Section 133 to Ontario, he and Canada as a whole will have gained enormously.
The Constitution
269
The Prime Minister should put aside his personal vanity and take advantage of this opportunity to gain so much for Canada. He has the absolute obligation to call a first ministers’ conference. [English] We now have before us amendments from the three parties. I want to deal very briefly with the very skimpy amendments put forward by the Liberal party, by the government. Of course, they come in two batches: the official ones under the name of the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard), and the unofficial Liberal amendments in the name of the New Democratic Party. We want to congratulate the NDP on agreeing with our wording on equality for women in the amendment. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Clark: Of course we shall be voting for that, even though it is tied to a so-called “aboriginal rights” clause which merely requires the provinces to approve amendments to aboriginal rights. What of the official Liberal amendments? Because of our assistance and insistence, particularly that of the hon. member for Provencher, they are grudgingly putting the word “God” in the preamble to the charter. Not with the eloquent and inspiring wording from the Diefenbaker Bill of Rights, with accompanying references in that document, but not in this one, to “the dignity and worth of the human person and the position of the family in a society of free individuals and free institutions,” but instead, words inserted as an afterthought. This is what I find especially reprehensible: they are saying we can have a little bit of God if we accept their amending formula. They ask us to join them in making 70 per cent of the people of western Canada—the population of Alberta and B.C.—irrelevant so far as constitutional amendments are concerned. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Clark: They want us to join them in making those provinces third class in exchange for a reference to God. There is a better way to reflect the supremacy of God in the Constitution of Canada, and that is to accept the amendments in the name of my colleague, the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker). That package respects both God and the federal system. That is the way we should proceed in the Canadian
270
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
Parliament. The amendments which we put forward give proper recognition to the sovereignty of God, the worth of the person and, which is very important, the position of the family in a society of free individuals. The government rejects that approach. It rejects enshrining the right of Canadians to enjoy property. It wants to allow the courts to decide conscience questions for Canadians. It wants the courts to be free to bar Canadians from deciding laws on capital punishment and abortion. For months the government has talked about the tyranny of unanimity and has practiced the tyranny of unilateral action. In the amendments we have put forward, we have offered them a reasonable definition of consensus which we would join with them in supporting, a definition which includes seven provinces representing at least half the people of Canada, acting in concert with the Parliament of Canada. But the government is not interested in that. It is not interested because it does not want a Constitution or a charter of rights that anybody but the Liberals write. It deliberately keeps the charter hostage to a divisive process. It is trying to trade off rights for an amending formula. When the eight premiers met in Ottawa they all dropped their packages and their conditions. The Liberal government does not want to drop its conditions. A Quebec government finally agreed to patriation but the government says, “who cares?” The government wants its agenda in its way, in its time. We will have nothing to do with a process of that kind which is wrong. It is a process which is deeply wrong and is deeply divisive. This government’s preference and guiding star is to proceed unilaterally. It rejects proposals which respect the history and nature of Canada. The government invents new phrases to condemn the enduring realty of a diverse Canada. If “checkerboard” means that different standards apply at different times, at different places, that has always been the case in Canada. That, indeed, was the political principle that allowed medicare to begin in this country. The same principle allows Quebec to enjoy a different pension plan, allows Newfoundland to have a school system different from that of British Columbia, and Ontario a system different from that of Quebec. Some of those differences date from before confederation; others, such as the Newfoundland school system, were specific conditions of entry into confederation. Of course there are differences in Canada. That is our history. That is our nature. To condemn it is to condemn Canada.
The Constitution
271
Some hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Clark: Indeed, one of the most alarming elements of this highly centralist Liberal position is the underlying assumption that difference is dangerous. The Fathers of Confederation believed the opposite when they wrote a Constitution which protected local identities. So did the British parliament well before confederation when it wrote laws which guaranteed the distinct identity of the French Canadian society in Quebec. So do those of us who today celebrate the excitement of multiculturalism, which is the incarnation of difference or respect for diversity, or those of us who cheerfully work to learn a second official language. The Prime Minister and his colleagues like to suggest that they speak for Canada against the provinces. In fact, they speak for official Ottawa against Canada. The Prime Minister and the little clique that advises him will sometime learn, I hope, that there is a Canada beyond Ottawa, a Canada beyond official bilingualism, a Canada beyond a charter of rights. It is a Canada of diversity and emotion, of innovation and of proud identities. Those Canadians cannot all be shaped into the same mould. Mr. Speaker, they should not be, because were they so shaped they would lose the essence and value of this great and unique nation. Our speeches are limited to 30 minutes in this debate, but there is one brief theme that I want to touch on because this has been one other common theme in our history. I refer to the need to have a national feeling that unites us. We know that laws are not enough to unite Canadians; there has to be a feeling of nationality. It is one of the most bitter of ironies that the means the Liberals have chosen with which to impose the centralist view has weakened the Canadian feeling of common nationality. A Constitution which should have been the source of Canadians coming together and growing proud together has instead become the source of division in this country. That is entirely the fault of the way in which the government has proceeded. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Clark: When I hear the Prime Minister speak, as he does at length, and when I hear other members on the government side speak, one word recurs and that is the word “failure.” The Prime Minister speaks of 54 years of failure in constitutional negotiations. He speaks of failure with the premiers. Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister can find failure if he seeks it. The point that must be made is that we have also succeeded dramatically in this country. This has been a country of success when
272
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
governments sought success. It has been a country of agreement when governments and leaders sought agreement. We have faced much more complex questions in the past than some of the questions we face today regarding the Constitution. It was a far more complex matter for the Diefenbaker government to negotiate with the Sauvé government, a means by which federal funds could be made available to the province of Quebec. Yet that was done, overcoming decades of suspicion and reluctance, because there was a mutual will to make the federal system work. It was far more complex to introduce and have accepted a system of medicare across the country, but that was done. And the Canada Pension Plan was accepted across the country because there was determination to seek agreement to go forward. Therefore, when the former government in Ottawa was prepared to seek agreement on a national energy policy, we were able to achieve agreement, something which has eluded this government for 22 months. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. McDermid: The Prime Minister laughs. He has not been able to do it. Mr. Clark: There is a secret to this. There is bound to be failure when a government ignores the nature of this country and runs counter to its nature. We have succeeded in Canada when we have respected the nature of Canada. This proposal fundamentally attacks the basic federal nature of Canada. Even if it is upheld in the courts, it will create a legacy of bitterness and division. Mr. Trudeau: What about the flag? Mr. Clark: It is not necessary to go this way. We can bring our Constitution home. We can have a charter of rights. We can have an amending formula, and we can have it by agreement if we work within the Canadian tradition instead of abandoning it and if we follow the Canadian way to agreement. I urge the government to accept those amendments and, just as importantly, to accept the federal spirit which inspires those amendments. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!
The Constitution
273
The Charlottetown Accord House of Commons Debates 16 May 1991 34th Parliament, 3rd Session: Volume 1, 172–178 Right Hon. Joe Clark (President of the Privy Council and Minister responsible for Constitutional Affairs): Mr. Speaker, let me begin by expressing my congratulations to the member for Saint-Maurice and the member for Regina–Wascana for the excellent way in which they began this debate. This session of Parliament will be more important than most, perhaps more important than any before it. During this time, our country will either agree to go ahead or decide to close down. That determines our obligations today. As all the leaders in this House have said, this is not about the preferences of a party or the agenda of a government. The only agenda is Canada. That has never been a partisan purpose before and it will not be now. Those of us sitting here are far from perfect, as individuals or as a Parliament. Whatever our past failings, we are determined that we shall not fail Canada. I understand fully that the non-partisan approach requires the government to involve all of Parliament in basic decisions. That is why the Prime Minister stated explicitly yesterday our willingness to accept sensible proposals from any party or parliamentarian. That is why I began my new responsibilities by reaching out deliberately to Canadians who had felt excluded in the past—native leaders, northerners, western Canadians. We have an obligation to listen, to learn and to lead, and I know we must do all three if we are to succeed. No individual, party or government is going to compel Canada to continue. Canadians must decide whether we wish to keep our country. That is a decision for all of us. Elected members of this House have an extra obligation. We have to ensure that the issues are clear, that the stakes are understood, and that Canadians have the chance to consider every reasonable proposal to renew and to save this country. We will need a lot of help in that work. We cannot lock ourselves into old ways which Canadians no longer respect or trust. Neither should we lightly put aside our parliamentary process which has earned its legitimacy through 124 years of Canadian experience. Parliament needs to be reformed, not abandoned, and on behalf of the government I am prepared to consider any serious proposal any mem-
274
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
ber might make as to how we involve Canadians who are not elected. Involving them does not mean that we should step aside from our most basic responsibilities. None of us would deny that this country is in crisis. This crisis can also be an opportunity, a new beginning, a journey of liberation from the worst of our past and a freedom to build upon the best within all of us. I believe that Canadians across this country are beginning to see it that way too. They are beyond simple despair at how things have gone wrong, and are wondering how to help set things right. This is a time for this country to reflect on our past and get to know it, to reflect on our present and decide how to improve it, and to look ahead to our future to determine how best to achieve it together. [Translation] Mr. Speaker, our plan consists of four separate phases. Phase one is nearing its conclusion. By July 1, we will have received the reports of the Citizens’ Forum on Canada’s Future and the Special Joint Committee on the Process for Amending the Constitution of Canada. Both have done a good job, and the government will examine their conclusions with all the attention and care the views of Canadians deserve. The next step will be the tabling of a set of proposals on how to reform the country. These proposals will be detailed, they will be specific and they will be published. They will not remain in the private domain, known only to a chosen few. All Canadians will know our vision of the future. These proposals will not be final. However, during the third phase, Canadians will have a chance to tell us what they think. A joint committee of Parliament will meet Canadians across the country to hear their views. The committee will hold public hearings, not to discuss the country’s future in general but to discuss specific changes. The committee’s mission and purpose will be clear-cut. It will be asked to consider concrete proposals for constitutional change. It will seek comments from Canadians and make recommendations to the government. The committee will have discussions with committees or similar groups of members of the various provincial and territorial legislatures, on how they will proceed and the witnesses they wish to invite. This will be more than just a matter of joint hearings. It will be a full-fledged association. The resulting dialogue can then be used to build a national consensus.
The Constitution
275
[English] A major priority will be an intensive dialogue with the aboriginal community whose constitutional concerns must be addressed in this committee while simultaneously its economic and social concerns are the subject of a royal commission inquiry. In the final step, we expect Parliament will propose reforms that will set this country on a sound and sure course for the next century. In order to leave open as many options as possible, this House will be asked to pass legislation which would enable the people of Canada to express themselves directly in a referendum. It is not our preference nor is it our intention to seek to resolve complex, constitutional questions by way of referendum but we believe it is prudent for the federal government to have the full authority to conduct a Canadian referendum— Some hon. Members: Hear, hear. Mr. Clark (Yellowhead): —should that become the best way to achieve consensus on defining our future together. We are prepared to consider other methods of consulting Canadians, including any proposals that right come from the mixed committee, the Beaudoin-Edwards committee. I do not believe there has ever been a more open process put in place for the people of Canada to decide themselves the destiny of our country. I wish to turn to some of the tasks which I believe are in front of us in the months ahead. First, this time constitutional change must address several issues simultaneously. This cannot be a Quebec round, an aboriginal round or a Senate round. We have to make progress on many fronts together. This must be a Canada round. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear. Mr. Clark (Yellowhead): Second, we must be guided by a sense of both pragmatism. and history. We want a country that works well and works together in one of the most challenging periods in world history. The only way for our reforms to succeed is to respect the special nature of this country, including the objective reality that Quebec is a distinct society. Third, the country must get to know itself better. The stories which suffuse our history are extraordinary. They are stories of achievement,
276
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
of strength in the face of adversity, of a unity built on diversity. We do not tell those stories so we do not know them. Let us tell them again. Nostalgia will not hold this country together, but knowledge can. We need to know our history, but we also need to get to know each other better. In Yellowknife last week, Mayor Pat McMahon brought a few people together to talk to me about Canada. One woman observed of Canada, and I quote her: “Everybody feels misunderstood.” That says two things. First, misunderstanding is widespread but, second, for most of us the priority is to have others understand us. It is not a one way street. If we want to keep and build this country, citizens everywhere must work at understanding why other Canadians have priorities different from their own. Quebecers must try to understand why western Canadians feel that institutions like the Senate must be changed fundamentally. Western Canadians must try to understand why recognition of a distinct society is so important to Quebec. Those of us whose ancestors came to Canada from somewhere else must try to understand that aboriginal claims are about respect as much as they are about money. Fourth, there is a real desire in this country for information. Canadians want to base their decisions on evidence and not on ideology. They are ready to move beyond accusation to deliberation. They want to know what unity gives them. They want to know what taking away unity would leave. Sometimes I think we talk too much about our differences and too little about our common Canadian citizenship. I celebrate the diversity of this country, but the real strength of Canada is that we have made these different parts work together. That has required a basic respect for others that is not at all common in the world. We Canadians use our gifts of wealth and freedom to advance our neighbours’ interests, not just our own. That sense of duty to a larger community is evident everywhere in Canada. We have to make more of that common Canadian citizenship. [Translation] According to any standard, we, as Canadians, have accomplished a great deal. We are free, we are prosperous, we are tolerant and we are educated. Taken individually, these qualities are exceptional. Together, they have made Canada a country that is both unafraid to tread un-
The Constitution
277
charted paths and that cares for its people. Mr. Speaker, it cannot be repeated often enough that the integrity of Canadian values is part and parcel to the integrity of this country. Canadians did not choose the path of mutual respect because they felt like it but because our diversity implies the mutual respect of our component parts, so that our relations can be peaceful and productive. Canadians did not choose the path of tolerance because it was fashionable but because different cultures must work together if they are to survive. Mr. Speaker, most Canadians have other, more pressing concerns and priorities than changing the Constitution. They have to look after the education of their children, maintain their prosperity and keep their neighbourhoods safe and clean. However, they must also keep pace with the rest of the world. [English] People can unplug their phones, countries cannot. While we are deciding whether Canada should continue, other countries are moving forward without us. What price are we paying for quarrelling at home while others are focusing on the future? What price are we paying while others are preoccupied with innovating, educating, changing and competing? Unlike Peter Sellers’ last movie, countries do not succeed by just being there. I am not saying that Canada should stay together just because some accountant or economist might say it makes sense. Canada is not a corporate merger but being poor is no foundation for doing anything. I do not know of one economic argument which says that being smaller means being better. If there were such an argument, Europe would not be uniting. If there were such an argument, Asia would not be trading. If there were such an argument, Confederation would never have happened. Our ancestors would have seen a better life apart than they found together. If that was the decision in the middle of the 19th century, when the global economy had barely begun, how on earth can it be different now when the global village is at our doorstep, and at our doorstep forever. Whatever the options in the past, whatever the differences Canadians have had, our advantage in the future is to be together as one strong, large, effective country. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear.
278
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
Mr. Clark (Yellowhead): I believe we have time. In 1864, Confederation was constructed in four short months between the conference in Quebec City and the conference in Charlottetown. Although our problems may be more complex, surely we can begin to save a country in the time it took to build one. In 1865, George Brown, one of the Fathers of Confederation made a statement. He had not been a fan of Confederation, but he came to be a convert. He said, and I quote: We are endeavouring to adjust harmoniously greater difficulties than have plunged other countries into all the horrors of civil war. We are striving to settle forever issues hardly less momentous than those that have rent the United States of America, and are now exposing it to all the horrors of civil war. Have we not then great cause of thankfulness that we have found a better way for the solution of our troubles than that which has entailed in other countries, such deplorable results.
Canada is still the better way. The world knows it. Our ancestors knew it when they chose to come here from around the globe. Canadians know it today. It is our obligation to build that better way, not to discard it, knowing the value of our achievement and knowing that we can make it better still. Mrs. Coline Campbell (South West Nova): Mr. Speaker, the minister had a very effective speech. As he put the four stages of the process before us, it certainly cleared up some of the concerns I have and I am sure other people have. Having been on the Beaudoin-Edwards committee and knowing that everybody who came before us said that public participation was critical to the process, I had hoped the minister would come up with proposals that the public would have had a chance to discuss. I will ask about that again in my second question. But from that discussion, a new set of proposals, some reinforced or some discarded, and then more public participation after it had been looked at again. I am wondering if there is to be a two-stage public participation in the process. Second, I cannot believe that we have to wait until September to get the proposals. I think everybody in Canada knows that the Senate and Parliament have to be reformed. The Supreme Court could easily be, by bringing together the provinces to look at it. The distribution of powers
The Constitution
279
does not need unanimity. There was not one expert who said it was the Constitution that was to blame. They said it was the process that was used around Meech. There was not expert who did not point out that we had two amendments since the new Constitution was in place that passed, and only one failed. I just cannot believe, with the government having a majority here and in the Senate, that we cannot get together and reform the institutions within our own jurisdiction this summer. I do not know any Canadians, since I crossed Canada, who felt that we were giving them leadership, from this place down to the people, in the areas we have control over. The other thing is the power of spending. That is something that the government can talk about and talk about immediately. I do not believe that you can roll the dice, come February, to the Allaire or the BélangerCampeau committees and not have time next fall to undo it. I know the feelings out there and I am sure the minister is aware of the feelings right across Canada. There is a hope we can come together in Canada and redefine ourselves but I do think there is a lot that could be done immediately to make that process a lot easier. I am wondering if the minister would tell me why the proposals cannot be done, and some of the things done immediately. Mr. Clark (Yellowhead): There is no question about two realities concerning public opinion: One is that there is a profound cynicism about existing institutions, and each of us will attribute that to different origins, but there is no question about the reality of it. There is also no question about the fact that that, if we simply succumb to it, it is corrosive, that could be destructive of this country. What we have to do is not succumb to criticisms of our institutions but to prove that by reforming them we can make them work better. That cynicism is there and we have to take account of it. The second reality, flowing from the first, is that Canadians very much want to take part. Individual Canadians do, but so do some particular Canadian groups. The hon. member has been engaged in this process more intensively over the last few months than I have been but since any appointment to this portfolio I have, for example, made a point of meeting with native leaders, going to the north and speaking to people who see their interests not simply in terms of their own particular interest, but also in terms of the regions they represent or the groups from which they come. Speaking of public participation, we have two processes that end on
280
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
July 1. The hon. member is part of the joint committee and we have the Spicer committee. There was a lot of skepticism about the Spicer committee but I think that process has engendered a great deal of participation and a lot of originality across the country. Public consultation cannot stop. We all have obligations to carry it forward, and I have to find ways in which some of the work that was started by Spicer can be carried on. It is important that the next phase of public consultation not be about issues in general, but about specific proposals that can put things in a general context of reform. We are not talking here simply about changing institutions within the federal jurisdiction; we are talking about basic changes in Canada, including changes in the way we see ourselves and changes in attitude. There needs to be some over-all context within which we act and we are trying, hoping and expecting to have it ready for the fall. We expect to be able to put before this House in the fall an over-all position as to how these changes which we must pursue together can be put together to advance the country. Then the discussion, the next phase of public participation, will be a phase which will allow individual Canadians to focus specifically upon particular proposals placed in a Canadian context that have been put forward by the government. We will welcome amendments, changes and improvements in that process. We think that is the best way to take account of what is being done now and to ensure that Canadians have a constructive opportunity to help define the future of the country. The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski): The hon. member for Saanich– Gulf Islands. I would like to recognize the hon. member for Parkdale and also the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre and the hon. member for Shefford, but I only have six minutes. Ms. Lynn Hunter (Saanich–Gulf Islands): Mr. Speaker, I want to begin my remarks by congratulating the minister on his appointment to this portfolio and to wish him well. I hope that the esteem in which he is held in this country will bring a resolution. Having said that, he knows what is coming next. The remarks in his speech were well-suited. He talked about reaching out to those who felt excluded, and as a member of the Beaudoin-Edwards committee, that was the over-riding theme. I caution and urge him and all of us to have the political courage as politicians to step back from this issue, look at it and take the condemnation of the Canadian people sincerely.
The Constitution
281
We deserve it. This is a wonderful country we have, and we are at the risk of losing it. As you, sir, know better than most people, we have a wonderful country. People outside of this country are wondering what we are on about here when they are talking about issues of survival and here we are navel gazing. That criticism is real. It is very sincere. Please do not dismiss a constituent assembly made up of politicians and those who have felt excluded. Please do not exclude that option, because that is something that I think is a balance. Please do not exclude that. My second point is with respect to your reference to a Canadian referendum. Referenda have been divisive tools in Canada’s history. My question is: What do you think would constitute a majority? Would Quebec need to have its referendum on the same issue? The west? The north? The aboriginal people? This is the complexity. As one of the witnesses at the Beaudoin-Edwards committee hearings pointed out to the committee, any parliamentary reform is like a Rubik’s cube. You change one thing and the whole thing changes. We in this place have to have the wisdom to be able to see what those changes will bring. Mr. Clark (Yellowhead): Mr. Speaker, first, on a referendum. I have said publicly that in our view a referendum cannot be used to force any group of Canadians to do something that it does not want to do. We are in a situation in which the Government of Canada does not have the legal authority that we require for the kind of consultation that might become necessary as we seek to achieve the broadest possible consensus in the country. We are not introducing it because we intend to use it; we are introducing it because we think we may have need for it and we think it would be prudent to have that in place. With respect to the other question, I agree with the hon. member’s comment about the force of Canadian opinion. I do not intend to reject in advance anything that might be proposed by the Beaudoin-Edwards committee. Here is the challenge that I think we all have to look at in the next little while. We have a parliamentary system. It is heavily criticized, but it has served the country well for over a century. Churchill once called it the worst system of government in the world except for all the others and that reality continues. We have that base. How do we add to that base in this committee process to make all Canadians, particularly people who have felt excluded,
282
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
feel more a part of the process? I have some ideas. Some of the proposals put in the throne speech are regarding working with legislators from the territories and from the provinces. That has never been done before. That is an innovation that may be helpful. There are others we are prepared to consider, and I say very sincerely that I would very welcome practical proposals from any member of the House as to means in which we can combine the fundamental nature of a parliamentary committee with the necessity to involve people who felt excluded before.
A Man of Parliament Selected Speeches from Joe Clark
Edited by Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
Queen’s Policy Studies Series School of Policy Studies, Queen’s University McGill-Queen’s University Press Montréal & Kingston | London | Ithaca
Copyright © 2019 School of Policy Studies, Queen’s University at Kingston, Canada
School of Policy Studies Publications Program Robert Sutherland Hall 138 Union Street Kingston, ON K7L 3N6 www.queensu.ca/sps/ All rights reserved. The use of any part of this publication for reproduction, transmission in any form, or by any means (electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise), or storage in a retrieval system without the prior written consent of the publisher— or, in case of photocopying or other reprographic copying, a licence from the Canadian Copyright Licensing Agency—is an infringement of the copyright law. Enquiries concerning reproduction should be sent to the School of Policy Studies at the address above.
Library and Archives Canada Cataloguing in Publication Title: A man of Parliament : selected speeches from Joe Clark / edited by Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon. Other titles: Speeches. Selections Names: Clark, Joe, 1939- author. | Rose, Jonathan William, 1964- editor. | Mellon, Hugh, editor. | Queen’s University (Kingston, Ont.). School of Policy Studies, publisher. Series: Queen’s policy studies. Description: Series statement: Queen’s policy studies series | Includes bibliographical references. Identifiers: Canadiana (print) 20190120576 | Canadiana (ebook) 20190120797 | ISBN 9781553395164 (pbk.) | ISBN 9781553395447 (HTML) | ISBN 9781553395454 (PDF) Subjects: LCSH: Clark, Joe, 1939- | LCSH: Canada—Politics and government—1945-1980. | CSH: Canada— Politics and government—1979-1980. Classification: LCC FC625 .C58 2019 | DDC 971.064/5—dc23
Contents Note Acknowledgements Introduction
vii ix 1
Chapter 1 Milestone Speeches
23
First Speech as a Member of Parliament
26
First Speech as Prime Minister
31
Last Speech in the House of Commons
45
Chapter 2 Economic and Energy Policy
55
Energy Supply
57
Energy Policy Security and National Interest
67
Chapter 3 Federal-Provincial Relations
77
Building a Nation (Community of Communities)
80
Federal-Provincial Consultation on Energy Policy
83
The Export Tax
86
iv
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
Jurisdiction around National Parks
92
Regional Identity and Community Newspapers
95
Chapter 4 Parliamentary Supremacy
99
Parliamentary Reform
102
Powers of the Prime Minister’s Office
112
Economic Policy and Parliamentary Supremacy
120
Parliamentary Sovereignty and Powers of the Prime Minister
135
Multiculturalism and Accountability to Parliament
141
Partisan Uses of Public Money
143
Chapter 5 Foreign Affairs
151
Apartheid
154
Canadian Institute for International Peace and Security
158
The Invasion of Kuwait
171
Cambodia and the Khmer Rouge
180
The Aftermath of the Gulf War
184
Tiananmen Square
190
Panama
196
Chapter 6 Indigenous Relations
203
The Indian Act
205
Indigenous Affairs and the Constitution
210
Recognition of Aboriginal Rights
216
Contents v
Chapter 7 Openness
223
Secrecy in Government
225
Access to Information
230
Appointment Process for Civil Servants
231
Chapter 8 The Constitution
235
The Patriation of the Constitution
238
Meech Lake Accord
250
National Unity and the Quebec Referendum
256
Repatriation of the Constitution
263
The Charlottetown Accord
273
Note All author’s royalties earned from the sale of this book will go to King’s University College’s Hugh Mellon Excellence in Research Award. To learn more about it, see https://www.kings.uwo.ca/research/hughmellon-excellence-in-research-award/
Acknowledgements This book began as a conversation between the late Hugh Mellon and me about the ways in which the Conservative Party of Canada (CPC) had abandoned its Red Tory roots since Joe Clark was its leader. Encouraged by Arthur Milnes, a former student of Hugh’s and editor of other volumes of political speeches, we sought to take another look at the at the speeches of Joe Clark, a vocal and clear advocate for a progressive conservatism. Doing so was a bit of a formidable task as Clark’s public service spans more than thirty years. While he was prime minister for only a small part of that, he has been intimately involved in many important debates about Canadian identity, foreign relations, the constitution, the Conservative party and the importance of parliament. The title of this volume, A Man of Parliament, alludes to the significance that Clark placed on parliament as a deliberative body where issues of national importance could be discussed and resolved. There have been many people who have been crucial in seeing this book come to fruition. The driver of the project was Hugh Mellon, whose untimely death in 2014, resulted in an inevitable delay in the project. Hugh was passionate about the book and its importance to marking the evolution of the Conservative party and was eager to chronicle the important voice of Joe Clark in parliament. Since his death I have been fortunate to have the support of many who have helped make this book a reality. Eric Macpherson’s work early on supported the project as a summer research assistant at Queen’s. Eric contributed to the chapter introductions and was important in giving shape to the choice of speeches in this volume. Patricia Mockler’s editing and research skills were helpful in the final stages of the project. Kim Richard Nossal, general editor of the Queen’s Policy Series, has demonstrated infinite patience in seeing the book to its completion through nudging and cajoling in the right balance. I am appreciative of his support throughout. Special thanks to Anne Holley-Hime whose eagle-eyed
x Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
copyediting skills improved the presentation and flow of the text. While the book has benefitted from the guidance of many, none of the above are responsible for any omissions or errors. Many people have given generous financial support to the project. Thanks go to Sean Adams, Bruce and Andrea Alexander, Joan Andre, Ron Atkey, Scott Brison, Jean Charest, Mary Collins, David Crombie, John C. Crosbie, Michel De Salaberry, Paul Evans, Roy Everest, Corinne Fontaine, Paule Gauthier, V. Peter Harder, Thomas Hockin and Arlene Strom, Colin Jackson, Peter Milliken, David Mitchell, Reid Morden, Lowell Murray, William Neville, Roy Norton, John Rae, Alan Sullivan, Scott and Taryn Tanas, William Winegard. Also, special thanks go to Hugh’s siblings, Beth Mellon, James Mellon, and Mark Mellon for their generous support. Most importantly, sincere thanks to the Rt. Hon. Joe Clark and Maureen McTeer for their encouragement and support of this collection.
Introduction This volume is a testament to the steady voice of Charles Joseph Clark on many of the issues that still echo in Canada’s parliament. Through his thirty years on both the opposition and government benches, Clark took on challenging issues and articulated a clear and consistent vision of how Canadian politics should look. He has been one of the few participants who, in his time in parliament, has occupied virtually every role in that chamber. He has been a backbench MP, shadow cabinet critic, cabinet minister and of course prime minister. At the time of his retirement, he was the elder statesman of a party that he nurtured and fed but which had abandoned him and many of the moderate progressive causes for which he fought. The issues that this volume addresses are broad and significant ones that go to the heart of our parliamentary democracy and, indeed, our political community. These include questions about the accountability of government, the appropriate balance between openness and transparency on one hand and national security on the other, and the power of the executive vis-à-vis the role of parliament. As an Albertan from the often-alienated West, Clark maintained that it was important that this “forum of the nation” remain the central institution for the voice of all Canadians and that it address pressing issues of the day. In the face of the expanding power of the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO), Clark sought to ensure that the executive remain accountable to the legislature, in accordance with the principles of responsible government. As parliament was and is the only place from which every region in Canada has the opportunity to voice its concerns, it was imperative to Clark that the increasingly powerful executive branch be held in check. He sought to ensure that the executive could not run roughshod over other branches of government or the people. Clark aimed to decentralize power, from the hands of the few, such as the PMO, to the hands of many, as embodied in parliament. Though an ardent federalist, Clark A Man of Parliament; Selected Speeches from Joe Clark, edited by Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon. Montréal and Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press, Queen’s Policy Studies Series. © 2019 The School of Policy Studies, Queen’s University at Kingston. All rights reserved.
2
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
also fought to ensure that Canada remained a decentralized democracy in which the federal government remained strong but was held in check by regional centres of power. The collected speeches in this book attempt to highlight Joe Clark’s diverse perspectives through his own words in parliament. While Clark’s fingerprints can be seen on a diverse array of policy areas, we focus on areas where his legacy is most significant. Having said that, this collection does not seek to be comprehensive; it is almost impossible to provide such a collection for a man who has devoted decades to public service. The collection contained herein instead provides a glimpse into Clark’s legacy, his achievements, and his thoughts. It is divided into eight chapters, each of which embody either important policy preoccupations or political ideals that were central to Clark’s vision and career as a politician. Throughout this collection, there is a clear thread that unites Clark’s thought. He has a deeply held passion for parliament and the importance of representative government. Clark’s views stand out in an age of widespread cynicism toward government and the capacity of the state. He has a positive and progressive view of the role of the state and sees the importance of government institutions as a pro-social force in society. Though he is still a conservative at heart, evinced by his belief in smaller government, privatization and government-as-facilitator instead of government-as-planner, Clark saw government as a net positive force in the economic and social lives of Canadians. This fact placed Clark firmly within the “Red Tory” camp on the progressive wing of what was then the Progressive Conservative Party. This orientation would put him at loggerheads with other Canadian conservatives towards the end of his career, when, after a long hiatus from power, Canada’s right began to cast around for new methods to remove Liberals from their perch as the “natural governing party.” Like all of us, Clark is a product of his family life, interests and preoccupations, successes and failures. In this introduction, we introduce Joe Clark and learn about some of these influences. Clark’s Early Life Charles Joseph Clark was born to Grace and Charles Clark on June 5th, 1939 in High River, Alberta. Charles owned the High River Times, a local daily in the small prairie town. Clark Jr. worked for his father at the paper (Humphreys 1978, 19–20) where he gained early mentorship about
Introduction
3
the power of the written word and the importance of the media as a platform for the resolution of public conflict. Journalism would remain important throughout the rest of his life; Clark would go on to be an editor and writer for both his high school and university student newspapers. Clark was also a frequent contributor to national newspapers, like the Globe and Mail, and frequently commented on public issues of the day (Humphreys 1978, 22). This experience would serve him well when he landed a job as a speechwriter for Progressive Conservative leader Robert Stanfield, a role which would be a launching pad for his political career. Though he himself asserts that he was not motivated by dreams of high office as a youth (Humphreys 1978, 22), Clark was politically active. While other teenagers engaged themselves in extracurricular activities like athletics or artistic pursuits, Joe Clark’s favourite pastime was PC party politics, a subject he alludes to in his last speech in parliament (see page 45). Clark continued his involvement with the Progressive Conservatives during his undergraduate years, joining the PC’s student group at the University of Alberta. In addition to this, Clark became involved very early on with the official party’s work; he volunteered as a canvasser and drove candidates to speaking engagements around Alberta. For many people, an attachment to politics is a consequence of a formative event that leaves a significant impression. Clark’s interest in politics was solidified when he won a public speaking contest organized by the Rotary Club branch in High River and was offered a trip to Ottawa to observe a session of the House of Commons. On the trip, Clark had his eyes opened to the rough and tumble that is parliament, which would later be so central to his life. It was the 1950s, the time of the contentious pipeline debate between the Louis St. Laurent Liberal government and John Diefenbaker’s Progressive Conservative Official Opposition. The PCs were worried that the majority involvement of American capital, as well as some of the planned destinations (in, for example, Minnesota) would undermine Canadian sovereignty and control over the pipeline. In response to these concerns, the St. Laurent government decided to invoke closure on subsequent expected debate time in order to force a vote and ensure passage of the bill. The young Clark saw this as a grievous overstep of government authority. It shocked him so much that when he returned home to High River he would declare to his mother “we no longer have democracy in Canada.” (Humphreys 1978, 19). This event would shape Clark’s political activism, demonstrated in his propensity to fight for the underdog, not
4
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
just in government, but in other areas of life as well. This meant fighting for small business against the large, and for restraint in government to ensure a balance between large cities like Toronto or Montreal and the small. This appreciation for small communities, which he said “remain the bedrock of this country” (Humphreys 1978, 244), was a natural consequence of his time growing up in small town Alberta, at “the crossing” of High River. Without overstating its importance, the lessons drawn from this first visit to parliament would resonate throughout Clark’s career. He was constantly fighting for balance, to ensure that smaller or more marginalized parts of society were empowered. The best example of this can be seen in his views on federalism and federal government relations with the provinces. Clark, like many Canadians, saw Canada as a mosaic of peoples and cultures which together were more than the sum of their parts. He was a believer in the principle of subsidiarity before it was a common idea to those interested in federalism. This principle states that local and regional governments should remain powerful vis-à-vis the federal government because they are in a better position to understand a community’s unique needs. This principle requires that the different narratives among provinces or regions be told as part of the bigger story that is Canada. In this way, the varied and diverse groups that make up this nation would not chafe under the pressure of a single narrative imposed on them by a misguided federal government. Allowed their differences and empowered to develop in their own way, the constituent parts of this country would then voluntarily remain part of Confederation and would be less likely to be stifled by an overbearing federal government. Later, in response to the “national unity” debate that was raging during Pierre Trudeau’s era, Clark proposed acceptance and tolerance of differences along with empowering communities so as to ensure equality among them. Given this position, it was then more likely that each would remain an enthusiastic member of Confederation. The idea of differences leading to equality was one of the foundations of Clark’s belief in the virtue of decentralization. In order to live together, we must first accept that we are not all the same. And in accepting that, might begin voluntarily to work together to build Canada. In his words it is evident that though he was a de-centralizer, Clark was also a staunch federalist. The first manifestation of Clark’s interest in party politics occurred when he was a student. As in much of his career, Clark took off like a rocket. Clark became president of the Young Progressive Conser-
Introduction 5
vatives during his time as an undergrad at the University of Alberta. During this time Clark became enamored with the then-leader of the Progressive Conservative Party, John Diefenbaker, who was also the first prime minister of non-English or French heritage. Clark saw “The Chief” as a revivalist, not unlike those evangelists who would occasionally come rolling into High River from across the Prairies. Clark hoped that Diefenbaker’s success could be repeated at the provincial level and lead to a defeat of Earnest Manning’s Social Credit government. Alberta was locked in a long embrace of Social Credit rule, in part because this small-c conservative brand of populist politics suited most Albertans’ views of the world. Though immersed and shaped by this political culture, Clark sought to find a way to challenge the status quo at the provincial level and unseat the permanent fixture that the Social Credit government had become. From this we begin to see an early foreshadowing of Clark’s political beliefs. His was a fight against the long-standing, entrenched authority of the Social Credit government and the abuses that arose from it. Whether it was the fight against the thirty-year Social Credit regime in Alberta, or the Trudeau Liberals who had been in power for eleven years before the federal election of 1979, Clark fought to ensure that governments remained dynamic, attentive to citizens and appreciative of the trust citizens placed in it. Early Parliamentary Career Clark was elected to the House of Commons for the first time in 1973 as member of parliament for the newly created Rocky Mountain riding. It was during this time that he began to develop certain principles that would define him for the rest of his parliamentary career. From his first speech (page 26 of this volume) we see themes that would shape his Red Tory credentials. In it, we see Clark criticize the Trudeau government for programs aimed at employing youth. Clark believed that the problem of youth unemployment was not the fault of young people themselves but was the result of inadequate government programs that failed to assist youth in areas where they actually needed help. Clark was not criticizing the existence of a government assistance program but instead focused on how it was being executed. Not surprisingly, youth would be a common theme on Clark’s road to the Prime Minister’s Office. It would serve him well too, for it was during his first session of parliament that R. L. Stanfield, the leader of the Progressive Conservatives at the time, would appoint Clark the chair of an opposi-
6
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
tion caucus committee on youth. Clark’s Albertan roots would have a profound impact on his politics, specifically in his fight to ensure that provinces were well heard in their relations with the federal government. For Clark, influenced by his days working at his father’s newspaper, local institutions were of paramount importance. This was because Clark saw small businesses, service groups, and other institutions as intimately connected to the people. Though this most often manifested in advocating for the rights of the provinces and territories, Clark did not forget the municipalities and towns for which he felt an affinity. For example, his Rocky Mountain riding contained within it both Jasper and Banff national parks, both of which contained “townsites”—small towns that were permitted in the park subject to more extensive development restrictions because of their locations. Interestingly, because of their location within a national park, these townsites were under the direct jurisdiction of the federal government, to which the residents had to appeal if they had a problem (Nolan 1978, 91). This is unlike every other town in this country, which has a municipal government chartered by their respective provincial government. This means that if residents of Jasper or Banff have grievances, they must take them to the federal government, which in the local sense was represented entirely by Clark in his constituency office. Knowing this, he fought tirelessly to ensure that his constituents were not ignored or lost in the bureaucratic web of federal departments in Ottawa. This form of intra-federal representation was not something that Clark reserved for his own riding and province. Such was his belief in the local, and the dignity of Canada’s subnational political units that he often spoke in defence of the powers of such units and groups in relation to the federal government. Clark’s belief in the necessity of equal federal-provincial relations made it a common theme of his speeches during his tenure as a member of parliament. This volume contains several speeches that touch on this theme. The vigour and youthful voice that characterized Clark’s speeches caught the ear of the party establishment. It would be less than three years from his first speech in the House of Commons that he would be elected leader of the Progressive Conservative Party and step into the limelight to take on the juggernaut that was “Trudeaumania” in its twilight years. Party Leader and Opposition Leader From his first election victory in 1973 to being sworn in as prime min-
Introduction
7
ister in 1979, Clark’s political ascendency was impressive by any measure. A mere six years had passed from the time he made his first speech as a backbench MP from Alberta on July 23, 1973 to his first speech as prime minister on October 10, 1979. In this short time, Clark rose from the bottom to the apex of Canadian federal politics. This rapid ascent had its downside as well though. Clark reached the summit so quickly that he was largely unknown to a large portion of the Canadian electorate, something the Canadian media exploited mercilessly. Emerging from the backrooms of the party and suddenly catapulted into the national limelight, Joe Clark became known, rather derisively, as “Joe Who?” It would also be inevitable that Clark was compared to Trudeau whose presence had dominated the national stage for so long that Canadians may have come to expect their politicians to dazzle in front of the television cameras and socialize with movie stars. Clark may have appeared stolid and dependable but lacked in charisma when compared to Trudeau. It was no longer enough to be a party apparatchik who could control the diverse elements of the political and parliamentary party in order to ensure political success. If one wanted to be successful, one had to win over the mass media and public opinion. It is, then, perhaps most fitting that this era of Canadian politics was named for its flashiest of practitioners. Into this never-ending spotlight would step Clark, who despite his young age would have to command the presence necessary for the country to be able to see him as prime minister. This was especially important, as this was the time when the twenty-four-hour news cycle was beginning. Leadership changed when television was introduced in the House of Commons Question Period debates in October 1977 (Nolan 1978, 91). From then on, everything parliamentarians said would not only be recorded into Hansard, but also by the unblinking eye of the TV camera and then reproduced on the nightly newscast. This was the beginning of the era of sound bites and constant analysis that is a staple of life today. It then makes sense that the Conservatives, needing to maintain relevance among new Canadians and non-traditional supporters, would lean on a young up-and-comer to widen their party’s appeal among younger voters. Who better to foster support among youth than the man from High River, who had been fighting for youth issues since his very first speech in the House of Commons? Joe Clark was elected leader of the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada on February 22, 1976. Like his elevation to the office of prime minister, Clark, at 36, was the youngest person ever elected as the lead-
8
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
er of a major federal party. His leadership victory came as something of a surprise as he was widely considered “everyone’s second choice.” Being palatable to other candidates’ supporters would prove to be a significant advantage for him. When other candidates (notably Flora MacDonald) did not perform as expected in early ballots, they threw their support behind Clark. By the fourth ballot, the contest stood between Clark from the Red Tory wing of the party and Claude Wagner, a former Liberal minister who nonetheless was a favourite of the party’s right. This victory came at a watershed moment in the Progressive Conservative Party. Having been out of power for thirteen years at the time of Clark’s election, the PCs needed to find a way to stay relevant as an alternative government to the Liberal Party. In choosing the young westerner with Red Tory leanings over the French-Canadian Wagner, the party was angling to beat the Liberals at their own game, narrowing the already thin ideological differences. Noting a truism known to students of Canada’s brokerage politics, Clark once admitted that the Liberal and Progressive Conservative Parties were more similar than different. Viewed in hindsight, Clark’s victory allows us to examine how far Canada’s current brand of conservative party has moved away from its Red Tory roots. The term “Red Tory” connotes someone who was conservative on fiscal issues while holding progressive social views and believes in a positive role for the state in national life. Some examples of this include Clark’s views on the rights of Indigenous peoples in Canada or his progressive views on gender and politics. Being labelled as such was not without risk. Throughout his campaign to become the leader of the Progressive Conservative Party, Clark and his campaign staff often had to field questions about whether or not “Red” actually meant Communist (Nolan 1978, 63–71). This was especially true in his home province of Alberta. Though it may seem odd for us today to imagine a conservative leader having to address charges of latent communism, it does help to illustrate the political context within which Clark was working to prepare his party to form a government. As any good Opposition leader does, Clark immediately began prepping his party to take over the reins of power. As his experience was primarily in the backroom organizational aspects of the party, he used his newfound power to reorganize the party to better reflect his commitments to diffuse power (to a point) and create greater openness in government. This notably included several novel innovations to allow for more open and robust caucus meetings to better facilitate internal
Introduction
9
party debate. He also expanded his staff in the Opposition office to better prepare both himself and his caucus for their new role as Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition. This was again illustrative of the general current of change that was occurring in the organizational aspects of Canadian parliamentary politics across the board. While Robert Stanfield, Clark’s predecessor, had a staff of fifteen people during his time as opposition leader, Clark surrounded himself with a staff of forty people, which was comparable to the size of the PMO during the Pearson government. This, however, paled in comparison to the eighty-six people who worked in the Prime Minister’s Office during the Trudeau years (Nolan 1978, 63). Clark would regularly use his allotted time in Question Period to remind Canadians of the Trudeau government’s increasingly centralized practices regarding the power of the PMO. For Clark, Question Period is one of the most important parts of the parliamentary calendar and integral to responsible government. As he is fond of saying, parliament is the only place where the entire nation gathers to discuss the business of the day. For him, the daily Question Period in parliament provides one of the only occasions when elected representatives can directly question the government and hold it to account. Parliament, as the supreme political institution in Canada has the right and obligation to question the executive. In that role, Clark was very effective in Question Period earning the grudging admiration of opponents throughout his parliamentary career (see the tributes to Clark on the occasion of his last speech, in the next chapter). While in Opposition, he would use his time and questions to ensure that the Trudeau government was held accountable and responsible to parliament, a tradition that he continued to respect while on the other side of the House. Prime Minister Clark’s victory in 1979 may have come as something of a surprise to many Canadians. Reflecting a truism in politics, Warner Troyer writes in his Two Hundred Days: Joe Clark in Power, that “the Liberals had not been defeated, but the Tories had been elected” (Troyer 1980, 7). Despite their victory, the Conservative’s new place at the centre of power had not unseated the Liberals from their status as a national preoccupation. As is often the case with governments that had been in power a long time, it was not so much as an endorsement of the new government as a repudiation of the old. After all, it had been eleven years since the
10
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
election of the first Trudeau government and sixteen years since the last Conservative government under John Diefenbaker from 1957 to 1963. If a week is a long time in politics, it had been a veritable lifetime since the last Conservative government. After twenty-two years of Liberal rule, it was not a surprise that change was in the air. It would turn out that this was more of a time out for the Liberals than a vote of confidence in the Progressive Conservatives. The composition of the House reflected this. On the government side were 136 Progressive Conservative members compared to the Opposition which would have spilled over on the government side with 114 Liberals, 26 New Democrats and six members from Clark’s old provincial rivals, Social Credit. In order to maintain confidence of the House, the new prime minister would have to court at least one other opposition party to support its government. The most obvious allies were Social Credit MPs, who shared both Clark’s Western roots and small-c conservative sensibilities. This, however, was a case of easier said than done, as Clark would enter a parliament in October that was not willing to extend the new government a traditional honeymoon period. The fledgling minority government had to prove itself quickly, but it did have one thing on its side. Clark and the PCs were presented with a golden opportunity because Trudeau announced his retirement as Liberal leader. This meant that the new government would have known that the Opposition would be in the throes of a leadership contest and have their attention elsewhere. The common wisdom said that the Liberals would not risk defeating the government and contesting an election without a leader, so it was full steam ahead, or so it seemed. Clark and his cabinet used the summer break to plan what they assumed would be a long-term government and sweeping policy changes. After the election, Clark invited his presumptive cabinet to Jasper to begin planning how they would approach the coming parliamentary session and to introduce his style of leadership to his neophyte cabinet. Given his view on the centrality of parliament to Canadian political life, it made sense that Clark was going to ensure that they would take the time necessary to ensure a well-forged sense of Cabinet solidarity. The speech from the throne would chart the ambitions of his government, focusing on reforming parliament, shrinking government but also making it more transparent through more liberal access to information law and for all that to happen the newly minted two-tiered Clark Cabinet retreated from the battle lines of Ottawa to Jasper, Alberta to plan the government’s campaign.
Introduction 11
One of the first issues that the government would have to wrestle with was determining what kind of conservatives they were. The PC caucus comprised business conservatives who wanted the state out of the pockets of citizens, Red Tories who believed in a positive role for the state, and western populists who were skeptical of the influence that central Canada had in the federation. This was at the time of Margaret Thatcher’s conservatism and while it was clear that the newly installed PC government would not be the same, it was not clear how to communicate that. The privatization of the state-owned oil and gas company, Petro-Canada provided an opportunity to tell Canadians what kind of conservatives they were. Clark knew he needed make some sort of gesture to his home province, where “Petro-Can” was seen as a symbol of Trudeau era excess and government regulation. Additionally, Clark, though still a Red Tory, saw this Crown corporation as an overreach by the federal government into what should be a provincial matter. Therefore, Clark was on the hook to, at the very least, attempt to dismantle Petro-Canada to demonstrate his commitment to a campaign promise. Oddly though, with his Cabinet now safely away from Ottawa, the symbolism of the policy became the primary issue (i.e., what word should be used to describe the process of privatization). Though of course wanting to privatize the corporation, Clark was concerned with appearing too heavy handed. A Cabinet debate ensued and it was decided that it would be better not to mince words. Privatization was what was being pushed for so privatization was the word that would be used (Troyer 1980). Politicians in an electoral democracy must at times do things that keep the party base happy and committed. This becomes especially difficult in Canada as the two major parties are brokerage parties and as such, have bases that include very diverse and often conflicting interests. Clark, as a conservative politician, had a base that included conservative religious voters. As a play to his more religious pro-Israeli base, Clark believed that moving the Canadian embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem would be a clear way to show his commitment to a promise made on the campaign trail (Flicker 2002). In addition, it was a way to solidify his base in the run up to the next election. Canada’s Jewish population has historically favoured the Liberal Party. As a Red Tory on the left of the party, Clark needed to carve some of this support off for his own party and demonstrate his conservative bona fides in his ardent support for the state of Israel. Unfortunately, it was a plan that would backfire with grave consequences.
12
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
From the first day after being appointed prime minister, Clark experienced pressure from both pro-Israel and pro-Palestine groups. The Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) dubbed the move “an act of aggression.” The Canada-Arab Federation called the policy “a declaration of war” against the world’s 900 million Muslims (Flicker 2002). As well, Canada’s business community was up in arms over the export business they were likely to lose in the face of a pro-Palestinian boycott of Canadian products as well as damage to the value of the Canadian dollar. The senior civil service also expressed strong reservations. Notwithstanding all of this, Israeli Premier Menacham Begin, looking to confer increased international recognition of the post-1967 status quo, pushed Clark to stay the course. This pressure resonated with Clark in his determination to not be labelled weak. His new Foreign Affairs minister Flora MacDonald restated to the press that the embassy would be moved. This imprimatur by the minister meant that the issue was front-and-centre in public debate from the time that Clark took office when parliament resumed in October. Clark, seeking legitimacy of the policy, enlisted the respected former leader, Robert Stanfield, to recommend one path or the other. Hoping to buy some time and bring in the policy when the Liberals were selecting a new leader, Clark set a timeline for Stanfield to deliver the report sometime in 1980. Upon his return from the Middle East, Stanfield urged the prime minister to decide now, as the Arab states would not discuss anything else until the embassy question was put to rest. Bowing to public pressure and with the recommendations in hand, Clark backtracked on his original position when asked by Leader of the Opposition Trudeau about the fate of the embassy. Clark stated, “the Canadian embassy will stay in Tel Aviv” (Flicker 2002). While it may have made good policy sense, the optics around this were terrible. He was forced to backtrack on a committed policy, which was seen as purely vote-seeking in the first place and his reluctance to make good on the issue did not help create the “open” government Clark wanted to create. Moreover, it reinforced the belief that the new government did not have a steady hand on the levers of policy. The Opposition smelled blood and were willing to take advantage of what they perceived to be a government that could be defeated with impunity. The long recess of parliament and the stumbles that occurred while away encouraged New Democratic Party (NDP) leader Ed Broadbent to bring a motion of non-confidence before the House of Commons. A proposed gas tax of 18 cents per gallon gave the NDP the
Introduction
13
perfect cover and they knew they could count on the five Social Credit MPs to not support the government. Two days after Finance Minister John Crosbie delivered his first budget in December 1979, the government was defeated in parliament on a vote of 139 to 133. Ever the parliamentarian, Clark rose in the House to say, “The government has lost a vote on a matter on which we have no alternative but to regard as a question of confidence. I simply want to advise the House that I will be seeing his Excellency, the Governor General tomorrow morning.” And, with that, seven months into a new government and a House that had only sat for two months, the Clark government went from governing to campaigning for a second chance. The short-lived Clark government and thirty-first parliament of Canada leads one to question what might have been if Clark had been able to maintain the confidence of the House of Commons. Hindsight lends a sort of fatalistic view in some of the analysis of Clark’s time in office. For example, the first chapter of Troyer’s account is called “Jasper: Seeds of Destruction” which gives a sense of the way that some viewed the fate of the government. Troyer gives the impression of a hapless or “blind” prime minister who was careening towards destruction without knowledge. While an easy argument to make, it demeans the accomplishments of the new government. Viewing Clark’s career through the lens of his time as prime minister distracts from his many other accomplishments during his subsequent two decades of leadership outside of the PMO. Though defeated in the 1980 election, Clark would remain in parliament for four additional years as leader of the Opposition before returning to Cabinet as part of the Mulroney government. In this, Clark joins Arthur Meighen as the only prime minister to return to the Cabinet table as a minister after being defeated as prime minister. It’s a hallmark of his tenacity. Clark picked himself up, dusted himself off, and went back to work. Cabinet and the Transition from Wunderkind to Elder Statesman Though political historians may debate whether Clark’s time as prime minister left any lasting legacies, few would deny the significant impact of his work in Cabinet under Brian Mulroney. Clark would represent Canada at international events with authority and domestically he would provide leadership on some of the most fractious and deep issues affecting the federation. When Brian Mulroney won a massive majority in 1984, he knew he would need the voice of moderation and
14
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
experience of Joe Clark and so Clark was at the Cabinet table in both Mulroney governments serving with distinction until 1993. As minister responsible for constitutional affairs, Clark was involved in both the Meech Lake and Charlottetown Accords as the Mulroney government attempted to bring Quebec into the fold through an era marked by contentious mega-constitutional politics. Internationally, Clark represented Canada during some of the most important geo-political events of the latter half of the twentieth century. As secretary of state for external affairs—as Canada’s foreign minister was known before 1993—Clark spoke on behalf of the government on events such as the end of apartheid in South Africa, the Gulf War, and the Tiananmen Square massacre. Following the Tiananmen Square massacre, Clark spoke in support of the student protestors in the need for government institutions to primarily serve and be responsible to the people and their needs, not the other way around (page 190 in this volume). As China continues its global ascendency and questions are being raised about the increased power under Xi Jinping, Clark’s words remain vital and relevant today. Clark’s work in apartheid South Africa to end a racist segregation regime is also reflective of his stance on Indigenous peoples within Canada. Clark, in his own way, was a fierce representative of the right of Indigenous peoples to self-determination, and the need for recognition of that by the Canadian government and society as a whole. The speeches on Indigenous politics (chapter 6 in this volume) are in line with Clark’s desire to represent and strengthen other Indigenous forms of representation. Throughout his involvement on the international stage, Clark understood that Canada had a role to play in international politics despite its relatively small size. Later reflecting on this time, Clark wrote “some countries have much more influence than others … Those are the nations to which others turn when there are difficult problems or challenging issues. Canada—a whole Canada—is one of those countries” (Clark 1997, 186). Clark belonged to what he called an “activist tradition” (Clark 1997, 539) of Canadian international diplomacy. As the “first international country,” Clark believed that Canada had a positive role to play in modern international diplomatic matters because of its positive international reputation and influence in shaping events. This, he believed, was more important and still vital in a world where the economic is seen as more important than overtly “political” action on the international stage. Further, as demonstrated by his speech about the United Nations Security Council resolution that led to the Gulf War (The Af-
Introduction 15
termath of the Gulf War in this volume), Clark was a firm supporter of Canada’s involvement in international organizations such as the United Nations. As he stated in parliament, “[w]hen we look for a noble and far-sighted vision for managing world affairs in what will be a difficult decade and century to come, we can hardly do better than to draw on the vision of the United Nations charter.” At the time of this speech, the Cold War was thawing, and Clark’s speech represented the hope among many that the UN charter would be transformed from a “dead letter” to the collective foundation for international cooperation to meet the challenges of the post-Cold War era. Clark was keen to emphasize Canada’s long involvement in, and building of, the United Nations. From drafting the charter to Lester Pearson and peacekeeping, Canada’s post-war international policy as a “middle power” has been tightly intertwined with the UN. Clark proposed that, at this new step in the evolution of the United Nations, Canada must again be present and strongly involved to create a “renewed United Nations” that was ready for the twenty-first century. What is perhaps most interesting though is how said speech reflects the changes which we have seen in Canadian foreign policy (and mainstream Canadian conservatism in general) since Clark’s era. In other words, Canadian foreign policy has shifted away from support for, and action through, international institutions, to a more bilateral or multilateral approach enacted outside of the UN framework. This shift has included a move away from an emphasis on peacekeeping to more traditional military operations, such as Canada’s involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan. Clark’s speeches, made decades ago, are an important reminder today of a Canadian foreign policy that was more idealistic and perhaps more effective in engagement with the wider world. Closer to home, and no less significantly, Clark was also intimately involved in two of the defining political developments in modern Canadian history. First, was the patriation of the constitution in 1982, an issue he followed and debated since the 1970s. Chapter 8 of this volume has a selection of speeches that detail his views on the constitution and its reform. They span multiple eras and roles for Clark, from his time as Opposition leader, when he debated with Trudeau on the exact structure of our new constitution, to his time in the Mulroney Cabinet, where he worked to convince Quebec to ratify the new constitution. His foresight and vision are again demonstrated in a speech to the House of Commons found on page 238, The Patriation of the Constitution in chapter 8. In it, Clark advocates that the House accept what
16
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
is known as the “Vancouver formula.” This formula contained within it the “7/50 rule” which would eventually become the amending formula that makes up one of the three pillars of the Canadian constitution. In the process of this debate, Clark renews his commitment to a decentralized government, railing against the Trudeau government for their attempts to bypass the provinces and ensure the passage and repatriation of the constitution without their consent or participation. Though Trudeau would be persuaded otherwise, and would eventually include the provinces in the process, a Supreme Court reference was required. In the end, the constitution was brought home in 1982 but the work in making it the unifying symbol it is had not yet been done. The stand of those opposed to the new formula (best exemplified by the dissenting voice of Elijah Harper in the Manitoba Legislative Assembly) would necessitate further work that would outlast the Trudeau government. After his election in September 1984, Brian Mulroney immediately set about finishing the process of constitutional reform begun by the Trudeau Liberals. Mulroney had his hands full in attempting to balance the wishes of the provinces and their diverse interests. Such was the importance of this process to his government that Mulroney appointed Clark to his Cabinet as minister responsible for constitutional affairs. The position needed someone who had authority, experience at intergovernmental negotiation, and who was widely respected. Clark, who at the time had a higher approval rating than Prime Minister Mulroney, was the ideal candidate to be an honest broker between the federal and provincial governments. The final chapter in this volume documents five speeches where Clark, both as Mulroney’s constitutional minister and prior, articulates a strong view of the role that the constitution should play in our political community. Return to Politics Clark left electoral politics in 1993 but returned five years later to lead the Progressive Conservative Party until just prior to its dissolution in 2003. He assumed the leadership of the party after its disastrous electoral showing in the 1993 election in which the PCs won just two seats. Clark’s main political opponents in this era had shifted from the Liberal/NDP-dominated left to newly ascendant parties which were coming from the right of the PC party. These parties, such as the Reform Party/ Canadian Alliance were those that uneasily coalesced within the PC Party but were invigorated by the neo-liberal stream of populist, right
Introduction
17
wing politics that had become increasingly popular in the West at this time. These parties were largely seen as socially conservative, pro-West, and anti-Quebec in their views. At the end of the twentieth century, the right wing of Canadian party politics was fragmenting as two new parties emerged out of dissatisfaction with the governing Mulroney-led PCs. Mulroney had been elected in a landslide victory in 1984, forming the largest majority government in Canadian history (winning 211 of 282 seats). He promised fiscal conservatism, the end of the National Energy Program, and a renewed round of constitutional talks designed to get Quebec to ratify the repatriated constitution. This strategy would prove unstable as westerners became angry at what they thought was too much time and attention given to Quebec. At the same time, many Quebec MPs within the PC caucus felt that Quebec was not being given enough attention. This paradox had reverberations both in and outside of parliament. The growing sentiment of western alienation led to the creation of the Reform Party, a new, more right-wing party under the leadership of Preston Manning and former prime minister, Stephen Harper. Two of its major platform points were the end of the NEP and the creation of a “Triple-E (Equal, Elected, and Effective) Senate.” Within parliament, disgruntled Quebec MPs formed the Bloc Québécois, a sovereigntist party made up of former PC and Liberal MPs under Lucien Bouchard. The Bloc was (and is) devoted to Quebec’s independence. These new parties effectively split the uneasy coalition within the PC party and caused its implosion in the 1993 election when, as mentioned earlier, its seat count plunged to two. The Canadian political landscape had drastically changed. Where there were once two major parties that traded turns in government and a third, social democratic party with little chance of forming government, Canada now had the makings of a true multi-party system. Canada had five major parties spread across the spectrum that represented a diversity of opinions relative to the previous party system. On the right was the Reform Party, supported primarily by western socially and fiscally conservative voters who disagreed with the NEP and the attention given to Quebec. Occupying the centre-right were the Progressive Conservatives, which was at this time lead by Red Tories such as Clark. The centre-left and left of the political spectrum was now occupied by the Liberals, the Bloc, and the NDP (which all advocated social democratic principles but were distinguished by their views on Quebec sovereignty). The Reform Party, though good at translating votes
18
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
into seats because of its regional concentration in the western provinces and the nature of Canada’s first past the post electoral system, found it tough to garner votes east of Manitoba where conservative voters tended to favour the Progressive Conservatives, who dominated the Atlantic provinces, as well as Ontario and Quebec. This base would be destroyed in the next election as Quebec voters would largely swing to the Bloc, giving them fifty-four seats in the 1993 election. The main reason for the Reform Party’s apparent lack of success east of Manitoba was that Canadians from central Canada (Ontario and Quebec) and Atlantic Canada often saw them as too extreme in their social conservatism, preferring the relatively more “progressive” of the two conservative parties (Belanger and Godbout 2009). Recognizing this difficulty and attempting to distance themselves from their negatively perceived image, Reform party leadership attempted a rebranding. This process culminated in electing a new leader and changing the name of the party to the Canadian Alliance. With the Reform/Canadian Alliance and PC parties now splitting the Canadian right, talks of a merger began in earnest in order to avoid vote-splitting and ensure electoral success. Clark was a leader of the anti-merger caucus within the Progressive Conservative Party that supported the Red Tory tradition. Clark believed that a merger with the Reform Party would shift the ideological centre too far to the right for Red Tories such as himself to be welcome. His argument was not successful and the parties merged to form the Conservative Party of Canada. The newly unified Conservative Party formed government at the federal level from 2006 to 2015, after which they were succeeded by a Liberal government led by Justin Trudeau. Stephen Harper’s nine years in office demonstrated that the pro-merger camp was correct about the electoral chances of a merged party. But Clark was also right in that it was not a party that he and the few Red Tories who remained could call home. They sat as Progressive Conservatives until the dissolution of parliament in 2003. When parliament dissolved in 2003, Clark resigned as party leader to be replaced by Peter MacKay, the former minister of justice, who immediately entered into merger talks with the leaders of the newly renamed Canadian Alliance party. The reasons for this merger include political rebranding, access to new political resources and greater opportunity to transform votes into seats in the house. In essence, both parties sought to get away from what they perceived as a tainted brand, viz., Reform being too extreme and PC being not able to deliver the electoral goods. Both parties
Introduction
19
wanted electoral access to regions and voters currently dominated by the other. (The PCs dominated in provinces east of Manitoba as did Reform in the West and BC). Finally, both wanted to ensure that votes received in elections would be easily transferable into seats in the House of Commons. Neither wanted to stay small and with new campaign finance laws now in effect they had the chance to pool their resources. The outcome was the creation of a new brokerage party on the Canadian right that proposed to speak for all Canadians who identify with the moniker “conservative.” The success of this merger at least in electoral terms is undisputed; the new Conservative Party of Canada (CPC) went on to win three consecutive election campaigns. It has also held onto power quite successfully. Under Prime Minister Stephen Harper, the CPC created the longest serving minority government in the history of Canada. This was then rewarded in 2011 with the first Conservative majority government since the Mulroney era. Sensing the profound ideological shift within the Canadian right, Clark took this opportunity to gracefully bow out of electoral politics, deciding not to run for re-election in 2004. Clark’s experience and principled stand as well as his years of service to the Red Tory tradition, that is well enumerated in this collection, serves to illustrate just how far Conservative Party politics had shifted rightward since Clark’s time. Many of the speeches collected here do not fit in the same ideological mold as current Conservatives. Their place in this volume serves as a reminder of a party that may bear the same name but have little in common with the present Conservative party. As Clark said as he exited parliament as an MP the last time, “I’m very troubled by the disappearance of my party.” Conclusion Though only having served as prime minister for about a year (with only two months of that sitting in his beloved parliament) Clark’s political career was foundational in establishing some of the political issues and topics of debate that resonate today. In his brief time as prime minister, his signature achievement was creating the legal blueprint for the Access to Information Act that would be passed by Trudeau early on in his second term. Though his version of Bill C-15 was killed on the order paper with the fall of his government, Trudeau would revive it in essentially the same form when he took part in the grand Liberal tradition of borrowing legislative ideas of those parties not in power. Access
20
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
to information is one of the fundamental tools that Canadians can use to hold their governments to account. While this is a significant policy, Clark’s legacy includes the broad and varied policies he shaped after his term as prime minister. This volume is a testament to that legacy and a kind of conservatism that is no longer evident at the federal level. Clark’s contribution to Canadian political life is broad and deep. He fought for political goals and reforms that we as Canadians are either still debating or (as in the case of Access to Information) take for granted as an essential element of our Canadian political system. His twenty-three years of public service outside of being prime minister are a testament to a man intensely committed to parliamentary debate and the unequivocal importance of the House of Commons. As a conservative, Clark spent his career ensuring that the government remained restrained. Along with his work to ensure representation of lesser heard regions, the equality of the provinces in relation to the federal government, Clark was a stalwart supporter of Canada’s principle of responsible government. Throughout his time as leader of the Opposition, Clark used his position to ensure that the government remained accountable to the people who elected it. He worked tirelessly to counter the concentration of power within the Prime Minister’s Office, as is discussed throughout this volume. Clark worked to ensure that power to deliberate and discuss national issues reside in the parliament which he loved so much as the only “forum of the nation.” This struggle to ensure the diffusion of power among many different nodes is admirable, for as he himself so often recognized, “small is good and worth preserving” (Humphreys 1978). Clark was both our youngest prime minister and one who held power for a very short amount of time. Yet, Clark achieved great things during his years of public service and was involved in the events and debates which shaped politics as we know it today. Despite certain limitations and failures, Clark was still able to accomplish policy and political goals that have become permanent parts of our Confederation, such as the amending formula of our constitution. As we move away from his time in parliament, his reputation has been widely recognized as a voice of reason and compassionate conservatism. This collection is a legacy and reminder of those policies and goals by giving a fresh look at some key speeches of a great Canadian parliamentarian. It also highlights the personal attributes of a public servant who was dogged in perseverance, modest in touting his successes, and
Introduction
21
saw politics as conciliation; some might say hallmarks of a quintessential Canadian. We have compiled some of his words here but perhaps the best way to understand Joe Clark is to listen to him speak. Additional Reading Belanger, Eric and Jean-Francois Godbout. “Why do Parties Merge? The Case of the Conservative Party of Canada.” Parliamentary Affairs (December 2009): 1–25. Clark, Joe. “The First International Country.” International Journal 52 (4) (Autumn, 1997): 539–545. Clark, Joe. How We Lead: Canada in a Century of Change. Toronto: Random House, 2013. Flicker, Charles. “Next Year in Jerusalem: Joe Clark and the Jerusalem Embassy Affair.” International Journal 58 (1) (Winter, 2002/2003): 115–138. Humphreys, David L. Joe Clark: A Portrait. Canada: Deneau and Greenberg Publishers Ltd., 1978. Nolan, Michael. Joe Clark: The Emerging Leader. Don Mills: Fitzhenry & Whiteside, 1978. Troyer, Warner. 200 Days Joe Clark in Power: The Anatomy of the Rise and Fall of the 21st Government. Toronto: Personal Library, Publishers, 1980.
1
Milestone Speeches This book is arranged by theme based on policy areas, but in this chapter we have chosen to highlight three of Clark’s important speeches that were delivered at important benchmarks in his career. The first speech is Clark’s maiden speech to the House of Commons, given on July 23, 1973. Second, is Clark’s first speech to the House as prime minister of Canada, which took place on December 10, 1979. And finally, we have included the last speech Clark gave to parliament on May 13, 2004. Despite the fact that almost thirty-one years separate Clark’s first and last speech, they include remarkably consistent themes. And therefore, more than any other set contained herein, the speeches serve as a fitting overview, and bookends, to the public life of Joe Clark. Clark’s first speech is full of youth, both his relative youth as well as the subject of speech itself. In the early 1970s, hoping to test the talents of their new MP, and wanting to avoid the image of being a party of and for older Canadians, then-leader Robert Stanfield appointed Clark to head youth issues in his shadow cabinet. Wasting no time, Clark got right to work in demonstrating his party’s commitment to youth. At the time of his first speech, youth accounted for half of all those who were unemployed in Canada; youth unemployment was at crisis levels. This first speech established Clark’s Red Tory principles and belief in the capacity of citizens. Read from a contemporary perspective, it was a breath of fresh air to hear to hear a youthful MP extol the virtues of young Canadians. Clark argues that the government’s responses to the crisis of youth unemployment were insubstantial and ill-suited to the problem at hand. He noted that the energies and abilities of Canada’s young were not being harnessed effectively as a consequence of insufficient job opportunities or programs to address unemployment. Clark argued that new programs must be created if worthwhile opportunities were to be made available to channel the eagerness and energy of youth. A Man of Parliament; Selected Speeches from Joe Clark, edited by Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon. Montréal and Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press, Queen’s Policy Studies Series. © 2019 The School of Policy Studies, Queen’s University at Kingston. All rights reserved.
24
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
Fast-forward a mere six years and the fresh-faced youth shadow minister had most definitely stepped from the shadows of those who came before. Addressing the House of Commons following the Speech from the Throne in his first speech as prime minister, Clark laid out the priorities that his government would seek to achieve during its tenure. Speaking of parliament, Clark felt that “this Parliament is not now as strong as it needs to be because too much power rests with the executive of Parliament.” To combat this, Clark proposed several measures that would increase the power of both private members and committees, vis-à-vis the Cabinet. Going so far as to create conditions that “will provide a latitude to private Members of the House of Commons that can be used, if the Members choose, to obstruct all progress here.” In proposing these measures, Clark demonstrated a concern with transparency that would remain consistent throughout his career (this is taken up more fully in chapter 7) Clark hoped these measures would create an atmosphere of openness and accountability, but he would later see what happens when a parliament in a position of power gets “in a mood” as he described the actions of parliament in bringing down his government. Looking beyond the confines of parliament, Clark also proposed a plan of “spending restraint” and privatization that would set the course of federal governments up to the present day. However, this would not be an imposed austerity. Instead, Clark sought an “easing” of federal-provincial relations through such measures as giving coastal provinces access to off-shore natural resources and other agreements. Raising the spectre of the federal-provincial jurisdictional split, Clark set the stage for one of the central parts of what was then and would be on-going constitutional debates about federal-provincial jurisdiction. These debates would not be his to guide from the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO). However, he would remain engaged on the issue for close to twenty-five years after his minority government was defeated. And in a subsequent defeat, Clark demonstrated another worthy aspect of his character. Rising for the last time to address his beloved parliament in 2004, Clark’s last speech to the House of Commons was, in his words, his “least controversial.” However, the context in which he was speaking was certainly not. Five months had passed since the Canadian Alliance Party (formerly known as Reform) and the Progressive Conservative Party had merged to form the new Conservative Party of Canada (CPC). Wary of the direction that this new party was going under the
Milestone Speeches 25
leadership of Stephen Harper, Clark elected, along with two other MPs to sit as under the banner of “Progressive Conservative” for the remainder of the session. Despite having lost his party and place in the political landscape Clark, ever graceful, maintained good humour (at least in this case) and joked of the party’s demise to the assembled members. Perhaps it was the good feelings brought on by nostalgia, tribute and reflection but in spite of all the controversy and political infighting Clark, as seen above and throughout, spoke for parliament one last time. That given the sheer size and diversity of Canada, without strong places in which we could gather, our geographic distance can create social distance. Clark illustrated the importance of gathering places perfectly because for him, parliamentary life was a door to communities and realities he might not have known otherwise. But perhaps most importantly, Clark used his last minutes in parliament to call for a unity of purpose. In his words “Parliament is more than a school. It is the place where everyone in the Canadian community can take action together.” His last speech in this volume follows a different path from the rest of the book. Rather than focus exclusively on his words, Clark’s speech is put in context of the tributes from all parties in the House. In this speech, in terms of presentation and form, Clark’s speech should be understood as a response to the others which precede it but also to highlight the way his long-time adversaries viewed him and his legacy. Having been involved in all aspects of Canadian political life, the high and lows, the harmony and discord, the best and the worst, Clark’s words resonate. Having been a member of parliament in almost all possible capacities in which one could sit in that House, the wisdom he provided was profound. And this is perhaps the usefulness of this chapter. While the remainder of the book goes into more granular detail about the specifics of Clark’s political vision, this chapter allows us to view in broad strokes the vision of a man who devoted his life to building Canada into a strong and unified, yet diverse, imperfect and diverse community.
26
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
First Speech as a Member of Parliament House of Commons Debates 26 February 1973 29th Parliament, 1st Session: Volume 2, 1662–1664 Mr. Joe Clark (Rocky Mountain): Mr. Speaker, it is a great privilege for me to rise in this House. This is virtually my first chance to speak in the House of Commons, although I have had the opportunity to ask one or two questions even though I am not a parliamentary secretary. I have also had the opportunity once to speak briefly in the late show at a time when the House was slightly less full than it is now, if that could be imagined. When one takes his place in this chamber it is with some feeling of trepidation. One cannot help but be aware of the traditions of this chamber, and one cannot help either but be aware that this is one of the few institutions in the country that is capable of drawing together citizens from across a wide and varied land. I just wanted to note in passing how appropriate it seemed to me the other day to hear the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) talking about dinosaurs. That is obviously a subject of natural interest to his party. Indeed, it is difficult to think of any other group in this House which has a greater philosophic affinity to that era, or a better prospect of becoming extinct. It is a remarkable coincidence that whenever the leadership of the NDP encounters a crisis of conscience at home, they suddenly perceive some greater evil at another hand. Faced with the challenge of principle embodied in the Waffle, their leadership conjured up the corporate bum, whom they have now embraced. And now, caught in an alliance, which they consider a lesser treachery than electoral defeat, their leadership has decided that we are dinosaurs. They remind me of the itinerant evangelists we used to get, from time to time, in the towns on the Prairies. They would come in the night, usually having just created their own theology, and proceed to bilk the wealthy widows of the town with promises either of a new cathedral or a new Jerusalem, and when suspicion grew about their purposes, they would suddenly be seized of the great dangers of fluoridation, or Argentina, or some other scare. They usually lasted about five months, these prophets of phony fear, and then were never heard of again. So, in every particular, they remind one of the NDP. On February 15, I asked the Prime Minister what plans his government had to find jobs for young Canadians. He replied with charac-
Milestone Speeches 27
teristic boldness and foresight and said his plan was to wait for the budget. Now, we have the budget and presumably the government’s answer—which is that it intends to do nothing at all to break the pattern which has made Canadians under 24 the chief victims of unemployment in Canada throughout the life of the Trudeau government. The most recent figures for January this year, indicate that a total of 688,000 Canadians were unemployed. Fully 300,000 of those were under the age of 24—almost half of the total number of unemployed in the country and one in nine of the people in that age group who wanted to work. That figure is appalling enough on its own. What is worse is that it is part of a clear and evident pattern that even the government has recognized. The proportion of unemployed in that age group has been rising gradually for several years. But in recent years it has been nearly 45 per cent of the total, despite the fact that many people of that age who might have been looking for work have been drained off into technical schools or CEGEPS, or colleges and universities. There is some indication now that this safety valve is closing, because young people who go into training for better jobs are finding too often that they graduate into unemployment. The result of their diversion is just that they have better skills to waste. That pattern has been clear throughout the life of this ministry. They were warned by the Economic Council of Canada. They were warned by the Canadian Council on Social Development, by the Committee on Youth of their own Secretary of State (Mr. Faulkner), and frequently by editorialists and by spokesmen of this party. Their only answer has been to fake a response. They claim that Opportunities for Youth was created to meet this problem. But Opportunities for Youth last year employed about 3,000 non-students for the summer. If applied today to the January figures, that would amount to the stirring figure of one per cent—a one per cent response—except that OFY does not work in the winter. That is about the only thing that program has in common with the young people it is supposed to help. The government’s only other response to unemployment in Canada, the LIP program, works less well among the young than among other age groups of the unemployed. In 1971–72, 41 per cent of LIP workers were under age 24 but 46 per cent to 47 per cent of the unemployed were under that age. In hard figures, LIP that year created only 37,000 temporary jobs for Canadians under 24 and there are 300,000 out of work today. The more serious fault of the LIP and OFY programs in relation to
28
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
youth employment is that they provide the government with an excuse for doing nothing effective about the problem. LIP and OFY embody a potential for innovation and involvement which is as important now as it was when that principle was introduced into Canadian legislation in the ARDA program. They are important programs. But they are not youth employment programs. Yet every time the statistics are cited in this House which prove that this government’s economic programs are victimizing the young, the government answers by pointing to LIP and OFY. The most innovative aspect of these programs is the use the government makes of them to avoid meeting their responsibility to young Canadians who want to work. In so far as youth employment is concerned, LIP and OFY have been used principally not to innovate action but to avoid it. It is very easy when discussing unemployment statistics to lose sight of the human consequence involved, and forget that each one of these 300,000 young Canadians is a single case of need. One way to gain perspective on the youth employment problem is to realize there are about twice as many young Canadians out of work today as there were in the great depression. Now, if you treat people as statistics, you can say that is not significant, because the work force has grown but if you regard people as people, you might remember the record of personal hardship and bitterness spawned in that period when so many people started what should have been their working lives without work to do. What is particularly cruel about unemployment among the young is that so many young people have no other resources to fall back on and no real preparation for being unwanted as workers. And what is particularly dangerous about unemployment among the young is that the experience and attitudes which young Canadians develop now will last their lifetime. If they are herded into welfare or if they are taught that their energies are unwanted, that will shape their lives and could deprive our nation and themselves of their creative participation. There is another aspect of this question. It is a myth that has grown up, the myth that kids in Canada are lazy. I think that the existence of that myth protects the government against its clear responsibility to take action to end the high and unacceptable rates of unemployment among the young. One of the tragic aspects of this is that the Prime Minister himself has contributed, perhaps not deliberately, to the view that kids in Canada do not want to work when he made his offhand remarks that anyone who wanted work in Canada should go to Thompson, Manitoba or some other distant spot. The people who suffer most
Milestone Speeches 29
from this misleading suggestion are the young people in the country. Prior to those comments, there was some substantial sympathy for the problems of the unemployed young, but that sympathy evaporated when the Prime Minister casually entered the fray. In fact, Mr. Speaker, while the work ethic may not recommend itself to a barefoot boy from Outremont, a study by the Canadian Council on Social Development of young Canadians who applied for social assistance in November, 1971 indicated: The young social assistance applicants who were interviewed have by no means rejected the concept of work and its central importance to their development and self-fulfillment. They do not reject work, they just cannot find any. So long as the government caters or contributes to the opinion that they do not want work, their problems will continue to be ignored.
We are dealing here with a budget, which will do much less than it pretends. It is the budget of a parlour magician, relying on illusion, trying to trick the people who are watching. The minister held out the illusion of using tax cuts to put more purchasing power into the economy, yet in reality the total revenues of the government will be $1.7 billion higher this year than last. He talks buoyantly of creating 300,000 new jobs as he has talked before and failed, yet in reality is accepting unnecessarily high levels of unemployment. He talks about expansion, yet under-stimulates. He worries about inflation, yet has no response except a so-called contingency plan which he proposes to produce like a rabbit from a hat. What is wrong with this budget is its purpose. At a time when the government should be preoccupied with providing jobs and growth and some stability, it is instead preoccupied with its own political survival. So, instead of introducing measures which are bold enough to work, the government relies instead on measures which seem safe enough to serve. Other speakers in this debate have indicated how far short the minister will fall of his stated goals. My particular concern today is to underline the urgency of a goal he did not state, the goal of helping young Canadians put their energies to work and to review some of the steps which the government’s own advisers have urged as a means to break the shackling pattern of high unemployment among the young. The Hunter Committee on Youth published its report 19 months ago,
30
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
and it was heralded with that special enthusiasm this government reserves for reports it proposes to ignore. One simple, but highly valuable, recommendation of that report was that the government at least recognize that youth unemployment constitutes a special problem in Canada. At the moment, we have virtually no hard information about the special causes of high youth unemployment, about its relation to the education system, about the effectiveness of counselling or manpower, about the need and scope for new kinds and definitions of work. The Hunter Committee recommended establishing a Canadian youth employment directorate, and generally we in this party approve of that initiative, at least as an interim measure. The government has done nothing about the directorate. The report of the Canadian Council on Social Development, entitled “A Right to Opportunity” reveals a chaos in the counselling and social assistance services available to young Canadians out of work. They recommend an early federal-provincial conference, to bring some order and equity to that field. The government has done nothing. This party has suggested that LIP and OFY be given statutory authority, so that their purposes can be debated and understood in parliament and so that they can assume some permanent place in the program structure of various government and voluntary agencies, instead of being expensive itinerants whose present status prohibits integrated national programming. The government declines that commitment as, indeed, it declines any commitment to do anything at all about the continuing crisis of youth unemployment. The government has been running away from the problem and the running has to stop. We cannot afford the enormous human cost of training hundreds of thousands of young people to be out of work and on welfare. We are wasting lives and wasting potential. The problem of youth employment would be less acute in an economy performing nearer its potential. So, the approach of this party, outlined Thursday by the hon. member for Don Valley (Mr. Gillies), will help the young to find jobs and will help other Canadians. Even so, it will be necessary to take special measures to arrest or reverse the trends towards higher and higher levels of unemployment among Canadians aged 24 and under. Speaking Friday, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) underlined the most dangerous consequence of this budget, that the country will continue to mark time, because we are governed by a party more intent upon its own survival than upon the growth or progress of the
Milestone Speeches 31
nation. That is harmful to many parts and people of Canada; but no group suffers more from this government or this budget than the hundreds of thousands of young Canadians who are looking for work in this rich country and finding only frustration. If we continue to deny them the chance to contribute their best to Canada, they will quickly become accustomed to contributing their least. That is a tragedy we have in our power to avoid if this government would only put the nation’s priorities ahead of its own.
First Speech as Prime Minister House of Commons Debates 10 October 1979 31st Parliament, 1st Session: Volume 1, 37–42 Right Hon. Joe Clark (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to stand and take part in this debate for the first time as Prime Minister of this country. I must say I am pleased to find that the former prime minister is adapting so well to a role which obviously very much fits a man of his talents and temperament. On behalf of the government I want formally to express our appreciation to the Governor General and Mrs. Schreyer for the work they have done for Canada during their period of office. It has been a service that has been very energetic, one that has sought to bring the values and customs of that office to all corners of the country. I also want to congratulate most sincerely the mover and seconder of the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne. That is always a difficult occasion for new members rising for the first time to make their maiden speech on the first sitting day of the House of Commons. I join in the words of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Trudeau) in expressing our congratulations to those two members who made very direct, businesslike speeches, speeches in the tradition of the regions from which they come and in the tradition that animates and moves most members, whether they have come newly or again to this House of Commons. I want also, Mr. Speaker, after the great struggle in which we had to drag you from your seat yesterday, to congratulate you on your re-election by the House of Commons to preside over our proceedings. I am sure it will be a presidency and direction that will be as distinguished in the future as it has been in the past. We wish you well and wish all
32
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
of us well as you preside over this central institution of the democracy of the land. I must say to the former prime minister, the Leader of the Opposition, how much I appreciated his counsel and advice in the early days of my prime ministry, his willingness to meet with me, particularly in preparation for trips abroad, and his absolute co-operation in the work of transition from one government to another. It was very much appreciated. It was another signal contribution on his part to this country. I want to take this opportunity here to thank him formally and directly for that help at that time. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Clark: As I said earlier, he seems to be taking very well to his new role. It is an area in which I have certain experience. He will recognize as time goes on that there is a time to stop fighting the last election and to begin thinking about the future. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Clark: If he does not do that, there is the hon. member from Winnipeg and there are others who will ensure that the party does that for him. In his remarks the Leader of the Opposition raised the rhetorical question as to which of the premiers of Canada told me to go shake myself. Well, we all know that they all told him to go shake himself. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Clark: He raised the concern—and it is not unnatural that he would—that we have changed the system of cabinet government in the country. We have changed it principally in two ways. First, we have made public what had previously been kept secret about the way cabinets govern in this country. There has always been an inner cabinet in Canada. The difference is that with this regime, which believes in open government, the composition of that inner cabinet is public, whereas under the regime of the former prime minister the composition of his inner cabinet had been private. Again the Leader of the Opposition raised a question about the strength of the influence of the voices from New Brunswick, Manitoba, Nova Scotia and Alberta. What has happened is that distinct from the kind of government we had prior to May 22 this is a government in which voices from all of the regions of Canada count and in which
Milestone Speeches 33
influence is not reserved to a select elite accumulated around the Prime Minister, in the office of the Privy Council and in the Prime Minister’s Office. I should say to the Prime Minister— Some hon. Members: Oh, oh! Mr. Clark: I should say to the former prime minister. I wanted to raise his hopes because there is no question that none of the hon. members opposite are going to do so. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Clark: I want to say to the Leader of the Opposition that I am a Prime Minister from Alberta, and I am no less a Canadian for that. If he had recognized some time ago the fact about Albertans and, indeed, about citizens of other provinces, that we can be loyal to our provinces and loyal to our nation, he would not have encountered the difficulties he and his government did. I want to extend my personal congratulations to all members of the House of Commons elected here. I have had the opportunity to extend those congratulations personally to several of them, but I want particularly to extend a welcome to those members of Parliament who are elected for the first time because, as they will find, they are members of a very special institution which is clearly unique in this land. This is the central institution of Canada. It is the one place where every corner of a vast country has the right to be represented and the power to be heard. The traditions of the institution change, but our constant obligation here is to be the one place where the whole nation comes together, speaks frankly together and acts together. In my view, this Parliament is not now as strong as it needs to be because too much power rests with the executive of Parliament and with the executives of political parties; too many limits are placed on the right of private members to know, to inquire, to propose and to be responsible for their own actions and for their own decisions. In particular, the historic right of Parliament to control the public purse was eroded by guillotine rules which meant that each year billions of dollars of public spending went unscrutinised and unchallenged. Parliamentary committees were denied the authority and the resources to have a positive influence on public policy. Members of this House of Commons, people sent here to represent their constituents and the interests of all of Canada, were denied information which should have been made public. As a result of that, great numbers of our fellow citizens have been
34
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
turning away from Parliament and have ceased to regard this as the vital, national institution which it must be seen to be. Parliament is the only institution we have which can rightly claim to represent this whole nation. This Parliament is in danger of losing its constituency, and one of the solemn obligations upon those of us who are fortunate enough to be members of the Thirty-first Parliament of Canada is that that is a trend which we must change and reverse. That will require change in some of our rules and some of our practices, but more has to change than just the rules of Parliament. There must be a change in the attitude toward the institution on the part of all members, not just those who are ministers of the Crown. I am confident that that will occur because there are so many members here in all parties who came to this House of Commons—and I quote the words of the hon. member for Cardigan (Mr. MacDonald)—“to make Parliament work.” The government will be introducing proposals for rule changes and has already indicated changes in attitude which, in effect, will provide a latitude to private members of the House of Commons which can be used, if members choose, to obstruct all progress here. That will be one capacity. That will be one consequence which could flow from the latitude we intend to give to private members of the House of Commons. Or it can be used to make the House of Commons the vital centre of discussion and decision in this land. I hope that this Parliament might be characterized by very open inquiry. Naturally, on some questions some members have their minds made up already. So do some parties, and I am not looking particularly at the hon. member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent). However, on many of the most important questions we face there are no easy answers, yet there is an obligation to act and, indeed, in many cases an urgent obligation to act. As a government we cheerfully accept the responsibility to put forward answers when we think we have them. What is more important is that we cheerfully accept the responsibility to initiate unfettered inquiry where that might yield better answers than the ones we propose or the ones we have. I give the commitment now as we start this session in the House of Commons that this government will welcome amendments to legislation from whatever part of the House they come if their proposers can persuade us of their merits. I hope that attitude of openness will extend throughout this Parliament and to most major questions, and that this will be a Parliament where decisions are based on evidence and not on ideology. The gov-
Milestone Speeches 35
ernment itself is proposing action which questions certain long-held assumptions concerning, for example, the notion that Crown corporations, once established, must stay in the public domain forever, or the attempt to keep public information secret, or concerning the nature of relations between the central and the provincial governments. We do not expect that everyone will agree, but we hope it will not become the habit of any party in this House to resist reform just because it is new. [Translation] There is an obvious fact about the forthcoming decade: it is that a substantial part of the old formulas has become worthless. We must reconsider our procedure to develop policies in several areas and it rests with Parliament to undertake openly such a task. The drafting of the following reports is almost completed and they will be submitted to the standing committees well before Christmas: to wit, the report of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Miss MacDonald) on foreign policy; the report of the Secretary of State (Mr. MacDonald) on cultural policy; the report of the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Baker) on parliamentary reform; the report of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Crombie) on pensions and that of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. McGrath) on fisheries. A joint committee will be set up next week to consider the matter of atomic energy. Moreover, we want to complement the proceedings of standing committees by setting up select committees that will deal with specific matters. The first select committees were announced in the Speech from the Throne and I add today that we intend to suggest that the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale) be appointed chairman of the select committee on the specific needs of the handicapped and disabled; the hon. member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Wenman), chairman of the select committee on the voluntary sector; the hon. member for Mississauga North (Mr. Jupp), chairman of the select committee on foreign ownership, and the hon. member for Calgary South (Mr. Thomson), chairman of the select committee on measures necessary to prevent recurring cost overruns. We hope that those committees will be entirely set up and active next week and that they will submit their reports for the consideration of Parliament and government at the beginning of 1980. [English] If the House accepts the challenge that we are placing before it, I believe that we can make this again an instrument which is strong enough
36
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
and respected enough to reflect the diversity of an exciting country. Instead of talking about the instruments of national action and national unity, we can become an instrument of national unity and of national action, and that is the purpose of the reforms that we propose. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Clark: The Leader of the Opposition made reference to the phrase I had used during the election campaign, a phrase concerning communities. That is a matter of great concern to me. The concept is of great concern to me because in recent years the sense of community in Canada, despite the best intentions of the hon. gentlemen opposite, has become unraveled. That was evidenced most dramatically by the election in Quebec of a government explicitly committed to dismembering the country. But that erosion of common purpose has grown in other ways as well, such as in the decision of the Canadian Labour Congress that they could not trust government enough to continue in consultation; the mutual suspicion that has clouded relations between the federal and provincial governments; the growing gulf between Canadians working in the private sector and Canadians working in the public sector; a sense among private citizens that their government and their Parliament was ignoring their interests and their views. More was happening in recent years than just the development of interest groups and narrow movements which arise occasionally in every country. There was a pattern of things coming apart in Canada, of the centre being literally unable to hold, and the irony was that every assertion by the centre of its authority weakened that authority. The lesson is that this nation cannot be ordered together. This nation must be brought together, and the starting step must be to establish a basis of mutual trust, of goals that emerge from the community of Canada rather than being imposed upon the community of Canada. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Clark: As a new government we have believed that the way we should begin to knit the nation together was to establish a climate of calm and of co-operation. My ministers have travelled and consulted widely with the provinces, labour, business, co-operatives and a multitude of groups and individuals, sometimes concluding agreements, more often establishing the basis for future agreement. The fact is that the central government can lead the nation in resolving difficult prob-
Milestone Speeches 37
lems only when the central government is seen again as a leader which itself respects the other partners of the Canadian confederation. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear! [Translation] Mr. Clark: Mr. Speaker, it had been obvious for several years that continuous confrontation had become a rule, a kind of system for federal-provincial relations. As a new government, we have set a first immediate objective: the easing of the climate of federal-provincial relations. This is what we did. Action has been taken in that perspective. I think, for instance, of the agreement signed as regards Loto Canada. An agreement in principle has also been reached between the new government and some coastal provinces concerning offshore mineral resources. In the same spirit, we have decided not to reintroduce in the Commons the bill on the referendum as proposed by the former government. This measure was perceived in Quebec as an act of aggression and it is precisely the kind of attitude that my government intends to change. So, my government has the firm intention of altering the atmosphere of federal-provincial relations. Concrete measures have been taken in recent weeks and others will be in the future. We believe that it is possible to solve several problems without any constitutional amendment and without revising the constitutional tool we now have at our disposal. This is not a one-way process. In some cases, the answers we will choose might imply a jurisdictional transfer from the federal government to the provinces, whereas in others it might be a transfer from provincial jurisdictions to the federal authority. Of course, there are skeptics in this House. It is quite possible, however, with a will, with a determination to chase partners rather than conflicts, for a Canadian government to get co-operation, understanding and agreements. During this parliament, the issue of federal-provincial relations will still lead to controversy and intense debate. It is my hope there will be indeed outspoken debates. It is my hope that every member in this House will share a determination to contribute fully and outspokenly, with deep conviction but without prejudice, because, Mr. Speaker, no party can hope to have all the wisdom needed, or all the answers. The government will listen to members on this side and members opposite
38
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
who may have different perspectives and priorities. It is this government’s view that all hon. members, wherever they sit in this House, want to have a strong Canada and maintain our confederation. [English] Mr. Olivier: Say that to René Lévesque. Mr. Clark: Someone asked me to tell that to René Lévesque. In my judgment, it is the duty of all members of the House of Commons to tell that to René Lévesque. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Clark: And it is important for all of us in the House to end that personal preoccupation with René Lévesque. The message which we are interested in delivering is not to the premier of the province of Quebec; it is to the people of the province of Quebec. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Clark: We believe that there is a much wider range of opportunity for accomplishment with us as a government prepared to seek new approaches with the people of Canada than there was with the former government, which was determined to continue old quarrels with the Premier of Quebec. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Clark: If the hon. member for Ottawa-Carleton (Mr. Pepin) does not stop interjecting, I will quote sections of his report to him. Some hon. Members: Oh, oh! Mr. Clark: The results of the election in May left all of our parties deprived, in one way or another, of the balanced representation that might be considered ideal. That is a problem for our parties but it is a great opportunity for this Parliament. We can rise above narrow partisanship and help each other to achieve a better understanding of how our respective regions perceive, and are affected by, these national issues. I am not suggesting that any of the parties argue their own views less aggressively; only that in this Parliament, and especially on this subject, each of us should be more open to the views of the others. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!
Milestone Speeches 39
Mr. Clark: That will not be easy. It will require of us in this House an act of mutual trust, just as the conduct of federal-provincial relations, in our view, required a new spirit of mutual trust between Ottawa and the provinces. The test of our federalism and its strength is not in the undoubted power of the central government to have its way. Rather it is in the willingness of the partners to act together. The success of our federalism will lie in our ability to accommodate the different kinds of communities Canadians choose to live in. These communities have different economic potentials, different economic strategies, and they have different cultural and social goals. Confederation gave to the provinces not only real powers—and in some cases exclusive powers—which could be exercised in those fields, but it assigned to the provinces the sources of revenue, the economic means to exercise those powers effectively. That was the spirit in which the forests, the mines, the natural resources of another day and the revenues therefrom were assigned to the provinces. That is the spirit in which in 1979 this government agreed that the provinces which have offshore resources should control their development. The extent to which all provinces have the economic means to exercise their powers will determine their ability to pursue their different cultural, social and economic goals. The greater their dependence on Ottawa for their revenues, the less likely they are to develop that diversity which is at the heart of the Canadian idea. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Clark: In these so-called constitutional debates the real question at issue was not the law of the country but the nature of the country. Miss Bégin: It is the country. Mr. Clark: Can we afford to have Canadians doing different things in different ways in different parts of the country? I ask that of the former minister: can we afford to have Canadians doing different things in different ways in different parts of the country? Not only do I think we can, I believe we must if we are to honour the spirit of this country. One thing which is beyond debate, to my knowledge, is that everyone in the House accepts the absolute necessity of a central government strong enough to guarantee basic standards of service, instruments of growth and national co-ordination, and indeed capable of initiating and expressing national policy.
40
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
When it comes to the national interest, the final responsibility and the ultimate authority lie with Parliament. If paramount national interests were endangered by federal-provincial conflict or federal-provincial stalemate, this government and Parliament could act. There is no question that we would have the support of Canadian people in so acting. But asserting that ultimate power in emergencies is quite different from insinuating that ultimate power every day. The nation is more than the central government. The need for a national transportation policy, to take one example, is of an order quite different from the need for a national lottery. The nation will survive the provinces running the national lottery. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Clark: Indeed the nation will be much stronger if the government in Newfoundland uses wealth from offshore resources to build its economy directly, rather than having part of the proceeds recycled back from Ottawa. One fundamental fact is that there is a limit to what Ottawa can do, because there is a limit to what Ottawa can know. Ottawa cannot know the local needs, natures, and requirements of different corners of this country as well as the properly constituted governments of those provinces. The hon. Leader of the Opposition quoted Edward Blake and approved of him. I will quote Sir John A. Macdonald on a matter where— one of the few times—I think Sir John was wrong. Sir John A. Macdonald would have preferred a unitary government. That is what he wanted; that is what he dreamed about. That was the model he had in his mind, but Sir John A. Macdonald was a practical, pragmatic man. He wanted to make the nation work. He was more interested in having a nation which worked than having a nation which accorded to his theories. He recognized that the nation was not built the way he wished it was, and successful national governments since have recognized the limits of federal power. That is not matter of constitutional law. It is a matter of common sense, and it is an approach which must be applied to the economy and the culture of Canada as well as to our constitution. [Translation] Today, Canadians want to recover control of such matters as concern them in their homes, in their communities. The challenge which this government, and this Parliament, must primarily face, is that of rerouting our Canadian economy. For the better part of the last ten years, we
Milestone Speeches 41
have constantly been plagued with a low rate of economic growth, a high rate of unemployment and a high rate of inflation. And short-term forecasts promise much more of the same. Canadians have a right to ask themselves why, in as rich a country as ours, we have not been able to fare better. There is no doubt that the international situation is to be blamed in part. Today, we are feeling the effects of a slowing down in the economic activity in the United States—but we cannot blame the whole wide world for our problems. Canada is surely not in bondage. The failures in our economic policies have their roots here, not in Washington, Zurich or Jedda. We have an alternative. We may go on pretending that we cannot solve our own problems, and looking for scapegoats. That will surely result in the realization of pessimistic forecasts. Or we can take on the job, which is ours anyway, of building this country. The time has come to roll up our sleeves and build this country. [English] Our goals as a government are clear. The Canadian economy must begin growing again much more close to its potential. Job opportunities must be created for Canadians, especially for groups like young people, women in the Canadian economy, and native Canadians, among whom unemployment is especially high. We must reduce the inflation which continues to rob Canadians of their savings and the real value of their incomes. Simply continuing existing policies will not work. That is why we intend to change the economic direction of Canada in several ways. First we intend to open up economic policy-making in Canada. Under our system government does not control the economy; it can only influence it. If that influence is to be effective, economic signals from the government must be public, understandable, and certain enough so that they can be relied upon. The best way to ensure that is to lift the shroud which has enveloped the making of economic policy. That is why we propose to encourage pre-budget hearings by a committee of this House, so that Canadians can understand the economic issues and options before the government. That is why we intend to make public with each budget four-year revenue and expenditure estimates. As we indicated today, that is why we are quite prepared to have a committee of parliament look into major economic questions such as the questions relating to interest rate policy. Second, we intend to be much more specific in economic policy. We believe that management of the large economic levers of fiscal and
42
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
monetary policy should be stable and consistent. We reject fine-tuning as an effective economic option. Instead, we recognize our economy is not monolithic but consists of a multitude of parts, each with its own sectoral or regional requirements. We intend to be sensitive to those specific needs and to tailor policies to fit them. That is the approach reflected in the Speech from the Throne in its emphasis on developing regional strengths such as tourism, shipbuilding, fisheries, grain transportation, and northern mining, and in its commitment to stimulate the housing industry through tax credits for mortgage interest and property taxes and to provide new incentives for small and medium-sized enterprises. Those programs will create jobs, jobs which are stable because they are founded on inherent economic strengths. [Translation] The same objective—creating specific programs to meet specific economic requirements—served as a basis for the implementation of our other job creation programs. I am sure all members welcome the fact that in September the rate of unemployment was down for the seventh time in as many months. But we all know that this improvement is not shared by all Canadians, the rate of unemployment for women is still 2 per cent higher than that for men, more than 12 per cent of Canadians under 25 are unemployed which is nearly double the national rate. Although no official statistics are available in the case of natives we know for a fact that the rate of unemployment in that group is much higher than in others. We intend to grapple with those problems. I will present the House with an employment strategy for women based on the principle that women have an undeniable right to participate equally in all sectors of the economy. That strategy will include steps to reduce occupational segregation through better training programs and contractual clauses that will recognize the women’s responsibilities concerning the children and will increase the opportunities made available precisely to them under economic expansion programs. In addition, our programs will underline the significant part played by the government which will become a leader in this area with the introduction of specific employment policies. Still in that vein, we intend to set up a youth employment secretariat to co-ordinate and plan programs making training and job opportunities available to young Canadians. We will be reviewing the job tax
Milestone Speeches 43
credit program to promote on the job training for young people who do not have all the necessary skills and we will be introducing a better program to encourage young Canadians to serve their communities. [English] Sir, in seeking to broaden economic opportunities available to native Canadians, the government supports the growing desire among native people themselves to assume authority and responsibility for their own development. The minister and I have recently had very useful conversations with representatives of the National Indian Brotherhood concerning, mainly, other matters, but certainly opening the door for discussion by which we can work together on important work opportunities for the native people of the land. Finally, sir, I want to emphasize this government’s determination to place much greater reliance on the private sector, and private sector broadly defined, whether in terms of business or in terms of volunteer agencies, to achieve our economic and social goals. In recent years, in many ways the federal government became a burden on our economy. Record deficits and virtually uncontrolled spending were sometimes explained as being intended to spur economic growth. They were nothing of the kind. They were a drag on the economy. We are implementing in this government a program of spending restraint, not because we believe it is one easy step from restraint to lower deficits and ultimately to a balanced budget. Our restraint program is intended to free resources to the private sector to encourage investment, to encourage business expansion and to encourage job creation, which we believe is the best way to generate the revenues which in turn will help us balance the budget of Canada. We intend to reduce the burden of government on the economy and offer practical incentives to individual Canadians to build a stake in our country. I am confident that Canadians will respond to that kind of encouragement and incentive. As I have travelled this country in recent months I have sensed a growing confidence, almost an enthusiasm, among Canadians over the prospects for this country. We should be confident and we should be enthusiastic because there is literally no country in the world with a greater potential, with a greater capacity to build, and with a greater offer of liberty and opportunity to its citizens, than this country.
44
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
Some hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Clark: Sir, energy is just one example. Certainly we need a new agreement on pricing and more effective programs both to conserve energy and to increase its supply. My ministers and I, as the House knows, are discussing these questions now with the provinces, and I have every confidence we can reach an understanding that acknowledges our needs and acknowledges theirs. But, the true significance of our energy situation is not what it requires in the short term. The true significance is what the energy situation in Canada offers our citizens in the long run. This country can be self-sufficient in energy within a decade. We can be free of the insecurity that is the price of dependence on supplies beyond our control. For many years we have talked about our energy potential in this country, about the billions of barrels of oil locked away in the tar sands, about our heavy oil deposits, our frontier potential, and our 500-year supply of coal. All we could do in those days was talk; we lacked the national need and we lacked the economic rationale to develop the resources we talked about. The time for talk is over. Resources which used to be too expensive to develop are becoming almost cheap at their price for Canadians. To that extent OPEC has done us an economic favour. The economics now make sense to take advantage of our resource potential. Our national need is evident. What we require is a national will to make that happen. During his remarks the Leader of the Opposition referred to a phrase he had used often during the election campaign, a phrase to which I took the deepest exception. He suggested that Canadian should learn to lower their expectations. We disagree on many things, but we disagree on nothing more fundamentally than that, because I believe this is a time for Canadians to raise their expectations, not to lower them. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Clark: We are a nation of immense potential, immense potential in our physical resources, in the great strength that comes to a country like this by the fact that all of us, coming from every corner that is represented here in this House of Commons, have in our heritage, in our past and as part of our being a different sense of what this country can become, and a different identity that, woven together can create a vibrant and strong national identity. There used to be a time in this country when Canadians feared the
Milestone Speeches 45
regions and feared the different identities that might develop. There is nothing to fear in the regions of Canada. There is nothing to fear in the differences of Canada. Those regions, those differences, and those resources are the strengths of our country. Our challenge as a Parliament is to try to give the leadership to restore that sense of calm and that sense of co-operation that can bring Canadians together to work toward the realization of the individual dreams of Canadians across this country. What we have tried to do in the Speech from the Throne is set down a beginning agenda, steps we can take to reform this institution to make it the vital centre of the nation again, steps we can take to start Canadians along the road to feeling a part of their country and to building a stake in their country. That is the work we invite Parliament and the people of Canada to join in accomplishing. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!
Last Speech in the House of Commons House of Commons Debates 13 May 2004 37th Parliament, 3rd Session: Volume 139, 3156–60 Hon. Anne McLellan (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise today in this House to pay tribute to a fellow Albertan, and an outstanding parliamentarian and public servant, the right hon. member for Calgary Centre, the man from High River. Although we have spent years on opposite sides of the House, no one can but have enormous respect for the member’s commitment to this place and his profound belief in the importance of the democratic discourse that takes place here. Because of that commitment, the right hon. member displayed on a daily basis his love of language and his understanding of its power; its power to inform, to elevate and to inspire, and at times, dare I say, its power to irritate, to exasperate and to move to anger. Some have said that the hon. member was able to say more in 35 seconds than others could say in 35 minutes. It is perhaps not surprising that the right hon. member understands the power of language. He is the son and grandson of newspaper owners and his mother
46
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
was a French teacher. I am told that as a young man he considered a career in journalism. Indeed, he was the editor of the student newspaper, the Gateway at the University of Alberta. As a student he quickly became involved in his lasting passion, politics. I understand that at the university he debated vigorously the issues of the day with fellow students, such as Jim Coutts, Preston Manning and Senator Joyce Fairbairn. By the late 1960s, the right hon. member had decided to make politics his career. He worked for some time as a speech writer for the late hon. Robert Stanfield. The right hon. member was first elected to Parliament in 1972, becoming leader of the Progressive Conservative Party in 1976 and Prime Minister in 1979. He left elected politics in 1993 but returned as leader of the Progressive Conservatives in 1998. His commitment to progressive conservatism has never wavered. As minister of external affairs, the right hon. member represented our country with distinction around the world. I want to particularly note the important role he played, and our country played, in bringing an end to apartheid in South Africa. [Translation] While he served as the minister responsible for constitutional affairs between 1991 and 1993, the right hon. member’s commitment was obvious throughout the country, as he worked tirelessly to bring about constitutional reform through the Charlottetown accord. [English] While the Charlottetown accord was not finally accepted by Canadians, no one could ever doubt this right hon. member’s commitment to a strong and united Canada where policies like official bilingualism are at the heart of who we are and what we aspire to be. As we all know, the right hon. member has never stopped working on behalf of Canadians, both in and outside the House, either in an official party or not. For example, yesterday he asked a key question about the government’s commitment to the fight against HIV-AIDS in this country. It will be 25 years ago this week that the right hon. member became Prime Minister of Canada. On behalf of the Prime Minister, the Government of Canada and all Canadians, I wish to thank the right hon. member, his wife, Maureen McTeer, and his daughter, Catherine, for their selfless, courageous and
Milestone Speeches 47
inspiring commitment to this country and its people. Mr. Speaker, the member had the honour to lead the political party that was there at the founding of our country. Hon. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, CPC): Mr. Speaker, as Leader of the Opposition, it is my honour today to rise and pay tribute to the right hon. member for Calgary Centre and to his political career. I wish to begin by admitting that we have not always been on the same side of political issues. I think we have spent most of our careers and political lives as opponents, but in this business, while this may colour one’s perspective, it should not blind one to the abilities and accomplishments of others. Because of the rivalries that we have had from time to time, the right hon. member and myself are sometimes compared, and I am sure will be more frequently in the future. These comparisons to me are, from my perspective, not always flattering. I can give one example. A few months back I was on the road as I often am for a number of days at a time and left my family to travel alone back from the riding to Ottawa. My seven-year-old son, Benjamin, found himself seated with the right hon. member for Calgary Centre on that four-hour plane flight. Well, a few days later my harshest critic, my wife, delivered the verdict. She said, “Do you realize that lately you have been spending less time with your son than Joe Clark has?” Man, I tell you, some things hurt. However, there was a point there. As we all struggle with the challenges of living in public life, we cannot help but admire an individual who has been in public life almost his entire adult life and who has not only managed those challenges but has sustained a strong family life, an enduring and loving marriage to his wife Maureen, and a wonderful father-daughter relationship with Catherine who I understand also grew up at Stornoway, like my daughter Rachel. Today we pay tribute principally though to a long and distinguished career in public service. Whatever our differences, the right hon. member for Calgary Centre has had a career here of well over 30 years. He has by my count been elected to this House eight times. He has served with distinction in key roles such as the constitutional affairs minister and has been minister of external affairs. He twice led a national political party. He occupied the post of leader of the opposition during some of the most critical battles ever to take
48
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
place in the history of this Chamber. And it was almost 25 years ago that he received the mandate, albeit briefly as it turned out, to be Prime Minister of Canada, one of only 21 people in the entire history of this country to be so honoured. As a consequence, the right hon. member for Calgary Centre will leave here with only history to judge him, which makes him a historic figure. Many people come here with the ambition to be historic figures but very, very few ever achieve this. And for that, we salute his career and we wish the right hon. member and his family health and prosperity into the future. [Translation] Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, throughout his very long parliamentary career—he was first elected in 1972— the member for Calgary Centre performed his duties with dignity, a keen sense of public interest and, I might add, a good sense of humour. He is a gentleman. In March 2002, he joined us to vote in favour of a Bloc Québécois motion calling on the government to recognize the fiscal imbalance. He advocated the rejection of the clarity bill. He did so with arguments that we do not support, but nonetheless, he urged his party to vote against this disgraceful bill. We did not always agree with his stand on the Quebec issue, as it did not meet our expectations or Quebecers’ expectations for that matter. Standing by his convictions, at the end of the 1980s, when the Progressive Conservative Party was in power, he made a sincere attempt to reconcile the aspirations of Quebec and Canada, but unsuccessfully. Nonetheless, he was always open to Quebec, sharing with Quebecers values common to both peoples. In all sincerity, I hope he enjoys his political retirement with his family, who supported him at all times. I wish him a good retirement and good luck. [English] Hon. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the NDP caucus, I certainly want to wish the right hon. member for Calgary Centre well as this Parliament comes to a close, and to thank him for his distinguished service as a parliamentarian, as a prime minister, as leader of the opposition, as a minister and as a Progressive Conservative.
Milestone Speeches 49
It should also be said that the right hon. member served Canada particularly well as Canada’s foreign affairs minister during the Mulroney years, as I, who was his assigned critic for part of that time, can well attest. It has already been mentioned the role that Canada played under his leadership and the leadership of the prime minister at that time in the fight against apartheid and I think this is a Canadian story that we do not tell well enough or often enough. One hesitates to be too complimentary about the right hon. member because some of his adversaries have said a political goodbye to him before and lived to hear their praise repeated in a different context. The right hon. member has a history of responding to duty and one never knows where or in what way duty may call again. The NDP has a relationship, probably not remembered with affection by the hon. member, with one of the most difficult moments in his political life. We moved the motion that ultimately brought down the newly elected government in 1979. We did not, however, determine the government’s tactics in response to the motion. That is a responsibility still to be sorted out. However for the record I want the right hon. member to know that I argued in caucus at the time for letting him govern for a time while we saw what he would or could do. Perhaps it was because it was my first Parliament and I was not anxious to go back to the streets, I am not sure what the reason was, but that was my position at the time and I stick to it. [Translation] I would also like to commend the right hon. member for setting an example for western Canadians by being truly open to and aware of Quebec’s aspirations and the reality of a bilingual Canada. Although we could debate certain constitutional matters at great length, I think the example he set in this regard is and will be part of the legacy of the right hon. member for Calgary Centre. [English] I think the right hon. member was also precocious in his attitude toward women, championing the cause of women’s equality long before it was always popular to do so. Finally, I want to commend the right hon. member for his appreciation of the role of Parliament and, in particular, the role of the House of Commons. Remarks have already been made by the leader of the Bloc
50
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
Québécois about the right hon. member being a gentleman and about his sense of humour. What I want to say of him and what I think is one of the highest compliments that can be paid a member of Parliament is that he is a House of Commons man who took seriously this place, its procedures and its possibilities, no matter what side of the House he was on, and saw the importance of doing the nation’s business in this chamber and not across the street in some other contrived, unelected and unaccountable venue. We hope he will write a book, for few have more to teach us about the nature of political commitment, through all the ups and downs that political life offers, than the right hon. member for Calgary Centre. [Translation] Good luck and thank you very much. [English] Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join in this tribute to a man who, for over 30 years, spanning four decades, has dedicated his life to serving the public interest. Canada is a complex country. It has been said that if other countries suffer from having too much history, Canada has too much geography. All that geography makes our great country a place in which diverse and sometimes divergent views and interests coexist and in fact flourish. Throughout his political career, the right hon. member for Calgary Centre strove to understand that diversity and bridge those divides. The son of a newspaper man from High River, Alberta, it would have been easier for him to be a man of his roots. Instead, he became a man of the world, always reaching out to the other, whoever the other happened to be. The right hon. member learned to speak both of Canada’s official languages. He named the first woman to serve as foreign affairs minister and the first black cabinet minister. He has always been an ardent supporter of human rights. He fought Canada’s fight against South African apartheid. He was instrumental in Canada securing an acid rain treaty with the United States, and he welcomed the Vietnamese boat people. The constitutional accord he negotiated would have, for the first time, recognized aboriginal peoples in our basic law. In each case there was a political risk and a political price to pay. Not all of these initiatives were in fact successful but together they
Milestone Speeches 51
speak to his unwavering commitment to make this country a place anyone can call home, no matter their history, no matter their background. He spoke of Canada as a community of communities long before the concept was fashionable. Indeed, our recent history has shown how truly prescient his vision was. [Translation] When I was young, I observed the right hon. member, who served our country as party leader, prime minister and then secretary of state for foreign affairs. He played a role, in a number of ways, in my decision to enter politics. His commitment to Canada and his protection of the public interest are an inspiration to us all. [English] Too often political pundits, media commentators describe what we do in this chamber in terms of winners and losers. That is, of course, important to our system. At its core, our system is in fact adversarial. It starts, after all, after an election, but that, dear friends and colleagues, does not tell the whole story. At its best, politics is about making the big play in the interest of Canada. In an age of careful political leadership and government by opinion poll, the right hon. member for Calgary Centre stands out as a man who in every circumstance tried to make the big play. Far removed from the back rooms, focus groups and polling questionnaires, he had a vision and he made his case to Canadians in public places, but more often than not in this House of Commons. He is a fierce opponent in question period and a formidable debater. On occasion, Mr. Speaker, you may have recognized that he is capable of being a tad partisan as well, but his motives were never in question. At all times and in all things he was motivated by the desire to make Canada a better place. I would be remiss if I did not take a moment to acknowledge his wife and partner in this long political journey, Maureen McTeer, and my friend, Catherine. Political life, as we know it, is hard on families: long hours, time away, stress and hectic schedules, but their approach has always been a team approach. His achievements are their achievements as well. This House of Commons and indeed this country will always be in the right hon. member’s debt, both for the things he did and for the things for which he stood. He has taught me a great deal about the
52
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
country that we serve and I think we all collectively are better parliamentarians for having known him. Thank you, Joe. Right Hon. Joe Clark (Calgary Centre, PC): I have to say, Mr. Speaker, that I preferred these parliamentary tributes when they were about someone else but I appreciate deeply the tribute that the House has paid. I thank my fellow Albertan, the Deputy Prime Minister, for her remarks. I want to thank the Leader of the Opposition and, more particularly, his very engaging son, Benjamin. [Translation] I would of course, like to also thank the leader of the Bloc Québécois . He is right, we do not see eye to eye when it comes to certain basic issues relating to Canada, but I think that we both, myself as much as he, appreciate each other’s sincerity of commitment to our objectives. He is a little less bilingual than I, but these things happen. [English] My colleague, my friend and, dare I say, former youth member of the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada, when there was such a thing, has now, I am pleased to see, confessed his collaboration or the collaboration of his party with the Liberals in bringing down my government in the beginning of our life. I have to express a particular appreciation to my friend and my colleague in the other part of the Progressive Conservative caucus in the House of Commons, the member for Fundy-Royal. I admire him as a parliamentarian and an individual, and I very much appreciate his words today. Mr. Speaker, I think this will be one of the least controversial interventions of my career. I want to begin my remarks where I began my career, which is with the men and women who elected me in the four constituencies in two provinces which it has been my privilege to represent here in the House of Commons. I am immensely grateful to the voters of that spectacular but shortlived riding of Rocky Mountain in Alberta; the riding of Yellowhead, which I had the privilege to serve for so long; and the riding of KingsHants, from which the Deputy Prime Minister comes as does her now colleague, the current member for Kings-Hants; and of course my constituency of Calgary Centre.
Milestone Speeches 53
I want to express my thanks to literally thousands of other individuals in Canada and abroad, in this House and outside, who have helped me in good times or in bad times or in both. Everyone here knows, and it has been acknowledged, just how much members of Parliament owe to our families. That is always true but I have to say that in no case has it been more true than in the case of Maureen McTeer and of Catherine Clark. Maureen sought election here herself, in a difficult constituency and time. She would have been a formidable presence in this House of Commons. It may also be appropriate for me to say, and this is perhaps the most controversial thing I will say today, that Maureen, Catherine and I, under fire, have learned something about family values. The spokesman for the NDP referred to the defeat of my government in 1979. I have had the privilege of several dramatic moments in this House. I will not recite each one of them. I remember clearly how that defeat came about after a vote on our budget in 1979. On that vote, the Liberal Party wheeled in every member who could draw breath. They literally evacuated the hospitals. Members of Parliament, on whose desks cobwebs had grown, showed up miraculously to vote. The present Prime Minister should have seen it because I learned that night that just because a member of the Liberal Party might be worn out, battered and beaten up, he can still come back to haunt you. Now, almost everyone who serves here leaves with a larger vision than they brought. The diversity of Canada becomes a personal experience which lifts most of us beyond the natural Canadian boundaries of region and language and local experience. The real privilege of working here goes beyond service to our constituents or to our country. In an age of invention and uncertainty there is no other profession so consistently subject to change and to surprise. In an era where people are always learning, there is no better school than public life. [Translation] I learned the other official language here, learned it in my fashion. That helped me understand that the distinct society is not a dead phrase in a constitution, but the living reality of most of French-speaking Canada, and a defining feature of our history and our future. Serving in this Parliament became my passport to communities and realities I would otherwise never have known so well: aboriginal Ca-
54
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
nadians, Canadian Jews and Canadian Arabs confronting ancient tensions, farmers seeing their way of life threatened, the transforming imagination of our artists and scientists. But this Parliament is more than a school. It is a place to act. It is the principal place where the Canadian community can act together. [English] This House can reflect our country at its worst or at its best. I have been here for both experiences. At our best this House of Commons defines the public interest of Canada. That happened, I believe, when we argued for and against specific constitutional changes in at least two Parliaments; when we argued for and against a free trade agreement; and when we acted together, as others have mentioned, as a Parliament in a practical campaign against apartheid. In such debates there are bound to be deep disagreements, because that is in the nature of a diverse country that is continent-wide with roots and interests reaching literally everywhere. That very diversity makes it imperative that there be a place where broad public interest can be expressed. There are plenty of voices for private, regional or special interests. At our best in this House of Commons, the whole community can find its Canadian voice. I have been honoured to serve here. Maureen and I look forward to the next chapters in our lives. I hope my colleagues in the House are able to draw as much satisfaction from their public service as I have from mine.
2
Economic and Energy Policy The following chapter about economic and energy policy, though the shortest, is also perhaps the most multi-faceted of those included in this volume. In two speeches, Clark showed his firm grasp of the complex nature of our Confederation, the tension between balancing a strong national government with encouraging provincial control of energy. These debates continue today. What does not continue today is the Red Tory tinge evident in Clark’s approach to the issue. Taken from the perspective of a Westerner, it has added significance as it demonstrates the careful balance between his view of Canada as a united federal state but also the importance of decentralization. This theme is picked up in the next chapter which includes a speech on the importance of federalprovincial consultation on energy policy. In the following speeches, delivered during and shortly after his time as Prime Minister, Clark discussed the problem of energy provision in Canada. The most recent collapse in international oil prices and ongoing pipeline debates reminds us that this is a perennial one in Canadian federalism. In the first speech, Clark staked his claim that if the oil industry was nurtured, Canada could have energy self-sufficiency by 1990. Demonstrating the liberal nationalism that was part of Red Toryism, Clark argued that he hoped that Canada “would be much better protected against the vagaries of the international market” and from “national decisions of foreign governments taken for their own reasons and with no thought of Canada in mind” through the implementation of his program. This sort of rhetoric would no doubt make most contemporary conservatives balk and demonstrates how the Conservative party has shifted since Clark’s time in the House of Commons. The protectionist sentiments seem out of place from the present day when free trade is the norm in Canadian politics, even among nominally left-wing parties and governments. And it may have been these sorts of statements that emboldened the more right wing critics of Clark’s A Man of Parliament; Selected Speeches from Joe Clark, edited by Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon. Montréal and Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press, Queen’s Policy Studies Series. © 2019 The School of Policy Studies, Queen’s University at Kingston. All rights reserved.
56
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
day who were frightened that the Progressive Conservatives had elected a “Red.” However, despite his call for increasing Canadian ownership of its energy sector, Clark remained a Tory at heart. It was, after all, a private sector solution that he proposed. He was not arguing for nationalizing ownership by the federal or provincial governments, nor bringing about worker ownership of the refineries and wells. Instead, he simply stated that Canadian capital should be owned by Canadian businesses. And further, Clark proposed that the Trudeau government of the day should be subsidizing companies to expand production and protecting them until Canada stood on a solid, self-sufficient energy foundation. Given that Clark spoke with the 1973 OPEC crisis fresh in everyone’s minds, such a moderate response was understandable and commendable. What is further commendable is that in his response to the fallout of a crisis Clark refused to turn this into a one-man show. He did not raise “the spectre of unilateral action” nor brandish “an emergency power or a declaratory power” with which to threaten the provinces. This instead was meant to be a roundtable process in which Clark elicited the opinions of not just his fellow first ministers but also those of the wider Canadian public. Through a national conference on economic development Clark aimed to bring in relevant stakeholders such as “industry, the unions, the credit unions, the farmers and other individuals concerned with the economic development of Canada.” This conference demonstrated Clark’s belief in the small and local given form. It is unfortunate then that it never saw the light of day as Clark’s minority government was defeated before it, or as his energy plan as a whole, could be put into action. With the federal government’s duty to consult, his commitment to consultation was ahead of his time. While it was a principled position, for Clark it was also a practicality and necessary for maintaining the very fabric of the Confederation. His concern for the federation may also have a lot to do with the timing of these two speeches which appeared shortly before and after the first Quebec referendum on May 20th 1980. Separated as we are from these momentous events and with the Quebec sovereignty movement at low ebb, this perhaps does not carry the same weight for us today. But this was the beginning of an era that would culminate in Quebec remaining in Confederation by less than 1 percent of the second referendum vote. And as we saw in the recent British EU referendum vote, these things can easily go the other way. For Clark, this was an attempt to create a new kind of Confedera-
Economic and Energy Policy
57
tion promised to Quebeckers by Prime Minister Trudeau following the referendum in order to not just convince Quebec to come along, but to remain in. Viewed another way, the energy debate was not simply about the end of securing our energy supply but it was also about the means by which it was secured. This was a consultation that sought the co-operation of Confederation’s constituent parts in order to create a solution that was greater than the sum of its parts. In his words, it was the creation of a “genuine national package reflecting a genuine national consensus and pursuing genuine national goals.” It is unfortunate then that in failing to follow his advice in crafting the National Energy Policy, Prime Minister Trudeau would help foster the rise of a new kind of conservative (and a new kind of Conservative), one fueled by a sense of Western alienation to which Clark alluded in this chapter. While hindsight is always 20/20, perhaps we should have followed his advice on the importance of an inclusive process then.
Energy Supply House of Commons Debates 6 November 1979 31st Parliament, 1st Session: Volume 1, 1005–1008 Right Hon. Joe Clark (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker, I was very interested in listening to the attack of the hon. leader of the New Democratic Party on the Liberal party. I will not try to create the suspense the leader of the NDP did, and I will announce at the outset that I intend to oppose this motion. Regarding the speech of the hon. Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Trudeau) who introduced the motion before us today, I suppose the part which struck me most, and that I found frankly saddest about his remarks, was that frequently he urged this government to come back to the policies of his government, to return to the policies of his government, to look backwards. Fundamentally that is the reason why there was a change in government on May 22: Canadians had had enough of a government looking back. They wanted a government that was looking forward, that was prepared to come to grips with the challenges and the problems of the Canadian people. That is why we were elected. That is true.
58
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
Some hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Clark: I want to deal directly with the questions laid out in the motion, even though they were not all addressed by the Leader of the Official Opposition. [Translation] I would like, first, to deal with the question of oil supplies to Eastern Canada, namely Quebec and the Maritime provinces. I believe the best way to describe the situation at this time is to say that it is tight but under control. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Hnatyshyn) as well as the chairman of the National Energy Board have been constantly monitoring the situation for weeks and months. We did not wait until we had a crisis this winter to act, and concrete steps have been taken to deal with any major problem that could occur in coming months. That is why the volume of our exports of crude oil abroad have been reduced considerably, in fact nearly eliminated so as to fully meet the demand by Canadian refiners. With the approval of the government, the National Energy Board is allowed to swap Canadian western crude for additional supplies of foreign oil to eastern Canada. The National Energy Board recently approved swaps totaling 2.5 million barrels that will practically all go to Quebec refineries. In addition, the National Energy Board asked Interprovincial Pipe Line to amend its regulations so as not to penalize corporations that have not done business with it in the past. That will have a direct effect on a group of heating oil distributors in Quebec who are thus given access to 450,000 barrels of crude oil from western Canada. Other steps that would take too long to enumerate here today have also been taken to ensure as much as possible the security of oil supplies to Quebec and the maritime provinces. However, I would like to add that if we were to face major interruptions in coming months we will not hesitate to use the powers we have under the Energy Supply Emergency Act. I do not believe this will be necessary but if the situation ever called for it, my government will not hesitate to act so the citizens of Quebec and the Maritimes will not have to face an oil shortage this winter. [English] I think there was probably no stranger part of the motion than the
Economic and Energy Policy
59
condemnation of the government for “its failure to support existing intergovernmental agreements on oil pricing and supply.” All members of the House and the Canadian public should be very clear as to exactly what that means. It suggests that this government and this Parliament should be content to rest with the status quo, that we should ignore the need to face the facts of the Canadian future, that we should be content to rest in the past and to put up with policies which have failed in the past. That is the recipe, the prescription, of the former government opposite, that backward-looking group which earned its way out of office and now is forgoing any possibility of getting back into office because it refuses to look to the future and continues to be preoccupied with the past. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Clark: Let me spell out for the House and the country exactly what the oil policies of the old government have achieved and would achieve for our country if we were prepared simply to put up with the status quo. The policies of the old government have reversed dramatically Canada’s traditional strength in international oil trade. In 1974 we had an oil trade surplus of $1 billion. Last year we had an oil trade deficit of $1 billion. If existing policies are left in place, we could have an oil trade deficit of $6 billion by the mid-1980s. That is the prescription of the Liberal party. That is not the future this government will accept for Canada. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Clark: Because of those policies and because of what they have done to our dependency on imported oil, the cost of oil has become a major contributor to the federal deficit. This year alone it is costing the Government of Canada $1.8 billion to offset our dependence on imported oil. Under the policies we inherited, that cost would double to $3.6 billion by 1985. The policies of which those opposite are so proud produced last year a shortfall of 345,000 barrels a day between Canadian oil production and Canadian oil needs. If we followed the advice of the former government simply to look to the past and ignore the needs of the future, those policies would widen that shortfall to 640,000 barrels a day within five years. The old policy has resulted in a widening gap between Canadian oil consumption and the discovery of new Canadian reserves. Since 1974, when OPEC alerted any government which had its eyes open to the
60
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
need for strong national action, we have been consuming in this nation an average of 648 million barrels of oil each year and adding barely 100 million barrels to our known reserves. Those same policies of the old government have done little to restrain energy demand in Canada or to encourage Canadians to eliminate waste and inefficiency in their consumption of energy. We remain the largest per capita consumers of energy in the western world. During the first nine months of this year, our consumption of gasoline was up more than 4 per cent. Not only does that represent virtually no progress in energy conservation, it threatens the commitments Canada made to its world allies through the International Energy Agency and at the Tokyo Summit. Those are the principal results of the policies of members of the old government who want to turn back the clock and say that we should leave them untouched. They are a prescription for energy failure in a country which has a rare opportunity for energy success. They may be acceptable to the Liberals and the New Democrats, but I say to the House of Commons that they are not acceptable to this government and the people of Canada. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Clark: Because they are not acceptable is precisely the reason we have been conducting extensive negotiations with the provinces, to try to come forward with a new energy package that will not only deal with price but will deal with other instruments and other aspects of a policy and a package which can make this nation self-sufficient in energy by 1990, which can make energy a building block for the future of Canada rather than an obstacle to our growth, as has been the case with the policies followed and still pursued by the old government. I want to deal with the accusation of an inability to conclude an agreement on energy pricing. My government is working towards agreement with the provinces in ways that were perhaps contemplated by the last government but were rarely pursued by them. We are making progress and we are confident of reaching agreement on an energy package soon. Obviously, with our discussions continuing, it is not appropriate for me to get into the content of an energy package today. But it is probably worthwhile, and even instructive to members opposite, to examine the process that we have followed. We are not, and we do not pretend to be, miracle workers in getting agreement in a complex federation. It takes time to reach agreement in
Economic and Energy Policy
61
an atmosphere of reasonableness and in an atmosphere of co-operation. On the rare occasions when the last government talked to the provinces that must have been evident to them. I remember a day in 1976— An hon. Member: Have you talked to Saskatchewan? Mr. Clark: The leader of the New Democratic Party asks if I have talked to Saskatchewan. Yes, I have, and I wonder if he has. Some hon. Members: Oh, oh! Mr. Clark: I remember a day in 1976 when the then minister of energy, mines and resources reported that more than six months of talks and meetings had preceded decisions on new oil and natural gas prices. His statement to this House in May of that year made reference to meetings as long before that as December, 1975. Far more often, unfortunately, the government of that day, the old government, could not be bothered with that kind of consultation, although it occasionally paid lip service to it. The prime minister of the day talked from time to time about not wanting to act unilaterally, about bringing the provinces into discussion, but what happened? What happened, as demonstrated clearly by the events of 1977, was that he would set a price agreement and then his government unilaterally broke that agreement, and consequently poisoned relations on energy questions between the federal and provincial governments. Some hon. Members: Oh, oh! Mr. Clark: Sir, we do not operate that way. We are working with the provinces towards building a stronger Canada. We are planning and we are building together, and the current discussions on energy are part of that process. We are not raising in this chamber the spectre of unilateral action. We are not running around suggesting that we have an emergency power or a declaratory power with which we can threaten the provinces. That is what we are advised to do by the old government opposite, and that is exactly why, because they followed that approach, the old government opposite was so unsuccessful and failed so dramatically in getting agreement among the provinces of this country and the national government on how we can make use of our unique and virtually limitless, in all of its aspects, energy potential. Let me be quite clear that we are prepared to accept our responsibility as a federal government to move by ourselves if we have to, but
62
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
we do not use that as a club or as a threat or as a weapon. I believe that we must try, and must try 110 percent, to get agreement by agreement before resorting to other alternatives of menace or of threat. We have not yet reached that limit. Indeed, we are making positive advances towards agreement. Indeed, I can report to the House that we have now reached a point in the discussions with the provinces where I think it would be useful to bring together the first ministers of Canada to discuss energy matters; a broad package of energy matters. I will be convening a meeting on Monday next, November 12, here in Ottawa of the first ministers. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Clark: Sir, our principal objective in working towards a new energy package with the provinces is first and foremost to achieve energy self-sufficiency for Canada by 1990, so that by then no Canadian will have to depend on insecure or unreliable foreign sources to heat his home or to drive his car. In moving toward that fundamental goal we also want to reinforce the commitment of this nation to a new era of co-operation with the provinces, to demonstrate our belief that, given clear and stable direction, the private sector can meet Canada’s energy needs, and to use the opportunity that self-sufficiency provides significantly to increase Canadian participation in the development of our nation’s energy resources. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Clark: Sir, no one in this House is satisfied with the degree to which our energy development in Canada is dominated by firms controlled outside Canada. But it is important as we lament and oppose that situation that we understand how it happened. That situation arose because of past government policies, going some distance back, that made it more attractive for foreigners than for Canadians to develop our resources. It was reinforced by existing fiscal policies which, without any offsetting initiatives, tended simply to reinforce the status quo. Sir, we in this government are determined to change the status quo in terms of Canadian participation in Canadian energy development. The additional investment resources that will be available through changes in pricing policy will provide us with an opportunity to do that, and we intend to seize that opportunity to help more Canadians control more of the Canadian energy industry.
Economic and Energy Policy
63
Some hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Clark: Among the elements of a new energy policy under discussion with the provinces we are proposing the creation of a national instrument to provide a significant source of capital investment in major new energy projects across Canada. That concept appears to have general approval among the governments involved and we are hopeful that such an institution would have broadly based support from those governments. The creation of an institution like that will provide a specific source of funding, separate from other claims on the fiscal resources of government, to support projects ranging from coal development in Nova Scotia through a gas pipeline in Quebec and the development of additional hydro resources in Manitoba and Newfoundland. By placing a strong public financial commitment at the front end of those projects, their development will be more certain, their development will be quicker, and they will come on stream to serve the interests of Canadians much more quickly than they would without that instrument. In supporting those policies, in supporting those projects and in investing those new financial resources, it will be a basic principle of this government to encourage the maximum possible Canadian participation. We all know, those of us who are prepared to look at the facts of what is happening in the energy industry, how the use of special incentives by the government of Alberta in regard to in regard to increased exploration and development of natural goas led to a considerable increase in the role of Canadian-controlled companies in that area. Some hon. Members: Oh, oh! Mr. Clark: The leader of the New Democratic Party scoffs. I ask him to check the record because the record is there. It was a method that was brought in and it has resulted in Canadian control to an increasing degree of an industry that has too long been controlled by foreigners. I sympathize with the leader of the New Democratic Party. It is often difficult when reality collides with ideology, but this government is determined to govern on the basis of the real situation and the real potential of this country. We differ from the New Democrats in that we are not caught up in ideology. We differ from the Liberals in that we are not preoccupied with the past. We are determined to build a Canadian future in this country.
64
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
I had referred to the experience in Alberta, and I say to the House that I am convinced that an ability to back up the entrepreneurial skills and technical expertise of Canadians with major financial support can be equally productive in strengthening Canadian participation in other important energy developments. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Clark: The last item in the Leader of the Opposition’s motion concerns interest rates. No one in this House, and I am sure no Canadian, likes high interest rates. We all want them lowered and this government is determined that they be lowered, not by instant magic, because there is no magic, but by taking the tough decisions now that are essential if we are going to restore the Canadian economy to the kind of strength that will allow more moderate rates of interest in the future. That, sir, is our medium-term goal and we are dedicated to it. However, the issue in this motion is the short term—whether the government had any immediate alternative but to accept the advice of the governor of the Bank of Canada and, indeed, what the consequences following an alternative course might have been. The hard reality is that the economic circumstances we inherited from the old government left us with no short-term alternative. In fact, on becoming the government it became apparent to us that the mess was even worse than we suspected and that our immediate options were even more limited than we thought they were. We knew that we were inheriting a budgetary deficit of $11 billion, the largest in Canadian history. We knew that we were stuck with a balance of payments deficit of some $7 billion, the worst per capita deficit in international dealings of any western nation. But let me tell the House a few of the facts we found out only after we became the Government of Canada. First, because of the previous government’s commitment to secrecy, we did not know that the trend in government finances was exactly opposite to what Canadians had been told by the old government. We found that long-range forecasts, which we made public for the first time, showed the federal deficit increasing to $14 billion by 1983 and the public debt actually growing dramatically again with the next five years. Secondly, we had been told by the former minister of finance, as recently as his last budget, that the Canadian economy was entering into a period of, to use his words, “sustained expansion.” What we found in fact was an economy here and in the United States sliding toward a recession, not moving toward sustained expansion.
Economic and Energy Policy
65
The third thing we found was that the accounts of Canada, as presented by the old government, simply did not represent the true financial position of the country. In the Accounts of Canada Adjustments Act, the previous government proposed to write off some $3.5 billion in dubious assets, an action which might not affect cash requirements but which certainly had an impact on the country’s net debt and debt servicing costs. Similarly, we found Crown corporation borrowings of as much as $1.5 billion which were not entered in the accounts, even though they were a contingent liability of the government. We found a number of capital projects with costs virtually out of control, from the Prince Rupert grain dryer, where costs had multiplied five times, to the Mirabel Airport losing $1 million a week and requiring expenditures of hundreds of millions of dollars before it could even achieve solvency. [Translation] Mr. Speaker, faced with this legacy, no responsible government had any other alternative but to accept rising interest rates. Our government made a difficult but responsible choice. Let me also tell you the other solution we could have adopted. The Liberals as well as the New Democrats have hinted to the Canadian public, without ever making their position clear, that there was an obvious way out, which as Canadians should know, which had the full support of the opposition, namely, to reject the advice of the governor of the Bank of Canada. Such a decision would have had dire consequences. The governor might have felt he had to resign, as the government’s decision would amount to a lack of confidence. Given the present economic situation, such a resignation might have provoked a wind of panic on the Canadian stock exchange dealt a hard blow to Canadian currency. Even without the Governor’s resignation, our dollar would have been affected by our $7 billion trade deficit, followed by a drastic depreciation of our dollar and serious inflationary consequences for country. Such was, Mr. Speaker, the short-term choice the government had to make. I hope the representatives of the two parties opposite will have the courage to rise before this debate is over and tell this House and the Canadian people that it was the option they supported. [English] We are faced here with a ritual motion of non-confidence from a government that is so preoccupied with its past that it will—
66
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
Mr. Munro (Hamilton East): Government? Some hon. Members: Oh, oh! Mr. Clark:—by a group who consider themselves a government and who are so preoccupied with the mistakes that they made in the policies to which they were committed in the old days that they refuse to face the future of Canada. We on this side of the House are not afraid of the future of Canada. We will not accept the advice of those opposite, that we either succumb to ideology suggested by the New Democratic Party, or we lock ourselves in the past and shut our eyes to the future that can be gained in this country. We have in the energy resources of this nation a tremendous potential upon which to build as a nation. It is a potential which was there under the old government, but which it refused and failed to take advantage of. We do not intend to perpetuate that failure or to continue in the path of shutting our eyes to the great energy potential which exists in this country. We are a nation which need not depend on foreign sources. We are a nation which need not subject the people of Quebec and Atlantic Canada to an increasing dependence upon unstable foreign sources. We are a nation unique among nations of the world which has the possibility to build upon our own energy strength. This is what this government intends to do. If those opposite want to risk a general election on a question of the past versus the future, then we will go with confidence into that election, speaking to the future and certain that the people of Canada, given a choice or forced to make a choice between a government that wants to govern and a party opposite that wants to politic, will share with us the confidence that my ministers and I have in the future of this country. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!
Economic and Energy Policy
67
Energy Policy Security and National Interest House of Commons Debates 18 July 1980 32nd Parliament, 1st Session: Volume 3, 3116–3119 Mr. Clark: The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) promised that his spending would not exceed the real increases in gross national product. That was his promise during the election campaign. He broke his word, as it has become the habit of the Liberal party to break its word to the people of Canada. Mr. Chénier: Look who’s talking. Mr. Clark: That casual attitude toward honesty damages the very fabric of Canadian democracy, but in no field does the failure to face facts honestly more endanger the future of this country than in the field of energy policy, because we are a nation with immense potential and immense good fortune. We are also a nation which is blessed by individuals who have gone out to acquire skills and who have turned their skills to innovation, to creativity, and to opening and building a land. That is part of the legacy of this great nation, but our good fortune cannot be allowed to obscure two fundamental facts. The first is that no one else will look after Canada. We Canadians have to build on our good fortune, and we have to do it ourselves. Sometimes that means taking hard decisions, and always that means honesty. If we back down from hard decisions, our country will slide down the scale of nations. The second reality is that energy, which can be the source of Canadian security and success, can also be the cause of Canadian decline. If we build on our own resources, we can be the strongest nation in the world. That is if we build on our own resources, but if we expose ourselves weakly to the world, we can be cut down by revolutions in Iran, by invasions in Afghanistan, and by national decisions of foreign governments taken for their own reasons and with no thought of Canada in mind. Any of us in this House of Commons who are honest and knowledgeable about the facts know the frailty of the world energy picture. We know that demand is rapidly exceeding supply in the world. We know that the foreign policy of the Soviet Union is focusing more and more upon securing energy supplies at whatever cost to world stability. Hon. members of this House of Commons also know that we in Canada are unique among nations in our ability to protect our future
68
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
against hostile foreign decisions and to protect our future by making realistic Canadian decisions here at home. That is the reality facing any Government of Canada, but the response of Canada’s two recent governments has been dramatically different. My government faced those facts and for the first time in post-war history in Canada prepared a comprehensive national energy policy which would build upon the energy strengths of this energy nation. A federal-provincial agreement on that package was two days away when the Liberals and the New Democratic Party combined again to bring our government down. An hon. Member: Poor Joe! Mr. Clark: Since then there has been no comprehensive energy policy at all advanced by the Liberal government. Negotiations on a narrow but important part of energy policy, the part concerning price, are apparently under way. The producing provinces, naturally enough, are insisting that they receive the same net benefits from this government that they would have received from the agreement we had prepared. That is understandable, but the point for this Parliament to underline is that all the people of Canada also have the right to expect that Canada will get equivalent benefits from the Liberal agreement, equivalent to those benefits Canada would have received from the agreement two days short of signing by the Progressive Conservative government defeated last year. The Prime Minister is apparently meeting the premier of Alberta. He may well have a proposal to make. He has an adjournment ahead of him. I want to suggest some items for his agenda during that adjournment as they relate to energy policy. I would like him to bear in mind, as I believe the Canadian people are increasingly bearing in mind, the important elements of the comprehensive energy proposal which we made and which the Liberal party and the NDP, for their own narrow political reasons, voted against. Some hon. Member: Oh, oh! Mr. Clark: Those elements of that proposal were designed to build Canadian security, were designed to ensure Canadian supply, and they included some of the following. First, they included a pricing regime which would be sufficient to lead to exploration in this country, including non-conventional exploration in areas where exploration has not occurred successfully before, and which would lead the producers of this country to go forward and to guarantee security of Canadian sup-
Economic and Energy Policy
69
ply, because we believe that Canada, with the resources available to it, with the initiative of its people and of its industry, is eminently capable of becoming self-sufficient in energy by the year 1990. That was our goal, that should be the goal of Canada, that can be the goal of Canada, and that is a goal which apparently has been abandoned by the Liberal government and which I recommend that they adopt, not in my interest but in the interest of the nation that they will govern for a few years more. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Clark: Second, that energy package put together to secure Canada’s energy future, to take advantage of the rare resource we have as an energy nation, provided—and I say this for the special information of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources who, unhappily is absent—a force majeure clause which would have permitted the Government of Canada to separate Canadian price, to an even greater degree than was in the agreement spelled out, from the changes that might occur in world price, in prices by OPEC. That force majeure clause was an item of protection which was in our agreement, and we have no way of knowing what protection, if any, will be in the agreement signed by the Liberal government, if indeed there is one. Third, we recognized as a fundamental element of an energy policy for Canada that there had to be help to those Canadians who were going to be hit hardest by the increases in price that increases which were inevitable in a modern world economy. So, we introduced an energy tax credit which would have been available to the lower income and harder hit Canadians across the country, an energy tax credit, I would remind the House, voted against by the NDP and voted against by the Liberal party, but introduced by this party, introduced by the government we formed, as a fundamental element of a national energy package— Some hon. Members: Oh, oh! Mr. Clark: I am being heckled by the hon. member for Timmins-Chapleau (Mr. Chénier). I wanted to say the hon. member for Hollywood, but it is Timmins. His interjection was a complaint against the tax credit. I am not surprised that he should interject against the tax credit since the other night he applauded the imposition of an increase in the price that his constituents have to pay for home heating oil, an increase they would not have had to pay under our government.
70
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
Some hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Clark: We introduced those measures of aid to help Canadians who would be hardest hit. That was another major element of that program. Again we recognized that there were in some parts of Canada energy generation which depended excessively upon petroleum. So we offered special help to the province of Nova Scotia and to the province of Prince Edward Island so that they would be better able to deal with the increases which were inevitable in the current international energy situation. We proposed an energy self-sufficiency tax which would have yielded some $6 billion. We proposed a tax that the NDP voted against which would have taken $6 billion from the large multinational oil companies of this country. The NDP voted to spare multinationals from a $6 billion tax burden which we proposed to introduce. Some hon. Members: Oh, oh! Mr. Clark: That energy self-sufficiency tax imposed upon the energy industry was to have been directed entirely to energy supply and to developing conservation in this country. We proposed the establishment, as part of that package, of a Canadian energy bank which would encourage individual Canadians and Canadian-controlled companies to invest in Canadian energy projects. Again there has been no mention of that important factor, no similar instrument spelled out by the Liberal party. This party stands committed—and we proved it with the energy bank—to the concept of Canadian ownership of the Canadian energy industry. That is a principle which was voted against by the NDP, it was an initiative which was voted against by the Liberal party, but we believed in it and we set it forth in the energy package which was brought forth by us as a government. We believe in Canadian ownership of Canadian energy resources, and we gave Canadians a program which would have accomplished that goal. Some hon Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Clark: Those are some of the elements of our energy package, and the NDP was caught in the act of voting against Canadian ownership, of voting against low-income Canadians, of voting against energy security, so they are making a great deal of noise in this House. No doubt they are trying to shout down the revelation of their record, but as a party they voted against lower income Canadians, they voted against
Economic and Energy Policy
71
Canadian ownership, and they voted against Canadian security of supply. If they do not like hearing this now, they had better get used to it because they are going to hear a great deal more about their actions against Canadian interests. Some hon Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Clark: Indeed, as one of my colleagues pointed out, they will be hearing a great deal more about their actions against the steelworkers, their actions against unions. Mr. Skelly: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think the record clearly shows that it was the Canadian people who in fact voted against the Leader of the Conservative Party (Mr. Clark). Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is a point of debate, not a point of order. Mr. Clark: I regret that in the uproar which was being caused by the hon. member’s colleagues I did not hear his remarks, but my colleagues who did hear him tell me I missed nothing. Some hon Members: Oh, oh! Mr. Clark: I want to speak for a moment not simply about the contents of that energy package, important as they were because they faced, for the first time since the war in Canada, the great possibilities that existed for this nation to become self-sufficient in energy. I want to speak for a moment, for the benefit of the Liberal party, about the process that was followed in working out that package because I happened to read a most extraordinary chronicle in the life of Canada the other day, an interview given by one Pierre Elliott Trudeau to, of all people, the Toronto Globe and Mail. I thought that wonders would never cease when I read the account of that interview, until it became clear why exactly that interview had been given by that individual to that particular medium. The reason was that he wanted to build up the idea that there is no alternative approach to the confrontation politics which he has practiced for so long at such a high cost here in Canada. He suggested that what he termed as the non-confrontationist approach of my government has not worked. I want to give him one instance where it did work, and I wish him as much success as we had. When we began the process of working out an energy agreement which would speak to supply and security of supply for Canada, we consulted with the premiers of the country, Premier Buchanan, Premier Blak-
72
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
eney, Premier Davis, Premier Hatfield, Premier MacLean, and Premier Lougheed. We consulted with the premiers of the country. We did not take them a package which was a fait accompli, but we said, “Look, here is the goal for this country, a goal for a price which Canadians can afford and will have to face, but a goal also which will take advantage of the great resources that are here and will build on those resources.” I went to them as prime minister to premier and I said, “This is not a closed book, this is an arrangement, an agreement which conserves the interests of the whole community of Canada which we commonly serve.” I received from those premiers several proposals that became part of that agreement and that were very helpful to the final package which was proposed. For example, it was the Premier of Ontario who suggested first that there be a relation that would not go above 85 per cent of world price and would naturally be protected after that by the force majeure clause. We did not go to a province, as the Trudeau government so often does, and say, “Take this or leave it.” We said, “Here is a proposal. How can it be improved?” Premier Davis made a suggestion that improved it significantly. We went to the Premier of Nova Scotia and said, “Here is a proposal. How can it be improved?” Premier John Buchanan and Premier Angus MacLean of Prince Edward Island co-operated with us in having the energy package that was brought forward reflect the special requirements of their parts of Canada. There were other items where we went to the premiers and listened to the advice of other governments, because we wanted a package which would not simply be a package that bore a party name, that would not be something that was forced down the throats of Canadians by a national government, but in effect would be a genuine national package reflecting a genuine national consensus and pursuing genuine national goals. That kind of consultation will work in this country. That kind of consultation came within two days of working out a national energy package. If that package had been adopted this country would be much more secure in energy supplies than we are now, this country would be much better protected against the vagaries of the international market and against political changes which may occur in countries we cannot control, than it is now. That was a national policy worked out by a national government that was prepared to treat the provinces as partners sharing common goals, rather than as enemies who are there only to be confronted.
Economic and Energy Policy
73
Some hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Clark: One other dimension of the energy negotiation which is important to recall to the attention of the House and the Canadian public at this time is that we recognized, as I think most Canadians do, that the question of pricing cannot be separated from the question of changes in the equalization formula of the country. I will say to the House that we received advice from public servants and from others that the only way to approach that problem was to approach the two issues together. I considered that advice and I knew it would fail. I knew the only way we could get agreement on those two important and fundamental questions in the country was to approach them in the proper sequence, and to recognize that in western Canada for a variety of reasons there had grown such a deep suspicion of the national government that there would not be a ready agreement on equalization until there was seen to be a fair agreement on an energy package first. That is why we proceeded in the sequence of getting agreement first on energy. We would have had that agreement on the Saturday after the government fell, and on the Monday after the government fell we had scheduled a first ministers’ conference at which we had prepared for presentation to the premiers the proposal of a new review of equalization in the country based upon the Rowell-Sirois report, recognizing the fact that 40 years after Rowell-Sirois it was necessary for us to re-examine root and branch the equalization system in this country. We proposed the innovation that instead of just simply being a commission imposed upon the provinces by the government, it should be a commission jointly appointed, with members appointed by both provincial and federal government, because that is the way to make a federal system work—not to argue about commas in a law but to recognize we share a common country and we want to build this common country together. That was the approach we took to equalization. I know we have heard nothing of the reforms in the equalization agreement which will expire in less than two years. We have heard nothing of that from this government. To our knowledge and to the knowledge of the House of Commons, it is doing nothing about that fundamental problem. Had we been successful—and we were not; that is history—not only would we have had an energy package that would have moved this nation toward energy self-sufficiency by 1990, also I firmly believe we would have had an agreement on an amendment to the equalization formula which would have taken account of resource
74
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
revenues in a way that would have truly shared, not by imposition but by agreement, the resources and wealth of this whole nation. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear! [Translation] Mr. Clark: Mr. Speaker, I think that we have thoroughly discussed national unity during recent years. I think, however, that we may have overlooked some means available to a national government. We have decided, for example, that it was not sufficient to convene the provinces and the federal government merely to discuss constitutional matters. We must also co-operate to consider modernizing other Canadian institutions. This is why we have advocated the establishment of a national conference on economic development in Canada. The purpose of such conference would be to gather for the first time in Canadian history all the representatives and spokesmen not merely of the federal and provincial governments but also from the industry, the unions, the credit unions, the farmers and other individuals concerned with the economic development of Canada. It is by working together that we can have a united country. The constitution alone or discussions dealing exclusively with legal matters will not do it. I referred earlier today, Mr. Speaker, to the actions of the Liberal government on energy matters and I indicated and there was evidence of it as recently as last night, that the word of the federal government is worth nothing or is not acceptable and that the people cannot rely upon it. Finally, the Liberal government is specializing in policy flip-flops and we just had a new example with energy. That is very serious, particularly when we think of what the Prime Minister said during the referendum campaign. He solemnly committed himself to achieve a new Canadian federalism. He promised it to Quebeckers and other Canadians. But now that the referendum campaign is over, can we truly believe that he has really changed, that his attitude is different from what it was in the past and that the proposals made by his government constitute the slightest opening onto a genuine reform? Unfortunately, the answer is no. In fact, all the Prime Minister has managed to do up to now is to cause a lot of people to worry, from Claude Ryan to Roy Romanow. It augurs no good at all for the future, and I hope that the Prime Minister
Economic and Energy Policy
75
will be able to pull himself together in the next few days and will realize that the time has come at last to keep his word and to take concrete steps toward the renewal of the Canadian federation. [English] I close by reminding this House that we are a nation with great opportunities. We are a nation which, as well as its natural wealth, also has a wealth of good will and a wealth of common interest. We are a nation which can be brought together, but also we are a nation which can be driven apart. We need, as a nation, national projects. We need, as a nation, co-operation among levels of government and among individual Canadians. We need, as a nation, national leadership. We have had none from this government in the first session of this Parliament. They have sought and are receiving an adjournment. I would hope their agenda for an adjournment would include having a budget ready for the early days after we come back in mid-October, would include having an energy agreement concluded which gives the people of Canada at least the benefits that would have been available under ours. Having regard to the time, I wonder if I might conclude my remarks by moving, seconded by the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker): That this House continue to sit this day beyond the ordinary time of daily adjournment in order to complete its consideration of the motion of the President of the Privy Council now under consideration.
Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!
3
Federal-Provincial Relations As previously mentioned in the introductory chapter, Joe Clark had (and has) a keen interest in defending the rights of the small provinces and less well heard regions of our Confederation. This is illustrated in his speeches on the proper nature of federal-provincial relations. As an Albertan, Clark has a particularly acute sense of the awareness that Canadians living beyond the Highway 401 corridor can feel towards the rest of Canada. In the following chapter, five speeches illustrate Clark’s understanding of the impact of federalism on diverse parts of Confederation. In the first one, Clark articulates his view of Canada in classic pluralist terms as a “community of communities.” This is perhaps one of his most memorable phrases and articulates a united Canada of shared but distinct identities, where our loyalty lies in our most immediate neighbourhoods. While this speech was from an Empire Club address, the others were made throughout his parliamentary career, in parliament from both sides of the House, as opposition MP to the Prime Minister’s Office. Clark spoke on a wide range of issues, from the importance of small town newspapers to the overall relationship of the federal government to the territories. Outside of his political career Clark worked as a journalist, both at local papers such as the High River Times and wrote for larger papers such as the Globe and Mail. This experience helped to lend perspective on the importance of local businesses and the news media in helping to build the “distinctive sense of community” (see page 97). Clark believed that this could not be fostered by institutions with a cross-country reach because their scope did not recognize the unique peculiarities of the federation. Clark made a point to demonstrate that what is also important was not just federal government support for these initiatives but the ways in which federal government support is given. Both means and ends were important to Clark; these concerns are demonstrated throughout this chapter. A Man of Parliament; Selected Speeches from Joe Clark, edited by Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon. Montréal and Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press, Queen’s Policy Studies Series. © 2019 The School of Policy Studies, Queen’s University at Kingston. All rights reserved.
78
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
Because our federation was originally intended to be centralized, with the federal government playing a dominant role in governing, the provincial governments have often had to fight to ensure they didn’t get run roughshod by an activist federal government. Clark worked within this tradition from his earliest days as a parliamentarian. Though he was a federal MP, his actions suggest that his allegiances lay often with the provinces in their efforts to get a fair share of revenue from their resources. In the third speech presented in this chapter, Clark was up against a government that, in his words, was beginning to act like a “bull in a china shop,” flouting the duty to consult with provinces on matters that directly affect them. Here the debate was over the federal government’s ability to raise export taxes (as is their constitutional prerogative) to the detriment of the Alberta oil industry. In this case specifically, Clark was indignant about the federal government backtracking on an agreement with the Alberta government to establish a schedule for the gradual increase of said tax. It was when this schedule was subsequently disregarded that Clark rose to speak for Alberta. The economy of Alberta, in the international oil boom of the post Arab oil shocks of the 1970s, was thriving but still needed to be nurtured. Clark understood the strategic importance of this province’s resource and believed that its importance was inextricably linked to Canada’s economic health. He believed that the oil industry was the one “strong card” Alberta had to play in its attempt to “become a strong, industrialized province which would contribute to the industrial strength of the whole of Canada.” This speech provides a glimpse into the early stages of a debate (i.e., the role of the extractive industry in our economy) that is still front and centre in our national conversation today. As becomes apparent throughout the speeches in this chapter, for Clark, the federal government is at its weakest when it tries to interact on a smaller, local scale in place of provincial or municipal government. This principle, which we now refer to as subsidiarity, suggests that the government closest to the delivery of services is the one that is in the best position to deliver them. It allows for diversity in policy and sees the federal government as fostering that diversity, whether it’s economic or social. We see this articulated by Clark not only in his defence of the oil industry, but also in his assertion that the “control of resources means control of the future of the province of Alberta.” Clark believed that this control should be firmly in the hands of whichever province or territory was most affected. Unlike their provincial government counterparts, the territories of
Federal-Provincial Relations 79
Canada do not have any constitutionally entrenched powers. Instead, the territories only have authority in areas given to them by the federal government. This leaves them particularly vulnerable to the vagaries of the federal government. The speech included herein deals with a bill before the House which would establish a precedent for how national parks would be established in the territories but, for our purposes, speaks to Clark’s thoughts on power arrangements between national and sub-national governments. As Clark puts it, “if you wanted to establish a national park in Ontario, you must ask the local government; but if you wanted to establish a national park in the Yukon or Northwest Territories, you tell the local government.” He uses this policy to eloquently point out one of the fundamental weaknesses in our federal arrangement: that is, the double standard which exists between the federal government and the citizens of a province and those of the territories. In order to address this imbalance, Clark gave a defence of the need for increased self-government in the territories, an issue which, given the majority Indigenous population of the territories, is woefully absent from our contemporary discourse. Clark’s mission, as demonstrated in this chapter, was to ensure that the provinces and the diversity of regions within Canada maintain a fair and equal relationship with the federal government. In his view, it was only in this way that Canada would be able to develop and grow to the benefit of all its different regions. Aside from this defence, Clark weighed in on debates that continue to this day, such as energy independence and self-sufficiency. Clark’s work for more equal intra-federal relations is admirable and no doubt timely in a federation that is increasingly decentralized. This would please him as the last thing he wanted was for the provinces to become simply creatures of the federal government in Ottawa.
80
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
Building a Nation (Community of Communities) The Empire Club of Canada Addresses (Toronto: Empire Club Foundation, 1979), 318–327 What I want to do today is speak to you, not simply about some of the issues in the election campaign, but also some broader questions of approach to the country. I think we recognize that in every election there are important substantive policy differences, whether about mortgage deductability, or about energy self-sufficiency, or about the fundamental question of whether Jean Chrétien can count. There are always those important questions. But there are also, occasionally, elections which involve a choice between two quite different ways of seeing the country. As you will know, I think a central issue of the general failure of his [Pierre Elliott Trudeau’s] government is that he did not understand, and sometimes did not try to understand, other aspects of Canada’s very complex reality. Too often, he and the quite similar people he drew around him tried to change the country to fit their theory about what the country should be. In economic policy, in constitutional policy, in their attitude towards the instincts of the individual Canadian citizen, they have been governing against the nature of the nation. To govern a nation, one must first understand it. I want to sketch briefly my understanding of this nation, Canada, as we enter the 1980s. First, as the Commission of which Mr. Robarts was such a distinguished member found, our diversity in this country is both utterly inescapable and immensely valuable. It’s typical, I think, that our official emblem—the maple leaf—is not indigenous to two of our provinces and two of our territories. For there are thousands of happy and productive Canadian citizens who are most at ease when they speak neither of our two official languages. We are a nation that is too big for simple symbols. Our preoccupation with the symbol of a single national identity has, in my judgement, obscured the great wealth we have in several local identities which are rich in themselves and which are skilled in getting along with others. If that truth has been lost on Ottawa’s planners, it is not lost on the people of Canada, whether those people are artists like Alden Nowlen or Monique Leyrac or W. O. Mitchell or Gordon Lightfoot or Emily Carr or the Group of Seven, whose work evokes their locale, or whether they are citizens who are starting heritage societies, starting history clubs,
Federal-Provincial Relations 81
organizing walks through their own back yards. In an immense country, you live on a local scale. Governments make the nation work by recognizing that we are fundamentally a community of communities. Of course the national government has to be strong, particularly on economic questions. But it must also be sensitive to the damage that neat theories can wreak upon a diverse country. There is nothing new to that view. Indeed, the successful prime ministers of Canada have incorporated that idea into the makeup of their governments, ensuring that every region had senior ministers who were strong enough to keep the government in touch with local realities. That is a fact of life in Canada to which we must return. A second thing that is important is my view, and that of my party, that our economy in Canada is potentially one of the strongest in the world. We have in abundance resources which are elsewhere in short supply, whether of food or energy or minerals. Capital will come to us, and come to us in ways we can control. So will as much population as we want. Our challenge in this country is not to cope with scarcity. Our challenge is to build on abundance. Other nations might well be forced, legitimately, to contemplate limits on growth. But our very different challenge here in Canada is to plan and to manage growth. Finally, our people are ambitious. Whatever cultures we come from, whatever heritage we bring to these shores, we are all of us North American in inspiration. We want to build. We want to grow. Generally, the goals of Canadians are personal goals. A few people in our history have helped build our nation by consciously pursuing national goals, but many more have built this nation by pursuing the personal goals which the nature of this nation allows. The personal goal of most Canadians has been freedom and some security for their family. That caused the settlement of new regions, caused the immigration of new citizens, caused the transplanting of old roots to new ground. A policy designed to make the nation grow must build upon and must not frustrate the instinct of most Canadians to build a stake for themselves. So what we propose in this election campaign is not just a change in government, but a fundamental change in the very direction of this country, a change that would reflect the value of that cultural and regional diversity, that would build on the natural strengths of our economy, and would recognize that the best instrument of national achievement is the individual initiative of the private citizen and the private sector in this country. Through the last decade, government has been properly concerned
82
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
with services to citizens, and now we have a good basic system of services in place. But the challenge of this next decade is to make our people grow in understanding of the great good fortune that we have here in Canada. We can do that. I come, as your Chairman said, from the foothills of Alberta, and I have learned late the second language of our country, mais je peux le parler à High River sans danger, sans risque, mais avec le véritable avantage que maintenant je peux comprendre le Québec assez bien a communiquer les aspirations des Québécois aux Albertans, aux Ontarians et les autres Canadiens et je peux, je croix, communiquer aux Québécois les aspirations, l’intérêt, la détermination des Canadiens des autres provinces de bâtir une pays avec le Québec. L’avenir du Canada est plus qu’une question de loi. C’est une question de volonté et de compréhension. Il y a deux jours j’étais applaudé quand j’ai défendue le bilinguisme devant un auditoire de la Colombie Britannique. Le peuple canadien a eu assez de toutes les querelles plus ou moins artificielles entre gouvernements. Ils cherchent un terrain d’entente. Ils cherchent des objectifs communes qui respectent la diversité des traditions de chacun. The great need now, whether it is in constitutional policy or economic policy, is for momentum in this country. In constitutional terms, the fact is that a new national government can get agreement on several changes—more likely changes in practice than in law—but several changes and soon, and that will break the impasse of distrust. Once trust is restored to federal-provincial relations, we can begin toward the more profound reforms, reforms whose end purpose must be to confirm national leadership in economic development, and to confirm provincial leadership in the development of the cultures that are strong in the regions and the provinces of this country. The national government cannot impose those goals, but only the national government, only the government of all the people of Canada, has the authority to bring together the economic partners whose agreement is essential to any effective new national policy. Even more important, we intend to change the attitude in Ottawa. We intend to create in Canada an atmosphere in which the innovator and the entrepreneur are encouraged to go out and to build in the world. No one who travels in this country, no one who knows it, can escape being impressed mightily by the great potential that is here, and by the knowledge on the part of the people of Canada that we are a fortunate
Federal-Provincial Relations 83
nation, a fortunate people of unparalleled potential. There is a tremendous potential upon which to build here in Canada. There is no doubt that the people of this country are seized with that spirit of potential. What we need is a government in Ottawa that will encourage and recognize how essential to our future it is that the policy, the attitude, the approach of government get in line with the attitude and the hopes of the people, that we have a government in Canada that is as confident and proud and as buoyant about the future of this country as are the people themselves.
Federal-Provincial Consultation on Energy Policy House of Commons Debates 12 November 1979 31st Parliament, 1st Session: Volume 2, 1219–1220 Right Hon. Joe Clark (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker, perhaps at the beginning I might have the permission of the House to lay on the table two copies of “An Outline of Proposed Initial Stage of National Energy Strategy,” a background paper that was published earlier today in both official languages. Some hon. Members: Agreed. Mr. Clark: I would like to take the opportunity to express my apology to opposition spokesmen on the other side in that it was only recently that we were able to get a copy of my statement to them. This had to do with the relatively short time between the conclusion of our discussions and my desire to come and report as directly as possible to the House of Commons. I want also to indicate, sir, how much I appreciate the courtesy of members on both sides in providing unanimous consent so that I might report to Parliament on my meeting today with other first ministers. As hon. members know, today’s discussion centred on the proposals put forth by this government to achieve our goal of making Canada self-sufficient in energy by 1990. Those proposals previously had been the subject of extensive consultation between Ottawa and the provinces, and I believe the positive tone of discussions today reflected the value of frank and extensive consultation in a federal system. Sir, that is a pattern we intend to continue.
84
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
I am pleased for our country, to be able to report substantial agreement among first ministers on the major outlines of a comprehensive energy policy for Canada. The first ministers unanimously endorsed our central goal of energy self-sufficiency. We agreed it is dangerous to the economic future of our country to ignore a situation where so many Canadians, especially in Quebec and in Atlantic Canada, are dependent on unreliable foreign oil supplies. The important element of price remains to be negotiated. As I told the conference, that is, jurisdictionally, a decision for the producing provinces and the national government, but we want to take the pricing decision only after we had the opportunity to hear from other parts of Canada and know how price increases would affect those regions. I was impressed by the realism of the first ministers in recognizing that, while price increases are never easy, the consequences of failing to act would be much more serious for Canada. They would expose us to supply interruption which could devastate the economy of Canada and could leave Canada relying upon unstable foreign sources of oil—sources which simply cannot be counted on. Against that background we will be meeting representatives of the producing provinces this week to seek a pricing regime for oil and natural gas, designed to increase Canada’s ability to supply our own oil and gas, to encourage conservation, and to encourage substitution of alternate fields. Sir, today we proposed a special tax on incremental oil company profits to help finance Canadian energy development. Officials of our government will be consulting with provinces and the industry to design the most effective tax. We proposed a Canadian energy bank to help Canadians invest in long term and essential Canadian energy projects. Several provinces, I am pleased to report, have agreed to take a look at contributing equity financing to that bank. The federal government itself expects to contribute about $1.5 billion to equity, over the next four years to help build Canada’s energy potential. Officials will also meet to identify conservation projects where work can begin immediately. I indicated our intention to propose a co-operative program to help individuals retrofit oil-burning furnaces. We would be prepared to contribute to an industrial energy conservation program in Atlantic Canada. Regarding home insulation, several provinces have indicated that local needs would be better served if the Canadian Home Insulation Program, CHIP, were under provincial control, and we are prepared to work out arrangements under which CHIP
Federal-Provincial Relations 85
would be transferred, together with increased federal funding. [Translation] First ministers strongly supported the need for new initiatives to encourage increased substitution of more plentiful energy sources for oil. Particular attention was given to the opportunity for expanded natural gas markets in Ontario, Quebec and perhaps the maritime provinces, but there was also recognition of the other sources available in particular regions for example, greater use of wood waste in British Columbia, increased coal production in Nova Scotia, further hydro production in Manitoba, Quebec and Newfoundland, and expanded development of renewable energy sources across the country. Officials of federal and provincial governments are beginning work immediately to identify areas where substitution can start in 1980. [English] We have also discussed with first ministers means to help Canadians who will be least able to deal with price increases, and so deal with other specific problems. Those measures will be dealt with either in the federal budget, or in connection with the next first ministers conference which has been rescheduled for December 17 and 18. That change in date will allow officials to conclude the work flowing from today’s conference and will allow first ministers to also deal with other matters. [Translation] Leaders of 11 governments met to discuss a complex and difficult subject on which there are some legitimate differences of view. Those differences were aired honestly and openly—but without acrimony and within an overall spirit of partnership. I want to express my appreciation publicly of the positive spirit in which provincial premiers came together. [English] As I said at the conference, Mr. Speaker, Canadians have a choice. We can ignore realities, or we can face them. We have before us the opportunity to provide Canadian industry with a permanent cost advantage over American competitors. We have before us the opportunity to ensure all Canadians have reliable and se-
86
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
cure energy supplies “made in Canada.” We have before us the opportunity to launch a major new era of energy development and a major new commitment to energy conservation in which all Canadians can share. On the basis of today’s discussions, Mr. Speaker, I believe Canadians have every reason for confidence that their governments will choose to seize the energy opportunity that is ours. We have further discussions to continue; we have further negotiations ahead of us, but I wanted to come directly from the conference to report to the House of Commons upon the progress that was realized today. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!
The Export Tax House of Commons Debates 8 November 1973 29th Parliament, 1st Session: Volume 7, 7675–7677 Mr. Joe Clark (Rocky Mountain): Mr. Speaker, I wish to applaud the initiative of the hon. member for Champlain (Mr. Matte) in introducing the motion we are debating. Many members who have spoken before me in this debate have made specific reference to constitutional discussions which have been before us and which have been of concern for some time. I do not intend to repeat what they said or to speak particularly about the direct method of repatriation in a discussing the constitution. I want, instead, to turn my attention tonight and the attention of the House to that atmosphere of co-operation which is necessary before there can be an amendment of the constitution and which is necessary, indeed, before the constitution can be made to work. I was interested in hearing the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) indicate this afternoon that a debate on this topic is usually a debate which is of special interest to members of this House from the province of Quebec, because in that province there is a special interest in constitutional matters. Sir, it used to be that members of this House from Alberta were able to more or less take a spectator’s seat in those discussions on federal-provincial relations. That is not the case tonight. It is natural that I should view and enter this debate against the context of the current deep dispute about energy matters between Alberta
Federal-Provincial Relations 87
and Ottawa. No Albertan could escape that context because, sir, there is an anger in Alberta now that exceeds in intensity anything in my memory or in the memory of older men than I. It is not anger that other people would want to use our oil, our resources. We want them to. Moreover, we want Canadian consumers to have a better price and better access to our resources than nationals of other countries. The Premier of Alberta has made that clear. Instead, sir, the anger in Alberta is about the methods this government has used to implement a policy which, while it is important to every region of Canada, is most important to Alberta because it affects not only our price of fuel and our prospects of warmth but our capacity to grow and to industrialize. This is not the place to debate the merits of particular federal proposals regarding energy. Those have been debated on other occasions in this House, and will be again. The debate inspired by this motion concerns, not the merits of a particular case but the methods by which our federal system works. In many ways, this is the most appropriate forum for a review of the Alberta situation, because whatever disagreement might exist about the merits of the actions proposed by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald), what inflames Alberta opinion most is the method by which these decisions, of vital importance to Alberta, were imposed—clearly without consultation and, one must assume, without consideration of the impact the measures will have upon Alberta’s capacity to grow. Whatever disagreement there might be about the things the minister of energy has done, the anger in Alberta today is about the way he has done these things. And the concern for Canada is that the method he has applied here—the method of a bull in a china shop—is a warning of the way in which other provinces might be treated on other issues by other ministers at other times. That warning, sir, is more profound because, while the minister of energy has a special talent for provocation, the style of confrontation which he has adopted toward Alberta is a style which before the last election was becoming a trademark of this government and which apparently now is being renewed. Sir, no Canadian should need reminding of the diversity of our country. That diversity is the reason we have a federal system where provinces and the national government distribute most powers and share others. This federal system was not imposed upon Canada. It grew out of our nature and is the only system which can hope to unite a diverse country and yet allow its individual parts to find their own identity and strength. By the very nature of our country, we are bound to have in-
88
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
terests which conflict. That means that a particular obligation lies upon our politicians to try to unite differences, not excite differences. And if that is an obligation upon those of us who sit on the backbenches of parliament, it is an obligation with a particular weight for those who occupy ministerial offices. Yet in this dispute with Alberta that is precisely the obligation which the minister of energy has affronted and ignored. I want to review for this House the sad record of what has happened, in the name of consultation, on this export tax. But first let me try to make this House understand the particular importance of this question to Alberta. What we are worried about here is not simply revenue, although of course that is important. What we are worried about, as well, is the sense—and we have the sense—that control of resources means control of the future of the province of Alberta. It is very much less a matter of price than it is a matter of future. We have primarily relied, in the province of Alberta, on primary production, on agriculture. We have the opportunity to industrialize and we have begun to industrialize. But we are working with certain regional disadvantages. Freight rates are one, population distribution is another, market distribution is yet another, the habit of investors to invest in central Canada is another. We have one strong card—petroleum. It provides us with the opportunity to develop petrochemical industries and jobs. Sir, this opportunity would help us to turn the corner and become a strong, industrialized province which would contribute to the industrial strength of the whole of Canada. However, we have no reason for confidence that this goal will be accomplished by Ottawa directing policy, and we have no reason for confidence after looking back at the history of tariffs, at the present discrimination in transportation and at a variety of other matters. What I should like to do tonight is try to convey a state of mind which it would be folly for other parts of Canada to ignore, just as it would have been folly for other parts of Canada to ignore the state of mind that began manifesting itself in Quebec in the early 1960s. This House should remember that the export tax was one of two barrels which hit Alberta in early September. The other was the prospect that Syncrude might be denied the kind of tax treatment which other oil producers in Alberta would receive and that Syncrude consequently might well be held up. Moreover, sir, the export tax seemed to be a device aimed particularly at Alberta and at Alberta’s major resources and not applied, as it might have been, to the resources of other provinces. It was a partic-
Federal-Provincial Relations 89
ular attack on a particular province. In September, energy ministers of the Alberta and Canadian governments were in Ottawa at a meeting which had been arranged some time previously. The apparent attitude on both sides was conciliatory. The first item on the agenda was the need for close and continuing consultation. The ministers discussed that first item and agreed to maintain close contact and consult one another thoroughly. The federal minister of energy made the point that in this field events develop quickly and that consultation could not be considered as constituting a right to veto. Naturally, that position was accepted by the representatives of Alberta. The discussion progressed to other items on the agenda. Then sometime between 11 a.m. and noon the federal minister of energy announced that the National Energy Board would be imposing an export tax of about 40 cents and that the announcement would be made publicly later that day. Alberta ministers had no warning that was coming and no opportunity to make comments or suggestions which would materially affect the decision. Scant minutes after affirming the need for consultation, the federal minister presented Alberta with a fait accompli. That was not consultation. That was mere advice. Any province, treated that way on a matter of such vital interest to its future, would have responded in anger. Indeed, any federal government which enshrined the habit of treating provinces that way would face a breakdown in all of its relations with all of the provinces of Canada. That was the first export tax, the 40-cent tax. The second act in this charade of consultation began on Monday, October 29—again in Ottawa. Four senior ministers of the government of Alberta came to Ottawa to meet with the federal Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and the federal Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner). They were briefed by officials of the Department of External Affairs on developments in the Middle East. They had general discussions concerning plans Ottawa might have for a pipeline to Montreal. They discussed the possibility of staging-in price increases. On the export tax, the Alberta ministers took the position that since they disagreed with the idea of the tax, they saw no immediate point in discussing how its proceeds might be distributed. It is clear there was no discussion at all of any prospect of an immediate rise in that export tax, and certainly not any discussion of a proposal to more than quadruple the amount. Indeed, the federal minister of energy said that events might develop that would mean an export tax might not have to
90
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
be imposed. The federal minister indicated to his provincial colleagues that, in his view, the export tax proposal “was not written in stone.” The ministers then repaired to a joint press conference at which the provincial minister of intergovernmental affairs went out of his way to make clear Alberta’s interest in adopting a “Canada first” position. Four senior Alberta ministers left those meetings agreed on three clear impressions. Their first impression was that serious consideration was being given to the staging-in of increases. The second impression was that there was now a genuine commitment to consultation on the part of the federal ministers. The third impression was that if there was to be any change at all in the export tax, the change would be in the direction of removing the tax. It is conceivable that one of these ministers might have been wrong, but it is surely stretching credulity to suggest that all four ministers were wrong on all three impressions. Four days later, on Thursday, November 1—a week ago today—the federal minister of energy rose in his place to announce that the export tax had been more than quadrupled. Alberta officials were advised a matter of hours before the public announcement. Again it was advice, not consultation. However, this second case was worse than the first. In the first case, the export tax had come out of the blue. In the second case, it came four days after a meeting in which Alberta ministers believed they received a message that the export tax might go down, or it might go out, but at which no indication at all was given that the tax might go up so exorbitantly. There might be some members of this House who do not like Albertans. I do not say that there are, but that there might be. That really does not matter because these tactics could be applied to any province, not just Alberta; and on any matter, not just petroleum. I hope that members of this House and of the public generally, no matter how preoccupied they might be about the price of fuel or the extent of foreign ownership of any other extraneous question, will remember that we are dealing here with a method of the application of federal power that could be imposed as arbitrarily upon any province or any interest as it has been upon Alberta. It is interesting, for example, to conjecture what the response would have been had federal involvement in the financing of higher education been approached in the early 1960s in the spirit which marked the federal imposition this fall of an export tax upon petroleum produced primarily in one province. I said at the beginning that the purpose of a federal system, and par-
Federal-Provincial Relations 91
ticularly the federal government, must be to unite differences, not inflame them. The reason that is important is that it is easy, in Canada, to inflame differences among regions. Particularly when emotional questions are involved, as emotional questions are involved here, it would be relatively easy to unite most of Canada against one part of Canada. However, that would be a destructive unity which would lead inexorably to the disintegration of the nation. I utter that caution not simply to my colleagues in this House but also to the press gallery. One problem inherent in our system is the natural tendency of the national press to take Ottawa’s view in a dispute with the provinces. That is not due to prejudgment so much as to the fact that journalists are locked in here in day-to-day contact with one side in a national dispute. I believe it has been harmful to Alberta that this disagreement broke out at roughly the same time that a general election was in progress in Quebec, which meant that several journalists from that province, who have reason to know that Ottawa is not always even-handed in its dealings with the province, were preoccupied at home and thus did not have the opportunity to visit the province and the people of Alberta to learn Alberta’s side of this story. The real tragedy flowing from the methods of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources is that it has created an atmosphere of confrontation on a question where federal-provincial co-operation could have prevailed. Alberta wants to co-operate with other provinces and other Canadians to ensure supply and arrange a better price for Canadian consumers. The premier and his ministers have made that clear. They have been calling for some time for a national federal-provincial conference to work out the priorities and the policies that Canada and the provinces might follow to meet the challenges raised by energy questions. However, co-operation is a two-way street. Ottawa must demonstrate a willingness to work with Alberta. That would have been much easier two months ago, before the actions of the minister of energy gave Alberta ample cause to distrust that minister and anyone acting in his name. But it is not impossible to achieve now. The language of this motion deplores the tactics of confrontation and fear which have marked the approach of this government to federal-provincial relations. Of course we deplore that approach, but we must do more than deplore. We have to turn the practices of this government around and insist, as a parliament, upon an atmosphere of co-operation with the provinces instead of the present atmosphere of confrontation.
92
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
It might be more amusing to have the luxury of a full-scale feud between a province and the central government, but that is very literally and clearly a luxury we cannot afford. Not only is there the danger that this atmosphere of confrontation might prolong disagreement about national energy policy; there is also the very real danger that this tactic, if practiced continually by the federal government, will lead to a reaction in some regions that will make national unity very difficult to maintain. However important laws might be in Canada, the thing that finally unites this country is the will to work together. If the federal government indicates by its actions that it would sooner fight than agree, that attitude will become contagious. I hope that the government as a whole, and the minister of energy in particular, will recognize that the leadership they are supposed to offer is leadership in the direction of co-operation, not confrontation.
Jurisdiction around National Parks House of Commons Debates 4 April 1974 29th Parliament, 2nd Session: Volume 2, 1159–1160 Mr. Joe Clark (Rocky Mountain): Mr. Speaker, I will not take much of the time of the House. The minister is proposing a return to the original language of the bill, language which in the considered judgment of the committee was inappropriate, language which the committee acted to strike out, to amend. The original language would have written into law a statutory double standard. It provided that if you wanted to establish a national park in Quebec, you must ask the local government; if you wanted to establish a national park in Ontario, you must ask the local government; but if you wanted to establish a national park in the Yukon or Northwest Territories, you tell the local government. Provisions like that make a mockery of any claim of belief in more self-government for the territories. We, in my party, do not propose to pass a mockery into law. The minister has made the point that this matter can be discussed in committee during study of another bill. The point remains. There is language in the bill before the House today with which we, as a parliament, must deal today, in considering this bill. It is language in this bill, not in any other, which expresses the attitude of the House of Com-
Federal-Provincial Relations 93
mons of Canada on the status and potential of governments in the territories of the north. You cannot get around this by saying that it should be dealt with in another bill. If this should be discussed during the consideration of another bill, the minister should not have introduced the word “consultation” into the present bill. He did. It is that with which we are dealing. A principle is involved which, although it might arise on other occasions and in other bills, has arisen here and cannot be blinked away. Actually, it is known to members of the committee that there has been agreement by the councils for the particular parks established. There is no threat to them. What we are doing is establishing the attitude of parliament, the view of parliament, that there should be an increase in the powers of self-government existing in the northern territories. We also think that this bill would set a precedent for the establishment of future parks, so that if more parks are to be established in the north there must be approval by the elected representatives of the people and not merely some kind of consultation. We, in the Progressive Conservative party, introduced an amendment which would, for the limited and special purposes of establishing national parks, give the people of the territories the same rights as the people of Ontario, Quebec and other parts of Canada, an amendment which would treat them as citizens not as subjects. Instead of consultations, we proposed that there must be the agreement of the elected councils of the territories before any large part of a territory could be taken away and used as a national park. My colleague from Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett), a member of the NDP, preferred a gentler word than agreement. He preferred “approval,” an amendment requiring that the elected territorial councils approve of any proposal to permanently remove lands from an area that will soon be a province. We accepted his softer language. It expressed the principle that democracy means something in the Yukon and the Northwest Territories. So, the amendment approved in committee is an amendment in the language of the NDP, and it is that which the minister proposes to strike down today. We oppose that action by the minister, that strike against democracy, and will look forward, when the voting comes, to having the support of the NDP in sustaining an improvement which the NDP itself proposed. It is apparent to me, sir, that the minister and his advisers find it inconvenient to treat the people of the territories as though they are citizens. The minister and his advisers concocted a phony argument in
94
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
committee, that to give the councils of the territories a say on whether a national park is to be established in this region is somehow to give them absolute control over all the natural resources of the north. That, sir, is an absurd argument, which ignores the very special nature of national parks. I, as the representative of a constituency with national parks in it, have every reason to know that when a national park is created, all manner of administrative problems are created too: Native rights are affected; normal jurisdiction over municipal highway and other matters is suspended or changed; planning becomes very difficult. That is evident in Alberta and wherever else national parks exist. The establishment of a national park very much alters and affects the future of the region in which the park lies. The word “consultation” would mean that the territories concerned would have no right to influence that territory’s future direction. “Approval” would at least allow for a chance to shape that future. Sir, the larger question of resources is not affected at all. Elected spokesmen of the territories have made it clear that the status they want is a status—I quote Ken MacKinnon of the Yukon Territorial Council, in testimony to the standing committee in Whitehorse in December: Without the immediate control of natural resources, the reason being that we think we have to prove to the people of Canada and to the government of Canada that we are as capable of dealing with the resources of the province as any other area of Canada.
So, there is no question at all about control of resources. There is, however, sir, a basic question which must be faced, the question as to whether we are going to trust the judgment of Canadians who happen to live in the two territories. Are we going to say that when it comes to establishing parks we trust the premier of Quebec more than we trust the elected representatives of the Yukon; that we trust the premier of Ontario more than the elected representatives of the Northwest Territories; that we trust the premier of Nova Scotia more than the duly elected representatives of the north? That is what it comes down to. Perhaps it is a hard question, because so much land is involved. I remind the House that there is also a lot of land in the north of several provinces, and while it might be inconvenient for the minister and his advisers to have to deal with elected representatives in the province before taking land away forever and creating a national park, we put up with that inconvenience because we are a democratic state. The amendment here, by the minister and his advisers, would have democracy stop at
Federal-Provincial Relations 95
the border of the territories, so far as national parks are concerned. The real question facing us is: Are we prepared to endorse that double standard and write it into law, or will we extend to the citizens of the territories the same trust on the limited question of national parks that we extend to the citizens of the rest of Canada.
Regional Identity and Community Newspapers House of Commons Debates 29 October 1973 29th Parliament, 1st Session: Volume 7, 7338 Mr. Joe Clark (Rocky Mountain): Mr. Speaker, I want to turn to a matter which was first raised in the House on June 18. That, you will recall, was when the country discovered the Minister of State who is a little bit responsible for multiculturalism. You will recall that the minister spent about one-tenth of his total budget on an advertisement which featured a campaign picture of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and purported to advertise a program of grants which was already oversubscribed. To add to the excitement, the minister had been chastised by the assistant undersecretary of another department who, it turned out, had more authority over the minister’s program than did the minister. That storm has blown over. The minister’s assistant who authorized the ads has disappeared. The assistant under-secretary has remained firmly in control. The minister has come back to the House, anxious to resume any responsibilities anyone will give him. An agency, controlled at least 50 per cent by prominent Ontario Liberals, is counting its commission on the account, and the most enduring moment of the affair is the response of the Minister of State who, having been asked why no tenders were called on the ads, said that he was “not aware of any tendering procedure for advertising programs of the federal government.” That flurry erased several important issues. One of them was the attitude the government should take toward the ethnic and periodical press of the country because, apart from patronage and politicking, the other reason for the ads was that they provided a means by which the government might provide some tangible support to the Canadian ethnic press. I want to argue their case tonight, not just in relation to the ethnic papers which generally deserve and require support, but also
96
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
in relation to the community press generally in Canada which serves needs which larger media cannot meet and which has special problems some of them caused by the government. Government support to the community press should be open and above board—by the front door, rather than by occasional back door subsidies in the form of the extravagant and pointless advertising program we saw this June. In passing, I should also point out that even the present program of advertising in the ethnic press seems to treat some periodicals, like the Toronto Jewish press, in a less favourable way than other periodicals. Mr. Haidasz: That isn’t true. Mr. Clark (Rocky Mountain): There are two kinds of newspapers operating in Canada today, the large and the local. They are generally distinguished by their size, their wealth and by the intensity with which they serve their particular readership. The dailies might help us to understand the world; the weeklies help us to understand ourselves. They are called ethnic or community papers and they are particular to a heritage or a place. Both kinds of papers need ads to live. At one time, governments and other advertisers treated both kinds of papers almost equally. But in the 1950s and 1960s, as our attitudes became more urban and international, the people who place and pay for ads became bemused by mass markets, and the so-called “institutional ads”—the ads an editor could get a loan on—drifted away to mass media. That was done thoughtlessly, without examination either of the relative impact of an ad in a local or a mass medium, or an examination of the effect upon the vitality of the particular communities these local papers serve. The government was as guilty as anyone. There are signs that times are changing, and I want to take this opportunity to congratulate the government for giving the community press a fair shot at the ads concerning both the new tax form and the LIP program. But those cases are exceptions; they are not a policy. I understand that the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury), that great progressive, has a proposal before him to gather data on the effectiveness of advertising in the community press. Member papers of the CCNA were enthusiastic about the proposed study and were geared up to cooperate, but the President of the Treasury Board is sitting on the initiative and the enthusiasm of editors is beginning to wane. There are other problems. The Post Office has established a so-called free zone within a 40 miles radius of small communities and within that
Federal-Provincial Relations 97
zone cheap postal rates apply to local papers. But in Ontario and British Columbia, changes in provincial law have created new local government boundaries, incorporating several towns. They change the status of a town but not its nature, and the Post Office Department, legalistic to the last, has denied free zone status to small towns so incorporated. Again, newspaper plants which do not have a printing press are disqualified from eligibility for IDB loans, yet the offset revolution, leading to a different style of printing, means that most plants ship out their printing to a central press and so cannot go to the Industrial Development Bank. These are accidental prejudices; just as it was accidental that advertising shifted to mass markets and made survival more difficult for local papers. We need these local papers, just as we need a multitude of strong ethnic groups and places which have a distinctive sense of community. I ask the government to recognize that need directly and to encourage the various local media of Canada at least as much as we encourage book publishing, the arts and other activities which contribute to a sense of Canadian identity.
4
Parliamentary Supremacy Joe Clark, “a man of parliament,” believed that there is no greater, or more fundamental component of Canadian democracy than the House of Commons. From the beginning to the end of his career, Clark extolled the virtues of the House of Commons for representing the geographic and demographic diversity of Canada and for bringing the entire nation, in a microcosm, in one place, under one roof. While often imperfect and messy, the ideals of parliament were worth striving for. This chapter examines several of the areas around parliament that were a preoccupation for Clark. Under the theme of parliamentary supremacy, the following seven speeches range from discussing the powers of the PMO to multiculturalism and Clark’s assertion that the supremacy of parliament as the “forum of the nation” and the foundation of responsible government was vital to Canada as we know it. Procedural fairness, equality and the importance of dialogue were the issues about parliament that first caught Clark’s attention and he would return to them throughout his career. In a speech given early in his career in December of 1974, Clark describes what lies at the heart of our system of responsible government. He argues why the executive branch of Prime Minister, Cabinet and Crown must have the approval of the House of Commons to continue to govern. Clark saw this as necessary not only for legitimacy of our representative institutions but also as a bulwark against the extra-parliamentary power centres that robbed parliament of its elan. Put bluntly, parliament must remain supreme against the worrying growth in both size and scope of the PMO and PCO (a trend which continues to this day) as well as the lack of parliamentary oversight of these new positions and policies. Two specific examples are the fact that the prime minister need not appear before standing committees (as we have seen with the Jody Wilson-Raybould affair), and the increasing reliance on first ministers’ conferences to deal with issues deemed too complex for A Man of Parliament; Selected Speeches from Joe Clark, edited by Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon. Montréal and Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press, Queen’s Policy Studies Series. © 2019 The School of Policy Studies, Queen’s University at Kingston. All rights reserved.
100
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
the House. These were not the only examples of this trend, a fact that concerned Clark. As Clark himself noted, despite the “first among equals” theory, the prime minister has never been a weak position within the Canadian parliamentary system. Clark specifically notes that through a concentration of power the prime minister (whoever that may be) was increasingly able to act over the heads of those meant to hold them in check. The Cabinet, the governing party, and parliament itself were weakened in their ability to hold the prime minister accountable. One primary cause of this, Clark noted, is the increasing influence of mass communication such as television and now the internet. The ability of the prime minister to go over the heads to the people’s representatives in the House and communicate directly with the people via televised address led to a concentration at the “apex of power.” Given that those at this apex often came from specific socio-economic classes, occupations, and indeed a specific gender, Clark thought that this was detrimental to the diversity that the federal system should represent. The third speech in this chapter begins with a discussion of the influence of money in politics and then shifts to a discussion on the improper use of public money by a government. Specifically, Clark argues that a government should not be allowed to use public money for partisan purposes, on the campaign trail or in between elections. Speaking on the Canada Elections Act, Clark suggests that by not addressing this blurring of the lines between party and the national interest, and by failing to address the abuse of public funds by governing parties, opposition parties would be weakened and the result would have negative implications for equality in the House of Commons. The use of public money without the approval of parliament was not just to do with smaller expenditures but with the larger budget itself. In a speech given during his time as leader of the Opposition, Clark discussed how increasingly the government was able to avoid the House because it has been slowly stripped of tools by which to hold the government to account. Clark notes that to some extent this is necessary as government has grown in size, but this development also makes oversight significantly more important. For this is in fact the primary purpose of parliaments the world over, i.e., raising and approval of the budget which the executive then spends on government priorities. This loss of supremacy can have wider consequences for the rest of the system. As Clark notes “[t]his parliament is the only institution in Canada which legitimately speaks for all the people of Canada. It is our only
Parliamentary Supremacy
101
national institution. But it can have effect only if it has power. It can be respected by the people of Canada only if it is respected by the government of Canada.” The legitimacy of our system then, requires a strong parliament. The last speech included in this chapter provides remedies to strengthen parliament and mitigate the likelihood of governments getting away with scandalous behaviour. Given the fused nature of legislature and executive within the Westminster system, without a strong parliament, Canada lacks the checks and balances that are found between legislature and executive in presidential systems. To illustrate such, Clark listed a sampling of the scandals which Pierre Trudeau’s government had been involved in up until that point. He then goes on to suggest ways to address problematic behaviour, such as giving “independent initiative” to committees to be able to start investigations of their own accord. His first budget also championed openness and access to information legislation which also helped parliament be held accountable. These are discussed in more detail in chapter 7. Without such formal restraints, the convention-based nature of our system often caused a lack of accountability to parliament. It’s fair to say that for Joe Clark, parliament formed the central fulcrum around which the other themes and goals of his political career coalesce. It is the House where the various constituent parts of Confederation can gather and make their wishes known. As the primary representative of the citizens of Canada to their government, it is necessary that parliament be empowered to hold said government to account, and prevent such as abuses as mentioned above. Clark’s words remain extremely timely to our present day, as the concentration of powers in the Cabinet to the detriment of parliament is a trend that has continued since Clark’s time. This is unfortunate, as it may be a contributing factor to increased feelings of disempowerment and disillusionment among the wider public about their efficacy within the Canadian political system.
102
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
Parliamentary Reform House of Commons Debates 18 March 1982 32nd Parliament, 1st Session: Volume 14, 15579–15583 Right Hon. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition) moved: That in the view of this House the future effectiveness of Parliament as a democratic assembly, representing the needs, beliefs and aspirations of the people of Canada, requires that an immediate review of all its rules and practices proceed without further delay, and this House therefore urges the government to refer the document “Position Paper: The Reform of Parliament,” tabled on November 23, 1979, to the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization as a basis for commencing discussion, along with proposals for reforming the budgetary process.
He said: Mr. Speaker, given the tensions that have crystallized since March 2, this is not an easy time for any member of this House to speak calmly to the House of Commons. But I think it is an essential time for us all to speak about the House of Commons. We must do more than speak; we must begin to act on reforms that will make Parliament both more efficient and more democratic. I emphasize both of those goals, the goal of efficiency and the goal of democracy. They are both important and I will come back to the importance of both later. But first, let us be frank about emotions, both in Parliament and in the country. We talk a lot in Parliament about a sense of collegiality and about good will in this institution, but that pretence has prevented us from facing Parliament’s own problems squarely. There is anger in this House. There is frustration here and there is a certainty that we are not doing the job that Canadians expect of us. That state exists among members of all parties on both sides of the House. It is confirmed whenever we go home to the people who sent us here and stand accused of being powerless to do the job that we were sent here to do. One member of this House used the phrase the other day that private Members of Parliament are regarded as— [Translation] — poor little parish priests. [English]
Parliamentary Supremacy
103
Unhappily, that member is right. We all wear the clothes of authority but only a handful of the members of this House, the central ministers, have any real authority. That, sir, is wrong. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Clark: One of the reasons there was such support in this country for the ringing of the bells is that Canadians know that such centralized authority is wrong and want it changed. [Translation] In Le Devoir of March 17, editorial writer Jean-Louis Roy said the following, and I quote: After the absurdity of federalism without provinces, Canadians have been treated to government without Parliament. In fact, Mr. Speaker, we have been without a Parliament for quite a long time. No matter which party is in power, our rules and practices allow the government to impose its will on Parliament and to govern by orders in council and by regulations without even consulting Parliament. Worse, the system practically prevents ordinary members from having their own concepts or proposals adopted by Parliament. Private members’ motions are seldom passed, and when they are, the reaction is usually one of surprise. Hon. members know cases where some of their constituents are on the verge of bankruptcy. What can they do for these people? Others are in danger of losing their homes. What can they do for them? In every riding in Canada, Canadians are losing their jobs. How can we help them? Many members have good ideas that Parliament would do well to consider. And why not? What it boils down to is that most members can do no more in the House than rise, speak and bow. Is that democracy? [English] When the government House leader was first appointed, he indicated his interest in parliamentary reform. I look forward to hearing his proposals today, and I hope he will agree to allow the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization to start immediately on a wideopen consideration of the ways we can renew parliamentary democracy in Canada. We put forward some proposals as a government in a position paper published by the then president of the Privy Council, the hon. member
104
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker). Those proposals include a fundamental strengthening of the power of parliamentary committees, including the power to initiate inquiries into questions that the government might not want investigated. We proposed a major change in the power of private members to have their proposals considered seriously and at length in the House of Commons. We proposed a system to re-establish Parliament’s control of spending by extending debate on the estimates of any two departments which the opposition might choose without prior advice from the government. We proposed a means to require parliamentary consent to regulations before those regulations can take effect. In the interests of efficiency, we proposed to limit the length of speeches in the House to 20 minutes each, and to establish more regular sitting periods for Parliament. I make the point, sir, that these significant changes, to increase the power of Parliament and to reduce the power of the executive, were made when we were in government, yet they reflected, I believe, an understanding of the way governments can abuse their power. These proposals go a long way toward reform, but they were designed then to begin the discussion, not to limit it. Our attitude today is the same. We suggest these proposals be considered as the basis for commencing discussion in the standing committee. I am obliged to note that the reason this paper was not referred to committee in 1979 was that the present Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen), then the Liberal House leader, indicated the Liberal Party would want to debate for some time the question of a reference to committee. I can indicate to the government House leader now, that providing the reference to committee is wide enough to allow full and positive consideration of fundamental reforms in Parliament, there would be no such delay from this party. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Clark: Canadians will also know that we have proposed a major change in the way budgets are prepared, a change to ensure that in the future there will be full public discussion in advance of significant tax changes so that the government on the one hand, and individuals, companies and organizations on the other hand, can assess the impact of those changes and plan their implementation. That recommendation did not arise simply from this party. That recommendation arose
Parliamentary Supremacy
105
as a result of a series of public hearings held in 16 communities across Canada by a special committee of the Progressive Conservative caucus on the budget and the economy which heard representations from 168 organizations and hundreds of individual Canadians. We would want that proposal, to open up the budget-making process, to be considered as well in the committee as a means to protect Canadians against a process which resulted in a budget which the government’s own ministers now describe as a disaster. It is worth pausing on the question of the budget because it demonstrates that when Parliament is weak, bad law is the result. The budget was a major mistake. It underestimated the depth of the recession in Canada. It introduced tax measures which look good in theory but were a disaster in practice. It has driven job-creating investment out of Canada and contributed directly to Canadians losing their homes, businesses, farms and their confidence. It happened because Parliament let a group of civil servants make decisions which the House of Commons should be making. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Clark: The only time the government asked people who knew whether what they were doing on the budget was right was after the government bad acted and committed itself to a course which is proving disastrous, not only to them politically but also to hundreds of thousands of individual Canadians who face the prospect of losing their jobs, homes and businesses, or simply losing the kind of hope which has been the fuel of growth in this country. If this government had asked those questions first, many of these measures would not have been brought in and we would have avoided some of the bankruptcies, foreclosures and some of the thousands of lay-offs in Canada. The point is that when Parliament works badly, Canadians get hurt. That is not just a question for Members of Parliament; it touches directly the lives of people who are affected by what Parliament does or indeed, fails to do. What has happened with the budget has happened on other questions. For example, why was Parliament shut out of any consideration of the VIA Rail closings which affected so many communities across this country? How can orders in council be passed giving the government the power to establish internment camps without the House of Commons being consulted? Why should the government have the power to change the express will of Parliament and make the metric system
106
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
mandatory when the House of Commons said it would be voluntary? Some hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Clark: These are not just questions for Parliament; these questions affect the lives of individual Canadians, sometimes profoundly, and yet their Parliament has no role. That is wrong, and if we in this House have any self-respect, if the hon. member heckling opposite has any self-respect, if indeed he has any respect for the people who sent us here, then we will change that system and take advantage of those changes. [Translation] Mr. Speaker, I mentioned the need for democracy, and that is one of our requirements, but Parliament must also be effective. Our country has changed tremendously since confederation, and its problems are more numerous and often more complex. We cannot solve today’s problems with nineteenth century tools. There must be a way to agree on limiting debate. Common sense and mutual respect must prevail if differences are to be resolved. We have proposed a number of ways in which Parliament could be made more effective, and we are willing to give serious consideration to any proposals from the other parties, especially proposals that stress respect for democracy and a desire for effectiveness. We are convinced that agreement is possible if we demonstrate our good faith and if we share the conviction that Parliament has a central role to play in governing Canada. [English] Sir, I have outlined the specific proposals put forward by my party and by us as a government. I would like, if I might, to speak a little more personally, on the basis of an experience which is widely shared in this House, as someone who has had the opportunity to serve as a private Member of Parliament, as Prime Minister and head of a government, and as the Leader of the Opposition. I should say at the outset that there will always be, at the base of discussions about the role Parliament should play, a difference of view as to whether Parliament is here simply as the body to which the government is responsible, or whether parliamentarians themselves should be involved directly in the formulation of public policy. Arguments can be made on either side. As someone who had responsibility for leading the government of this country, my own view, very strongly held, is that
Parliamentary Supremacy
107
Members of Parliament should be here not simply to be reported to, not simply to hold the government accountable but to participate directly in the formulation of the public policy of this country. In my view, that is our role. I believe, sir, that the weakness of Parliament is a major threat to the country, indeed a major danger, because this House is the only national institution to which every corner of the country has a claim, to which every corner of the country sends a representative, and in which every corner of the country has a voice. As a consequence, we are the only national institution which can speak with legitimacy in expressing the will of Canadians and in responding to their needs. That is in the nature of this institution, and it is ours uniquely and ours alone. We are, for many individual Canadians, the only connection they have with their government. Public servants are not that kind of connection; government advertising programs are no substitute for Members of Parliament. We are the only connection that most people have with their government, the only ones they can call to account for reflecting their needs and aspirations. Therefore, this House has to be at the centre of the people’s government or else it is a government which responds to something other than the will of the people. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Clark: In my view, the weakness of this House is based on three major developments. One of those has been that, as the business of government has become more complex, instead of turning to the talent, understanding and experience of members of this House, consecutive governments have turned to the public service and ceded more and more of the decisions of responsibility which should rest here to professional and unelected experts. Second is the proliferation in number and subject matter of federal-provincial conferences and consequently the number of decisions which reflect directly upon the business of this House, yet those decisions are taken elsewhere before they come to this House and agreements are made before they come to this House. There has been a significant and dangerous movement of the power of decision-making away from the public and their Parliament to the private quarters of federal-provincial conferences. The third, and perhaps most crucial development, has been the natural tendency of those who hold power to try to keep it, indeed to try to enlarge upon it. The most recent victim of that tendency, I regret to say,
108
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
has been the freedom of information legislation which, when we were piloting it through the preparation stages of government, encountered time and time again objections from various vested interests in the government who did not want the public to know. My colleague, the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker), as government House leader, prevailed to ensure that the balance was struck much closer to the needs of the public, and perhaps exposing and putting at risk some of the preserves of government. That unfortunately has changed, because the private sources of power in Ottawa have again been exercising their influence to ensure that the power of the executive expands and the power of both Parliament and the people of Canada diminishes. I also regret to say, but it is germane and important to say it now, that that same tendency, that same determination of those who have the power to keep it or to enlarge it, has been at the base of most of the proposals for parliamentary reform which have come from governments. There is a natural preoccupation on the part of governments to enlarge the power of the executive, to focus on the need for efficiency. There is no doubt at all that this institution needs to be much more efficient than it has been. We all agree with that. However, efficiency can be won along with democracy, not in the teeth of democracy. I want to propose ways, psychologies and attitudes which, in my view, can accomplish that goal. However, those three developments— the determination to hand public servants, not elected members, the power to resolve questions which grow more complex; the growing role of federal-provincial conferences; and the perhaps natural but, nonetheless, resistible temptation of those with power to enlarge power—have fundamentally changed Parliament and raised real weaknesses, real dangers and real menaces for our country. I believe that since those changes have been fundamental, the reform and the renewal of Parliament must be equally fundamental. Let me now express a view in which my colleagues may not yet want to join me. I do it as a party leader. I do it as a former Prime Minister. It is my view that we can afford to limit radically the mandate and the control that parties exercise over individual hon. members of the House of Commons. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Broadbent: You are fired, Joe! Enough of that! Mr. Clark: You have had enough of that, Ed?
Parliamentary Supremacy
109
Mr. Broadbent: What heresy! You are out of the club now! [Translation] Mr. Clark: Someone just suggested that I talk to an independent member. I am in the House to speak to all members, because I feel the problem is one facing all parties and all the members of this House. I feel that it is a very basic problem for the House of Commons, and I hope that the Liberals will show the same determination I have seen here, namely, to put a priority on democracy and the rights of regular members and their constituents. [English] Let me just pursue that further for a moment, if I may. I think on the question of what constitutes a matter of confidence, I see no reason at all why it should not be possible for us, for a Parliament, for a government, to sit down with its members before a session begins or shortly after the Speech from the Throne has been published or given, and we should be able to say: “Here are the measures which are of fundamental importance to the government. Here are the questions on which we will stand or fall. Here are the questions on which party lines will be enforced and the whips will be imposed.” They would be a minority. We should be able to say: “But here are the other questions which will arise in the course of our mandate, questions which have already arisen concerning the public view and on which the party has no strong consensus.” I see no reason why there could not be a division made and stated at the beginning of a session by a government as to which will be the fundamental questions of confidence on which its existence, its lifestyle will depend or fall and which will be those question which can be addressed directly, independently, if you will be individual members of the House of Commons. As a party leader and former Prime Minister, I have no fear of that. I have no fear of the judgment of my colleagues, whether my colleagues in this party or my colleagues in the whole House. I happen to have faith in the collective judgment of the elected members of the House of Commons, if those members are allowed to express their judgment. That is what I seek to have achieved. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!
110 Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
Mr. Clark: As to those other matters which are not questions of government confidence, let them be considered on their merits. Let them stand if they deserve to stand. Let them be rejected if they deserve to be rejected. What in the world is wrong with that? That is the way most of the people who elect us think this Parliament works. That is what they think Parliament is. They would be shocked if they knew the degree to which party voting is imposed here on all sides of the House. They would be shocked by that, and so should they be, because it is unnecessary and a betrayal of the trust that all of us hold as individual members of the House of Commons. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Clark: I seem to have won some support for that view from at least my colleagues and, I gather, from some hon. members of the NDP, including their leader, as well as a couple of hon. members on the Liberal side. I am pleased to see that happening. I hope there will be more of that and that we can carry on in that spirit in the parliamentary committee. However, let me suggest that an approach of this kind can lead to at least two results. One would be a more extensive participation by elected Members of Parliament in the formulation of public policy. Personally, I see no reason why we should not prefer the public judgment of elected people to the private judgment of appointed public servants. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Clark: I recommend that the government House leader and his colleagues most seriously consider this second point. I believe this would create a much more positive attitude toward the work of governing on the part of hon. members on all sides of this House. I am not speaking here of the role of government. There is no doubt that some of my colleagues, and perhaps I myself, would act most quickly to introduce sunset laws and other pieces of legislation which would reduce the scope of government. I am speaking here of the work of governing. There is no doubt that one consequence of frustration in this House is that many members on all sides feel that they cannot contribute to it so they should stop it. There is no doubt that that is an attitude which has taken root in this House of Commons. There is no doubt that it is wrong and against the generally positive nature of most of the people who are elected here. I believe that if individual Members of Parliament were given much more opportunity to play a larger role in the formulation of public poli-
Parliamentary Supremacy
111
cy, then the government’s problems with respect to getting bills through would diminish. The question of time would not be as contentious as it is now. I believe that if we give Members of Parliament from all parties positive things to do, they will concentrate on doing positive things and will not be interested in finding nits to pick. Instead, they will be concentrating their efforts on ways in which to advance the public interest of the country. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Clark: We are not speaking here entirely theoretically. A preceding government to this one, a Liberal government, allowed Members of Parliament to help formulate an immigration bill and, indeed, allowed public hearings across the land. That was a highly complex bill which, if my memory serves me correctly, passed through this House in four days, despite its complexity, because Members of Parliament and the people of Canada had been involved in its formulation. They had a chance to speak on the content of the bill, not simply to say “yea” or “nay” at the end. That is a model for the future, in my view. Sir, the events of the last few weeks have been unusual only in degree. It was the first time that a government had sought to act on such an omnibus measure. It was the first time an opposition had used the bells that way. However, the issue has been building for a long, long time. Our system has been changing for a long time, gradually giving more power to governments and parties and gradually limiting the rights of Parliament, the rights of private members and of the people we all represent. If that continues we will waste the talent of the hon. members who serve here, lose the trust of the people who sent us here and gradually erode our democracy. We cannot let that happen. We are here to pass good laws and to prevent bad ones; but we are also here to protect the symbol and the instrument of democracy in a free country. Suddenly, in a way which no one could foresee, large numbers of the Canadian public have become aware that there is something wrong in Parliament. They know that the people with power will not listen and that the people who listen cannot act. They want this institution renewed and they count on us to renew it. I believe that the great majority of hon. members in all parties in the House genuinely want a Parliament which is both democratic and effective. I hope we will seize this opportunity to begin that most basic reform. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!
112 Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
Powers of the Prime Minister’s Office House of Commons Debates 18 December 1974 30th Parliament, 1st Session: Volume 3, 2375–2378 Mr. Joe Clark (Rocky Mountain): It is a particular pleasure for me to follow in debate the hon. member for Scarborough East (Mr. O’Connell), not merely because of the eminent qualities he possesses as a member of parliament but also because of the place whence he has come. This is probably as close as we shall get to a man who has, in effect, been the deputy minister of the Office of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), an office responsible to the Prime Minister, which, like the Privy Council Office, is not answerable to this House. Mr. O’Connell: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order, to say I have not been the deputy minister. I have to reject that assertion at once. My function was a political function, not a staff function of the kind performed by a deputy minister. Mr. Clark (Rocky Mountain): I appreciate the clarification, but my point stands whatever the description of the office—the closest we get as a parliament to people who serve in the Office of the Prime Minister or in the Office of the Privy Council is when those people leave real power and come to parliament, as the hon. member for Scarborough East has just done. I think there is a natural temptation for someone from the Province of Alberta, like myself, when addressing a question of the kind before us today to speak about the present unfortunate circumstances in federal-provincial relations between that province and the federal government. I shall not do so today, and I do not intend to take much time in this debate. But I do want to draw attention again to the very serious institutional aspects of the bill which has been brought forward and, more particularly, the very many changes which have occurred in the federal structure in relation to the Office of the Prime Minister in particular, for which there has been no legislation. I think it can be suspected that the reason we have the bill before us is to provide a post of status for Mr. Gordon Robertson, whose qualities have been attested to by members on both sides of the House. The reason this was necessary, I suspect, has very much to do with the ripples which were caused in the public service by the appointment of Mr. Michael Pitfield to replace Mr. Gordon Robertson.
Parliamentary Supremacy
113
In my opinion the Pitfield appointment was an unfortunate one in its implications for the public service generally, quite apart from causing or inspiring the legislation we have before us today. But I do not wish to dwell on this point, Mr. Speaker, although other hon. members may wish to do so. The point I wish to make, sir, is that there have been, over the last several years, a multitude of changes in the de facto structure and nature of the Government of Canada. We have seen the growth in size and power of the Prime Minister’s Office. We have witnessed the growth in size and power of the Privy Council Office. We have been treated recently to the simultaneous resignation of five senior public servants—and we in this House can only guess, what was the cause of those resignations and what the consequences will be. We all recognize that in the last few years there have been major changes of the kind to which I have referred in the way the Government of Canada works. We might, on different sides of the House, disagree as to the importance or significance of any particular change, but it is clear that the Privy Council Office has grown, that the Prime Minister’s Office has grown and that the power of the Prime Minister has grown. Yet it is highly significant that today, as we deal with the measure before us, although there have been a multitude of changes, this is the only one which has been brought before the House of Commons. All the other changes, though in effect they have altered the nature of our government, have occurred beyond our reach. We have not been asked to approve them. We have received no legislation in respect to them. We have not had the opportunity which is now given us to debate legislation. Mr. Darling: They’ve been slipped in through the back door. Mr. Clark (Rocky Mountain): As my hon. friend from Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Darling) has said, “They’ve been slipped in through the back door.” And whatever the implication of that, Mr. Speaker, I believe it is agreed by all members of the House that this is not a satisfactory situation for the Parliament of Canada. The other day I introduced a private member’s bill to try to take the very simple, elemental step of establishing a parliamentary committee which would look into the powers and prerogatives of the Prime Minister. Such a committee might have been able to work out ways in which that office, and the offices which have grown up around the Prime Minister, could be made responsible to parliament from which, in theory, all
114 Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
the Prime Minister’s powers are supposed to flow. Some sympathetic noises were made on the other side of the House in relation to that bill but, as happens with so many bills which propose changes for which the government is not ready, it was talked out. There is a temptation, sir, for me to repeat at this time the arguments I made during my eloquent address on that subject during the private members’ hour— Some hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Clark (Rocky Mountain): I should say to hon. members to my immediate left that the temptation is even greater now because there was not a quorum present in the House of Commons when I spoke on private members’ hour, as customarily there is not a quorum present during such periods. However, I will resist the temptation to repeat that argument, except to summarize by saying that not only has the size of the Office of the Prime Minister increased numerically, as we can see from the size of the staff for which the hon. member for Scarborough East was recently responsible, but that its power, too, has grown, simply because the role of government has grown. This applies also, of course, to the Privy Council Office, but bearing in mind the extent to which the media concentrate on the Prime Minister, the accretion of power has been particularly substantial in relation to the Office of the Prime Minister. I should say one more thing in this connection. The hon. member for Scarborough East, in response to a thoughtful and important speech by my colleague from Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Roche), said there was no need for a special minister of inter-governmental affairs or federal-provincial relations. He said the reason such a need did not exist was that there is already a minister—the Prime Minister. Well, sir, one of the alarming facts about the Office of the Prime Minister and about its responsibilities is that the Prime Minister, alone among ministers, does not appear before a standing committee of this House to answer questions. He is not subject to questions except during the generally unsatisfactory exchange which takes place in the course of the question period, when the possibility of intensive inquiry is seriously limited. He is not directly responsible for answering questions in a standing committee, as are other Ministers of the Crown or as a minister responsible for federal-provincial relations would be. This relates to the whole question of the growing disproportion between the power of the Prime Minister and his cabinet and the power of this chamber, one which has diminished substantially in recent times.
Parliamentary Supremacy
115
I made the point the other day, and I repeat it now, that in a very real sense this parliament has more control over the president of the CNR or of Air Canada or of any other Crown corporation than it has over the Prime Minister. I say this because the holders of those high positions are expected to appear before standing committees and explain what they are doing, while the Prime Minister is not. This, I suggest, is a serious deficiency. I say, too, speaking personally, that I sympathize with the motive of the Prime Minister in expanding the Prime Minister’s Office and the Privy Council Office so as to allow him, as the elected political head of the government, to balance the opinion of an appointed public service. I think there comes a time in the growth and size of government when that sort of thing is necessary, and we have reached that time here. So I sympathize with the motives. But I do not sympathize at all with the literal irresponsibility of those opposite, and the fact that they are beyond the reach and effective scrutiny of the members of the House. That is not acceptable. Neither, I believe, is it acceptable that we place the highly important question of federal-provincial relations within the ambit of responsibility of the Office of the Prime Minister, who does not appear before standing committees, or is not in the practice of appearing. Mr. O’Connell: Would the hon. member permit a question? Mr. Clark (Rocky Mountain): Yes. Mr. O’Connell: Does the hon. member mean by his allegation of irresponsibility on the part of prime ministerial staff that members of the Prime Minister’s Office, for example, like members of the President’s office in the United States, should be called before committees and examined? Is he suggesting that we move to the presidential system? There is a minister responsible for every person in the Prime Minister’s Office, and that minister can be questioned here—similarly with all other ministers. Mr. Clark (Rocky Mountain): My point here—I apologize if I have not made it—is that with most ministers we have two chances to ask questions. We have the inadequate opportunity here in the House of Commons during the daily question period, but the real opportunity that we have to gather information about the day-to-day operations of their departments is in the standing committees. Neither the Prime Minister nor the senior staff is in the habit of appearing before standing committees. If my recollection is correct—the hon. member will know because
116 Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
he was in that office at the time—last year the Prime Minister declined an invitation to appear before a standing committee. So we do not have an opportunity to question his officials in the same way that we have an opportunity to question the officials of other ministers. This opportunity is particularly important in view of the immense power they wield as co-ordinators of the officials in the Privy Council Office and the Prime Minister’s Office. The hon. member for Scarborough East used the word presidential. That is his word, and is his system. It is my fear that what we are developing is, in effect, a presidential system under which the Prime Minister can operate without any real responsibility to this House, under which he cannot be questioned and his officials cannot be questioned. The reason one worries about this, and the reason it is of concern now is not simply that the Prime Minister of the day happens to belong to a party other than my own. It might be that as the universe continues to unfold we will move across to that side of the House and we will have a Prime Minister from our party. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Clark (Rocky Mountain): So my concern is not about a particular individual or group of individuals, it is about the system that we are establishing, the institutions that we are developing, and the way we are changing the nature of government in Canada. As I said earlier, I agree with the motives of the Prime Minister in trying to establish around him as political head of the government what has been called, in the words of a former editor of Cité Libre, a countervailing force to the public service. But I make the point that there is in our system another countervailing force to the power of government, and it is this House of Commons. The danger is that a serious imbalance is growing between the power of the Prime Minister and the cabinet and the capacity to countervail that power in this House of Commons. I raise these matters now because, despite the scope of the change that we have seen in the way we are governed here, this bill is unfortunately the only specific opportunity that we in this House have to discuss this very serious change in the nature of the government of Canada. That is to say, it is unless the Prime Minister, when he brings forward the changes in the rules that he is proposing—or perhaps I should say threatening—also proposes a means by which we, as an institution, can control those new agencies that have grown up to create the imbalance between the power of the ministry and of this parliament.
Parliamentary Supremacy
117
I want to speak very briefly about those fellows and the very few women in the public service who earn so much more than do members of the House of Commons, namely, our senior public servants, particularly those who are appointed at the discretion of the Prime Minister and who do not have to go through the Public Service Commission. I repeat, I can understand and approve personally of the Prime Minister’s desire, as political head of the government, to try to control and direct his own government and not let the job be done by senior public servants. But I think it would be wrong for us to ignore the fact that there has been in recent days, indeed years, reason for suspicion that appointments to senior positions have been for reasons other than merit. I suggest these reasons have also to do with loyalty, not necessarily loyalty to a party but loyalty to a point of view that might be embodied in a minister. I think it would be a very real danger, particularly in a country of such diversity, and frankly such fragility, as Canada, if we developed, in effect, a personal public service at the senior level. The appointment of Mr. Pitfield clearly raises the fear, as do the consequent resignations—I use those words deliberately—of other senior deputy ministers in tandem, that we are developing a public service that is chosen not simply because of its competence but also because of its loyalty to the particular point of view that happens to occupy the treasury benches at the present time. That is a serious situation for our system of government to face. There is one other aspect I want to touch on today and it relates also to parliament and our powers and prerogatives. It is very clear to me, and I think to many members on this side of the House, that the growth in formal relations and conferences between the federal government and the provincial governments, indeed the various levels of government, seriously threatens to undercut the authority and the role of the House of Commons. There is the inexorable danger that these new processes that we are developing will bypass parliament and will mean that decisions are taken at some place other than this place; and it is this place where, under our system, decisions are supposed to be taken. Reference was made earlier by my colleague from Edmonton-Strathcona to the discussions that took place at the Western Economic Opportunities Conference in Calgary in the summer of 1973. At that time issues of great importance to western Canada were raised by the premiers, and commitments were given by various ministers. Many of those commitments have not been honoured, but that is not really the
118 Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
point. The point is that the demands made during those few days in Calgary by the premiers were demands that had been made time and time again, year after year after year, by members of the House of Commons. The difference was that in Calgary, in speaking to the premiers the ministers gave commitments; in the House of Commons, speaking to members of parliament, the representatives of those regions, the government was evasive or gave no answers at all. Mr. Mazankowski: Contempt of parliament. Mr. Clark (Rocky Mountain): That is a very serious undermining of the power and prerogatives of this place. My colleague for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) calls it a contempt for parliament, and I think that is literally what it is. I do not think it is the purpose of ministers deliberately to tear down parliament, but I think this is what is happening. Over a period of time they have started to pay more attention and to attribute more seriousness to issues raised by premiers, in private or public conferences, than to representations made by the people who are elected to this House from those regions where these issues arise. There is a danger that, by creating this special office we are speaking of today, we are going to contribute and add to that process of bringing down the authority of parliament, and making it easy for the government to bypass this place which is, in theory and in fact, the most effective arena and institution to control a government given to excess. The hon. member for Scarborough East spoke about complexities when he defended the establishment of a special office for federal-provincial relations. As I recall from sitting in the gallery at that time, the present Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald), when he had responsibility as House leader, spoke of the complexities which parliament and the government must face when he proposed the changes to the rules of this House. Whenever there is an attempt to downgrade or bypass parliament the excuse is complexity, that events are coming on too fast and are too complicated for this Chamber to handle. That bespeaks the assumption that parliament cannot deal with complexity, and that assumption, so long as it is in the saddle, is literally fatal to this system. That assumption ensures that we will continue to be undermined and that the powers of this institution will continue to go down. As I say, I think that is a danger in the institution we are establishing today, particularly since this new office will be answerable only to a prime minister who is not in any practical way answerable to this House of Commons.
Parliamentary Supremacy
119
I want to repeat what we all know, that we are not a federal system by accident, we are a federal system because we have to be. This is a highly diverse country which requires a government that is in tune with its diversities. It is certain to all of us, I think, that this parliament is the best representation of diversity, drawing as it does individuals from every locality in the land, and paying attention, as its tradition insists, to the rights of those individuals to speak on behalf of their localities. No other agency of government does this, and it cannot be guaranteed in the public service where people in order to become promoted to levels of effective decision making have to live here so long they forget where they came from, Mr. Speaker. This cannot be done either in private conferences, involving various premiers. It cannot be done with guarantees in any other but this forum. The strength of parliament is not an academic thing at all. It is important to the very roots of this federal country. Every time we wear it down or bypass parliament, and every time we set up agencies to deal with problems that are too complex for parliament, we literally put federalism into danger, as well as damage the parliamentary system of government to which we claim allegiance. My point in this intervention, which has gone on longer that I intended, is that there has been a range of serious changes in the way in which we have been governed in this country in the last ten years. Since I came here in 1972, and during the longer period when I was watching events from the gallery, this is the only time at which parliament itself has had the chance to pass judgment on the growth of power. The other powers have been developed without recourse to parliament, and without our having the opportunity to debate them and to express whatever concerns we had. What is remarkable about this bill is not that it has come before us, but that so many other bills which should have come before us did not. With so many of the powers of the Prime Minister and the executive being developed in this country without recourse to the House of Commons, this is a very serious situation. I hope that when this bill reaches the committee we will be able to review not only the powers that will attach to this new official, not only his relation to the Prime Minister, but also we will be able to review the range of powers of people and agencies appointed by the executive, so that we can begin to achieve the balance which was written into this system when it began—a balance between the executive and elected representatives of this very diverse country.
120
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
Economic Policy and Parliamentary Supremacy House of Commons Debates 9 December 1976 30th Parliament, 2nd Session: Volume 2, 1824–1830 Mr. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition) moved: That this House vigorously protests the manner in which it has been deprived of a genuine role in the discussion of estimates and fiscal and monetary policy, objects to the secrecy of economic studies and projections, deplores the fact that key recommendations of the Auditor General will not be implemented in the foreseeable future, and condemns the government for it inept handling of the public finances of Canada.
Mr. Speaker, I think that I and other hon. members of the House noted with particular interest your remarks immediately prior to our coming to this item of business when you indicated that later tonight we would be following the usual procedure and the House would be concurring in supplementary estimates and other expenditures of the government of Canada. I think that one of the major reasons we have chosen today to introduce this motion in the form we have is precisely that the usual procedure of the House of Commons, being simply to concur in, and not being able to call the government to account for its expenditures, has created a situation which has raised very severe questions about the competence of parliament to carry out its traditional role as a guardian of the public interest and as a controller of the public purse, which has been, in concert with other actions by this government—highlighted most recently by the report of the Auditor General—a further source of a decline in public confidence in the public institutions of Canada, a decline which should not affect us merely in our capacity as members of those particular institutions but also should concern us as it is an indication of a weakening of the ability of national institutions to earn the respect which alone can draw the country together. I should say, in passing, that the respect for public institutions, particularly for parliament and for the conduct of governments, was not helped at all by suggestions which were made a couple of nights ago, and which have been repeated, dismissed this very valid request by the hon. member here by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald), that somehow in this country it is unpatriotic for the provinces of Canada to adopt a common position which is a compromise position on all their
Parliamentary Supremacy
121
parts in the face of a consistent tactic of the government opposite of attempting to divide the opinion of the provinces of Canada in federal-provincial relations and trying to triumph by a tactic of divide and conquer. Mr. Stanfield: Blackmail; that’s what it is. [Translation] Mr. Clark: For some time now, Mr. Speaker, Canadians have been more and more concerned and asking questions about the value and merits of their national institutions. Unfortunately we must admit that they are right to ask those questions. Their very existence depends on respect from the people. It is the duty of the government and of Parliament to earn for them the respect of Canadians. However the attitude of the present government is about to jeopardize the credibility of our national institutions. [English] I think, sir, that we have all been concerned with the practice that has become evident again today in questions relating to the public nature of the federal-provincial discussions which will occur next week and those which occurred earlier this week. We in Canada now face a situation where to an increasing degree decisions of fundamental importance to the future of the country are taken by small groups of people who theoretically are responsible, but who in practice are meeting in secret to make decisions in secret which are relayed back to respective legislatures, whether the parliament of Canada or the legislatures of particular provinces, for ratification. That has rather seriously changed the system of government we have had in this country. It raises serious questions about how the parliamentary system functions and the way the system was established, namely, to allow members elected from the various constituencies of the land to control in a real sense the actions of the executive of the day. Parliament must begin with information, and it must involve influence. If the parliament of Canada continues to be denied information and influence on the activities of the government of Canada, we have strayed a serious distance from the original purposes of the parliamentary system. Today the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) raised a very legitimate question when he asked the Prime Minister (Mr.
122
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
Trudeau) by what authority, in terms of the long history of parliament, the decisions of import to the country—those that were under discussion earlier this week and will be again next week—should be made, in effect, in secret by a group of people who, while theoretically responsible, have the capacity to impose their private decisions on the various legislatures of the land. The Prime Minister who is probably the expert in the House of Commons on strawmen dismissed this very valid request by the hon. Member for Edmonton West as setting up a strawman. It is not that at all; it is a question of real concern to all of us who want to see the parliamentary system in Canada function and represent the people of Canada. Unfortunately, the practice of secrecy which the Prime Minister, at least, is not prepared to initiate breaking down in relation to the federal-provincial conference next week has become a practice very close to the heart of this government. As my colleague, the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) has pointed out on numerous occasions, this is a government almost obsessive in its secrecy. We have seen it refuse, not simply to make information available to people who should be informed both by formal right and informal right, but we have also seen it frequently make decisions which suffer because they are based on the narrow range of information. We have seen this most recently in the Speech from the Throne which began this session of parliament. The government proposed to begin consultations on the anti-inflation process—some 13 months after the process was brought into being—not to try to draw upon the advice of Canadians and the advice of interested sectors of the country but, instead, to try to get some help in bailing the government out of a situation it got into by acting too much in contempt of the advice that could and should have been offered by various interested parties in the country. The federal government apparatus has quite aptly been called by the Auditor General—and, I believe, by the Prime Minister—“the largest business in Canada.” In terms of its spending impact, it is equivalent to the 20 largest corporations in Canada. Yet what we have here is this massive instrument of impact upon the conduct of Canadian affairs, a complete absence of direction, absence of leadership, an absence of purpose. In the face of that situation, this largest business in the country has become, in effect, an uncontrolled political conglomerate which, unfortunately, in its lack of purpose and lack of direction is setting a trend for other levels of government and a trend of carelessness for the public purse.
Parliamentary Supremacy
123
We believe that it is fundamental to restore fiscal control to the House of Commons and the government of Canada. We think that unless there is a demonstration on the part of the government that it is concerned about fiscal control, unless there is a demonstration that the parliament of Canada has a capacity to control the spending practices of the government of Canada, we are going to continue to invite the cynicism which is unfortunately undermining the respect for institutions in this country. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Clark: I repeat, Mr. Speaker, that if that cynicism persists it is going to have serious effects, not simply on the financial capacities and on the economic policy of the government of Canada, but it is going to have a serious and deteriorating effect upon the capacity of this institution of parliament and the institution of the government of Canada to command respect and draw together Canadians in achieving our other goals, whether they be in terms of social policy, national unity or anything else. When the Auditor General introduced his report, the attention of many of us was initially drawn to what one of the newspapers called the “horror” stories. We are aware of many of these horror stories and the failure to make optimum use or anything near optimum use of office space, transfer expenses not accounted for, inadequate control of cash received in many departments, expenditures seriously in excess of appropriations that are approved—we know about the individual horror stories. We have to recognize that the reports of Auditors General, particularly the most recent one but also those which preceded it, have to be seen not as a mere catalogue of mistakes but, instead, as a thorough indictment of the system of control that has been in place in the government of Canada for the last eight years. The recommendation of the Auditor General that a chief financial officer be appointed in each department seems to be under way, if we can judge from the responses given in this House by the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Andras) yesterday to questions the origin of which might be a matter of dispute. Mr. Stanfield: They change their minds from day to day. Mr. Clark: As my colleague, the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Stanfield) points out, they change their minds from day to day; but the problem with the House of Commons is that we still do not know exactly what
124
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
kind of system the President of the Treasury Board intends to bring in. An hon. Member: He does not, either. Mr. Clark: We do not know if he intends to bring in any system at all. If a chief financial officer is to be brought into each department of government, the House of Commons would like to know from the minister—and if he participates in the debate later, perhaps he will tell us—at what level these officers will be appointed in the departments. There is a very real danger, if they are named at a level too subordinate to the deputy minister, that they are going to be unable to exercise the kind of control that is important. If they are not able to do that, then their appointments will be phantom and their authority will be nil. We would like to know from the minister at precisely what level these officers will be appointed, and precisely what their functions and powers will be. Mr. Hnatyshyn: And whose idea it was. Mr. Clark: The hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Hnatyshyn), of course—a naturally modest man—is interested in having on the record precisely whose idea it was. Even if there is an introduction of this kind of representation, it is clear that it is only part of the step that must be taken by the government to repair a situation where its expenditures are, in the words of the Auditor General, “virtually out of control.” In addition, even if we are able to make the kinds of reforms proposed by the Auditor General of Canada, it is clear that there is going to be one part of, or one half of, a necessary two-pronged effort to restore fiscal control to the federal government of Canada. It will help only to give direction and control in a bureaucratic sense; it will not, by itself, serve to restore public confidence. The present runaway situation in public finance is associated with two developments. The first development has been the partial—I emphasize “partial”—implementation of the recommendations of the Glassco royal commission for decentralization of fiscal control. There has been a decentralization of authority without the mechanisms for control and responsibility. The other matter which is of critical importance is that there has also been, in the period since 1965, a gradual and striking removal from the House of Commons of any effective capacity to control the spending or planning of the government of Canada. In passing, it is important to dwell for a moment on the degree to which the reforms proposed by the Glassco commission have only been partially introduced. I will accept, as I am sure the House will, the au-
Parliamentary Supremacy
125
thority of the Auditor General of Canada himself when he says: However, it seems clear that the present unsatisfactory and vulnerable situation came about because certain key recommendations on financial management and control made by the Royal Commission on Government Organization (Glassco commission) in 1962 were not implemented. Perhaps they were not understood, although the recommendations relating to the decentralization of financial authorities were evidently understood and were fully implemented.
The Auditor General goes on to say: Unfortunately, the concurrent and equally important Glassco recommendation that new counterbalancing controls be instituted and that existing ones be strengthened was not implemented.
Sir, I now want to turn the attention of the House to the problems faced by this parliament in dealing with the public spending of the government and the problems faced by parliament in exercising the traditional parliamentary role of controlling, in the final analysis, government expenditure and government plans. I will not dwell long on what we can call the former situation. It is clear to all who have studied parliament and know of its force that there was a time, not long ago, when the House of Commons had a real capacity to call the government of Canada to account. It was not simply a matter of giving, as we shall be called upon tonight to give, automatic passage to expenditure requirements—not at all. There was, with the capacity for unrestricted questioning of estimates, the real ability to force the government to respond to the will of the public of Canada. One authority upon whom I shall call is Professor Norman Ward, author of the book entitled The Public Purse. He referred to that historic event in Canadian parliamentary history which has become known as the pipeline debate, when the opposition of that day was able to use its capacity to delay passage of the estimates to force the government of Canada into a difficult situation. I quote Professor Ward, who said: No one who witnessed that sitting of the House could have any doubts of the power of the weapon which the members held until spokesmen for the various opposition parties made clear that they had chosen to lay it down.
No observer of any of the processes which will occur later this eve-
126
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
ning in this House can have any doubt that the parliament of Canada has lost completely that capacity to control expenditures and approve the plans of a majority government in Canada today. There was, with that former system, an obvious shortcoming: it took too long. As government has become more complex, it is no longer possible to have the unrestrained capacity on the part of the opposition to hold up public business. Everyone recognizes that we could not contemplate, with the modern agenda of business, the kinds of delays which were possible perhaps in easier times. The difficulty is, sir, that the reforms which were introduced, particularly the way they have been interpreted by the government opposite, have substituted for delay a much more serious problem in that they have left the parliament of Canada virtually without control of the public spending of Canada, and virtually without control of the government of Canada. It is significant to note that when there were changes in methods of financial control, there were, by coincidence, at the same time changes in the rules of the House of Commons. To be consistent on the matter of questioning the estimates, it would be helpful to the House of Commons to review some of the changes which have occurred in the last few years in the handling of estimates by this government and the presentation of estimates by this government to the House of Commons. One change was that detailed information was dropped from estimates and millions of dollars were put under headings which gave little information. For example, the preface to one set of estimates says that they are to assist members of parliament in their deliberations and to assist those seeking an understanding of the purposes for which the government proposes funds to be appropriated. In 1970–71, the form of the estimates was changed with that particular goal in mind. In fact what has happened, as all know who have served on committees trying to scrutinize estimates, is that a sentence or two is placed in front of items allocating funds—a sentence or two which can be highly uninformative. For example, some in this House have recently been preoccupied with the discontinuance of the ferry service in British Columbia. I happen to have obtained a copy of the 1976–77 estimates for the Department of Transport, and I note that ferry services are defined in the following detail: Development, implementation and monitoring of programs, including participation in policy formulation, for the operation of certain coastal, ferry and related terminal services, particularly
Parliamentary Supremacy
127
those for which Canada has accepted responsibility under terms of union and confederation.
That explanation gave next to no detail, but that item cost in excess of $116 million. On the basis of a handful of words, the parliament of Canada is now supposed to pass intelligent judgment and to raise questions upon expenditure in excess of $116 million. I have cited an example which was simply drawn at random, because it is of some concern now; but it indicates the kinds of changes which have taken place in the period since 1971–72. It indicates a moving away by the government, in its presentation of estimates to parliament, from the giving of detailed information with regard to estimates, and this moving away generally makes it very difficult for the parliament of Canada to do its job. The other highly serious problem which we face as a parliament now, and which the people of Canada face as a consequence, is that the committees of parliament, and parliament itself, have been deprived of any leverage upon the government by the automatic guillotine which comes into force to conclude debate. The government has the capacity in the committees, through its control of committee chairmen—a control which exists in reality, as any realist in this House must admit—to decide who is going to testify and for how long. That is done through the steering committees. They have also the capacity to formally limit debate. Last year, as an experiment, some estimates were brought before the House, presumably for debate along the old lines. The problem was that debate was under the guillotine; it was to end that very night. Consequently, any minister under questioning knew that he had simply to turn up his collar against the storm; he knew he had only to live through that day. Indeed, he encouraged—and I say this with respect to the sensitivity of the hon. member for Scarborough West (Mr. Martin)—supporters of the government party to consume as much time as they could by asking patsy questions. That was allowable perhaps within the rules, but it was a shameful use of those rules and shameful contempt of the right of parliament to control expenditure. An hon. Member: Do you people live in glass houses? Mr. Clark: Theoretically, this House of Commons retains the ability to vote down estimates, although this very rarely happened in the past even before the rules changed. It has not happened at all since 1970–71, not even in a minority parliament. It was not possible for the House of
128
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
Commons to ratify, in the whole House, changes which had been made in the various standing committees. In June, 1973, I remember a number of committees reporting back to the House of Commons recommending specific expenditure cuts. I particularly remember being involved in one which recommended the reduction by $1 million of consultants’ expenditures for the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. That expenditure was struck out in committee. However, the government brought it back in in a form, not where it would be considered as a $1 million expenditure struck out for the reasons decided by the majority of the Standing Committee of the House of Commons, but part of an over-all estimate of $45 million. It was included with a number of other quite legitimate expenditures, expenditures which the committee was quite prepared to accept. With that kind of juggling and varying of an expenditure to which exception was taken in a body of expenditures that we were prepared to accept, the government was in a position of, in effect, blackmailing the House of Commons into supporting an expenditure which it did not want to support. That kind of trickery and deceit has an opportunity to occur only with a minority government. The point I am making is that there is a determination on the part of this government to use the changes that have occurred in the method of bringing forward the estimates to frustrate the will of parliament even though that will is expressed by standing committees of the House. I want to review very quickly a couple of other problems which exist in the present system of consideration of estimates in committee. One obvious problem is that there is very little public attention paid to the activities of standing committees, particularly when considering estimates. Second, there is a clear inability for members of parliament of any party who are interested in getting at the facts about a particular expenditure effectively to cross-examine a chairman or minister who is determined to stop that kind of cross-examination. By controlling the agenda, or having limited time, the government can effectively forestall any kind of investigation. There is, by the nature of reference, a simple inability on the part of the House of Commons to deal with a specific matter in any prolonged or coherent fashion. I see that the hon. member for Westmount (Mr. Drury) is in the chamber. In the last session, that distinguished member was a member of the government of Canada. We had an admission by that gentleman, as a minister, that the government of Canada was indulging in the practice
Parliamentary Supremacy
129
of hiding certain expenditures, particularly those that related to intelligence activities by the government of Canada. That raises the very serious problem about the ability of parliament to control the expenditures of government. We have no capacity to know what amounts of money are being spent on intelligence operations, or for any other purpose, by the government of Canada. I should say that there was an undertaking, although I do not believe it has been acted on, to give private briefings to members of parliament who were interested in that question. The far more serious problem was that the then minister admitted there had been an inflation of other estimates by smuggling in the intelligence estimates. We do not know in how many other cases this occurred. However, it is clear that the parliament of Canada was being deliberately misled as to the amount of money the government of Canada intended to spend on particular projects. The government intended to deflect part of that sum to intelligence activities which it did not trust parliament to know about. That is another indication of the abuse of the system in which the present government has indulged. This is not an academic matter. Today we face another very real concern about the capacity of parliament and parliamentary committees to investigate. I am told by my colleagues who serve on the public accounts committee that many of the documents necessary for that fundamentally important committee of parliament to examine the records of AECL may be withheld for a variety of spurious reasons. Some hon. Members: Shame! Mr. Clark: It certainly is shameful. “Wait and see,” the parliamentary secretary tells me. We will do that. The best way to answer our doubt would be to have, today, an unequivocal undertaking by the minister when he stands in his place that each and every document requested by a member of parliament in the consideration of that and other questions in that and other committees will be available and that each and every witness will be made available. I doubt that that kind of undertaking will be given. It would depart fundamentally from the practice of this government to use the committee system to frustrate, rather than assist, in any examination. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Clark: There are a number of other reforms that we think the House of Commons ought to deal with in a non-partisan manner. We are concerned, not in our capacity as members of parties but in our capacity
130
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
as members of parliament for the effectiveness of this institution. There are a number of changes which should be considered very soon. First, we must improve the capacity of parliament to control public expenditures. One way to do that would be to vest in opposition parties the capacity to select a certain limited number of departments each year whose estimates could be debated in committee of the whole without an automatic guillotine. If a minister or the government wants to introduce the guillotine, perhaps they should be left with that right. However, if there is going to be a guillotine, they should at least have to face the music by standing up in this House of Commons and making it clear that they intend to limit debate. With an automatic guillotine there is a safeguard for the ministers. No one knows they are limiting debate. They get away with murder. We think there is very real merit in giving some consideration to vesting in committees— The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner): Order, please. I regret to inform the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) that his allotted time has expired. He can continue only with unanimous consent. Does the House give its consent? Some hon Members: Agreed. Mr. Clark: I appreciate that courtesy, Mr. Speaker, and I will attempt to be brief. Consideration should be given to vest in the committees of the House of Commons some capacity to initiate investigations into matters of public interest. Right now, the capacity of committees is limited. Their capacity to investigate is limited in two ways. First, we know from experience that estimates before a committee is an inadequate means of examining the government. The second would be to receive a reference from the House, in theory, but from the government in fact. The practice is that when the subject is hot, the reference does not come. Time and time again, this parliament has sought to have the committees of the parliament of Canada empowered to look into questions of obvious public importance. Time after time the government has refused to make that kind of reference. We think it very much worth considering having some capacity vested in the committees of the House of Commons to initiate their own inquiries. They would be both extensive and educational. If we are looking for parliamentary reform, we might consider looking, not to another country but simply to the other place. It is one of the ironies of political life in this country that private members of the other place
Parliamentary Supremacy
131
have far more capacity to look into public problems than private members of the House of Commons. I want, in passing, to pay tribute to the members of the other place in recognition of some of the very important investigations they have carried out, performing the kind of function which the elected parliament of Canada should perform. I think it is unacceptable that the appointed members of a national institution should have more power and capacity to investigate than do the elected members. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Clark: There are number of other matters to which I wished to refer, Mr. Speaker, but I will abbreviate those references. I do wish to say, however, that one of the other constraints upon the capacity of parliament to secure information has been the change in attitude of the government toward the question period. We all recognize that there is no requirement upon the government to answer questions put to it in the House of Commons. But there is a requirement on the part of the government of Canada to treat seriously questions which are posed seriously in the House. Unfortunately, we have seen the development of what I think can fairly be characterized as a personal style of flippant answers, being cute with questions, of seeking not to answer, not to provide information but, rather, to evade questions and create false controversies and to send people off on tangents. We get responses, rather than answers, from ministers opposite, and I think if there were a serious desire on the part of ministers to inform the House of Commons they could start by answering seriously questions seriously posed. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Clark: This motion, among other things, condemns the government for its inept handling of the public finances of Canada. Its record in the handling of public finances is well known. When the present administration took office, federal expenditures were in the neighbourhood of $9 billion a year. Today they exceed $42 billion. When the government took office, governments in Canada claimed 30 per cent of the gross national product. Today they claim almost 43 per cent. Mr. Kaplan: That’s all government in Canada. Mr. Clark: That is right. The parliamentary secretary makes an interjection which is correct. But he would not want to pretend that the initiative for that increase came exclusively or even primarily from other
132
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
levels of government. In the last decade in particular—and this is documentable—that initiative came from the federal government. It has been the central cause of the increase in the growth of public sector consumption of the gross national product in this country. Despite all the increase in expenditures, we have so little to show in terms of public response. Rather than an increased faith in the government’s ability to help Canadians meet their difficulties, there is now an increasing growth of cynicism and a diminution of trust about the role and relevance of government policies to the economic well-being of Canada. Rather than a major increase in our well-being as a nation, we see our country has slipped in one decade from second place to seventh place in the world in terms of per capita living standards. It threatens to fall even farther down the list. Instead of there being greater sense of economic equality in Canada, we see instead a greater sense of division among the regions and among the different income groups. I do not wish to take the time of the House to elaborate on economic details about which my colleagues will be speaking later on in the debate. But there are a least two aspects of the present situation which are fundamental. The first is something I have enunciated on many occasions when speaking across the country. It is the need for us to halt, and gradually reverse, the growing claims of all governments upon our national output. I am convinced that what is often referred to as “the British disease” is a very real economic malady. I have no reason to believe that if we continue to hurtle down the course set by the government we will avoid our own particular Canadian strain of that disease. Indeed, we will invite it. I want to make it clear that my colleagues in the Conservative party and I are advocating a far different approach to spending restraint than that which is practised by the government. The government opposite bows in the direction of restraint, although the minister admitted the other day that in fiscal year 1977 federal government expenditures will increase by 14 per cent. Mr. Andras: Fourteen per cent this year, and only 11 per cent next year. Mr. Clark: The minister tells me 14 per cent this year, and 11 percent next year. An hon. Member: Dreadful. Mr. Clark: We find it interesting that the saving will be in the neighbourhood of $1.2 billion. It is both interesting and illustrative that that is exactly the figure the government of Canada, in the negotiations
Parliamentary Supremacy
133
between finance ministers which failed this week in Ottawa, is seeking to take from the provinces of Canada. So the government practices restraint, not by restraining its own expenditures but by passing its burdens on to other levels of government. That is not restraint; that is sleight-of-hand. Some hon. Members: Hear, Hear! Mr. Clark: Clearly, what we need to do is not to pass the buck on to the provinces but, instead, exercise national leadership to try to bring together the efforts at restraint to all levels of government. [Translation] There is another major difference between our approach and theirs, that is, the relation between the federal spending policy and that of the other levels of government. One of the favourite tackles of this government in limiting its expenditures is quite senselessly to shift its commitments on the provinces, and to hell with the taxpayers: they have no choice but to support all governments. In our approach, we endeavour to generate a coordinated and joint effort on the part of all levels of government with a view to moderating the overall demand on the economy. I underestimate neither the difficulty nor the complexity of that endeavour, but it is necessary otherwise we will witness no less than the abdication of the leadership. This brings me to the second point. I want to stress in this context. It is obvious for everybody, except the government, that we cannot continue making decisions which affect more than two fifths of our national economy on the basis of the arbitrary and unilateral action of eleven different governments. And yet that is what we do in Canada. The federal or provincial governments make their budgetary decisions separately, without real co-ordination, which often puts them in competition if not in opposition. [English] Of course, the ministers of finance meet, as they did earlier this week. But I do not think any of us would pretend, in the present atmosphere, that they even seek to achieve any meaningful co-ordination of the economic direction of what amounts to two fifths of our national output. This, clearly, is not a one-sided affair. The fault—if that is the term I should use—does not rest solely with the federal government. The gov-
134
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
ernment has contributed significantly to the whole problem of governments acting unilaterally in a country requiring co-operation, but it is not the exclusive agent of that kind of action. It is fair to assert, however, that only the federal government can show the kind of national leadership we need if we are to achieve worthwhile economic co-ordination within the public sector. Along with maintaining security, the management of the national economy is probably the most fundamental responsibility of the federal government. It controls the monetary system, and while it does not by any means exercise all the fiscal power, it controls the national fiscal lever and thus, in a very real way, sets the framework for everyone else. Only the national government can exercise the primary responsibility for economic management in Canada. In the name of that responsibility there must be a much greater effort, a much more concerted active national leadership in seeking to co-ordinate, through consensus and through compromise, the impact of public sector policies and demands upon our economy as a whole. That will mean, not a giving up of ultimate responsibility by the government of Canada but a greater willingness on the part of all governments to act as partners and to share information and planning before each exercises the responsibility which ultimately rests with each. I began, Mr. Speaker, by speaking about the problems that face our national institutions, such as the erosion of respect which can have consequences of very real danger to a country like ours. This parliament is the only institution in Canada which legitimately speaks for all the people of Canada. It is our only national institution. But it can have effect only if has power. It can be respected by the people of Canada only if it is respected by the government of Canada. The tragic situation today is that the government of Canada has demonstrated, through its use of changed rules, through its refusal to accept the control or the point of view of the House of Commons, which amounts to contempt for parliament which, unfortunately, is capable of being shared by the people of Canada. We believe that that kind of attitude by the government must be changed. We would hope that in the acceptance of the motion introduced today we will be beginning down the road toward a change in that fundamental attitude. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Clark: With a little prompting from my friends, in that spirit, Mr. Speaker, I want to move, seconded by my colleague for Edmonton Cen-
Parliamentary Supremacy
135
tre (Mr. Paproski): That this House vigorously protests the manner in which it has been deprived of a genuine role in the discussion of estimates and fiscal and monetary policy, objects to the secrecy of economic studies and projections, deplores the fact that key recommendations of the Auditor General will not be implemented in the foreseeable future, and condemns the government for its inept handling of the public finances of Canada.
Parliamentary Sovereignty and Powers of the Prime Minister House of Commons Debates 9 December 1974 30th Parliament, 1st Session: Volume 2, 2071–2073 Mr. Joe Clark (Rocky Mountain) moved: That, in the opinion of this House, a committee should be selected to consider the powers, prerogatives and privileges attaching to the office of Prime Minister and to report what safeguards are desirable or necessary to secure the constitutional principles of the sovereignty of parliament and the supremacy of the law.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I should point out to the House that the language of this resolution was drawn from a resolution introduced to the British House of Commons on precisely this topic several years ago. I can say, in a certain hopeful sense, that the resolution was accepted at that time in that House. I hope it will receive similar treatment here today. In the past ten years there have been a great many deliberate changes in our political institutions. New departments of government have been introduced and a range of new procedures developed from impact studies to local initiative of government spending designed to bring governments and citizens into closer harmony. Last year parliament passed the Election Expenses Act which will end the secrecy of political party financing and encourage all parties to become more active and more broadly based. The rules of parliament have been dramatically changed, and the Speech from the Throne suggested that more radical changes will be proposed. Those changes have been made deliberately, usually after extensive study and public debate. In that period the office of Prime Minister has also changed dramat-
136
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
ically, and it is one of the curiosities of our system that so little serious attention has been paid to the extent or significance of the power of that office. In the United States, books and theories and countless columns are written about the power of the presidency. In Canada, with rare exceptions, we focus for a moment on a sudden growth in staff or an expenditure on suede sofas, and then largely leave the question alone. However, it is too important a question to leave alone and the purpose of this resolution is to allow an examination of the role that should be played by the office of Prime Minister in a modern, federal parliamentary state. I underline and emphasize the fact that what is sought in this resolution is an opportunity for a committee of this parliament to examine the role of the office of Prime Minister. The resolution makes no assumptions about that role except the assumption that the powers of the Prime Minister, like the powers of parliament, should be discussed and decided in public and in the context of the requirements and the traditions of the whole country. Let me say a word about those traditions. In my view there is no tradition in Canada of a weak Prime Minister. We are told, in parliamentary theory, that the Prime Minister is merely the “first among equals” in parliament, with the assumption that Her Majesty can quite easily choose another of us equals to be first. That is the theory. In fact, the Prime Minister has always been a strong figure in Canada, with his parliamentary leadership buttressed by his party leadership and with official responsibilities and an official reputation far beyond those of his peers and at least equal to those of Her Majesty. Therefore, the tradition is not the theoretical tradition of being merely the first among equals, answerable to the Queen but, rather, the practical tradition of exercising leadership in a federal state with a parliamentary system which requires the governors to be responsible to the governed through this parliament. Nobody is suggesting that we go back to a weakness that never was. However, throughout our history there has been another tradition to balance the necessary strength of the office of Prime Minister; that is, that the powers of the Prime Minister should not be developed or exercised in isolation but must be set in a federal parliamentary context and be subject to detailed and regular parliamentary scrutiny. There is no such scrutiny today. The Prime Minister comes to the question period on most days, but the questions are usually about his judgment, seldom about his powers; and anyway there is no requirement that he answer. After the so-called
Parliamentary Supremacy
137
Pearson precedent of 1968 there is a real question whether parliament can defeat a Prime Minister by vote in this House, except on matters of obvious confidence, like a budget. If our capacity to defeat a Prime Minister is so limited, so is our capacity limited to control him by the threat of defeat. As the chief minister, he is less bound by Treasury Board than any of his colleagues, and appointments to or by his office can be made without recourse to the Public Service Commission. His estimates are brought before the miscellaneous estimates committee. However, they are not dealt with there by him, but by a parliamentary secretary to another minister. The Prime Minister reports to no standing committee and there is no statute to define his responsibilities. Ironically, parliament probably has less real control over the Prime Minister than we have over the president of Air Canada or the president of CNR, because a Crown corporation is established by statute while the Prime Minister’s Office is not, and its officials must appear regularly before standing committees while the Prime Minister’s officials do not. No matter how loosely you define “responsible” government, parliament should have some direct control over the actions of its Prime Minister beyond his mere appearance for questions in the House. If that has been important in the past, I suggest it will be even more critical in the future, for reasons I will enumerate. First, whatever the theory, the fact is that our system of government in Canada is a system of cabinet government, not parliamentary government. Occasionally, initiatives by private members are adopted by the government and from time to time members can amend a bill in committee or the whole House. However, the bulk of the power of initiative lies with the cabinet. It is the same in Britain, and one distinguished participant in and observer of the British system, the late Richard Crossman, suggested that in the system of the Mother of Parliaments, the process of a concentration of power has gone even further. Writing a decade ago in the introduction to Bagehot’s The English Constitution, Crossman said: In Bagehot’s day, collective cabinet responsibility meant the responsibility of a group of equal colleagues for decisions taken collectively, after full, free and secret discussion in which all could participate. It now means collective obedience by the whole administration, from the foreign secretary and the chancellor downwards, to the will of the man at the apex of power.
138
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
We have no expert testimony on this trend in Canada, but it is safe to assume—and certainly it is the public assumption—that the Prime Minister controls his cabinet and that it is the Prime Minister, not the cabinet, and certainly not Parliament, who regularly makes the final and the important decisions. Second, the power of the Prime Minister grows as government grows. We have increasingly an interventionist state which controls or strongly influences more and more of the processes of our society. The merits of that development can be argued another time. The simple point I want to make is that as the government becomes more powerful in the nation, so does the leader of the government become more powerful. The present Prime Minister, by virtue of his office, has much more power in Canada than did Louis St. Laurent, John Diefenbaker, Lester Pearson or any of his predecessors. The state might have got out of the bedrooms of the nation, but it has more than made up for that everywhere else, and the one office that has grown most in power is the office, in Mr. Crossman’s words, “at the apex of power.” Third, the same active agenda which has increased the role of government has decreased the power of parliament to control government. Parliament once had a virtually unlimited power to scrutinize and delay. While parties might disagree about the nature of specific reforms, all of us recognize that the old, easy rules would not have let the business get done. But we have paid a price for that reform, and the price has been that at the same time as the powers of the executive have increased, the powers of parliament have decreased; so we have less control on bigger government. The fourth factor in the growing power of the Prime Minister is television. Today, every head of government has become a star personality whose advisers cultivate the talent to manipulate opinion and whose office has the permanent opportunity to command attention. Professor Denis Smith, in his article “President and Parliament” argues, and I quote: Canadian Prime Ministers have always made their primary appeal for support not in the House of Commons, but outside, to the electorate.
That is much easier now, with mass media. All of us here, if we are realists, know that the most effective place for a Prime Minister to get his message across is on television, not in this House. That is a fact of life which adds immensely to the power of the Prime Minister and dimin-
Parliamentary Supremacy
139
ishes, again, the capacity of this parliament to control an official whose whole authority is presumed in theory to arise from this chamber. Fifth, the present Prime Minister has, in effect, established for the first time a new “Department of the Prime Minister” in the Privy Council Office and the Office of the Prime Minister. His purpose was to provide a means by which he, as head of government, could keep track of and co-ordinate the various initiatives of a mammoth government. I understand that purpose and, speaking personally, approve of it as the only means to ensure that there is, in fact, some over-all control of the direction of government by the elected politicians whom the Prime Minister commands. However, this new department was created in the absence of authority from, or discussion in, parliament. It operates beyond our scrutiny and, having the ear of the Prime Minister, it has the capacity virtually to change any direction or challenge any initiative that arises either in parliament or in the public service. Without dwelling on them too long, I would suggest that certain other forces which traditionally have restrained a Prime Minister have been weakening recently. For example, we accept the notion, without much evidence, that Canadian political parties control their leaders and, in particular, prevent them from the excesses we associate with Watergate. But when did that last happen? Did the Liberal Party in Newfoundland ever restrain Joey Smallwood? Did the Union Nationale restrain Maurice Duplessis? Parties do not behave in that way because they know that in attacking their leader they attack themselves. This is particularly true now that campaigns are so heavily influenced by national media and voting is more often for the personality of the leader than it is for the local candidate or a specific issue. Again, we have assumed that a Prime Minister can be controlled by the public which, at each election, has the chance to “throw the rascals out.” However, public control of the Prime Minister depends upon a competitive electoral system. In Canada, the electoral system is, unfortunately, not competitive in Quebec, which means, as it did in 1972, that a Prime Minister can be rejected by most of the country and still survive. Finally, there is the argument that the professional public service can provide a counterbalance to a powerful Prime Minister. That capacity also is being weakened, first by the deliberate establishment of a “Department of the Prime Minister,” precisely to confront such a capability in the public service and, second, by the increasingly frequent appointment to public service positions of individuals who have personal or
140
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
partisan loyalties to the Prime Minister. Hon. members can disagree about the extent or significance of any of the factors I have discussed today, but I think we must surely all agree that two main trends are occurring. The first is a trend toward the concentration of formal and informal power in the office and person of the Prime Minister. Second is the weakening of any effective means to control that power. In a modern state, it may well be impossible or even undesirable to reverse the first trend. But surely we cannot let that power grow unscrutinized and uncontrolled. I think it is safe to say that if we saw a corporation, a union or any other private agency accumulating the power that is developing now around the office of the Prime Minister, we would want to develop some assurances that the public interest was being served. It is particularly important that we apply that same standard of scrutiny and control to an office whose original authority was as a creature of this House. The resolution before us suggests simply that this is a matter which we cannot ignore. It does not propose a particular remedy or imply that anything improper has been done. It simply asserts that the tradition of parliamentary control requires at least a formal consideration of the powers which now attach, and the restraints which should apply, to the most powerful office in our political system. There is a danger, of course, that this discussion will be seen as simply one more step in a struggle for power between members on one side of the House and those on the other, or between the executive and the legislature. However, that is not the case, as I hope my arguments have shown. There is another dimension to the problem; it is the very real harm that can be done to a country like Canada by any concentration of power. Our federal parliamentary system was not developed by accident or by simple, blind importation from elsewhere. We are a diverse country and we need institutions which both reflect and accommodate that diversity. The best institution for that purpose has been parliament, because it draws its membership from truly every corner of the country and has traditionally encouraged its members to express the views of their locale. But parliament was never designed to be simply a talking shop; the assumption was that the Prime Minister and the cabinet, who came from parliament, would heed the views of the various locales. If they didn’t, in theory, parliament would bring them down. But parliament, the forum of diversity, has lost this control over the executive, and the Prime Minister is increasingly able to construct a government which reflects his own views better than it reflects the di-
Parliamentary Supremacy
141
versity of the country. If that double trend continues—the weakening of the forum of diversity and the empowering of a particular group— those regions and attitudes which lack power will naturally tire of the system. That is the special Canadian danger of this kind of concentration of power, and it must be on our minds as we consider the powers and prerogatives of the office of the modern Prime Minister. Mr. Speaker, I thank the House for its attention and hope that this resolution will commend itself to the support of hon. members. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. John M. Reid (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council): Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the hon. member for Rocky Mountain (Mr. Clark) for bringing this subject to our attention and also on the excellent speech he has just made in favour of his proposition. I agree with him it is important to for us to examine the institutions of government from time to time, to analyse changes which concern us and question the direction government seems to be taking, especially if it is one about which we do not feel comfortable.
Multiculturalism and Accountability to Parliament House of Commons Debates 28 June 1973 29th Parliament, 1st Session: Volume 5, 5189 Mr. Joe Clark (Rocky Mountain): Mr. Speaker, may I begin by expressing my appreciation to the Chair and to the table for their courtesy in giving priority to the matter which I am raising tonight. I also have a starred question on the order paper with respect to this matter. I appreciate that the minister has not yet had a chance to reply to it. I raise this question because of the very great urgency surrounding the affair, which I think can probably be called the Ostrey affair, involving the Minister of State responsible for multiculturalism (Mr. Haidasz), which arose in this House last week regarding a situation in which the minister was being ordered about by the assistant deputy minister of citizenship. This is important for two reasons. The first reason is the importance of multiculturalism and the symbol that the actions of last week display of the very slight regard the government in fact has for the multicultur-
142
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
al program. The second, and perhaps the even more important reason, is the question of the responsibility of the minister in parliament and the right of the Parliament of Canada to be able to go to a minister and hold him accountable for the actions for which he presumably speaks. We in this party have protested previously that the multicultural program as put forward by the government is a false front, a public relations gesture. We raised this question in 1969 when the Official Languages Act was before the House. At that time amendments were introduce by my colleague from Athabasca (Mr. Yewchuk) and were rejected out of hand by the government. Now, that concept of multiculturalism which the government rejected in 1969 has been embraced in a way that is weak, that is late and that is lamentably partisan. We believe that a multicultural policy is highly important because multiculturalism is a highly important part of this country and has to be encouraged. But tonight I want to speak particularly about responsibility to parliament. When I addressed my question to the minister, I addressed him as the minister who seemed to be a little bit responsible for multiculturalism, but I think I was exaggerating. We have not asked ourselves, what does responsible mean in terms of this minister? He clearly cannot be regarded as responsible in literal or practical terms for the activities of a department that comes under another minister. He is clearly a second-class minister who has less power than an assistant secretary of state. We have had this once before. The Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Andras) was once attached in a similar way to the department of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development when the government of that day desired to put forward a false front of wanting to hold consultations with the Indian and native peoples. The device was clearly designed to mislead. In the statute, two types of ministers of state are set out. The essential difference is that one has power and the other does not. This is spelled out in the Government Organization Act, 1971. The government at that time made the minister of state responsible for urban affairs a meaningful figure, but refused to do that with the minister of state responsible for multiculturalism. This shows that the latter is a phony department, interested in public relations and not in a program. I suggest that this matter is far more serious than the simple abuse involved in spending money on advertisements or insubordination by an assistant secretary of state. When we get into this practice of institu-
Parliamentary Supremacy
143
tionalizing phony ministers who are unable to act, who are unable to report, we are setting a dangerous precedent for parliament. I think this would be terribly embarrassing for the minister, embarrassing enough that he would want to resign rather than hold on to a façade. But if it satisfies the minister, I want to make it clear that it does not satisfy us. That kind of arrangement simply does not satisfy us because we believe that recognition of the multicultural nature of this country is highly important. To a segment of the public it is a highly important part of our past, and should be an important part of our future. It should not be played around with, Mr. Speaker. There will be some reply tonight. I have great respect for the parliamentary secretary who has the responsibility of replying. However, I think that real respect for and recognition of the importance of multiculturalism will have to come with a change in the status of the Minister of State responsible for multiculturalism. This will involve a change from the situation where he has no power into one where we have a minister of state who has enough power to deal with an aspect of our society which is recognized as being unique to Canada, and which is being played around with in a second-rate way by the government.
Partisan Uses of Public Money House of Commons Debates 12 July 1973 29th Parliament, 1st Session: Volume 5, 5566–5569 Mr. Joe Clark (Rocky Mountain): Mr. Speaker, like other members of the House I welcome the bill that is before us and I certainly support its basic principles. I think there are a number of particular faults that have been enumerated by others who have spoken before, and which will be re-enumerated by others speaking in the debate tonight. It is the clear will and intention of the House to get the matter into committee quickly so that we can give it the careful and detailed examination necessary to bring a better bill back to the House. I welcome also the interest of the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) in amendments. I am prepared to overlook the fact that he has no alternative on this issue in this minority parliament. It seems to me to be the particular genius of the President of the Privy Council to act gracefully when he has no alternative. I presume that his expression
144
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
of interest in amendments was a kind of apology in advance for the draftmanship of the bill. Clearly the bill is so riddled with holes and uncertainties as it stands that one is almost tempted to think that the cabinet ignored the services of the law officers of the Crown and drafted it themselves. The bill needs extensive tightening and amendment and this will occur during the committee stage. I think an important point to make is that this matter will not come back before us again. This is the only time we will have to consider the question of election expenses and questions of related abuses. We must therefore take care in committee to ensure that we achieve the best bill possible, and to ensure that we get it out of committee and into this House in time to be in effect before the next general election. While I welcome the bill I do not welcome the atmosphere which brought it here. That is not an atmosphere of Watergate, which is a consideration which is irrelevant, at least to my party. We were on record for the need for improvement and reform in this area well before Watergate, and on record as assigning the highest priority to this question of reform. The atmosphere I speak of is one of cynicism and suspicion which was developed deliberately for partisan purposes by spokesmen of the New Democratic Party at great cost to the public’s respect for public life in Canada. Indeed, sir, if any Watergate analogy is apt, it is the analogy between the apparent immorality of the advisers there, who believed that any means justified the end of re-electing the President, and the amorality here of the political operatives of the NDP who deliberately and over time, and virtually without evidence, sought to create a mythology of corporate control of the political process, thereby deepening cynicism and public distrust. The hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) was at it again today, drawing dark implications with his usual lack of specific evidence. I do not intend to dwell longer on this point except to say that we are talking in this debate about honesty in the political system; and if it is dishonest for a politician to be bought—as we all agree it would be—so it offends any sensible concept of honesty to suggest that one’s opponents are bought, subliminally or otherwise, when you know that they are not. That atmosphere of cynicism is unfortunate, not simply because it undermines respect for the system and the process of politics, but also because this contrived question of the influence of corporations or unions has turned attention away from the more serious question of the abuse by a party in government, for partisan purposes, of the power of government.
Parliamentary Supremacy
145
This is a far more dangerous assault upon a free and equal electoral system than all the imagined influence of multinational corporations and international unions. Moreover, it is a danger which we know exists. There is evidence as recent as the advertising campaign of the Secretary of State (Mr. Faulkner), who is a little bit responsible for multiculturalism, and as recent as the campaign for the re-election of the government of Manitoba, which campaign was so close in its results that the ambiguous use by the party in power of the advantages of office may very well have provided the narrow margin of victory. Mr. Lalonde: What about Ontario? Mr. Clark (Rocky Mountain): I will specify later some of the practices of the party in power in Manitoba. I will refrain from references to the party in power in the province from which the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) comes. The abuses of the party in power in Manitoba are a textbook warning of the extent of abuse that a government party can engage in. But, sir, the point I want to emphasize now is that the capacity for abuse and the reality of the abuse of office by a party in power is a subject on which this bill is completely silent. Mr. Baker: Right. Mr. Clark (Rocky Mountain): Only the naïve would consider that to be accidental, particularly when the bill stands in the name of the master strategist of the Liberal Party. It is no accident that the area of abuse left untouched is the area of abuse which, in federal politics, is most acceptable and most advantageous to the Liberal party. The President of the Privy Council has said that he will welcome amendments, and we will give them to him. If the NDP is serious about wanting to control abuses, they will support our efforts to limit or eliminate the capacity of a party in power to use public funds for advertising, use of aircraft and other facilities to advance a partisan cause, to frustrate the system and to attack the spirit of free and equal elections. I recognize that it will not be easy to spell out the distinction between partisan and legitimate uses, but it would be utterly irresponsible for parliament to let this bill pass without limiting the capacity for abuse of office by a party in power. As it stands, this bill is an invitation to unilateral disarmament. Opposition parties are at a disadvantage anyway in our parliamentary system. Even though the things we say make more sense than the things the government says, government statements car-
146
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
ry the promise of action and thus get more attention. For example, the proposal by the leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) to stop the tax system from profiting from inflation had less force as his proposal than it did when it was adopted holus-bolus by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) in one of the flip-flops that have come to define that man of principle. There are other disadvantages of opposition, sir, not the least of which is the danger of appearing negative because of the constitutional requirement to be skeptical of things the government proposes. These disadvantages are an inescapable part of the system, and we will live with those for the short period we remain in opposition. But, sir, they are in a category apart from the illegitimate advantage governments draw from their access to the public purse. The government proposes in this bill to limit further the already limited capacity of opposition parties to compete, while retaining unfettered the single most important weapon in the armament of a party in power—the ability to abuse public funds for party purposes. This bill will be a fraud unless we add amendments to limit the government party as effectively as we limit opposition parties. I said that I would return to the question of Manitoba. The examples of abuse there are not simply examples of abuse: they also underline the fact that the NDP in practice prove that their motive in chasing the money changers from the temple is simply to take over the trade. The only way the NDP in office has changed bad practice is to make it worse. They have practised abuse with moral authority. I would ask the House to consider these facts of life in Manitoba in 1973, and to let each one of us here ask himself, what multinational corporation, or other bogey-man, has so abused power to distort the principle of an equal chance in elections? The Manitoban election was in June. From January into May there was an accelerating program of advertisements on radio, television and in the newspapers, ostensibly telling how to apply for an education rebate, but in practice extolling the program. Mr. Faulkner: What about the practice in Ontario? Mr. Clark (Rocky Mountain): The Secretary of State is responsible for the campaign to do with multiculturalism. During the same time, a general and accelerating increase in government paid advertising in Manitoba by various departments and agencies was explaining, of course, what wonderful things the Manitoba government was doing as a prelude to the election. In May, in the mail box of virtually every
Parliamentary Supremacy
147
farmer in Manitoba, there mysteriously appeared a government brochure forecasting the great plans of the government for agriculture, at public expense. The same month, a week before the election was called, a personal letter on the stationery of “The Office of the Premier” was mailed to every resident in the province advising of the removal of the medicare premium. Prior to that, on the same stationery, with the same taxpayer paying the post, a personal letter was sent from the premier to every citizen whose home improvement grant was approved. This personal approach, over the signature of the premier, was made in a province where, you will remember, the party in power was anxious to hide its own name, and emphasize the premier’s name, at public expense. In the campaign itself the premier flew around in a Saunders Aircraft plane. An hon. Member: Davis did the same in Ontario. Mr. Clark (Rocky Mountain): It is interesting to hear from the NDP, those paragons of virtue, that somebody else was as bad as they were. Saunders is controlled by the Manitoba Development Corporation, and the NDP had the plane rent free, on lease, from a middleman, who had it rent free from Saunders. When he was caught, the premier offered to pay, overlooking the fact that Saunders is not licensed by the Ministry of Transport to charter, and thus not eligible to collect. This is not to mention the numerous executive assistants to ministers who managed campaigns, or the other public officials who worked to sustain the party in power, or the very severe pressure brought to bear to contribute upon people who are doing business with the government. It has been pointed out in interventions in the House that that pattern is not limited to one province. A similar apparatus is being established in British Columbia, and certainly it exists in Saskatchewan. It is clearly here in Ottawa, although the Liberals here have not been so sanctimonious about condemning others for the things they do themselves. There was an order for return made to a question of the hon. member for Colchester-Cumberland North (Mr. Coates) indicating the abuse during election campaigns whereby aircraft of the state were engaged by ministers on partisan campaigning activities. There is the ad of the Secretary of State, sometimes responsible for multiculturalism and, indeed, the whole program of that minister who, from time to time when it is safe, appears in the House. It appears to be a contrived program, contrived for partisan purposes, even to the point of assigning to the
148
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
minister an executive assistant whose chief former function was partisan, even though it was not always successfully partisan. There has been recently in the House on the part of the very minister who introduced this legislation, a refusal to conduct a public inquiry into the harassment connected with the ITT contribution, harassment that is only possible when it is supported by a party with the force of government behind it. There was the reference yesterday by my colleague, the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Roche), to the partisan use even of Her Majesty’s visit. I do not begrudge the Liberal candidates in Alberta an audience with the Queen. The point is that no one attends state dinners in a personal capacity. Guests are chosen as representatives, and the significance of this most recent event is that 15 of the duly elected federal representatives of the people of Alberta were deliberately excluded, their places taken by individuals who represent nothing more than the Liberal party in Alberta, which in Alberta is not very much. That is inexcusable partisanship, particularly when it involves Her Majesty unwittingly in an embarrassment she has no practical power to resist. In terms of this debate it is one more graphic instance of the developed practice, the habit, of the Liberal party in power to use prerogatives which attach to the government for purposes which are narrowly and simply partisan. This is a habit we must break, and since no amount of exhortation will reform the Liberal party, legislation must. The danger here goes far beyond elections. Mr. MacEachen: The hon. member would save our souls. Mr. Clark (Rocky Mountain): There has been for several years an important confusion among Liberals about the distinction between their party and the government of Canada. That, perhaps, is natural because they have been in power far too long, for most of the last 75 years. In a system such as ours there is usually and hopefully a healthy strain between the public service and the government. Here, instead, there is consistent inbreeding. Consider the way in which during the question period one can look across the way and see the former deputy minister of the department of trade and commerce, now the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp), conferring with his front bench seatmate, the former deputy minister of defence production, now the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury). There are others who have moved, without changing their style or attitude, from the public service to the front benches or backbenches of the Liberal party.
Parliamentary Supremacy
149
Mr. Stanbury: Has the hon. member anything against the public service? Mr. Clark (Rocky Mountain): I have nothing against the public service, but I think there is a very unhealthy attitude when there is no distinction between the public service and the party in power, as in the case here. An hon. Member: That does not apply in all cases. Mr. Clark (Rocky Mountain): There is the exception which proves every rule. Mr. Speaker, I remember once overhearing a conversation by the predecessor in parliamentary gymnastics to the President of the Privy Council, the Hon. J. W. Pickersgill, who had gone to that reward he designed for himself but has now retired. He referred in passing to what he called an unfortunate interlude in Canadian history, the unfortunate interlude being the six years of Diefenbaker government, because they interrupted what he and his colleagues had come to look on as the normal state of affairs in Canada; that is to say, a state of affairs when a Liberal government was in office. That is the same man whose great regard for parliament, when he sat on this side of the House, was such that he developed obstruction to an art form, indicating the extent of his commitment to parliamentary government. There are other instances throughout our history of confusion in the Liberal party about the distinction between the public interest and the interest of the Liberal party. There is the suspicion that persists that it was the Liberal party, which caused the death of “This Hour Has Seven Days” from the CBC. Some hon. Members: Oh, oh! Mr. Clark (Rocky Mountain): Members opposite can laugh. It is interesting to record the degree of seriousness which the Liberal party attaches to the independence of the CBC. I am particularly sorry to see joining in that revelry the Secretary of State (Mr. Faulkner) who is responsible for reporting to the House for that corporation. There was the emasculation of the Company of Young Canadians when it became inconvenient to honour its mandate. There was the subtle attack by the former minister of finance who has now gone to that preserve for defeated Liberal politicians. There was the sudden attack on the independence and capacity of the Economic Council of Canada. There is the attitude which is evident in this House right now.
150
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please. I hesitate to interrupt the hon. member, but he seems to be ranging somewhat further afield than the purposes which are being considered, namely the amendments to the Canada Elections Act and certain other acts. Mr. Clark (Rocky Mountain): I can respect that comment, Mr. Speaker. The point I am trying to make is there has been consistent confusion in the minds of the Liberal party between the partisan politics of that party and the public interest of the nation. This bill, if it is to have any sensible effect and treat all parties in this country equally, cannot remain as silent as the draft which was introduced. The omission of any reference to the abuse of power by the party in government was not accidental. It has to be seen in the context of the way this government has acted in recent years. There has been the change in rules which has seriously limited the powers of parliament and the incident the other night when the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) frustrated the right of parliament to object to specific expenditures. It must be seen in the context of Information Canada with the simple and singular purpose of advancing the cause of the party in power. It must be seen in the context of the attitude of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), before his temporary repentant period, when he referred to members on this side of the House as nobodies. This bill is one more weapon of the Liberal party against democracy. It limits the capacity of other parties to compete, leaving their own party and their own capacity to campaign untouched. This is the major weakness in a bill which is good in principle and which has several useful reforms which members of my party have advocated over the years. However, it has several flaws. We clearly need to give it detailed and careful consideration in committee. This matter will not come back before us again. We must deal completely with it now. We must not deal with only half a bill such as the government has brought forward, which serves its own interest and leaves its own greatest weapon unhampered; we must deal with a bill that includes the reforms we intend to propose which will place real limits on the capacity for abuse by a party in power of the prerogatives of office. We are willing to prepare positive amendments to make it a good bill. I hope there is a general disposition in this House to support them in committee.
5
Foreign Affairs International relations and foreign affairs is perhaps Clark’s most important and cherished role in both his post-prime ministerial and post-public life. Serving as secretary of state for external affairs (now known as Global Affairs Canada), Clark oversaw and directed the Canadian response to some of the defining events of the late twentieth century. The speeches included here were chosen for the significance of the event as well as demonstrating Clark’s principles on the global political stage. Leading and informing Canadians on events ranging from Panama to Cambodia to Kuwait, Clark continued to “build Canada,” this time in front of the world. Perhaps it speaks to how important he found this work that Clark used his last speech in the House to discuss the fall of apartheid. More than anything Joe Clark represents a tradition of Canadian foreign policy which, while certainly not dead, has fallen by the wayside in recent years. The role of peacekeeping and dispute resolution mediated by the United Nations has become less important to Canadian foreign policy. Despite Clark’s optimism that the “dead letter” of the United Nations Charter would be revived by the end of the Cold War, institutional multilateralism has perhaps not been the focus of Canada’s foreign policy in the early twenty-first century. This change was made clear when Canada was passed over for a non-permanent seat of the UN Security Council in 2010, a seat that we have held more often than any other non-permanent member. Clark discusses this shift in priorities in more detail in his most recent book entitled How We Lead: Canada in a Century of Change. The lament for a bygone era is evident when he writes about the Harper government’s international priorities: That disdain for multilateralism was evident from the government’s early days and was only reinforced when Canada was defeated in its 2010 bid to be elected to the Security Council. This A Man of Parliament; Selected Speeches from Joe Clark, edited by Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon. Montréal and Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press, Queen’s Policy Studies Series. © 2019 The School of Policy Studies, Queen’s University at Kingston. All rights reserved.
152
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
attitude is not specific to the UN but is also reflected in a generally passive presence in other multilateral organizations like the Commonwealth, La Francophonie and the Organization of American States (OAS), where Canada has previously been an active leader (29).
He would make the same kind of plea for greater international engagement in policies as diverse and distinct as the end of South African apartheid and the run-up to the First Gulf War (see page 154 and 171, respectively). Clark proposes that the best way to reach a peaceful settlement is through negotiation and (if need be) sanctions involving all parties engaged in a conflict. The example of apartheid is perhaps the most clear example as it was the use of sanctions by the international community that quickly sped up the dismantling of the apartheid regime in the early 1990s. We see this most clearly when looking at Clark’s speech before the beginning of the First Gulf War when Clark proposes that “force will have been authorized” but only as a last resort and “on behalf of the international institutions Canada has spent five decades to design and to defend.” Indeed, Clark emphasizes this point, arguing that “[to] abandon those institutions now, to abandon the unanimity and the consensus that has been found in the United Nations now, would be to abandon all hope for the rule of law in world affairs.” Now of course to some, this deep belief may have been taken to non-pragmatic, perhaps even dogmatic levels when Canada would negotiate and work with authoritarian regimes undeserving of the gesture. Two examples mentioned by Clark are the Khmer Rouge Cambodian regime of Pol Pot and the post-Tiananmen Square Chinese Communist party (see pages 180 and 190, respectively). The crimes of the regimes, some might say, surely deserve a more aggressive, if not overtly military response. And this may very well be true, but not by Canada alone. As a middle power Canada has always had to walk a tightrope between the great powers of whatever age and the institutions of the prevailing international order. And while of course appeasement is never necessary, this sort of approach allows Canada to carefully pursue its own interests rather than be pulled upon as a junior partner into the next coalition of the willing. Even when Clark discussed something as relatively minor as a proposed research institute on international peace and security (see page 158), he attempts to create the proper institutional structure (at arm’s length from the government of the day) so that Canadians might think
Foreign Affairs 153
deeply about the requirements of peace. This emphasis is especially relevant today in our world so obsessed with “security” in all aspects of our political-economic and social lives. Clark’s focus on peace is refreshing because his speech reflects just how far we have come from the ideals of that time. For without this proper institutional framework, increased power in the hands of a state can quickly become abusive. We need look no further than the People’s Republic of China of 1989 where eleven years of “Reform and Opening” had in no way democratized China to allow the citizenry real contestation with the ruling Communist Party. It would of course be false to equate Canada with China, but the warning is there nonetheless. Strong institutions are necessary to counterbalance the potential abuse of power by the government of the day. Despite all his good work accomplished during his tenure as secretary of state for external affairs, perhaps the work that affected Clark the most was his work with Nelson Mandela in support of dismantling apartheid in South Africa. In an interview from November of 2013, Clark spoke of a private moment he shared with Mandela soon after his release from prison, when he addressed the African National Congress in exile. His compatriots were being critical of his captors but Mandela called for empathy saying “we must remember how hard this is for them.” Such empathy in the face of such grievous oppression and violence was no doubt unearned by his jailors. It is clear in Clark’s recollection of this event and the impact it had on him, that empathy, compassion and were integral to his international political beliefs, ideas, and actions.
154
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
Apartheid House of Commons Debates 7 March 1990 34th Parliament, 2nd Session: Volume 7, 8922–8924 Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs): Mr. Speaker, a week ago today, I had the distinct privilege, on behalf of Canada, to meet with Mr. Nelson Mandela on his first voyage outside South Africa since he was confined to prison 27 years ago. I want to report to Parliament on our conversations, and also on my brief visit to Namibia, in whose struggle for independence Canada has played such a vital role. Lusaka, Zambia is the headquarters of the African National Congress in exile. Mr. Mandela came to consult with his national executive, some of whom he had never met. He wanted also to meet those countries and institutions which have played a leading role in the struggle against apartheid. The Prime Minister, whom I represented, was one of the first invited to Lusaka, which is a sign of the respect that Canada has won among the people on the front lines of the fight against apartheid. That is a tribute to the resolve of people throughout this House and across the country. But it also creates a responsibility for Canadians to continue our leadership in new circumstances which, will more promising than the decades of impasse on apartheid, are also more challenging and complex. [Translation] The House knows the changes which have swept South Africa in recent months: — the historic Harare Declaration of the African National Congress which accepted the desirability of peaceful, negotiated change in South Africa; — the election as President of South Africa of F. W. de Klerk, a man who seems committed to initiating real change; — the unbanning of the African National Congress; — and the triumphant release of Nelson Mandela from prison on February 11. The stage is now set for historic progress towards a truly democratic and non-racial South Africa. But we have only just begun. The state of emergency is still in force. Political prisoners remain detained. The pillars of apartheid remain. As Kenneth Kaunda said in Lusaka, Mr.
Foreign Affairs 155
Mandela is now free, but he is free only to live in an apartheid system. [English] I think it important that Canadians understand the spirit in which Nelson Mandela approaches this phase of events in South Africa. He referred to his meetings with President de Klerk, and the Ministers of Justice and Constitutional Affairs of South Africa, and said he is convinced that they are true reformers who seek a new social contract in South Africa. But, he noted, these are but three men who face the same party structure responsible for the development and the maintenance of the repressive regime of apartheid. They deserve to be encouraged, but neither he nor the world could ignore the history of the national party or the forces of retrenchment which lie in waiting. Mr. Mandela believes that pressures must be maintained until real change occurs. Expressions of intent are not enough to warrant relaxation of pressure. Mr. Mandela was unambiguous on this issue: the greatest assistance which could be offered by the outside world to the African National Congress is to maintain sanctions. Indeed, he spoke of intensifying sanctions, and I have asked him to indicate where and how he thinks this should occur. Commonwealth heads of government, in Kuala Lumpur last year, agreed that Commonwealth pressure would remain unyielding until there was “evidence of clear and irreversible change.” The Commonwealth Committee of Foreign Ministers, which I chair, will meet in Nigeria, in May, to assess the evidence of change. The African National Congress has agreed to work with us in that process. The headquarters of the African National Congress will return to South Africa and the organization, unbanned, will lead the effort to secure a non-racial democracy in South Africa. Thousands of ANC members and followers will have to be relocated inside South Africa. Offices will have to be established. A new infrastructure must be built. The ANC, at the same time it is negotiating, will also have to focus on equipping the black leadership in South Africa for the responsibilities of economic management and political governance. The ANC asked me for Canada’s direct assistance in meeting the costs of its reintegration into political life inside South Africa. I noted the firm policy of successive governments of Canada not to support political parties in other countries. We will, naturally, continue to support specific humanitarian, education and other programs which meet the
156
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
needs of the ANC. A delegation from the African National Congress will come to Ottawa within a month to discuss specific areas of co-operation. I also made the point that there are thousands of private citizens in Canada who would want to support the return home of the African National Congress. This resource should be tapped, and I have initiated discussions with representatives of the three parties in Parliament to identify individuals and strategies which can be offered to the ANC to help them secure substantial private Canadian support. A great challenge facing the ANC is to level the playing field as it approaches negotiations with the government. The South African government will be able to draw on all the wealth, expertise and resources which apartheid has put at its disposal. The ANC is dispossessed and disadvantaged in this regard. Successful negotiations will require a greater equality of resources and expertise. That is an area where Canada can help. Finally, the ultimate success of a non-racial South Africa will depend on the capacity of both blacks and whites to exercise both political and economic power. Economic exploitation lies at the heart of apartheid and, by and large, black South Africans have been shut out of the experience of running industries and businesses. Therefore, I told Mr. Mandela that we will look urgently at additional programs to provide potential black leaders of industry with practical experience in running large corporations in both the private sector and the public sector. In their telephone conversation of February 13, the Prime Minister invited Mr. Mandela to visit Canada. He has suggested that it might be appropriate for Nelson Mandela to address this free Parliament. Mr. Mandela looks forward to coming to Canada to express directly his appreciation of the support of Canadians. The impression I took away from two days of meetings is of a man who is strong, serene, wise and generous. He is a person of principle, but also of practicality and flexibility. To emerge from prison after so long a punishment and to retain an understanding of the concerns of his jailers is extraordinary. Mr. Mandela disproves the notion that history is made only by impersonal forces. The course of South African history will be determined in large measure by this man and by his counterpart in Pretoria. Canada will maintain sanctions until there is clear evidence of irreversible change in the apartheid system. But we intend also to encourage President de Klerk in his courageous and moderate course. Foreign
Foreign Affairs 157
Minister Pik Botha has written to me suggesting that Canadian experience might be particularly helpful in developing negotiated solutions for South Africa. I have responded by proposing that Mr. Ted Lee, the head of our legal branch, and Canada’s former Ambassador to South Africa, visit the region to assess areas where Canadian expertise might be of use. I made it clear to Mr. Botha that any expertise we might offer must be available to all parties in the negotiations. Mr. Lee will be in South Africa in early April to consult with the government, the ANC and other relevant parties. The nature of the South African challenge has changed. The opponents of apartheid outside South Africa must be as sensitive and generous in encouraging the process of change as Nelson Mandela has been in leading it. Canadian non-governmental organizations have brought great honour to Canada in their fight against apartheid. I will be meeting with them within the next two weeks to discuss how Canadians together can best pursue this fresh prospect of finally ending apartheid. After my meetings in Lusaka, I paid a brief visit to Namibia, which will celebrate its hard-won independence on March 21. Canada will be represented at the independent celebrations by my colleague, the Minister of External Relations and International Development and by a small all-party delegation from Parliament. For years, Namibian independence was a hostage to apartheid; now Namibia is leading the way for its neighbour South Africa. It is a remarkable example of a successful transition to a non-racial democracy, of the holding of successful free elections, of the drafting of a constitution without peer in Africa. The Namibian success points to what is possible when reason overcomes emotion and compromise replaces prejudice. During my conversations with President-elect San Nujoma and his ministers-designate, I expressed both Canada’s congratulations and our intent to continue to contribute to the development of a stable and prosperous Namibia. When I was called to the platform to welcome Nelson Mandela to Zambia, President Kaunda said that Canada, though far away, had earned the right to be considered a “front line state” in the fight against apartheid. Because we are a western democracy, a diverse society, a successful economy, our role may be even more important in this sensitive new phase of the campaign to establish a non-racial democracy in South Africa.
158
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
Canadian Institute for International Peace and Security House of Commons Debates 17 April 1984 32nd Parliament, 2nd Session: Volume 3, 3118–3124 Right Hon. Joe Clark (Yellowhead): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be back in debate. I am pleased to be able to rise to speak on this Bill because I think there can be no question anywhere in the country that the concept of the establishment of a peace institute centred in Canada is of great importance to us. That concept enjoys wide support. I think I owe it to the House to say at the outset that we believe the Bill that has been presented which sets up this particular institute is fatally flawed. While there have been some consultations to date with regard to improving the Bill, those consultations have not resulted in the kinds of changes that we hoped to see. We need changes that will guarantee the independence of this agency, changes that will guarantee its accountability to the House of Commons and Parliament, and changes that will ensure, more than the words of the Minister have, that there will be a complementing of the activities of agencies and institutions already engaged in the field of peace research in the country rather than a supplanting, directly or indirectly, of those agencies. The House will know that last fall the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Mulroney) asked me to undertake certain inquiries with an eye to making recommendations to him as to the policy that would be useful for a new government to follow in the field of arms control and disarmament. I have interpreted that mandate to involve public hearings across the country. I came to this debate from five public hearings in five Canadian centres—Vancouver, Montreal, Halifax, Edmonton and Toronto—in which we had the opportunity to receive some 70 briefs from Canadian organizations and hear 92 witnesses. The most particularly valuable witnesses were those who came forward in an open session to make their contributions and to participate and express their views on an issue which they considered to be of deep concern to them. I have also had conversations with a wide range of Canadians and people outside the country regarding appropriate policies and institutions which should be established. Without question, there is in Canada a deep and growing concern about the possibility of nuclear conflict and a deep and growing concern about whether our country is acting as effectively as it might to
Foreign Affairs 159
inch the world away from nuclear destruction. I will be reporting fully to the Leader of the Opposition later on my inquiries and recommendations. I think it might be helpful as we consider this institute if I touch on some of the testimony and bring to the House of Commons some of the views I heard in public hearings from concerned Canadians across the country, people who are not sitting in the House of Commons and are not part of the policy making, but who consider themselves very much affected by the issues that we are here discussing. I would like to begin with a reference to testimony from a young woman who came from Great Island to the open forum at the hearing in Halifax, Nova Scotia. She came at considerable inconvenience to herself because she felt involved in these issues and wanted an opportunity to have her views expressed. She said that where she lives unemployment and poverty were very high. She said that disillusionment, apathy and despair were widespread, especially among the young, and that that disillusionment, apathy and despair were based primarily upon a deep sense of powerlessness. She suggested that many of her neighbours believed that the hearings which we were holding were simply meant to try to defuse the public’s concern and play to their undying belief in the democratic process, but that nothing would be done. That was her fear when she came. She said that she came nonetheless because she dissents from that prevailing cynicism. She believes that governments and parliamentarians will listen to people on the peace issue and will try to translate the wishes of concerned ordinary Canadians into realizable policy. She said she would go back to her community and try to convince her neighbours that it is not hopeless, that parliamentarians and governments will listen and will respond. She spoke for herself, but she spoke for much more than herself. She spoke for a wide feeling of powerlessness, concern and a sense of being isolated in the country. As we discuss institutions which we might establish, we the Parliament of Canada, must be conscious that we are responding to the concerns of Canadians like the woman from Great Island and others who have nearly given up on the system if they see us put in place something that appears to be strong but in fact is not, something that appears to be independent but in fact is controlled by the government. One of the startling pieces of evidence that came before our hearings concerned the growth of fear among children in the country. Many of us who have children know from our own experience the extent to which they are preoccupied and concerned about these questions. My
160
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
daughter, who is seven, began one or two years ago to ask me when the war is going to come, when is the world going to end? I have no recollection of putting questions of that kind when I was six or seven, nor do most of us in the House. That is not just random observation. That expression of fear is now common in the country. Coming before our public hearings across the country were trained psychologists, some of them based at McMaster University where there is now a cross-Canada study being conducted of the effect of the threat of nuclear war upon the attitudes of young people. Most of the evidence that has now been gathered is evidence that has come from the United States. It is compelling! In a study published in 1982, 3,500 American children were asked what they expected if there were to be a nuclear war. Most responded eloquently and simply by saying “I will die. We will all die.” They expressed bitter resentment against adults who had already lived a full life and were putting their chance for a full life at risk. J. C. Mack, publishing in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists in 1981, after a survey of 1,000 school children, concluded: — young people are growing up without the ability to form stable ideals or the sense of continuity upon which the development of stable personality structure and the formation of serviceable ideals depend.
In Vancouver we heard from the Physicians for Social Responsibility whose testimony in part I will read to the House: Scientific data indicate that a nuclear war would result in a catastrophe of degree and magnitude beyond comprehension, and that there could be no meaningful medical response to such a catastrophe. We believe that it is our responsibility, as physicians, to do all in our power to prevent what would be “the final epidemic.”
There is a very real fear in the country among the sophisticated and among the innocent that we will destroy ourselves. I recognize, as does the House, that fear is no basis for foreign policy. But we recognize also that that fear is a wholly understandable reaction to a situation in which negotiations between the superpowers are broken and suspended. The number of nuclear weapons states is growing, not reducing, and the world is vulnerable to nuclear terrorists or accidents. Canadians have cause to be afraid and, as their representatives in
Foreign Affairs 161
government and Parliament, we have a duty to address and reduce the causes of fear. I believe there is not much point in spectacular gestures. I believe we are more likely to find real progress by proceeding in a steady, sober, consistent, balanced way. The second concern that was raised during the hearings quite consistently was a concern about how effective Canadian policy is now in responding to concerns that exist in our public and around the world. I want to summarize some of those concerns about our effectiveness that are germane to this debate. One that was repeated frequently is that government interest in these issues is sporadic and not well co-ordinated. That testimony is saying two things. It is making the observation that one year we have for a while a suffocation policy, then it lapses. Later we have proposals for a five-power conference, a tour and consultations, and then they lapse. But there is none of the persistence now in Canadian policy which helped former governments achieve agreement on test bans, which helped the former Prime Minister, Mr. Pearson, contribute to the establishment of the United Nations peace-keeping operations. They are saying that there is a sporadic, inconsistent nature to our public positions on policy. Second, there is the concern that expertise is spread around in government. Internal expertise is not co-ordinated. Much of it is concentrated in the Department of National Defence, for example, whereas the Department of External Affairs is supposed to be the lead Department. A second theme that was consistent is that we have a greater capacity than we are using to develop and advance specific responses to particular problems on the path to peace or on the path away from tension now. Canada is, of course, doing important work in a multitude of fields, but we are not organized to contribute up to our potential. A third concern has to do with individual Canadians, whether they are experts or simply worried citizens, who believe that they are outside our system, that they are affected by our failures, but have no impact upon the policies we follow. They have neither the information they require nor the influence they require. Finally, and it is very important in the context of this debate for it to be understood, there is a very real concern—the Minister made reference to it—that there is an imbalance between the emphasis on defence studies funded and encouraged by the government, carried on across the country, and the need for studies that deal particularly with the question and with the perspective of peace, and that that imbalance has
162
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
to be corrected if we are going to be as effective as the country can be in moving the world, in inching the world, away from conflict. I think these concerns provide a useful context for the consideration of this Bill. We are not discussing here a series of policy initiatives. There was to have been a resolution presented to the House. That resolution was the subject of extensive consultation among the Parties, but that resolution has not come forward. It dealt with the general question. We are here dealing with a very specific question. We are dealing with a specific Bill to establish the Canadian Institute for International Peace and Security. It is a Bill to establish one agency in a field where several agencies exist. It is a Bill that has to do with one initiative on a question where several initiatives are needed. I make the point to the House that what we do with this institute will affect what we are able to do in other ways to increase security and world peace. If the widespread concern of Canadians over the possibility of nuclear war is addressed, if what I call the fear issue, the force of fear in the country, is addressed, that can be a means of bringing Canadians into our foreign policy debate generally. This involvement of Canadians should not be seen as a threat to Canadian policy. It should be seen as it is, as an unparalleled opportunity if we choose to avail ourselves of the strong, sophisticated, deep interest that exists in these questions in the Canadian public. On the other hand, if we choose to ignore public concern in the hope that it will simply go away, we run the risk of souring the public on the ability of their elected representatives to provide leadership on this crucial issue. They will turn then, in my view, from the tone of seriousness, of sophisticated responses, a tone that marked the hearings I held, and opt for more radical or for more unilateral solutions. It is essential that we find ways to bring interested Canadians into the discussion of what their country should do in a field of policy which affects them vitally. Of course, the issues are complex. That complexity is not only a limitation to the participation of Canadians outside Parliament; that complexity is a limitation upon the ability of Members of this House to be as informed and as effective as we should be. Elected representatives, as well as the general public, have a great need of being better informed on the technical issues relating to peace and security questions. In short, the essence of the challenge facing elected representatives is to improve the quality of knowledge upon which we might act and then enlarge, in the country and in the House, the will to act. What is needed is an institute designed to encourage and facilitate
Foreign Affairs 163
informed debate and to produce independent, non-partisan research and information, a world-class research and public information institution on international peace and security questions, not merely on the narrower question of arms control. [Translation] Mr. Speaker, we believe that the Canadian Institute for International Peace and Security could play a very useful role. It can make a very positive three-fold contribution to world peace and the Canadian policy: by helping the world nations to draft policies and plans likely to minimize the risk of nuclear conflict; by keeping Canada’s own politicians and population well informed so as to increase their influence over public policies; finally, by symbolizing the commitment of the Canadian Government and Parliament to make the quest for peace one of our great national priorities. Those are all worthy endeavours. In the course of this debate, we must stress the fact that the institute must have the independence, credibility and determination required to take up that challenge. In our view, this Bill does not give it the necessary independence and, therefore, restricts its credibility. We also believe that we are duty-bound to establish clearly to what extent the activities of that organization would mesh with our national objectives to foster international peace and security. Other measures must be taken as well. The government’s internal structure must be much more coherent about any peace-related issue. The independence and integrity of research institutions already active in Canada must be maintained and protected. The Government itself must be much more open with Canadians and aware of the deep and sincere concerns about international peace. [English] I think it is very important, sir, that we distinguish very clearly in this debate between the idea of an institute and the proposal that exists in this Bill. In our view it is important that there should be an independent institute centred in Canada to study peace and security. That is unquestioned; that is very clear. But we have a very deep and profound concern about this Bill, Mr. Speaker. There have been extensive inquiries by the government prior to this proposal being brought into the House of Commons. I rather regret that
164
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
the full conclusions of those inquiries, the full range of alternatives, prepared for the government were not presented to this Parliament. This, after all, is a parliamentary matter. We are establishing here a Canadian institute, not simply a governmental institute. It would have aided immeasurably the parliamentarians who have to make decisions on this question to have had access to the recommendations presented to the people making the inquiries by the government and indeed to have had access to the recommendations made to the government by those representatives. There are, as the House will know, broadly two kinds of agencies, broadly two kinds of institutes in the world, two kinds of models, speaking generally, of approach to this question. One focuses internally. It is inward-looking. It serves the government. It is, for example, like the National Security Council in the United States. Its purpose is to pull government advice together. Its purpose is to ensure that there is a balance in government decision-making internally to protect, for example, against an unusual influence from the military side or an unusual influence from somewhere else. It is an internal agency. That is one model, which could be followed by an institute established by this Parliament. The other model is external—encouraging independent research, encouraging public information and having its focus beyond government rather than being locked into government. Those are the two models, broadly, which exist in the world. They play very distinct roles. They are very different. However, what we have here in this institute is an attempt, in effect, to combine both approaches—not to have an agency which is strictly internal, not to have an agency which is independent and external, but to have one which combines features of both. Our concern as we look at this Bill is that, in attempting to combine features of both, the government creates a very real confusion about exactly what kind of agency we will have here. That confusion will almost certainly continue. That confusion, if it does continue, as I believe it will, could cripple the institute. If we are not careful in debate today, we could place upon this institute, if we adopt the Bill as it sits, restrictions which will severely, perhaps fatally, handicap its future. This institute has to be done right the first time. Mr. Trudeau: Could you tell us how? Could you be more precise? Mr. Clark (Yellowhead): Yes. I am pleased that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) is involved in the debate. Yes, I will be telling him how. The
Foreign Affairs 165
Prime Minister already has some recommendations from the Leader of the Opposition, most of which he has ignored. I will come to that later on. Mr. Trudeau: Most of which have been listened to and respected. Mr. Clark (Yellowhead): “Listened to”; that is exactly the point. That is exactly the fear one has here, and that is exactly why it is so important to have an independent institute. We do not want to have something which goes around listening to people and then ignoring them. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Clark (Yellowhead): The Prime Minister has put his finger on the essence of our concern. Mr. Trudeau: Yes. Mr. Clark (Yellowhead): Well he should and well he could, because it is a concern which is born in part by the practice of the government in so many other fields. We cannot afford to sacrifice this institute, which is so important to goals shared by all people in the House, to the practice and the fear of independent activity which exists on the government side. This institute has to be independent or it is nothing. That is the point. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Trudeau: Tell us how to make it more independent and we will do it. Mr. Clark (Yellowhead): All right. If that is a serious offer— Mr. Trudeau: Yes. Mr. Clark (Yellowhead): You will do it, all right. I would like to see the clause which indicates that the Minister can direct the institute as to what it should do— An hon. Member: Clause 28. Mr. Clark (Yellowhead): I will depart from the normal rules since I have been asked a question by the Prime Minister and quote precisely the clause. Clause 28 now reads: On request therefore, the Institute shall undertake research for or provide advice to the Minister in relation to any issue involving
166
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
international peace and security.
I would like to see the word “shall” changed to the word “may,” because that leaves the decision in the hands of the independent institute. Mr. Trudeau: Just move an amendment. Mr. Clark (Yellowhead): Oh, no, I do not want an offer from the Prime Minister that we move an amendment. I want an undertaking from the Prime Minister that he will accept that amendment. Do I have that undertaking? Mr. MacEachen: Come to the committee. Some hon. Members: Oh, oh! Mr. Clark (Yellowhead): We are not discussing here a detail. We are discussing the fundamental independence of this institute. We are discussing a fundamental principle which affects the effectiveness of this institute. The Prime Minister has intervened. He has said that he will act on what we propose. I have just made a proposal which would guarantee, or take a step toward guaranteeing the independence of this institute. Will the government accept that proposal? Mr. Trudeau: If that is all you want, yes. Some hon. Members: Oh, oh! Mr. Clark (Yellowhead): No, but it is a start; it is a start. Mr. Trudeau: That is what we want to hear. Don’t tell us about the ladies in Halifax. Mr. Clark (Yellowhead): The ladies in Halifax, the women in Halifax, have an interest in this issue because it is their lives and the lives of their children which are affected by what we do here. It is their future which is limited— Mr. Trudeau: They do not want you to talk out the institute, which is what you are trying to do. Mr. Clark (Yellowhead): —if we create here an institute which is not independent, which is not credible and which intrudes upon the independence and credibility of agencies already in the field. They are very much involved. The Prime Minister would serve us all well if he showed less contempt for the women of Halifax, for the people of Can-
Foreign Affairs 167
ada and others who are very much concerned about this issue and this institute. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Clark (Yellowhead): I was saying that this institute has to be done right the first time because institutions define their nature in their very early days. This Bill has the following faults. First, it is confused as to what kind of institute the government wants. Second, it is far too dependent upon government. Third, it is not accountable to Parliament. Fourth, it is not clear, despite the Minister’s words, how this institute would relate to other agencies which now exist in the field. Those are all major flaws which have to be corrected now while we are defining the nature of the institute. It would be irresponsible to let the measure proceed with these defects which could be crippling. Those of us who unfortunately have had experience in this House with offers across the floor which are not backed up in practice will require a little more than casual statements by the Prime Minister from his seat before we will be satisfied that we have an institute which guarantees the independence that is essential to this kind of undertaking. Let me very quickly review some of the limitations upon the independence of the institute in the Bill as it now sits. I have spoken about the most dangerous of them, Clause 28, but there are also others, Clauses 6 to 8 speak about the appointment of a board of directors. Under this provision Cabinet will appoint the directors and the executive director. We have had an offer that there will be consultation with the Opposition Parties. What use is consultation when the government makes the decision alone? This Bill gives the government the power to make this decision by itself. There has been a proposal put forward—and the Prime Minister is interested in proposals —which would have the board of directors appointed by consensus of the standing committee of the House interested in external and defence policy. That would provide independence. That empowers the committee to appoint. It does not merely permit them to be consulted, it empowers them to appoint. That gives a much greater degree of independence than does the present measure. Clause 14 of this Bill, which limits the kind of independent institute that we need, gives Cabinet alone the power to fix the fees of board members and fix the terms and conditions of employment of the executive director—very powerful instruments in the hands of Cabinet. The Cabinet determines where the principal office will be. That is a fairly
168
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
minor matter, but why should Cabinet decide it? Why should that not be decided by some agency more independent than the Cabinet of Canada? In Clause 26 Cabinet has the power on its own to direct the board to make, amend or repeal any of its by-laws. In other words, what the board does after due deliberation, Cabinet can come in and has the power to undo. The effect of Cabinet coming in and undoing it is final. In effect Cabinet controls the by-laws of this institution. I have spoken about advice to Ministers under Clause 28. Clause 29 regarding funding indicates that the institute’s funding will come from “moneys appropriated by Parliament for the purpose,” so it says. No other details are given, but in our view if we want to guarantee some kind of independence, consideration should be given to provisions for funding on a basis longer than one year to facilitate longer-term planning and, again, to promote the institute’s independence from the Government’s priorities for research. We have had very serious and disappointing experiences with the problems of agencies that are supposed to be independent but in fact are not. There is, for example, a very clear danger in this Bill as it is written that this institute would be encumbered with political appointees who will either be reluctant to provide objective, independent analyses of, and information about, peace and security issues where such analyses would conflict with government policy or, should they be inclined to show that kind of independence, they could find themselves in the kind of situation that Doris Anderson found herself in when, as President of the Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women, she dared to suggest that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms as originally tabled in the House did nothing for Canadian women. We have had too much experience with agencies that were supposed to be independent but were not independent in fact. We cannot afford to risk the independence and credibility of this institute by imposing upon it the kinds of restrictions and limitations which have so weakened institutions in other fields of policy in the country. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Clark (Yellowhead): The Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen) suggested that we should approve this Bill in principle here in the House and then work out the details in committee. What the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for External Affairs called details go to the very heart of this Bill. They con-
Foreign Affairs 169
cern fundamental questions of independence and accountability. This Bill as it is written would allow the government to control absolutely the work of the institute. The government alone appoints its directors. The government alone decides how they are paid. The government alone has the right to dictate to the institute, to tell it what to do and then require it to do so. That is not the kind of independence which Canadians expect of this institute, nor is it the kind of independence we were led to believe this institute would have. This Bill creates an agency which the government can transform gradually, easily and completely into an instrument of government propaganda or indeed into an instrument of Party propaganda. If a government chose to do what this bill gives a government the power to do, the effects would spread well beyond this particular institute. This Bill effectively gives the government the power to limit the independence of existing agencies which are working now for peace because the institute we are discussing here can move very quickly to centre stage. It will have an immediate and permanent profile high above private agencies already working in the field and it can become the standard against which they are judged. I remind the House that this institute has behind it more than the power of example. It has the power of money. If this institute which has the power to fund other agencies or individuals is to be truly independent, no strings will be attached to that funding. But can it be truly independent when the government alone appoints its directors, when the government alone sets its salaries, when the government alone can tell it what to do? That, sir, is not independence. Without independence, this institute has the power to do more harm than good. The power this Bill gives the government to control this institute and, by extension, to influence unduly the tone and direction of research carried out by other agencies interested in peace and security is one fatal flaw in this Bill. Another fatal flaw in the Bill is that while this Bill gives the government the power to control the institute, it does not give Parliament the power to hold the institute accountable. There is no accountability provision here. The minister may lay on the Table a report. Many reports are laid on the Table of Parliament. There is no accountability of this institute to Parliament. There is instead tight and very fundamental control by the government of the day. That is inconsistent with the purposes of the Bill and is a very unfortunate aspect of it which we simply must see changed. Reference was made to consultations that have occurred and to rec-
170
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
ommendations that have been made by the Leader of the Opposition, some of which have been adopted. Clause 5(a) of this Bill as it now reads reflects a recommendation of the Leader of the Opposition to create a national library and database on peace and security agencies. Clause 5(e) reflects a recommendation of the Leader of the Opposition to provide facilities for conferences, seminars and funding for some other bodies. There have been important but minor agreements to proposals put forward by the Leader of the Opposition as a result of consultations. However, we must ask two questions about these consultations. Why did the government agree only on the relatively minor questions and not agree on the questions which provided accountability or independence for the institute? Why did it agree only on the minor matters and disagree on the major ones? The other question we must ask is why did the consultations end so quickly? The Prime Minister knows that there was a long process of consultation with regard to a resolution on the peace initiative, a consultation in which views were put forward by the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the New Democratic Party, many of which were accepted. The Prime Minister shakes his head. Am I incorrect? I can speak only for the proposals put forward by the Leader of the Opposition. The Prime Minister now tells me that I am correct. I appreciate his correction. There was a very fruitful process of negotiation on that question. I gather that problems with members of the NDP have made it difficult to bring the resolution forward, but agreement was reached on major matters between the government and the Official Opposition in the House of Commons. The process of that kind of genuine consultation works. It began in relation to this Bill but was then suddenly stopped. Why was it stopped? Why did the government bring this Bill into the House now rather than carry on the discussions that had begun to be fruitful regarding the production of a Bill which could come into the House and be accepted by all Parties in the House? The Parliament of Canada approves the concept of a peace institute. We want to see something established along the lines of what was referred to in the Speech from the Throne. What we have here is something very different from what we were led to believe by the Speech from the Throne would be brought forward by the government. It is different because it is not independent. It is different because it is not accountable. It is different in fundamental ways that go to the heart of
Foreign Affairs 171
the capacity of this institute to be seen as a credible institution in the Canadian community. Because we have had too much experience to do otherwise, we are going to require from the government some guarantees now that it is prepared to make this institute independent and that it is prepared to build in accountability. We do not want to see the government sabotage its own institute by imposing upon it limitations that will kill its credibility in the country. If we do not do this right the first time, the institute may well be doomed. We think the issue is too important to allow the Government’s concerns about independent activities to doom this institute.
The Invasion of Kuwait House of Commons Debates 28 November 1990 34th Parliament, 2nd Session: Volume 12, 15859–15864 Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs) moved: That this House, noting that the Government of Iraq has not complied with the United Nations Security Council resolutions concerning the invasion of Kuwait and the detention of third country nationals, supports the United Nations in its efforts to ensure compliance with Security Council resolution 660 and subsequent resolutions.
He said: Mr. Speaker, today we are on the eve of another important Security Council vote. I think it is right for Parliament to consider the implications of the crisis that prompts this vote. It is the intention of the government through this crisis to consult as much as possible with the people of Canada and with Parliament, just as we have been consulting extensively with our allies. I intend, in the course of my remarks, to report briefly upon some of the conversations that I have had over the last 16 days with countries involved directly as Canada is in the gulf. We tried, in this extraordinary crisis, to offer candour to the House and to expect from the House and to ask from the House understanding of the larger international implications of the grave issues that face us. We are trying to approach this issue step by step. It is in that context that I want to take this opportunity to set out the thinking of the gov-
172
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
ernment on the decision that is before us in the Security Council tomorrow and my view of the context in which that decision will be taken. I expect there will be other debates in this House as the situation evolves. This vote, sir, comes near the end of Canada’s two-year term on the Security Council. It is our fifth such term, a record for non-permanent members of that council. That is an appropriate record because, I dare say, no other country has been as loyal a supporter of the ideals of this world organization in whose founding Canada participated actively and creatively. When we look for a noble and far-sighted vision for managing world affairs in what will be a difficult decade and century to come, we can hardly do better than to draw on the vision of the United Nations charter. The great sadness of our times has been that the charter was a dead letter for 40 years, because of the paralysis of the cold war. The cold war is over. I was in Moscow the week before last, and I found an extraordinarily different country from the austere monolith I had visited five short years ago. Sadly, their problems in the Soviet Union are enormous but they have a country and they have a leadership and they have a people with great reserves of strength. Nations like Canada will and must help them where we can. The tremors of the Gorbachev reforms have allowed profound change through eastern and central Europe that not only helped end the cold war, but set the stage for the CSCE summit in Paris last week. In some respects, that summit marked the formal end of the Second World War. I would like to communicate, in passing, one of the remarkable moments of that CSCE conference. Vaclev Havel, prisoner, playwright, president, sitting at his desk in that debate, said to others around the room and around the world that this summit was the pre-eminent moment in his life because it brought to pass so much of what he had struggled for through all of those years. That was the context in which we met to bring in effect a formal end to the Second World War. The Paris summit should have been an unqualified celebration of the new possibilities before us, of our shared determination to build a new European common home, to be secure from Vladivostok to Vienna to Vancouver, as Eduard Shevardnadze has said. It should have been a celebration of the growing willingness to use the United Nations in the way it had been intended, to bring peace and to bring greater security to this world. But the celebration in Paris was muted, because we all understand
Foreign Affairs 173
that a terrible breach of faith and a breach of law and a breach of order has happened: an act of war by Iraq which imposes on the world community the burden of a great challenge. If new and more hopeful vistas for world peace are at last to open, we as the United Nations have to be equal to the challenge which Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait represents clearly to all of us. This challenge goes to the heart of Canadian interests and Canadian diplomacy, not just now but for 50 years: the building of a workable world organization able to prevent or able, if necessary, to reverse the most blatant and dangerous of international offences, which is the acquisition by force of another country’s territory and, in this specific case, an effort to extinguish a UN member in its entirety. The challenge has gone even beyond these transgressions of international law, as Iraqi authorities have threatened the use of terrorism and of chemical weapons which they have used in the past, with terrible consequences, even against their own people. That is the evil that countries historically arm themselves against. That is the evil that causes proliferation, which is responsible for an arms race which in large part diverts the resources that should be going to the poor of the world and denies people in developing countries the right to live decent lives. That this evil has occurred in the most heavily armed and the most volatile region in the world only amplifies its gravity. I have just come from the Middle East. The potential for death and for destruction in the Middle East is very real. Members of this House of Commons should have no illusion about the danger, or about our obligation to try to moderate that danger. Most of Israel’s neighbours remain in a state of war against her. The Palestinian people, despite the intifada, despite their acceptance of resolution 242, live in a pressure cooker of frustration with thousands of new migrants forced home from the gulf. There are the larger questions of democracy and decision-making in the Middle East. There are quarrels between families and regimes who each want to leave the Arab world. There are shocking gaps in income between opulent wealth and the most terrible poverty. There are chemical weapons, biological weapons, almost certainly some capacity for nuclear weapons, and there is the steady flood of conventional arms. In the midst of all that, in a region where the institutions of modern government have shallow roots, there is generally the common link of the noble religion of Islam which, if it became radicalized, could have
174
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
devastating consequences around the world. President Gorbachev—the Prime Minister and I know from our conversations with him—is aware of those consequences. King Hussein is aware of them. Presidents Ozal and Mubarak are and, of course, Prime Minister Shamir understands the threat of Islamic extremism. That the Iraqi aggression affects security of access to the most vital of commodities further compels our attention. But make no mistake about the importance of the principle we intend to defend, the principle of international order where international law is respected, and the United Nations is used and the United Nations works. Canadians, historically, have been at the cutting edge of the practical measures which have won respect for the United Nations. We helped draft the charter. Professor John Humphrey of McGill was a principal author of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Lester Pearson guided the ideal of peacekeeping, against Canadian critics who said it was an inappropriate use of the United Nations, and 83,000 Canadians wore and wear today the blue beret, with pride and with effect, to build peace and to maintain peace. Now we are at a new step in the evolution of the United Nations, a time in which at last the members of the Security Council are working together on resolutions which involve enough compromise on all sides to allow this diverse world to act together to keep its house in order. And yet, at the same time as being prepared to compromise to come together, the Security Council of the United Nations has taken actions which are clear in their intent and respected in their application. It is hard to think of a time when the United Nations worked better and we, Canada, want to keep it working because that is the only way to advance peace and prevent war. Since the beginning of the crisis the United Nations has shown that blatant disrespect for international law can be met with a response that is firm in its resolve and unbending in its respect for international order. For Canada some of the basic precepts in which our foreign policy is deeply rooted are being challenged by the gulf crisis and they just may be vindicated by its resolution and its aftermath. The rule of law and the establishment of a stable international environment have been key objectives of ours since the end of the Second World War. [Translation] Since the beginning of the crisis, the government of Canada has kept
Foreign Affairs 175
the same objectives in constant view: to make clear the unacceptability of Iraqi behaviour and Canada’s determination to play its part in the collective response; to reinforce the rule of law in international affairs and support a renewed United Nations in its first post-cold war response to a gross violation of its charter by a member state; and, of course, to protect Canadian lives and Canadian interests put in jeopardy by the invasion and annexation of Kuwait. Following from those objectives, we have been trying for three months, in co-operation with the other countries joined in a united stand against Iraq, to ensure that the UN-imposed sanctions are made as effective as possible; that the international consensus is sustained; that the humanitarian and economic problems created by the crisis and the sanctions are addressed quickly and sympathetically, both as an intrinsically important goal and one supportive in sustaining the international consensus; that the international community explore peaceful means to end the dispute, while enforcing UN resolutions. [English] Well, sir, where are we today? Iraq is still occupying Kuwait, in spite of universal condemnation and the near universal application of sanctions. We, of course, hope that sanctions will help to persuade Saddam Hussein to withdraw. We continue to believe that they help make clear our resolve, but we also now recognize that sanctions in and of themselves are not sufficient to force a withdrawal, if the Iraqi government places a higher priority on holding onto its territorial gains than on the resumption of normal life for its citizenry. We simply have to face that fact. The government in Baghdad, as the House knows, has been using innocent civilians of third countries, including Canada, in its efforts to wrest concessions from the international community and to try to win propaganda points with its own supporters. It has proceeded at the same time with a ruthless program to annihilate all traces of Kuwait’s separate existence. In short, Iraq has repeatedly ignored the demands of the international community in successive Security Council resolutions passed since August 2. It has failed to comply with the obligations incumbent upon it on the basis of international law, on the basis of the principles of civilized behaviour, and on the basis of its own membership in the United Nations.
176
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
I have, as I said, Mr. Speaker, in the last several days been in the Middle East. That trip followed intensive talks that both the Prime Minister and I had with the leaders of the Soviet Union, the European Community and the United States. In the Middle East I spent many hours in discussions with Iraq’s neighbours, including the president of Turkey, the King of Jordan, the Prime Minister of Israel, and with the ministers of foreign affairs of those countries. I also met at length with President Mubarak of Egypt, and with his foreign minister, Dr. Abdul Mequid. Several weeks ago, I met with other foreign ministers from the gulf area, from Saudi Arabia and Qatar. I set out for all these interlocutors the view of this government regarding the unacceptability of Iraq’s invasion. It is important for the House to know that every head of state, every head of government, and every minister with whom we have met shared that view, that the occupation of Kuwait is unacceptable. The view in Canada, in the region, and throughout the world is the same. Iraq is isolated. Iraq has behaved abominably. It has invaded a small neighbour, and it has done its utmost to ensure that its restoration would be impossible. It has taken thousands of hostages, including Canadians. This destruction of a small country is, in the words of President Mubarak, “unbelievable.” That was the word President Mubarak conveyed to me when he told me of specific and categoric assurances that had been given to him personally by Iraq’s president only days before Iraq unleashed its military arsenal against Kuwait. From the beginning of this crisis, we have all hoped that peaceful means would produce the necessary Iraqi compliance with Security Council resolutions. Indeed, Canada has been working strenuously since the beginning of August to seek just such a peaceful solution. We have done so in the United Nations, we have done so in the region, and we have done so in close consultation with all the members of the Security Council. Officials of my department have been travelling around the world regularly, particularly to Security Council members—including the people who rarely vote with Canada—to try to encourage a unanimity and a consensus that will allow the United Nations to be effective in these circumstances. I am sure that I speak for all Canadians in hoping that a peaceful solution may still be possible. Time, however, is running out. Tomorrow at the United Nations in New York, Canada will, as a
Foreign Affairs 177
member of the Security Council, participate in the formal consideration of a new resolution that has been under discussion for some days now. This new resolution will almost certainly authorize the use of whatever means are necessary to remove Iraq from Kuwait and to restore to Kuwait its own destiny. For Canada and for others, what is at stake is the integrity of our international order and the credibility of international law and of our multilateral institutions. We must recognize, however, as I have seen over the last few days, that the neighbours of Iraq have another interest in ensuring that Iraq’s deed is undone. Mr. Speaker, we in Canada, far from the scene of the battle, far from the immediate site of those terrible tensions, must realize that there will be no safety and there will be no stability if Saddam Hussein gets away with his annexation of Kuwait. All countries would prefer a peaceful solution, not a deal which rewards the aggressor, but full and swift compliance with the resolutions of the Security Council. Regrettably, many believe that a peaceful solution is not attainable, whatever their preference. The leader of Iraq does not seem to grasp the dimensions of the problem he has created. Consequently, he does not seem to understand the strength of the resolve to see justice done. He thinks the world is bluffing. The purpose of the United Nations resolution, which Canada and other members of the Security Council will consider tomorrow, is to ensure that Iraq understands that this is not a bluff. Tomorrow’s resolution will demand full compliance with previous council resolutions. If Iraq does not fully implement those resolutions, the text will authorize member states co-operating with the government of Kuwait to use all necessary means to see they are implemented and to restore international peace and security in the area. Does this mean that force will be used? That is up to Iraq. That resolution will probably be approved tomorrow, November 29. In normal cases, that would mean the capacity to act, with whatever means, would exist tomorrow, November 29. Now there is a serious and constructive proposal that the resolution build in a pause between the day in November when the authority is vested, and some specific later date on which it might be used. That proposal reflects the call for a pause which Canada and other countries proposed after discussions during the United Nations General Assembly. A deadline which implied an ultimatum could be counterproductive and artificial, and that is not what is proposed. As the Prime Minister said yesterday, what is
178
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
contemplated is, instead, a pause of goodwill to allow Saddam Hussein one more opportunity to reflect on his options. Naturally, that time must be used by all nations to seek a basis for the peaceful acceptance of Security Council resolutions. But, in particular, it gives Iraq an opportunity to seek a peaceful end to the war it began when it invaded Kuwait. In passing, Mr. Speaker, I should say, that that proposal for a pause indicates one of the very real fruits and benefits of the new atmosphere within the Security Council, when countries that had not previously worked together were prepared to work together in these circumstances to ensure that there was a basis on which the world could act together. We certainly hope that Iraq will take this opportunity. If Iraq does so, will the international community in any case insist on the elimination of its leadership or its entire military capacity? No, there is a willingness in the region to live with Iraq, warily to be sure, but on a basis of international law and internationally guaranteed frontiers. Does Iraq have legitimate concerns which should be discussed? Perhaps there are some. That is up to the Government of Kuwait to negotiate or for Iraq to pursue in the many international fora which adjudicate exactly such disputes. The possibility of such a negotiating power is contained in Security Council Resolution 660, the very first passed by the Council in responding to this invasion. We urge Saddam Hussein to pursue this option. Would military action in the gulf be an exercise of only western will? Absolutely not. The coalition includes such partners as Pakistan, Morocco, Czechoslovakia, Argentina, as well of course as Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia, the Gulf states and dozens of others. An Arab force could see to the future defence of Kuwait with international peacekeeping components as necessary or as desirable. Canada would certainly consider seriously a request to participate in the cause of peace. Will there be further attempts to resolve existing tensions in the gulf and Middle East regions? Yes. During my discussions in the Middle East the Arab-Israeli dispute was also raised, specifically the Palestinian question. I believe that one of the consequences of the current gulf crisis could be a new sense of urgency about solving other problems facing that troubled region. We have of late witnessed a pattern of successes within the Security Council in addressing regional issues, not just in the Middle East, but also in Cambodia and elsewhere. If that pattern continues, if we do not lose it here, if we can maintain the strength of the United Nations which we have so carefully built over the last
Foreign Affairs 179
years and particularly the last months, if that pattern continues, then a just, lasting and comprehensive solution to the Arab-Israeli dispute, which Canada views as necessary and urgent, may at last be possible. This is a matter than can only be addressed, however, separately from the current crisis. Iraq’s offence is sui generis and its undoing, according to the highest principles of international law and the highest interests of international security, is essential. But resolution of all territorial disputes in the region on a just and equitable basis is urgently required, if peace and security are to apply in a durable way in a region which may be the most volatile in our world. We will also have to turn our collective attention to the need for arms control measures which deal with weapons of mass destruction that threaten the whole region. Sustaining the new unity of the international community is the only hope, the best hope, that these problems can be resolved with speed. There may be the elements of a peaceful resolution of this crisis. I was more encouraged than I thought I might be by the conversations I had in the Middle East. I was encouraged by the determination of people ranging from Israeli leaders, to King Hussein, to the Palestinians to look for ways in which this experience may lead to constructive responses to other issues. So we hope that there will be means found to resolve this crisis. Otherwise, force will have been authorized by the world community, and on behalf of the international institutions Canada has spent five decades to design and to defend. To abandon those institutions now, to abandon the unanimity and the consensus that has been found in the United Nations now, would be to abandon all hope for the rule of law in world affairs. The world agrees with that. The question is: “Will Iraq agree with that?” The resolution we will be voting on tomorrow in New York is the desirable option that I have sought and that many here have sought, the UN authority to use force if Iraq rejects the option of a peaceful withdrawal. The House will remember, and no one in our country should forget, that the use of force began on August 2 when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait. It is now up to Saddam Hussein to determine whether the international community will have to use the authority of the United Nations to achieve our collective goals through further force. Some hon. members: Hear, hear!
180
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
Cambodia and the Khmer Rouge House of Commons Debates 25 January 1990 34th Parliament, 2nd session: Volume 6, Appendix 1–3 Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs): I want to provide a progress report to the House on international efforts to end the violence that has gripped Cambodia for fifteen years. The Cambodian people have suffered greatly from invasion, unparalleled abuses of human rights, and civil war. We wish to ensure that Canada does its part in helping to break the cycle of suffering in Cambodia. There are measures Canada can take to address the suffering of Cambodia, and which will contribute to the building of a lasting peace. The recent history of Cambodia is a saga of unending war, turmoil and death. During the Vietnam War, approximately 600,000 Cambodians were killed. At war’s end, in April 1975, the Khmer Rouge forces overthrew the Cambodian government of Lon Nol. The criminal acts perpetrated afterwards by the Pol Pot regime between 1976 and 1979 were condemned by the international community and by Canadians of all walks of life. The expulsion of the Khmer Rouge by the Vietnamese in 1979 resulted in a long civil war opposing three Cambodian parties to a government put into office by the Vietnamese army. Eleven years later, despite diplomatic efforts, the war is still raging on and more Cambodians are dying. The limited resources of Indochina are tragically wasted on the battlefront. In September 1989, Vietnam withdrew its troops from Cambodia. Since then, the civil war has intensified. The front lines have changed somewhat, but, in general, have remained the same as those drawn up eleven years ago. In many instances, military solutions have been sought instead of political solutions. The victims remain the same: the people of Cambodia, and indeed all of the people of Indochina who have borne too long the burden of protracted military struggle. From the beginning of the war, Canada has helped fund the efforts of the United Nations and its agencies to care for the 300,000 Cambodians seeking refuge on the Thai-Cambodian border. Our commitment continues to these people, and this fiscal year it will amount to $3 million in food and other aid. We also recognize the need to assist the 8 million Cambodians still
Foreign Affairs 181
living in their country whose lives have been disrupted by the armed struggle. Their needs are immediate and real. A response to their suffering must not be held forever hostage to progress towards a political settlement. With that in mind, the government is now in the process of re-establishing the eligibility of Cambodia, Vietnam and Laos, the three countries of Indochina, for official Canadian development assistance. The exact nature of this aid is now under study by CIDA. As part of that process, an officer from our Embassy in Bangkok is currently in Cambodia with representatives of Canadian non-governmental organizations to examine how best to resume an aid relationship there. In the short term, these programs will be small scale and focused on humanitarian needs. Over the longer term their expansion will be predicated on progress towards peace and the political realities in the areas affected. We will not have Canadian aid channelled into the military efforts of any group. Nor will we permit it to be used by groups or governments whose records demonstrate a fundamental disrespect for basic human rights. We will, for example, insist that no Canadian aid be distributed in areas controlled by the Khmer Rouge. The central problem in the Cambodian conflict remains how to deal with the Khmer Rouge in an eventual settlement process. The reign of terror of the Pol Pot regime was one of the most brutal chapters in human history. Each position we, as a government, have taken on the question of Cambodia has been grounded in a determination never to allow the Khmer Rouge back into power. We have called upon the Chinese, Soviet and other military suppliers to the Cambodian parties to cease their support. There is no benefit to Cambodia to be found in the further import of weapons. The people of Indochina have seen enough implements of war to last for all of history. Two major developments broke the old impasse respecting Cambodia. The first was the recognition by the Parties themselves, and countries close to them, that war would yield no winner, but would hold back the development of Cambodia and its neighbours. The second was the decision to treat the search for peace as a regional responsibility and lift it beyond the immediate combatants. Seminal to that process were the Jakarta informal meetings which brought the six nations of ASEAN directly into the process, working with the Cambodian Parties, Vietnam and Laos. The next step was to make that search for peace a genuinely international preoccupation, moving beyond the region, to involve permanent
182
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
members of the Security Council, and other countries with a particular interest or contribution. The Paris Conference was convened. Canada was invited because of our unique experience in peacekeeping, our extensive relations in the region, and our acknowledged reputation as a trusted and moderate nation. The Paris Conference succeeded in getting the agreement of all parties to involve the offices of the United Nations, in the form of a fact-finding technical mission sent to Cambodia. It also made substantial progress in the design of an international control mechanism and in refining the complex of tasks that such a mechanism will have to address. Canada co-chaired that Committee with India, and Parliament can take pride in the skill and effectiveness of the officials in the Canadian delegation. That first Committee produced the agreement that could well be the basis of further progress now. The Paris Conference may resume, and Canada and other countries may be called upon to participate in UN-led peacekeeping and transitional arrangements. It is important that potential participants be adequately prepared. As part of this process, officials from my Department and the Department of National Defence are reviewing Canada’s recent experiences in Namibia and elsewhere. Lessons learned there can be applied to improving the planning and organization of future peacekeeping operations such as in Cambodia. The collection, exchange and assessment of peacekeeping information with both existing and potential peacekeepers, as well as with the UN itself, can only serve to strengthen the UN’s effectiveness and reputation as a peacemaker. In October, I dispatched a mission to Indochina led by Ambassador Alan Sullivan, head of our delegation for most of the Paris Conference, to explore and encourage the resumption of negotiations. One of the major messages delivered by Ambassador Sullivan in Hanoi and Phnom Penh was that of the importance of accepting a major role for the UN in any settlement. In November, the Government of Australia proposed the establishment of a UN interim administration for Cambodia. That proposal has Canada’s full support. It overcomes the problem of how to share power between the Cambodia parties, by delegating to the UN the responsibility for administering the country in an interim period prior to elections. Like the UN-based settlement recently achieved in Namibia, this proposal would effectively guarantee that no Cambodian party would retain or acquire political power sufficient to disrupt the process leading to free and fair elections. That is the most flexible and reasonable
Foreign Affairs 183
proposal currently in play. It has been welcomed by all the key players in the dispute, with the exception of the Khmer Rouge. Indeed it is becoming increasingly clear that the Khmer Rouge and its two non-communist coalition partners no longer speak with a unified voice. At the same time, Canada and other countries recognize that the current regime in Phnom Penh—the Hun Sen regime—is more than simply one of the four factions. Over the last few years it appears to have provided adequate government, and its record in most areas is far better than that of the Khmer Rouge government which preceded it. Nowhere is this more evident than in the field of human rights and in basic respect for human life. The peace process was moved forward in Paris last week in a meeting of the five permanent members of the Security Council. The meeting resulted, for the first time ever, in a significant level of agreement between the mentors of Cambodia’s warring factions. Their views were summarized in a 16-point communiqué highlighting an enhanced UN role in the resolution of the Cambodian problem. China’s decision to agree to the communiqué represents a significant concession and suggests that China may move away from its long-standing insistence that the Khmer Rouge have a major role in the interim government. Such flexibility from the Chinese, who are the principal backers of the Khmer Rouge, is an important ingredient in ensuring the co-operation of the Khmer Rouge in the peace-building process. As I have said in the past, we all wish that we did not have to deal with the Khmer Rouge. Unfortunately, the Khmer Rouge remain a major military reality, the strongest among the three resistance factions. To exclude them a priori from the peace would leave them no option but to continue fighting a civil war. We must instead find a way to include them in the process of peace while removing their ability to either wage war or to seize power and return Cambodia to the living hell it experienced under Pol Pot. The next weeks will be crucial as details of the potential UN role are further discussed, and as options for resolving other key questions such as a cease fire and transitional arrangements are explored. Canada will be active in that process. Should the Cambodian Parties return to the negotiating table with the kind of flexibility and commitment demonstrated by the permanent
184
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
five in Paris, it is probable that a resumption of the Paris Conference will follow as a next step. As a co-chair of one of its key committees, we expect to be closely involved in the preparations for a new Paris Conference. We will continue to work closely with our friends in Asia and elsewhere to help create the best possible environment for peace-building. We will stress that a new window of opportunity to build a lasting peace has been opened, and that all the Parties to the conflict must approach the upcoming discussions willing to seek and make the compromises which will be required if Cambodia’s long nightmare is to come to an end, and peace is finally to be brought to this once gentle and tranquil land. Peace for Cambodia must become a priority for the world community. Canada has the experience, ability and commitment necessary to play an important role in the peace process. I can assure the House that we will do so.
The Aftermath of the Gulf War House of Commons Debates 15 March 1991 34th Parliament, 2nd Session: Volume 14, 18534–18537 Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs): Madam Speaker, may I begin by expressing to my colleagues who are critics for other parties in this House my regret that there was a brief delay in my transmitting a copy to them of the statement I intend to make. As members of the House will know, this has been a long week and I apologize to them for the 10 or 15 minute delay in delivering that statement. Over the last seven and a half months, the Kuwait crisis has riveted our attention and engaged much of our debate. Today Kuwait is again a free country, though deeply scarred by its ordeal. I visited free Kuwait five days ago. I raised over the Canadian Embassy there, the flag our diplomats so reluctantly took down when they were forced by lack of food and water to leave on October 19. I wish now to report to the House on that trip which began, quite deliberately, with a call on the Secretary-General of the United Nations
Foreign Affairs 185
in New York and which took me to Jordan, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Syria and Iran as well as Kuwait and the United States. I met with leaders of those countries and with the foreign ministers of Egypt and of Italy, and with leading Palestinians from the Occupied Territories. In Jordan, I visited the headquarters of United Nations agencies working with the casualties and the consequences of the conflict. The Canadian government is contributing to many of their activities, but I want to draw the attention of the House and of Canadians to the United Nations Children’s Fund operated by UNICEF for humanitarian assistance for the children who are victims of the conflict. The government has contributed an additional $550,000 to that fund and I hope individual Canadians might make their own contribution to that special Gulf Disaster Relief Appeal, organized by UNICEF Canada to provide medical and humanitarian assistance to mothers and children suffering the effects of that conflict. My colleague, the Minister of National Defence, and the Chief of the Defence Staff, also visited Bahrain, Qatar, and the field hospital at Aljubayl, to express the gratitude of Canada to our troops and to the countries which hosted them. My purpose was to look beyond the liberation of Kuwait to the issues this crisis has underscored. The fundamental problems remain, but there are now new possibilities which need to be nurtured. My interest, as the foreign minister of Canada, was everywhere understood and welcomed. As a member of the coalition of countries who, through the United Nations, came to the aid of Kuwait, Canada’s commitment to the liberation of Kuwait was clear. But Canada also represents a lifetime of commitment to the United Nations. My primary mission was to try to ensure that the sort of world consensus which emerged to free Kuwait be further mobilized to prevent such aggression in the future, and to strengthen the chances of enduring peace and security. That is the first lesson of this crisis. There are other lessons. As the Prime Minister said on February 18, one such lesson is that reckless transfers of arms must come to an end. Canada’s commitment and record on arms control entitle us to place this item high on the world’s agenda. I reviewed with leaders of other countries of some of our proposals to reduce the flow and risk of arms. Progress, of course, will be slow, but everyone I met in the immediate aftermath of a decade of conflict in the gulf acknowledged the need to address this problem, and to do so practically and persistently. The House should know that in some gulf countries the immediate reflex
186
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
may be to buy new arms to deal with threats they believe will continue. That underlines the need for countries like Canada to advance proposals like those the Prime Minister has set forth. But for real peace and security to emerge and for arms transfers to diminish, the underlying causes of tension have to be resolved. These tensions, many of which relate to enduring disputes between Israel and her neighbours, were a major topic of my discussions. Madam Speaker, no one in the Middle East has forgotten a single moment of history, and there is a lot of history to overcome. There is now, however, an opportunity—now, but not for long. The world must not lose that opportunity. [Translation] Many of us have said that the recent events have changed the Middle East forever. Canada’s purpose has been to make those changes for the better—to strengthen the United Nations, to increase the control of arms and to reduce the risk of war, and to resolve the tensions at the root of insecurity in the Middle East. I congratulated Mr. Perez de Cuellar, on behalf of the people of Canada, for his resolution during this crisis. He thanked Canada for our support, and believed that Canada had set an example for other states by our determination to settle this crisis through the United Nations. He informed me that the United Nations is poised to police the separation of forces, once an official request is received from the Government of Kuwait. He also urged us to try to heal some of the wounds of this crisis by helping leaders with whom Canada has close ties—such as King Hussein of Jordan. He was concerned about the Palestinians whose leadership had been so criticized, but whose right represent a continuing challenge to the reputation for fairness and effectiveness of the United Nations. Indeed, this issue dominated many of my subsequent discussions. On my way to the region, I also met with Secretary of State Baker, just before he embarked on his own tour. He shared our view that there is a psychological moment of opportunity to be seized on the agenda for arms control. His immediate concerns were with the arrangements for regional security which would enable the United States to withdraw its ground forces from the theatre and bring the troops home. Even as we spoke, of course, the Foreign Ministers of the Gulf Co-operation Council were meeting in Damascus with the Foreign Ministers
Foreign Affairs 187
of Syria and Egypt to reach agreement on the stationing of Syrian and Egyptian ground forces in Kuwait, to replace Coalition ground forces, once a definitive ceasefire with Iraq was arranged. [English] Madam Speaker, I believed that my trip to the area should begin with the government of Kuwait. The Emir of Kuwait was still in Taif, in Saudi Arabia, where he had spent the occupation. His appreciation for Canada’s contribution to the liberation of Kuwait was heartfelt. The Emir was deeply concerned at the damage to his people and to his state. Plans are already beginning for the massive reconstruction of Kuwait and I welcomed the clear assurances that the expertise of Canadian companies will enjoy opportunities commensurate with the important role Canada played in liberating Kuwait. The senseless damage to Kuwait must be seen to be believed. Across the limitless desert landscape burn innumerable fires, each set deliberately with powerful charges of high explosives. Downtown, on the waterfront, are burned-out building after building, looted store after store, museums, homes, things of value or merit, trashed. This was not war damage; this city was put to the torch in the last 48 hours of occupation. For the Kuwaitis, the ending of sanctions against Iraq is therefore a major problem. Should oil exports again earn revenues for Iraq when Kuwait remains crippled? On the other hand, Iraq itself is badly damaged and needs to finance its own recovery. One idea being explored by countries of the region is the dedication of a proportion of Iraq’s oil revenues to repair the damage Saddam Hussein has done. Much will depend on what kind of regime survives in Iraq. Saddam Hussein is now being challenged by his own people. But through the force of arms and oppression he can cling to power. As long as he does, the countries of the region will be wary of his designs and will want continued sanctions on anything enabling him to rebuild his armies. In Kuwait, there is a mood calling for change in the way the country governs itself. The government says it is anxious to open up the regime, to institute more democracy. I encouraged that development and urged that particular care be taken to allow the reintegration of Palestinian residents of Kuwait, many of whom, most of whom, were intensely loyal to Kuwait. Almost everyone with whom I met indicated that the Palestinian problem is the key issue to be resolved in the region. The answer will
188
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
have to be found in greater security for all states of the area. The issue has three essential elements which all must be respected. They are the security of the state of Israel, the rights of the Palestinians and territory. Sequence and relationship—which goes first, and what is tied to what—could consume thought, discussion and negotiation for years. Meanwhile, were that to occur, the despair of the refugee camps would find more radical expression and the arms race would go on. I sought in my discussions in Jordan, in Syria, in Israel, and in the home of a leading Palestinian, Faisal Husseini, to promote appreciation of the need to build confidence in the collective ability of states and peoples to live together in acceptance and security. Eventually, a healthier state of mind can be built. There is not a lot of time. The countries and peoples concerned could make gestures, take initiatives, not of a kind which bear upon their fundamental security interests, but which build up a habit of working together. That is the message I left with all those with whom I met. Could not Lebanon be the theatre of such co-operative action to further strengthen the authority of the government of Lebanon? Could some progress be made among the states and parties on water projects? Can peoples see their welfare in terms of a shared and more harmonious future, instead of a bitterly divided past? Madam Speaker, it is not clear that they can. But that is the best way to build trust. Much time in this discussion is devoted to technique, to whether it should be an international conference, at the United Nations or not at the United Nations, or whether it should be separate bilateral negotiations, and whether discussion between the Palestinians and the Israelis should be part of that or separate, and, in any case, who should represent the Palestinians, and so on. On that last point, Canada can only agree with the Secretary-General of the United Nations; the Palestinians should be represented by the organizations or representatives they choose. Our distaste for the support for Saddam Hussein by the leader of the Palestine Liberation Organization should not disqualify Palestinians from coming to their conclusions on what we have always said was fundamental; their right to choose their own leadership in the search for realization of their legitimate rights. As I said in Jerusalem to the Prime Minister of Israel, we are among the closest friends of that country.
Foreign Affairs 189
Canada will not let Israel be put at risk. As the Prime Minister of Canada said on February 8, and as President Bush said a week ago, there is no security in geography. I also went to Iran. My meeting with President Rafsanjani was productive. Of course, we discussed problems—human rights and hostages for example. But we did so in a way which gave me hope that Canada can work well with Iran. These countries are all neighbours of Iraq. They are not disinterested in the outcome of the current uprising there. Indeed, Syria, Saudi Arabia and Iran have brought together in Lebanon the leaders of the various groups representing the masses of people wishing to be done with Saddam Hussein’s tyranny, not just the Shiite majority in the south, not just the Kurdish minority in the north, but others as well. We have always said that the future of Iraq is up to the Iraqis. I encouraged other states in the region not to intervene. I have been encouraged by all the leaders I spoke with. They want a durable peace in the region. They are however not yet ready to move beyond the liberation of Kuwait to address the age-old problems on which they have been so long divided, except with wariness and with distrust. But move they must. Or the arms race will spiral, and the United Nations will lose the lustre of its concerted action to liberate Kuwait. That would be our common loss. By its nature, this is an interim report to the House, and I will be coming back to the standing committee as early as next week. My conversations last week gave me a more direct understanding of attitudes in a region whose conflicts are deep and dangerous. They reinforced Canada’s ability to play a constructive role in calming those conflicts and in using the end of a war to begin a real peace. I know that all members of this House share our commitment to that goal. As our ships head home from the gulf, proud of our contribution to one victory, we are seeking now to address the sources of that conflict. Last July no one foresaw the invasion of Kuwait; no one foresaw the unprecedented response of the United Nations. We cannot foresee the developments of the next several months except to say that they offer a real chance to resolve the most intractable conflict the world knows, and it is in Canada’s interest to make the most of that opportunity. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear.
190
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
Tiananmen Square House of Commons Debates 5 June 1989 34th Parliament, 2nd Session: Volume 2, 2596–2599 Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I want also to express my appreciation to you, sir, for granting this emergency debate and to commend the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner), the Hon. Member for Windsor-Lake St. Clair (Mr. McCurdy), and other Members of the House who have sought this debate tonight. I know that all Members of the House of Commons and, indeed, all Canadians share a deeply felt sense of horror and of outrage at the events that have unfolded over the last few days in China. We have watched a country’s Armed Forces turn on its own citizens in an indiscriminate and brutal fashion. We have seen unarmed students and citizens gunned down and overrun by tanks. We have witnessed troops shooting from behind at fleeing crowds. We have heard of military units dealing summarily with even non-violent acts of resistance. Tiananmen Square, which has been the site of so many important historical events over the decades and over the centuries, now adds to its legacy one of the most tragic occurrences of modern China. The situation is evolving very rapidly. The latest news we have had from our Embassy in Beijing only minutes ago is that the violence which started in the Chinese capital is now spreading across the country. There is growing evidence that the military is at odds with itself. We have received reports that there is now fighting between various factions of the military. The appearance is one of military chaos. Those forces who unleashed the initial program of violence against the students in Tiananmen Square appear to have set in train a chain of violence that cannot now be easily contained. How could this have happened? As the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition has said, we had hoped and believed that China was on the road to extensive and fundamental reform. For 11 years the Chinese leadership has been pursuing a range of policies aimed at opening China up to the outside world. Hallmarks of this welcome reversal of earlier centralism and isolationism have been the decentralization of decision making, the encouragement of private enterprise, and the welcoming of increased trade and economic exchanges with Canada and other western democracies.
Foreign Affairs 191
During the past few years we have also seen welcome change on the political front, even if the depth of reform has been less than in economic areas. We have seen more freedom of the press, more freedom of speech, more freedom of association, less control on travel, more flexible policies on emigration, and even some tentative signs of willingness to accept legitimate political action expressed through vehicles other than the Communist Party. Indeed, the last few weeks of political difficulty were in some ways a signal of the great strides that China seemed to have taken. Students in great numbers were tolerated in the non-violent expression of their desires for further change. Their cries for greater democracy, for the establishment of basic rights and freedoms appeared to be getting through to the government. We watched some of China’s leaders express sympathy, understanding and, most important, respect for the objectives of the intentions of the students. Those were positive signs of a nation in the process of change. Many among us believed that China would somehow manage this pressure for change by becoming more democratic, more open and more respectful of its own people. When the tanks and the troops moved in on Tiananmen Square on Saturday night, it was clear that the forces of darkness and not of light had triumphed. It was clear that leaders who had urged restraint were being brushed aside. It was clear that the aspirations of a few were being placed ahead of the aspirations of the many. It is very much because of the great strides forward which China has taken over the last decade that the events of the last few days are so tragic for China and so tragic for those principles and freedoms which we hold dear and which we had thought were starting to find their proper place in Chinese political life as well. [Translation] Mr. Speaker, our relations with China have been very important to us and they still are. In 1970, we were one of the first Western countries to resume diplomatic relations with the People’s Republic after that country’s twenty years of isolation. Since then, our relations have become such that anything that happens in China is a matter of great interest to Canadians. Exchanges involving scientists, students, cultural groups and teams of athletes became common and have been encouraged by both sides.
192
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
Our two countries have organized the twinning of many provinces and cities. All this has enabled us to have high level discussions with the Chinese leaders on matters of common interest. Such matters might range from regional disputes to protecting the environment and how to make the world trading system more sensitive to the needs of our two economies. Our trade has benefited both our countries. Thanks to our development assistance program, we have expanded China’s ability to modernize and we have introduced in China the Canadian way of doing things. I firmly believe that the range and intensity of our relations with China has enriched both our countries. [English] The extent of the friendship between Canadians and Chinese that has grown over the last decade makes the carnage in the streets of the Chinese capital particularly difficult to accept. As we examine what our response should be, however, we must remember that we will cherish our friendship with the Chinese people, that we are not going to become in this country anti-China. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear. Mr. Clark (Yellowhead): Our condemnation and our outrage should be focused on the violent and aggressive actions that we cannot and will never condone and on those who initiated and encouraged those actions. As soon as the military strike against the civilians in Tiananmen Square became known to us on Saturday, we made clear our abhorrence of the unnecessary and indiscriminate use of force against unarmed students and citizens. As the events unfolded and the extent of the violence and the killing became clear, we called on the Chinese government in the strongest possible terms to take steps urgently and immediately to stop the aggressive and senseless killing by its Armed Forces. Yesterday at noon I had the Chinese Ambassador called in to underline the seriousness with which we viewed the situation and to ensure that he passed to his authorities our call for a stop to the killing and also passed to them the depth of our outrage. We, of course, have not been alone in calling on the Chinese leadership to stop the carnage and to return to peaceful methods to resolve
Foreign Affairs 193
their political crisis. Most western Governments, Governments from around the world, even Communist Parties in other countries, have joined in condemning the brutality of the methods chosen to clear Tiananmen Square and to crush all and every expression of dissent by the students and other civilians once the military action had begun. This government remains ready to offer humanitarian assistance or supplies if those are requested or needed. In assessing the actions which should accompany our condemnation of the violence and the killings, we must bear in mind the need to safeguard Canadian lives, as well as the need to build pressure on the Chinese government. At the time of the outbreak of violence there were approximately 600 Canadians resident in China, roughly half of whom were in Beijing. In addition, there were a number of business visitors and tourists scattered around the country. Our first concern, because of the violence, has been the security of those in the capital. As a precautionary measure in case of further military action against the universities, our Embassy evacuated all Canadians from the city campuses and is currently providing temporary accommodation to the 75 or so students who are affected. We are in constant contact with our Ambassador Earl Drake, and we have contingency plans for the evacuation from Beijing of the students, other Canadians, and the staff of the Embassy. We have put into place arrangements whereby aircraft can be made available at short notice for evacuating Canadians to nearby Asian cities, and then onward transportation arrangements can be made after that if necessary. After consultation with officials in Beijing, we decided about an hour ago to advise Canadians in Beijing to leave that city now. Our Embassy will be assisting them in making their departure. I will of course keep the House advised if we decide to proceed with a complete evacuation. I should take the opportunity to indicate to Canadians who might be concerned that if they have questions to raise, we have established an 800 number, 800-267-6788. I know there are many Canadians who have relatives or friends in China who would want to call officials. We will hope to provide them with as accurate information as we can. With respect to bilateral actions that we might take in response to the crisis, we have already deferred or cancelled all events that were planned in the immediate future. We have postponed the signing of a series of memorandums of understanding on development assistance projects which were to be signed later this week. We have suspended the nuclear co-operation consultations that were begun after
194
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
China joined the Atomic Energy Agency and which were to proceed early next week. We will be taking similar action with respect to other scheduled negotiations and discussions. We are advising the provinces and non-governmental organizations with planned consultations with Chinese counterparts to follow suit. Although there are no high level visits in either direction planned for the coming few weeks, we would deflect such visits until a more appropriate time. At the multilateral level I have asked our Ambassador at the United Nations in New York to begin immediately consultations with other UN members and with the Secretary-General on means by which the moral suasion of the United Nations might be brought to bear to support the voices calling for moderation and restraint in China. Canada fully supports the statement issued by the Secretary-General today calling for restraint. With respect to the large numbers of Chinese students in Canada, and I believe there are some 4,500 here at the moment, we recognize the troublesome time for them. While we trust that before long the situation in China will no longer be repugnant to them, we understand their concerns. As my colleague, the Hon. Minister for Employment and Immigration announced earlier today, we will be sympathetic to any requests for extending their stay until calm returns to their homeland. My colleague has also taken steps to suspend for at least a two-month period all removals to China under the terms of the Immigration Act. Some countries have announced the suspension of programs of bilateral military co-operation and sales to China. Canada does not have any such formal arrangements and has sold in the past only very small amounts of non-lethal equipment to the Chinese military. I can assure you, however, Mr. Speaker, that the government would not grant export permits for military sales of any sort in the current situation. Furthermore, I have asked that the modest program of defence relations between the Canadian Armed Forces and the People’s Liberation Army which saw a visit to China last year of the Chief of the Defence Staff, I have asked that those relations be suspended immediately. Sir, what is transpiring in China is tragedy of global proportions. Let us hope that the events of the coming weeks see China and its great people emerge without unnecessary bloodshed and with renewed commitment to fundamental rights and freedoms in an increasingly democratic country. I only wish that I could find greater cause for optimism at the moment. There have been consultations among the Parties in this House, and
Foreign Affairs 195
I believe you would find that there is unanimous consent to adopt the following motion which I have the honour to put, seconded by the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition and the Member of Parliament for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent): That this House, noting that: — the relationship between Canada and the People’s Republic of China is important to Canadians and has been of benefit to both countries over the past many years; — authorities in the People’s Republic of China have directed the armed forces of China to attack the unarmed civilian population of Beijing in contravention of all humane principles of conduct; — the students and citizens of Beijing were peacefully advocating democratic principles and human freedoms as is the fundamental right of all peoples of the world; and — the authorities of China resorted to the use of excessive and indiscriminate armed force on a scale and scope which appalls all Canadians and has resulted in the tragic deaths of large numbers of innocent civilians; therefore: unequivocally condemn this brutal use of force against the peaceful populace of Beijing and call upon the authorities of China to cease this senseless killing and immediately adopt a course of dialogue with the people of China.
Some hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Speaker: Does the Hon. Minister have unanimous consent of the House to move the motion? Some hon. Members: Agreed. [Translation] Mr. Speaker: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? Some hon members: Agreed. Mr. Speaker: Motion agreed to.
196
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
Panama House of Commons Debates 20 December 1989 34th Parliament, 2nd Session: Volume 6, 7285–7288 Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs): Mr. Speaker, there was agreement among members of all parties earlier this afternoon that it would be appropriate for the three parties in this House of Commons have an opportunity to express their position on the events in Panama. I have the honour to present a ministerial statement which is a little untraditional. I apologize for not having circulated advance copies to my hon. colleagues in the House but they will understand the circumstances that prevented that. I thought I would try to do three things. First, report upon the situation in Panama as we know it at this stage; second, review the chain of events which led to the American decision last night; third, present to the House some observations about Panama. That includes the possibility of developing a stable, democratic system in that country, a country and a region which, with less drama than we see in Eastern Europe, is setting a remarkable example of democracy and of economic courage. It is important that parliamentarians in this House and countries like Canada help Panama assume its rightful place in that invaluable process. First I will deal with the situation in Panama, as we know it. The House will perhaps know that there are 131 Canadians who are registered as resident in Panama. Some of those are Canadians of dual nationality. We have been in touch, or sought to be in touch, with all of them by telephone, either through our honorary consul in Panama City or through the embassy headquartered in Costa Rica. To the best of our knowledge and our most recent consultations all Canadians are safe. None is in danger. An official of the embassy based in Costa Rica will be going in to Panama as soon as conditions allow that to be done effectively. Fighting is falling off in Panama City, although there has unhappily been an outbreak of looting now. Perhaps that is a natural consequence of the kind of disorder that can arise in those circumstances. Forces loyal to General Noriega have moved into the countryside. Noriega himself has not been captured. If there are further developments I will try to have them brought to
Foreign Affairs 197
the attention of members who are interested or will establish a system over the period of the recess in which either members of Parliament or certainly Canadians who have family or interests in Panama will be able to be kept informed. [Translation] As a founding member and signatory of the United Nations Charter and as a recent signatory of the Charter of the Organization of American States, Canada fully and unreservedly subscribes to the principle of non-interference in the domestic affairs of States. The use of force is clearly a very serious matter. The Canadian government has already clearly expressed its regrets with respect to the U.S. intervention in Panama. However, we must not forget the pressing reasons that forced President Bush to authorize the intervention of U.S. troops. [English] Over the past two years the world has been witness to one of the most systematic betrayals on record. It is a betrayal in Panama of those democratic values which we hold dear in this House and, indeed, which are respected by most of our neighbours in Latin America and in the Caribbean. Even before that, the governments of Presidents Barletta and Del Valle were very much subject to the whims of General Noriega as commander-in-chief of the Panamanian Defense Forces. Canada has not traditionally maintained the most cordial relations with those successive regimes, which we regarded as being democratic in name only, but we were able to carry on correct business-like relations with them based on mutual interest. In 1987, when General Noriega was indicted by an American court on narcotics trafficking charges and the United States imposed an economic embargo, we did not follow suit. When the May 1989 elections were called, we held out some hope that the Panamanian people would be permitted to express their democratic will at the polls. When, however, it became obvious that those elections were going decisively against Noriega’s chosen candidate, the regime abruptly had the process declared void. Canada condemned that denial of free elections. All of us were shocked by the images of the violent public beatings of the leaders whom the people of Panama had chosen to govern them. It was a temptation then to respond with violence. That temptation was strong and
198
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
outspoken among some in the United States. It was resisted, it was resisted everywhere including, principally and most importantly, by the United States administration. Various efforts were launched to achieve a peaceful solution to this very difficult problem. Some of them were bilateral, some of them were individual efforts by leaders of other countries. One of the most important was through the Organization of American States. On July 20 of this year, the Organization of American States passed a formal resolution which called for a transfer of power, taking effect on September 1 this year, from the Noriega regime to the people who had been elected in the May elections. The OAS also launched a diplomatic mission headed by the foreign ministers of three of its member countries who travelled extensively and worked hard to try to find a peaceful way in which this transfer of power could be achieved. What is lamentable, but evident, is that that peaceful solution did not work. There was, as we all know, recently an aborted coup. In the past week there have been developments that were particularly alarming, would be to anyone in this House and were to many of us, including the statement by General Noriega that Panama is in a “state of war” to use his words, with the United States. That declaration unilaterally by General Noriega was followed by harassment of Americans stationed, by treaty, in Panama. Indeed, it was followed by the murder of an off-duty member of the American services and threats to the family of that individual. It is important here, sir, to emphasize two facts which distinguish the situation in Panama from that which might exist in other parts of the world. One of those facts is that the United States presence there is a result of a treaty. It is not a presence that is the result of an occupation. It is not a presence that is the result of an uninvited presence by the United States in that country. The American troops are there as the result of a legal agreement. They are there as the result of an international treaty. They have a right to be there and they have a right to be protected while they are there. That is one distinguishing factor and feature about the situation in Panama today. A second fact that I want to underline is that peaceful solutions had been sought and peaceful solutions had failed. In fact, what was remarkable for so long was the willingness of the Bush administration to put its faith in mediation, to put its faith in negotiation, to put its faith in peaceful processes. The response to that was the declaration by Gen-
Foreign Affairs 199
eral Noriega, unilaterally, of a state of war. The response to that was the murder of an off-duty American stationed there. The response to that was threats to Americans who had a right to be there and who had a right to be protected while they were there. The Government of Canada today, in my name, issued a statement that made essentially two points. The first is that the government regrets the use of force by the U.S. in Panama, but understands and is sympathetic to, the American action in the circumstances, particularly given the legitimate American concern over the escalating threats to American citizens in Panama. People have a right to be there and had a right to be protected. Second, we made the point very clearly that intervention by force is a dangerous precedent and we note that the United States relied on force only in the last resort, only after the failure of attempts to resolve the situation in Panama peacefully. The question is: What now? What now occurs? What now should be done? I want to mention three things that I think should be on our minds as we try to look forward. One is that we have to work and use all of the influence and standing of Canada to ensure that intervention not become a precedent. There were unique factors here and if they can justify actions that were taken early this morning by the United States, it is the uniqueness that justifies them. There is not a precedent established here that this Parliament or this country would approve in other circumstances. I think that, sir, is a particularly important assurance to be given to the people and to the Government of Nicaragua, where elections are imminent and where every effort must continue to make those elections free and make those elections fair. Second, we believe it is important that we help the government that was elected in May in Panama to establish stability and democracy in that country. That was the theme, I can tell members of the House, in many of the consultations I had today by telephone with Latin leaders of the Organization of American States. They are interested in taking advantage of the opportunity that has been created now to try to sink some of the roots of stability and a democracy that will be important if Panama is to assume its place of significance in a region where those qualities have come to be more evident and more valued. We intend to send a team of Canadian officials to Panama as soon as that would be productive to see if there are specific ways in which Canada can contribute to that process.
200
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
Third, I think there is a lesson here of the real need to strengthen the regional institutions in Latin America, particularly in Central America. It is clear that the Organization of American States, despite its efforts, did not work in Panama. They were not able to achieve the peaceful solution that they sought and that others sought. But I think it important to note that the OAS made a serious attempt to succeed and that, Mr. Speaker, was a change in itself. It demonstrates a new resolution among members of the Organization of American States that Canada can push forward and, in our judgment, must push forward. The point to underline, sir, is that Central America is not anybody’s backyard. Central America consists of sovereign countries, with ambitions of their own, histories of their own, qualities of their own. It is a region which is remarkable for the will that has been demonstrated by its leadership, particularly in the last two and three years, the will to work together and the will to work together against quite extraordinary odds, including the pull of their own history in that region. Traditionalists have asked, why would Canada want to focus on Central America, why would we be in the Organization of American States, why would we play the active role that we are in ONUCA, the United Nations Peacekeeping and Verification Agency, that is playing a potentially critical role in the region, why would we maintain our aid and development assisted relations with the five countries involved in the Esquipulas arrangement? We do that, sir, because Central America and Latin America as a whole are changing, changing by their own will. Carlos Andrés Pérez, the President of Venezuela, repeated again to me this morning when I spoke to him to talk about the events in Panama, his profound belief that Canada has a crucial role to play in that region, both of stability and a democracy that will be important if because of who we are and because of who we are not. The role, in his judgment, can be critical if the institutions and the instinct to reform that had been evident there are to become as effective as they can be. We have a role to play in helping to prevent Noriegas. We have a role to play in helping to provide alternatives to intervention because our presence can strengthen initiatives and institutions like the Organization of American States. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Clark (Yellowhead): In a calmer part of the Question Period today, I had the opportunity to say to my friend from Winnipeg Transcona
Foreign Affairs 201
that I think it is time for all of us to engage in some new thinking about international events, and I meant that. I think he shares that view, as do others in the House. That means that we have to move away from stereotypes, whether those stereotypes are about the Americans and their motivations or whether they are about proud countries which we cannot dismiss simply because they are small. For anyone interested in the future of Central America, interested in the principles of democracy, this has been a hard day for anyone concerned about this hemisphere. It involves a situation which we in the government believe is unique. We think, sir, that we Canadians have a responsibility to make the most of the new situation which has been created by events in Panama, and that is the intent of this government.
6
Indigenous Relations One of the tasks of this collection is to see, through Joe Clark’s speeches, how the Conservative party has all but forgotten its Red Tory roots. One of the policies in which this is evident is what used to be called “Indian Affairs”—now correctly referred to as Indigenous politics. It is this area which arguably highlights the changes in Canadian conservatism in recent decades most clearly. The first significant aspect of Clark’s politics in this issue area is his awareness of history. In his speeches, Clark spoke with a refreshing candor of the largely violent history that has characterized the relationship between Indigenous peoples and the Canadian state. For example, in one speech, Clark recognizes the role that the Indian Act system has in creating the poor economic conditions found in Indigenous communities in stark contrast to inaccurate stereotypes that do not account for poverty in which most Indigenous people find themselves. It’s noteworthy that he argued against and attempted to refute these stereotypes throughout his career. Clark’s remarks remain both relevant and topical, reverberating in discussions and issues that still characterize settler-Indigenous relations today. This came to the fore in 1985 when Parliament was debating repealing the “marrying-out” clause in the Indian Act. This clause meant that, until 1985, an Indigenous woman who married a non-Indigenous man would lose her Indian status and all of the associated rights. The same was not true for men who married non-Indigenous women. Clark delivered a powerful intersectional argument before Parliament. In this particular speech, Clark recognized that Indigenous women face a unique situation of discrimination as it relates to both their racial and gender identities. He put forward that these parts of one’s identity can cause unjust problems on their own but when brought together create a different, unique form of discrimination. This kind of awareness and understanding of the complexities of identity in the Canadian context is A Man of Parliament; Selected Speeches from Joe Clark, edited by Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon. Montréal and Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press, Queen’s Policy Studies Series. © 2019 The School of Policy Studies, Queen’s University at Kingston. All rights reserved.
204
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
something that other elected politicians would be wise to heed. He was able to recognize these dynamics while still formulating a conservative position. The revisions to the Indian Act in 1985 would go on to fuel the politics of many Indigenous communities to this day. Many women applied to regain their lost status, while others within Indigenous communities resisted this change as they felt it would violate their traditions and infringe on their autonomy vis-à-vis the federal government. This tension is the focus of the second speech in this chapter. For though Clark recognized the oppression of Indigenous women in this case, he also wanted to ensure the autonomy of the band councils to determine their own affairs. He was well aware of the paternalism that often characterized the relationship between the band councils and Indian Affairs. And, as ever, he sought to empower the government closest to the delivery of services so that it might develop solutions most effective for the different needs of people in diverse communities. Refreshingly consistent, Clark included not just provinces or municipalities in this vision, but band councils as well. This awareness and compassion was something that Clark demonstrated throughout his career. In a speech given in April 1973 (not even six months after his first election to the House of Commons) Clark gave an impassioned argument for the recognition of Indigenous rights and title through a Parliamentary resolution. This would prove to be the early stages of the debate that would eventually contribute to the enshrining of treaty rights in Section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. Still relevant in our current political climate, Clark recognized that if settler-Indigenous issues could not be “resolved by negotiation, in an atmosphere of mutual trust and goodwill, they will arise in more inflammatory ways.” This has proved surprisingly prophetic in light of the rise of movements such as Idle No More and the strength of Indigenous resistance to resource exploitation through pipelines. This indignation was made manifest, perhaps sooner than Clark thought, in the confrontations at Oka and Burnt Church. This chapter reminds us both how good arguments stand the test of time but also how far Canadians have to go to realize Indigenous reconciliation. Clark wanted to more honestly and openly confront our history of “colonial dominion” and build an order which more readily respects the autonomy of Indigenous peoples and their right to self-determination. These problems have not disappeared and Clark’s words over decades remind us how long these issues have been on the public agenda.
Indigenous Relations
205
The Indian Act House of Commons Debates 1 March 1985 33rd Parliament, 1st Session: Volume 2, 2652–2654 Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I wish to begin by complimenting both the tone and the content of the speakers who preceded me, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Crombie), the Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior (Mr. Penner) and the Hon. Member for Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands (Mr. Manly). That tone indicates not only their own interest but is also an indication of the seriousness with which this historic matter is taken by all Members of the House. Indeed, this is one of the few pieces of legislation to come before this House which can genuinely be described as being historic. It does not solve all the problems, as the Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior made clear, but it is nonetheless an historic and important Bill. The Bill ends a discrimination against certain women, a discrimination that all of us now find unacceptable. It marks a large step away from a colonial mentality that has scarred the relations between Indian and other Canadians and marks a step—just a step, but an important one—toward greater autonomy for Indian bands. It proceeds in a way that is simultaneously reasonable, tolerant and principled to resolve dilemmas that have been divisive at home and have been embarrassing abroad. As the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development noted, this is not a Party matter. It is a uniquely profound Canadian question, rooted in the traditions and the rights of our original people, raising the principle of equal treatment, which is at the core of our free society, and resolved by reason, consultation and compromise. I address these questions in several capacities, including my capacity as Secretary of State for External Affairs. In this 40th anniversary year of the United Nations, I celebrate and commend legislation that brings the laws of Canada into harmony with the international covenant on civil and political rights. In addition, as the House will know, I have had other incarnations in this Chamber. In October, 1979 I had the honour to include in the Throne Speech of that year a commitment to remove Section 12(1)(b) of the Indian Act. Then later, on November 20, 1981, I had the honour to move the adoption of the paramountcy clause, Section 28, of the
206
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In another capacity, my most important capacity as an individual Member of the House of Commons, more than a decade ago in the company of the present Minister of National Defence (Mr. Nielsen), the present Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) and the former Member for Skeena and others, I was part of a parliamentary committee that for the first time in the life of Parliament achieved agreement between Members of the House of a definition and acceptance of aboriginal title. The real reason I rise now to offer counsel to my colleagues here and my friends across the country is that those of us who know the emotions this question can arouse have a special obligation to bring balance and understanding to this debate, as all of the participants so far have done. This Bill is about more than an end to discrimination. It is also about a practical beginning to local band control of local band affairs and the challenge has been to respect the principles of equality and autonomy at the same time. It would be relatively simple to embrace one principle and abandon the other. It would be simple, dangerous and a betrayal of our elemental duty to bring Canadians together and to help all of our people understand the complexities of our country. Questions concerning the equality of women are better understood today than they were a decade ago but there is not yet as wide an understanding of the special sense of community of our Indian people and the importance they place upon defining and controlling their own identity. In addition to suffering more than their share of disease, indignity and early death, they have for a century had their destiny controlled by others. The children of the Eden Valley Reserve west of my hometown were as free as I was to run, to ride and to be children. However, when we stopped being children, the youngsters of Eden Valley were not as free to be themselves as the youngsters of High River because to be Indian in the land which the Stoneys, the Blackfoot and the Cree discovered was to have your life run by someone else. There is somewhat more freedom now for the Stoneys, the Cree and the Blackfoot, but their memory and our legacy was of Ottawa running Indian lives, Ottawa setting Indian standards. Against that background, Members of the House can understand why local bands were worried about proposals to have Ottawa again change their traditions and define their members. To many Canadian Indians, the principle at stake was not the equality of Indian women
Indigenous Relations
207
but the autonomy of Indian bands. Our challenge in this Parliament is to respect both principles together, to end the discrimination that everyone agrees should end and to reinforce the autonomy and identity of communities that were treated like colonies for a century. This Bill is the result of careful and sensitive consultation across the country. The Minister has invited Members to come to committee with proposals they might think better. On this question more than on most, Members who might find fault with the Bill should accept the responsibility of proposing practical remedies. [Translation] Section 12(l)(b) of the Indian Act, in its present form, contravenes international obligations that Canada has freely assumed. Some of these obligations were contracted in 1976, when Canada ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, one of the UN’s fundamental documents concerning the rights of the individual. Canada also agreed to be bound by the provisions of the Optional Protocol to the Pact which stipulates that the Human Rights Commission may examine claims filed by individuals who maintain that their rights have been violated by their own government. The House will recall that in 1977, Mrs. Sandra Lovelace filed a complaint with the Committee that because of the existence of Section 12(l) (b) of the Indian Act, she had lost her Indian status in May 1970 … French is occasionally a problem for the boys from High River and Eden Valley, especially figures. That is why I am the Secretary of State for External Affairs and not Minister of Finance… As I was saying, Mrs. Lovelace had lost her status when she married a non-Indian. She alleged at the time that she was the victim of a violation of certain rights laid down in the covenant. Hon. Members may recall as well that, in July 1981, the Commission on Human Rights concluded that Canada had violated Article 27 of the covenant because Indian Act Section 12(1)(b) had prevented Sandra Lovelace from living on a reserve. Here is Article 27: In states where there are ethnic, religious or linguistic minorities, people belonging to those minorities shall not be deprived of the right to have, along with other members of their group, their own cultural life, to practice their own religion, or to use their own language.
208
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
In the summer of 1983, Canada advised the Commission concerning the steps it was taking to correct that violation. Specifically, our representative gave the assurance that Canada was committed to delete from the Indian Act any discriminatory provision related to sex. The government is now about to honour that commitment. It would seem that, on the occasion of the United Nations Decade for Women, we are finally going to do away with a provision which discriminates against women. One of the happier results of that decade is undoubtedly the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women which was ratified by Canada. Section 12(1)(b) contravenes a certain number of the convention provisions, particularly Article 10 which reads as follows: State parties shall take all appropriate measures to eliminate discrimination against women in all matters relating to marriage and family relations—
By having the House adopt this Bill, Canada will meet its obligations and eliminate that discrimination. [English] With this measure we have confronted one injustice, an injustice to Indian women and one that over the course of the last decade and a little longer has become well known nationally and internationally. However, as others in this debate have emphasized, there are fundamental injustices which we must still face and resolve. Indeed, while discrimination against women is an unhappy characteristic of many societies, the colonial treatment of the Indian people is a particular Canadian injustice. It is a scar on our society and on our conscience. We have talked about it for a long time. In recent years we have begun to act more seriously to establish the self-respect and status of the people who were here before any of the rest of us. The work of the standing committee in the last Parliament was courageous, creative and constructive. I think it would not be improper to mention the particular contributions of the hon. members for Cochrane-Superior, Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands, Wetaskiwin (Mr. Schellenberger) and Brampton-Georgetown (Mr. McDermid). The tone of this debate has demonstrated that this commitment to change and to self-respect, reaches throughout this Parliament. If I may compliment a colleague, I think the fact that this Bill has been introduced so early
Indigenous Relations
209
in the life of this Parliament demonstrates the determination and the influence of the Minister of Indian affairs and Northern Development and the priority of this government. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Clark (Yellowhead): My colleague from Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands quite properly raised the question of cost. That is a matter which will be dealt with by the government, and of course by the parliamentary committee. It cannot be dealt with in legislative form in this Bill, as the House understands, because of the nature of the Indian Act. But the government accepts and understands that the rules cannot be changed without helping the capacity of the Indian people of the country in responding to the changing rules. We accept that we must help to meet the implications of the changes which are under way. But we know also that the question of determining the cost, and determining the method of dealing with the cost, is one which will take some time and, by its very nature, can neither be anticipated nor applied as though there were no differences from reserve to reserve or from band to band. The Minister, his officials and the committee will be looking very closely at the question as to just exactly what must be done. I can say to the hon. member, on behalf of my colleague and the government, that this government will address this issue in a reasonable and sympathetic way to be as much help as we can to the Indian people in responding to this reality, which is sought not only by all of us, but sought and accepted—because they oppose the idea of discrimination—by most Indian people of the country. I have been involved for a number of years in issues concerning equality for women. More Canadians have been involved in that issue than have been involved in the question of concern for Indian bands and Indian status. Indeed, sometimes in the development of this debate there has been the risk of an apparent conflict between those who were concerned about the equality of women and those who were concerned about the problems and the nature of Indian communities across the country. In fact, the issue at the base is the same. The issue is a determination to have identity respected and advanced. I think we have made a step forward in the House today, not simply with the tabling of this legislation, but also with the tone of the response by Members on all sides of the House. If I may speak to one aspect, in concluding, of the challenge yet ahead of us, it has to do not simply with our colleagues in this House; it has
210
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
to do with those millions of Canadians who over the last several years have become concerned about the question of equality for women. I hope that they too will recognize that there are other inequalities. I know they do, but I hope that in their recognition of the other inequalities that exist in Canada they will join with the Minister, the hon. member for Cochrane-Superior, the hon. member for Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands and others in the House to ensure that progress is made much more quickly than in the past in improving the status, the self-respect and the capacity to contribute to the future of Canada and the Indian people of our country. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!
Indigenous Affairs and the Constitution House of Commons Debates 2 December 1980 32nd Parliament, 1st Session: Volume 5, 5267–5269 Right Hon. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I have always been proud to number among my constituents, in the two constituencies I have represented in this House of Commons, citizens of both status native background and Métis background. I am pleased my colleague from Wetaskiwin (Mr. Schellenberger) has introduced this motion. It has allowed us to recognize today that in an age and in a country of increasing affluence, and at a time when the air is rife with talk of rights, the basic ability to live of our first citizens has been marked by a movement backwards—not by a movement forward. The figures are stark, they are known and are shocking to all of us who have followed Indian affairs. The life expectancy of native people in Canada is, on average, about ten years less than that of other Canadians. That is a figure which is worse than the figure of ten years ago. We are not moving forward, we are moving backward. Pre-natal and infant mortality is 60 per cent higher among native people than the national average. Again, this is a situation which has not improved over the last nine years. Among the native people the suicide rate is three times the national average. The rate of violent death is also three times the national average. In terms of unemployment, chronically, the figures run to 20 per cent or 30 per cent; at certain places at certain periods of time the figures for unemployment among native people run in excess of 80
Indigenous Relations
211
per cent. In 1960, 20 years ago, 10 per cent of native housing units were in need of major repairs. By 1977, 24 per cent of native housing units were in need of major repairs. Fire deaths are about seven times the national average. I was interested to hear the hon. member speak about post-secondary schooling. The fact is that the proportion of Indian children aged 14 to 18 in school has been continually declining, since 1973 to a point at which almost 50 per cent of the Indian children in that age group are no longer in school. That is a dismal and frightening fact. Pre-vocational training attendance is down from 3,400 in 1973 to 1,000 in 1979. Those facts, sir, are all the more damning for this Parliament since the status natives of Canada are the one group of people whom the federal division of powers least affects by statute, treaty and tradition. They are citizens for whom the Government of Canada is particularly responsible. Their education, welfare and rights are indisputably federal responsibilities. There have been instances when those responsibilities have been shamefully betrayed by their guardians in the Government of Canada, as the native people of James Bay were betrayed when the Liberal government gave only the most limited support in a crucial conflict where Ottawa had absolute and unlimited responsibility. But the deeper condemnation is that at a time when the federal government is trying to extend its powers into fields occupied previously by the provinces and the private sector, the health and the dignity as well as the rights of these people for whom the federal government is now responsible have deteriorated steadily and disgracefully. Mr. Speaker, I say to you that if the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Trudeau) had given the cause of native Indians one-quarter the priority he has given his own personal preferences for constitutional change we would have made more progress as a nation against the shameful spectacle of Indian poverty, suicide, infant mortality and the indignity which has become a part of life for the original citizens of this nation. I specify the Prime Minister because he is the head of the government and his priorities prevail. But the condemnation, sir, extends to all of us in this House. Most of us have been too ready to allow other priorities to intrude. We have been too ready to turn our eyes away from the problems that the system of dependency on others has incubated among the native people of our land. No realistic thinking person will pretend that these problems are easy to resolve. Those of us who are experienced in this area are more
212
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
aware of their complexity and difficulty. Those problems began with bad decisions more than a century ago. The reserve system has steadily drained status Indians of initiative and dignity. But the native people themselves have begun to reverse that trend. They have begun to take steps, some of them halting and some of them very dramatic. These steps will enable them to regain their pride and regain their place in Canada. For their pains and the work they have done they have been excluded from the decision about their constitution. They have been confronted with both paternalism and prejudice. I want to speak tonight about paternalism because it is within the direct responsibility and control of this Parliament. I have particular cause to know that we have excellent people serving Canada in the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, as we have in the rest of the public service. But federal bureaucrats will always be tempted to think they can make better decisions than the natives can. Occasionally they will be right, but usually they will be wrong. There is no department in the Government of Canada where the temptation to run others’ lives is stronger and there is no department where the consequences of succumbing to that temptation are more ruinous for the people involved. When my colleague, the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp), who is now sitting on the constitutional committee, was the minister for Indian affairs we began to implement a deliberate decision to change the direction and orientation of Indian affairs policy across this country, to move more responsibility to the band councils themselves so that native people could grow in responsibility by exercising responsibility. We recognize that the most legitimate organization in the Indian community is the band council. It is a council which is elected by and responsible to the Indian people themselves. We tried to build up the force, the influence, the role, the independence and the autonomy of those band councils. I draw attention to that policy, Mr. Speaker, only because it appears to have been abandoned and replaced by new forms of paternalism. Under the policy announced by the hon. member for Provencher, when he was the minister, the department would increasingly move back to an advisory role. This new approach would help Indian people carry out the programs that they propose. It would not tell them what to do and control their lives by controlling the purse strings. Three major reforms were announced and were in the process of implementation by the government which it was my honour to lead. First, we made it clear that band councils would be given the power to control their own
Indigenous Relations
213
social and economic development. They would no longer be told so rigorously what to do by the people in Ottawa or elsewhere. Second, a process was being established so that planning and development of programs would begin at the local level. It would start with the band council and not be forced down upon the band council by someone with less knowledge but more authority. Third, the Indian Affairs department would move gradually away from its administrative role and, instead, would provide resources to assist programs begun by the band councils. Regrettably, this new approach which would have broken the cycle of paternalism appears to have been abandoned by the Liberal government. That is a betrayal of the people whose interests that department is supposed to serve. Whereas self-management and the exercise of responsibilities at the local level were characteristic of our approach to the programs of the department, full consultation and participation was the basis of our approach to constitutional renewal and the role of native people. As prime minister I met with Indian leaders to present our government’s view that Indian representatives would participate fully in all deliberations of the consultative committee of ministers on the constitution where there was a clear Indian interest or where the result of such discussions could affect Indian people significantly. Indian, Inuit and Métis leaders would be called upon to participate in the development of the agendas for first ministers’ conferences. We explicitly stated our hope they would join at some very near time with first ministers in the discussion of specific issues. Similarly, last August my party suggested that if the first ministers’ conference of September broke down, as in the event it did, a constituent assembly be formed to deal with constitutional renewal. In the event of such an occurrence we made specific provision that native spokesmen be included in addition to members of Parliament and members of provincial legislatures and territorial councils. The president of the National Indian Brotherhood responded to this suggestion stating that it was a very, very attractive progressive proposal. This record of consultation and participation contrasts sharply with the dramatic events in this city this past week—a constitutional process which, only at the last minute, under duress, allowed for Indian presentations before the special committee on the constitution, a process in which the Prime Minister has refused to meet with Indian leadership to discuss his constitutional proposals, a process which has so angered and so alienated the Indian people that they have felt compelled to go
214
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
to the parliament of another country, the parliament of Great Britain, to present their case. Indian rights and Indian concerns should be debated here in the Canadian Parliament. The Constitution of Canada should be decided here in this country by the people and representatives of this country and in a way in which all the people can be heard. I raise the constitutional matter because the conditions of poverty and of suffering which we all know to be too real a part of Indian life in this country are linked inextricably to the constitution. While the problems are specific—alcoholism, unemployment, school drop-outs, prostitution, to mention a few—the matter at base comes back to human dignity. When a community has so essential a sense of the dignity of a people, that is why the constitutional questions which draw native people here from across this country are so central to the human, social, and economic problems which have been discussed throughout this day. The Indian, Inuit and Métis people of Canada regard themselves as being part of a community, with community or tribal rights as well as individual rights. These people cannot be taken out of their history. Their history rolls out of their imagery, it rolls out of their language and out of their connection with the land which was once theirs alone. To most of us whose ancestors came after the aboriginal peoples, a constitution is a document of convenience, a way of ordering our lives. To the Indian and Inuit people, the Indian Act and the treaties are the only guarantees of their survival against a majority culture which, by threat of arms or guile of argument, took their lands and their livelihood and, inexorably, took their dignity. What they have left as a people is memory and legal claims and status which they feel are menaced by this constitutional approach. And now, happily, a growing pride and a growing sense of purpose. I make the point that their documents are more important to them than our constitution is to us. If we say that their rights can wait while language rights are addressed, we are saying that guarantees which are sacred to them are secondary to us. Naturally, for the Parliament of Canada to say this will only breed anger and resentment. But, more dangerous still, that approach could destroy the growing sense of pride which is the only way this original Canadian people can find the will to work its own way back from the despair which causes indolence, alcoholism, prostitution and those shocking facts of infant mortality. I am no romantic about Indian affairs. The mythical days of Crowfoot and the other ancient chiefs are long gone, together with other myths.
Indigenous Relations
215
But a people remain; a people as innately strong as any other, a people who once owned this continent and managed it well, a people who, like any other, can lift themselves up only if they start with dignity. In his days Chief Crowfoot commanded the plains and foothills where my father and I were born. When I was young and growing up, the people of Crowfoot had fallen from the pride which he symbolized. But in these last two decades, that has changed and the pride and strength that ruled a continent is becoming evident once more. If we worry about young people dying, about unemployment rates that can sometimes be in excess of 80 percent, and if we want to reverse the shameful legacy of the reserve system then we must encourage that pride and that strength where we find it. We must encourage local native leaders to lead. That is why the tool of economic development exercised with local autonomy is so important, and that is why the rights, the source of identity and dignity of our original people cannot be treated by the Parliament of Canada as something secondary. In our judgment, particular programs in the Department of Indian Affairs are wrong because they have turned away from the idea, the ethic, that decisions are more effectively taken when they are taken by band councils with local knowledge and local responsibility. But what is most wrong is that the priority we have given the Indian and Inuit people, who are the special responsibility of this Parliament of Canada, is too low. Their standing, in our view, their place in the work that we undertake, the priority which we assign them, is wrong. This must change if we are to accept our responsibilities as a Parliament to the native people of Canada for whom we are the only and ultimate guardians and spokesmen.
216
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
Recognition of Aboriginal Rights House of Commons Debates 11 April 1973 29th Parliament, 1st Session: Volume 3, 3219–3221 Mr. Joe Clark (Rocky Mountain): Mr. Speaker, I think that since all parties in the House have now had an opportunity to express their views on this resolution, and since we are all anxious that it be brought to a vote as quickly as possible, if there is agreement in the House that we now proceed with the vote I am prepared to sit down. Mr. Lalonde: If you have anything to say, say it. The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel): I was not in the chair when the hon. member made his proposal, so would he please repeat it? Mr. Clark (Rocky Mountain): Mr. Speaker, my proposal was that if it was agreeable to the House that we proceed immediately with the vote, I will surrender my time and sit down now. The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel): The hon. member might make that suggestion, but it is not the responsibility of the Chair to find out whether another hon. member wishes to speak. I do not think the procedure that we have followed in the past should be forgotten, namely, that any member of the House is entitled to express his view on any subject matter before the House. If the hon. member wants to take the risk of not participating in the debate, he can do so. Mr. Clark (Rocky Mountain): Mr. Speaker, I take it that my hon. friend in the Liberal ranks is rising to speak and thus prevent a vote by talking the motion out, so I shall proceed. I was interested to hear the minister say that his government had recognized the rights of the native people as never before. I am moved to comment that his method of recognition is so original that it is invisible. Certainly he has not been in touch with very many of the native groups which have made special recommendations. I have just had a note that the Union of British Columbia Chiefs have yet to hear from this government. Although the minister said he has been in touch with the province of British Columbia in regard to their representations, he has not been in touch with the native people themselves. I also think it was a signal accomplishment for the minister to be able to speak beyond his time in this House without referring for one
Indigenous Relations
217
instant to the resolution that is before us, because what the resolution asks, and all that the resolution asks, is that this House recognize the concept of aboriginal rights so that the proceedings of the committee and the deliberations of this House will have some authority and we can proceed with our discussion knowing we are discussing something that has a point to it, knowing that this is not just another aimless study of the matter. I want to put this debate in context. I think we recognize, as my colleague from Kingston and The Islands (Miss MacDonald) has suggested, that governments in other countries are taking native claims seriously and are starting down the road to settlement at the very time that we in Canada, under this government, have been turning away from the road to settlement and backing away from some recognition of aboriginal rights. I think we acknowledge, and without very much pride, that the native people of Canada in times past were victims of white trickery, when land rights and other rights were often traded for blankets, beads and other pittances. I suggest that the treatment accorded to our native people now is no less shameful. There has been the fraud of consultation in preparation for the white paper, now thankfully withdrawn. There has been the establishment of the claims commissioner who has to his credit now one settlement of one ammunition agreement concerning one treaty in Alberta, but who has clearly been established to delay settlements of claims, not advance them. There has been the shameful treatment of native people in the area of James Bay, an area where the minister has a clear responsibility to help an unsophisticated group of native people who are threatened by a government-sponsored corporation. The minister’s only response has been to give these people a little conscience money to get them into court, so that he and his colleagues can escape discussion of the question on the ground that it is sub judice. I hope that the minister might apply some of his own responsibilities to end native people’s representations with the moral fervour that he has brought to the suggestions of the government of the province of Quebec regarding what they should do after the fact. That is the context of trickery within which we now debate. I think the significance of that is not merely that the government is acting, if I may use the minister’s own word, irresponsibly; the real danger is that the native people cannot be expected to put up forever with this kind of duplicity. No group would. But the native people have before them the temptation to respond with violence when gentler methods fail. They
218
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
have the lessons of other countries where other minorities have felt they were being deceived, and so responded violently. I think the minister drew a red herring deliberately when he suggested because there are regional differences we cannot act in support of this resolution, indicating a commitment to the principal concept of aboriginal rights. There is a need to establish aboriginal rights under a national policy which recognizes the elementary principle that aboriginal rights exist. It is simply a falsehood, I suggest, to say that we cannot proceed now to enunciate that commitment of having a national policy because individual settlements that might occur will differ from region to region. It seems to me the one remarkable fact about Canada’s native leadership is the strength with which they have resisted the temptation to abandon consultation. They have put up with far more than many other groups in Canada would have accepted. I ask if you can imagine the Canadian Labour Congress or the Canadian Chamber of Commerce coming back in good faith to deal with a government which has consistently deceived them? Yet the native people, with their present leadership, have come back and are prepared to negotiate in good faith in spite of the way they have been treated before. I simply suggest that their moderate response cannot be counted on forever. There is a matter related to this which I want to raise. It has to do with the fear, by many white Canadians, that Canadian Indians have been so broken down by the paternalism of the department they will never be able to stand on their own feet. If that is true, it is a tragedy. If it is not true and if, as we believe, people who have been victimized by paternalism can be brought back to pride and independence, then surely it is time to start. If we hope to end a system of paternalism whose cost is extravagant both in dollars and in dignity, surely we must begin by dealing seriously with the native people. That is what this resolution proposes, a beginning. It proposes simply the recognition of a concept of aboriginal rights and a recognition that there is a claim here to be settled. The minister, for reasons of his own, is proposing that the resolution involves much more than that. In his celebrated television interview he said, “There are some cities that have been built on land that is perhaps not Canadian land.” He went on to suggest that there might be a claim for the whole of the province of British Columbia. That is simply a scare tactic. It is simply a device, well known in this parliament and that party, of taking the most extreme possible consequence, pretending it is the
Indigenous Relations
219
norm and using it to scare people, thus avoiding honest debate. This is the resort either of a desperate government which knows it has no case, or an arrogant government which does not care about the facts and which would dismiss contrary opinion by saying, as the minister said of one of his colleagues during that television interview, “He does not know very much.” The tragedy is that the minister can scare Canadians. If he wants to arouse false fears, this clearly is an issue where he can do so. Not only can he arouse fears, he can animate a prejudice against native people which we would be some time settling down. I personally hope the minister will abandon that course on which he has begun and will focus on the issues we must face, rather than the fears he can arouse. I want to repeat the fact that acceptance of this resolution means only the acceptance of the concept of aboriginal rights. No cities are in danger. No province is to be given back to the Indians. At this stage there is not even a commitment to dollars; there is simply a commitment to deal in good faith and as equals with people who have claims older than any other claims this parliament considers. This will be a long process, a process of years rather than months. That is one reason it is so urgent to make a formal beginning now and not to continue to delay. The issues involved are serious. The settlement, when it comes, could involve the payment of millions of dollars—the end of the costly and colonial dominion of the department of Indian Affairs, the recognition of historic rights and the re-establishment of the dignity and sense of worth of hundreds of thousands of native people whom our society has abused. These issues are more than serious; they are also inescapable. At some time some parliament of Canada must face the issues involved in aboriginal rights. No magic is going to spirit these issues away and no mere lawyer, even if he is also a prime minister, is going to dismiss them with ingenious argument, because these issues are based on claims which are rooted in the history of the country and perhaps in her conscience. If they cannot be resolved by negotiation, in an atmosphere of mutual trust and goodwill, they will arise in other more inflammatory ways. So the real question about aboriginal rights is not whether we will face them, but when and in what spirit. Delay might appear to buy time, but it is more likely simply to destroy the good will which still characterizes most of the native leaders of Canada, in spite of the treat-
220
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
ment which too often they have received. Of course, the people who must be convinced about aboriginal rights are not the native people but the whites. The time will come when parliament and the government will have to advise native leaders about certain realities within the white community, namely, what we think we can afford. No doubt that will be difficult, although it will be easier if native leadership is reasonable, as generally it is today, than it would be if we drive out reasonable leadership. But the case which the government and parliament must make today is to the white Canada, and there is no doubt that many Canadians outside the native community are concerned about the concept of aboriginal rights. I think their concern is based upon two fears: first, a fear that any settlement might be too extravagant for the national treasury to bear; and second, a fear that any payments made under a settlement would be wasted, spent foolishly by people who have not yet learned to manage their own affairs. I want to address myself to those two concerns. First, it is important, as we begin the formal stage of this debate, to make it clear to everyone concerned that there are limits upon the settlement the national treasury can afford. We do not intend to give away the country, or give it back, depending on your point of view. What we seek is a fair and reasonable settlement and it must be fair and reasonable to both sides. On the question of costs, the point deserves reiteration that we are involved in costs now, heavy costs. In direct dollar terms, the annual budget of the Department of Indian Affairs, as the minister so readily boasts, involves the expenditure of hundreds of millions of dollars each year. In indirect dollar terms there is the high and recurrent cost of provincial welfare and other programs serving native populations. In human terms, which dollar calculations cannot compute, we pay the staggering price each year of human potential wasted or destroyed by an imposed system which neither challenges the individual Indian citizen nor allows him to follow the course he would choose. So there are high costs today, and while a settlement based on recognition of aboriginal rights would not suddenly eliminate those costs, or perhaps even eliminate some of them, it would lead to the extinguishment of some existing claims and could lead to the breaking down of the hand-out psychology which has made too many native people the wards of state instead of contributing citizens. This brings me to the second fear of many white Canadians, the fear
Indigenous Relations
221
that native people cannot manage their own affairs or do not want to. It is an inescapable fact, in my province at least, that this fear is greatest among people who live closest to reserves. They have simply seen too much evidence of Indian people whose behaviour confirms the unhappy stereotype of the lazy Indian. It is my experience that the anger of the whites toward the lazy Indian is mild when compared to the anger and resentment of industrious Indian leaders and people. It is also an inescapable fact that, while examples can be found of lazy Indians, so can examples be found of industrious and creative citizens. We meet them virtually every time the standing committee assembles and every time we visit reserves. In a sense, the industrious Indian is the more to be marvelled at because he has overcome a system of paternalism which is designed to break down dignity and independence. Anyone acquainted with the treatment of native people in Canada must at least accept that lazy Indians are lazy because we made them so. This is a condition which white society and the predecessors of this parliament have helped to create. We have established and imposed a system which has locked too many Indian people into the stereotype and into the fact of aimless dependence upon the state, and the architects of that system are at least as much to blame as its victims. There is no point in laying blame upon the past, but surely we cannot refuse to deal with the just claims of Canada’s Indians simply because some of them have slipped into the trap of dependence which our society helped to set for them. To do that would be to guarantee that Canada’s Indian people will never escape a welfare trap unless they do it violently. Indeed, that might amount to an invitation to violence, because our refusal to deal reasonably with the moderate men and women who constitute much of the modern leadership of Canada’s Indian people would almost certainly undermine the authority of these leaders and set up less responsible replacements. At the least, such a response would break the growing spirit of Canadian Indian people to stand on their own and make their own contribution as individuals and as a people to the development of Canada. In fact, one consequence of the eventual settlement of aboriginal claims is that Canadian native people will then be forced to stand on their own, because once the settlements are made, the claims are gone. If money received in settlement is wasted, that will be it. There will be no big brother to go back to. Knowing this, knowing that the settlements which are reached will have to be lived with, will itself force native people to face basic questions about their status, about the reserve sys-
222
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
tem, about other matters, and force them to face those questions with a seriousness which cannot exist in the present phony atmosphere of so-called consultation, when they naturally believe their opinions are being sought only to be ignored. What the settlement of aboriginal claims will mean to the Indian people is not simply money or land but, more important, responsibility in a much fuller sense than exists in the paternalistic system we have today. Beyond that, a recognition of aboriginal rights is a matter of simple justice, made more urgent by prolonged delay. These are the people who first occupied this land. We took it from them, seldom by conquest, sometimes by agreements which were unfair then or are inadequate now, sometimes without settlement at all. After taking this land, we took their dignity and independence. In simple terms, we owe a debt. If we believe in any sort of justice in society, we must recognize our obligation to Canada’s native people. The way to begin that movement toward justice and responsibility is to deal with Indian people as though they are capable of responsibility; to deal with them as we would deal with other Canadians who have a claim. This resolution today asks no more than that, and we in our party believe that the Parliament of Canada can do no less.
7
Openness One of the principles of democracy is to have a government that is open, accountable and transparent. In order for it to be accountable, citizens need to be informed. Joe Clark, from his earliest days in parliament, wanted to ensure parliament was open and accessible to Canadians. He maintained that a government must remain honest about its dealings between citizens and their representatives. This is especially important in a parliamentary democracy, given its conventional and organic (as opposed to codified) nature. The role of convention can contribute to opacity as the steps taken by a government in actions such as appointments are never explicitly laid out. For Clark, this was not good enough for Canada or its system of responsible government. In the first speech in this chapter, Clark defended the rights of the House of Commons. He argued that it should not simply be left to the whims of the government of the day to decide what the people’s representatives in parliament are allowed or (more importantly) are not allowed to see. Clark was surprised, as a relatively new MP, “at how often I am told that the public business has to be kept from me, that I cannot be told about this or that, that I cannot be trusted with certain information.” The lack of transparency was evident in a number of ways that included not only in what could be discussed in the House but also if major policies would be announced in the House, thereby circumventing debate. And while Clark did acknowledge that “a degree of confidentiality, has, of course, to apply” he held that governments could do much better, and were often hiding behind convention and privilege. In addition to circumventing the people’s representatives, governments would often not be entirely honest with their image presented to the Canadian public. While it was important to tell Canadians what the government was up to, it had to do so in a non-partisan way and Clark recognized that it often wasn’t so. In this first speech, we find Clark disA Man of Parliament; Selected Speeches from Joe Clark, edited by Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon. Montréal and Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press, Queen’s Policy Studies Series. © 2019 The School of Policy Studies, Queen’s University at Kingston. All rights reserved.
224
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
cussing the dangers of propaganda, this time coming from the offices of Information Canada. He regretted that, rather than also attempting to “gather opinions from the country and feed them back to Ottawa” the department was simply a “big machine spewing out propaganda year after year.” The trouble with this was that, as Clark saw it, the one-sided view that materials released could “not be trusted to reflect the facts,” to the detriment of citizens who may rely on that information. All this perpetuated a cynical view of Canada’s democratic system because, in Clark’s words, “you cannot trust politicians to tell the truth.” A certain amount of cynicism in politics may be a good thing. But Clark saw cynicism beyond this threshold as “cancerous,” particularly when coupled with the fact that “decisions are taken by a tight little group whose practices of secrecy allow no ventilation. That is, because of the diversity of viewpoints espoused by the many different regions and peoples of this country, the secrecy demonstrated above and narrow view leads to decisions that do not reflect the needs and requirements of this country, and it can serve to disunify us, perhaps drastically.” In the aftermath of the FLQ crisis in which Clark was speaking, ensuring unity and trust in Canada’s federal institutions was of paramount importance. It was important to Clark that information be presented not only in an open and honest way, but also in a way that was consistent and easy to understand. To this end, the other two speeches included here show Clark discussing and critiquing the arbitrary way in which governments in Canada make their decisions. In the first instance, Clark is discussing an Air Canada contract and the confusing way it was eventually presented to the House of Commons. At first it was considered confidential by the government. However, the next day as if “by some act of magic” it was deemed acceptable to present to the House. Clark saw this reversal as a perfect example of the trouble with government procedure. In that, “it demonstrates, as nothing else can, how arbitrary is the information policy followed by the government and the complete lack of consistency regarding what will be kept secret and what will be made public.” These often-unknown guidelines made it very difficult to hold governments responsible to MPs and to the public at large. In the second instance (and third speech in this chapter) Clark went after Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau himself. Trudeau had appointed Michael Pitfield (a close personal friend) as clerk of the privy council, the most senior civil servant in Canada. Clark saw two main problems in such an appointment. First, because no guidelines were given to the
Openness 225
House for the appointment, it reflected a dangerous new trend in the growth of power of the PMO, a topic dealt with in much greater detail in chapter 4 of this volume. Second, the appointment had the potential to do damage to the civil service as a whole. Clark argued that Prime Minister Trudeau was “bypassing merit, undermining morale, compromising an essential independence, and eroding the protection of regions or groups whose interests are not represented by the political government of the day.” What was at issue here was not patronage, but the integrity of the Canadian civil service. It was because of the above arbitrariness and lack of transparency that during his short time as our prime minister, Clark would table the first Access to Information Act in our country’s history. Unfortunately, because his minority government was defeated soon after this, the bill would die on the Order Paper. However, the bill no doubt had some ideas with bipartisan appeal, as a very similar bill was tabled by the subsequent Liberal government, once again under Pierre Trudeau. And so as was usual throughout Clark’s career, he did not need to be in the PMO to profoundly affect Canadian political life.
Secrecy in Government House of Commons Debates 10 April 1975 30th Parliament, 1st Session: Volume 5, 4697–4699 Mr. Joe Clark (Rocky Mountain): Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by referring briefly to the remarks just made by the hon. member for Welland (Mr. Railton) and to say that I noted, though I was not particularly impressed by, the idea that the public is the patient in its relationship with the Government of Canada. I think the analogy the hon. member used was inapt in that particular, and I do not think it an apt analogy for another reason, that is to say, the reason for which this debate was generated being exactly opposite the case of someone, say, the Secretary of State, going to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang) and seeking a legal opinion. What happened in this case was that the Minister of Justice sought to impose upon his colleague a legal opinion which was not requested. That surely changes any client relationship, even if the client relationship were a valid analogy for keeping from the people and the Parlia-
226
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
ment of Canada important exchanges of which this is only one symbol. The point was made by my distinguished hon. friend from FundyRoyal earlier when opening this discussion, that what is at issue here is not the content of this particular letter but, instead, the practice which has unfortunately become deeply ingrained in the government of keeping information from parliament and from the people of Canada. I am following in this debate, and I am honoured to do so, two hon. members, for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fairweather), and for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin), who have won the respect of parliament and of observers of parliament for their knowledge of the rules and procedures here. I participate as a junior member of parliament who has been surprised in my short time in this House at how often I am told that public business has to be kept from me, that I cannot be told about this or that, that I cannot be trusted with certain information. I am told this often, as we all are as newcomers to this House. As members of the House of Commons of Canada we are in the category of restricted people who cannot be trusted with information. Surely that is a situation which should not be allowed to continue. The problem with respect to the insistence on secrecy does not apply simply to the failure of the government to produce papers. I spoke recently to an assistant deputy minister, someone who, incidentally, is earning more than any of us here, and he told me that he didn’t wish to be quoted but that if he followed the habit around here he would have to stamp “secret” on the toilet paper because that particular classification was so much in use. Mr. Beatty (Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo): Probably because it was bought from a Liberal without tender. Mr. Clark (Rocky Mountain): There are a number of other instances of secrecy here. I want to deal quickly with some of them. The point was made earlier about consultants’ reports. We now contract out a great deal of the responsibility for decision-making to consultants. Nearly a billion dollars is being spent on consultants’ fees. Yet very many of the reports which are received, reports which should be public information, are hidden from us. They are hidden from members in this House. We are not to be trusted. We are not to be trusted with these reports which are provided by consultants, at an annual fee of a billion dollars, to advise the government. That is one instance. I want to go back to something my hon. friend from Peace River mentioned when he talked about the report which inspired the develop-
Openness 227
ment of Information Canada. There was heavy emphasis in that report on a sort of ombudsman role, a role which would not simply involve a big machine spewing out propaganda year after year from Ottawa to the country, but which would somehow go out and try to gather opinions from the country and feed them back to Ottawa. The report envisaged that someone would go out and try to find grievances and make sure they were corrected. But that part of the report was ignored. The part which was acted upon was the part dealing with propaganda. So we have a very serious situation now in which Information Canada only sends out the approved version of information which, in many cases, and I say this with regret, cannot be trusted to reflect the facts. As well, Information Canada has led to an immense duplication of information facilities. For every member of the press gallery there are ten or 15 information officers dumping stuff on their desks, sending out the approved versions, elbowing up to them at the bar of the Press Club to make sure that the approved version is communicated to the country. That is a very sophisticated and large propaganda machine, something which should be of concern to everyone in this House who is worried about the right of Canadians to know what is going on in the country. Another developing practice has been that of making important announcements outside the House instead of inside the Commons. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) today, for example, announced his new economic policy, which I remind hon. members on the other side is an incomes policy. He did not make his announcement here in the House but outside the House. Again, we have witnessed the frequent practice of answers to serious questions being given flippantly in the House so that another means of access to information is cut down. We even get from our distinguished and well-respected Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen), now that there is a fixed time limit to questions in the period, answers given by him to every question very, very, slowly so as to consume as much time as he possibly can. This cuts into our capacity to elicit information through the question period. During the last few weeks a very surprising experience relating to questions of national security happened to be discovered by chance. We were putting questions to an unprepared minister in a standing committee and it came to light that it was the practice to fudge the estimates, not to be honest with the House of Commons and the people
228
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
of Canada in the estimates which were brought forward because the government hides votes for security services in a range of departments. When that matter was raised in the House the minister, the Minister of State for Science and Technology (Mr. Drury), announced the government’s preparedness to set up some kind of arrangement by which members could be briefed on questions of security. Yesterday I sought leave to introduce a motion to urge the House leaders to go ahead with that arrangement. But it was voted down by members of the other side. They did that at the beginning of the question period and then, a few minutes later, talking out of the other side of their mouths, they refused to answer questions on security matters on the grounds that such things should not be discussed in the House. They said under the standing order they should not be discussed anywhere; they said in the question period that they should not be discussed in the House of Commons. It is unfortunately the position of the Government of Canada that important questions relating to security as well as to other matters should not be discussed anywhere. Mr. Speaker, that is not a position which anyone interested in a democracy can accept without a great deal of fear. A degree of confidentiality has, of course, to apply, perhaps in all matters and certainly in security matters. But that is a quite different principle from the principle which is enunciated and illustrated by the government, which says you cannot trust parliament and you cannot trust the people with anything except the approved versions sent out under the imprimatur of Information Canada. I recall in 1968, Mr. Speaker, in the election campaign of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), the heavy emphasis that was placed upon the phrase “participatory democracy.” There was a heavy emphasis placed on getting people involved. Well, we all know that the basic essential element to participation is information. You cannot have participatory democracy, both words, unless the people are informed. If you are going to have the people receive only approved versions, you are going to have participatory something else. It won’t be participatory democracy. The danger is that it will be neither. I make the point—I emphasize it—that it is not just members of this House who suffer from the prejudice which is illustrated in the refusal to publish the letter which gave rise to this debate, it is also the people of Canada generally, and our very system, because as my colleague from Peace River said earlier, the system of democratic and parliamentary government is suffering seriously from the cynicism which has been engendered across this land in part by the feeling that you cannot
Openness 229
trust politicians to tell the truth. They will give a partial truth, or if there is some information which is important for them to keep they will stamp “secret” on it and refuse to let you have it. That is a very serious, cancerous cynicism and it has directly to do, among other causes, with the insistence on secrecy of the government we have today. As a member of parliament who comes from outside central Canada, as one who comes from a rural constituency not particularly well represented in the public service, with views, attitudes and even prejudices which are perhaps not replicated in the senior public service or treasury benches, I want to talk for a moment about the danger of basing decisions upon wrong information. What we have here is not simply a refusal to publish information and to let members of parliament know. What we have here is a situation that ensures that decisions are taken by a tight little group whose practices of secrecy allow no ventilation. There is no certainty that they are acting on premises that are shared in northern Quebec or western Alberta, or in any other part of Canada that is some distance, be it in miles, ideas or views, from the cabinet or senior public service. That, in a country of such diversity and fragility as ours, is a highly dangerous situation, one that I hope my colleagues on the other side, who I believe are worried about unity and the future of this country, will seriously consider, because this insistence on secrecy leads to decisions that do not reflect the needs and requirements of this country, and it can serve to disunify us, perhaps drastically. My colleague from Welland, and the parliamentary secretary who spoke before him earlier in this debate, referred to this letter as being a legal opinion. That happens to be the dodge, or the excuse, in this case. In other cases when there are legitimate demands for information that should be in the public domain other excuses are given for not making the information available. There is always some reason why the practice is not to make the information available to the public. I think the question that we should face is not: is it the practice? Because of course it is. The government has set the practice. It is a practice designed to keep as much information as confidential as possible. Rather the question here is: why are we slaves to that practice? Why do we have it? Clearly it is wrong to keep information from the people of Canada, from the democratically elected representatives of the people. As a general principle I think we would all agree it is wrong. Yet it is the practice. And so the members on the government side of the House allow themselves to be lulled to sleep by the incantation that the wrong
230
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
that we are committing is a wrong that it is the practice to commit. I say that that is not good enough. Clearly we need a society—certainly we need a parliament—where as much information as possible is known. I think others want to participate in this debate, Madam Speaker, so I will stop now by asking the representatives of the government here today: why fear an informed parliament? Why do they fear an informed public? Why insist on a practice of holding back information that would allow the public and parliament to be informed about the facts on which decisions are based?
Access to Information House of Commons Debates 8 May 1975 30th Parliament, 1st Session: Volume 6, 5607 Mr. Joe Clark (Rocky Mountain): Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to take very much time in this discussion since the parliamentary secretary has swallowed his earlier words and is now prepared to table documents which he previously withheld. Because I think it is a remarkable development, I want to deal with the demonstration that is inherent in the action by the parliamentary secretary today and the absolutely arbitrary method in which documents are considered to be confidential. We have a situation here where an Air Canada contract was regarded as confidential yesterday. Suddenly, today, by some act of magic or some magic wand, it is deemed to be acceptable to table it in the House of Commons. Yesterday it was confidential, today we can have it. That indicates how completely arbitrary the position of this government is as to keeping public information out of the public domain. There is obviously no consistent policy on the part of this government regarding information. There is no consistent policy with regard to what is to be held back in the public interest and what is to be made available to the House of Commons in the public interest. We have known for some time that the government has no information policy except as indicated to me by an assistant deputy minister in a senior department, that is, to stamp “Confidential” on the toilet paper or any other paper which happens to be in circulation in the offices. Surely today we have underlined the complete absence of any kind of over-all policy regarding the public right to information. It has been made absolutely clear that the decision whether a document should
Openness 231
be published or should remain secret is an arbitrary one depending on such things as the state of the moon, or which side of the bed the minister or the parliamentary secretary got out of in the morning. Yesterday the document was so confidential that neither parliament nor the public could be permitted to see it. Today, by some magic occurrence, it can be tabled in the House of Commons. I welcome the tabling of the document. I welcome the latter-day conversion of the parliamentary secretary. I hope he does not disappear from our midst as a result of his conversion to the point of view that parliament has a right to obtain information with which it is properly concerned. While the decision is very welcome, it demonstrates, as nothing else can, how arbitrary is the information policy followed by the government and the complete lack of consistency regarding what will be kept secret and what will be made public. It also underlines the futility of the guidelines applied to the release of information. We now know that the only guideline is what members on the treasury benches opposite want to do. In a system which is supposed to be concerned about the informed participation of the citizenry, that is obviously not a proper viewpoint to take.
Appointment Process for Civil Servants House of Commons Debates 4 November 1974 30th Parliament, 1st Session: Volume 1, 1046 Mr. Joe Clark (Rocky Mountain): Mr. Speaker, on October 8 I raised a question with the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). I asked if he would make a statement on motions outlining the principles which were now to be followed for appointments to the senior public service. I drew particular reference to Mr. Michael Pitfield, and asked the Prime Minister to indicate whether that appointment suggested a replacement of the merit system by the buddy system. The Prime Minister ducked that question, and instead attacked my right as a member of parliament to ask about the appointment and credentials of an official who now has more influence than most members of cabinet, and whose only unusual qualification for that office appears to be his personal friendship with the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister indicated that an appointment at that level was
232
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
at the discretion of the government. Of course it is, but it is the duty of this parliament and the members here to question the judgment that is used in exercising that discretion. That is a matter of concern not only to this House, but to people outside, including the Ottawa Journal, which wrote shortly afterwards, and I quote: Prime Minister Trudeau... has shown remarkably bad judgment in choosing an intimate friend for a position so exquisitively sensitive.... A Prime Minister needs to have friends and advisers around him whom he can trust completely, who will give him their first call on their loyalty. But the place for them is on his own staff, not in the public service.
That appointment started a precedent. It is inevitable that when the present Prime Minister leaves, so will Mr. Pitfield. Some other favourite of some other Prime Minister will come in. The senior job in the Canadian Public Service has, by this one act, been made a partisan political position. That act has changed our system of government and, in one stroke, threatened the political independence of the Canadian public service. Mr. Pitfield’s appointment is the most celebrated case, but it is not an isolated instance. That is the matter which is of grave concern to this House. His appointment is part of a pattern of moving political friends into a public service which can be respected and effective only so long as it is free from the suspicion of partisanship. Not only in this last month have we had the appointment of Mr. Pitfield to his high position, we have also had the appointment of Mr. Jim Davey, late of the Prime Minister’s Office and late of the Minister of Transport’s office, to a senior public service position in the Department of Transport. We have seen the hon. Paul Martin dispatched as High Commissioner to Great Britain. These people now enter the public service to join others like Timothy Porteous, Edgar Benson, Mike McCabe, Paul Gérin-Lajoie, and who knows how many others. It is known to this House and accepted that for some time there has been a provision allowing the shifting into the public service of people who have served, in the senior executive capacity, political ministers and others. Because of the salary level at which these people shift, they inevitably go into the public service in a policy position. I placed a question on the order paper to find out how many of these people there are in the public service and what areas of policy they influence. I did this because I think it is highly important to the system.
Openness 233
The practice poses three critical threats to our system. First, it destroys the balance which is so essential between the elected politicians and the appointed public servants. At the same time it threatens and jeopardizes the long range independence of the Canadian public service. The second threat arises because it undermines morale in the service itself. It removes the incentive to excel. Indeed, it fosters an incentive simply to please one’s master because excellence is no longer the standard which determines promotion; it is friendship which is now becoming the standard by which promotion is achieved. The third threat is that it narrows the basis of advice on which national decisions are made. This is a diverse country, and the government should reflect that diversity. But it will not do so if the public service is to be formed in the image of a partisan prime minister. I asked the Prime Minister to tell us the guidelines to be followed in making that kind of appointment. He has given us no guidelines. I also put a private member’s notice of motion on the order paper in an effort to ensure parliamentary scrutiny of the growing powers of the office of the Prime Minister, which appear to be at the root of the problem we face today. What we must consider is not just a question of Mr. Pitfield’s credentials; he is obviously a brilliant person, an able man. Nor is it a question of stopping patronage, which has been going on for ever and ever. The Prime Minister, by this action, by this pattern he has established, is changing the very nature of the Canadian public service and the very nature of our system of government. He is bypassing merit, undermining morale, compromising an essential independence, and eroding the protection of regions or groups whose interests are not represented by the political government of the day. It is regrettable that the Prime Minister should have indicated, in putting aside this question, that he wants no attention paid to the process that is taking place. It is not too much to say that he is achieving by stealth changes of more significance and more permanence in our system than a change of government could bring about. I believe this is an urgent question for the House to consider both in relation to appointments to senior levels of the public service and to the growing power of the Prime Minister, and I hope the answer from the parliamentary secretary will allow us at least to begin the process of examining the way in which our system is being changed.
8
The Constitution The Constitution of Canada was long in the making. First passed into law as the British North America Act, 1867 by the parliament of the United Kingdom, it would remain in London and under its authority for the next 115 years until the passage of the Canada Act, 1982. This “repatriation” transferred amending authority to the Parliament of Canada, added the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and created an amending formula governing future changes to the constitution. What follows in this chapter is a set of five speeches given by Clark to parliament in the deliberation leading up to repatriation as well as the debates, accords, and referendums that followed. In it, Clark emphasizes his vision for a periphery-to-centre, decentralized confederation as well as discussing and arguing for laws and ideas which would eventually become part of the resulting constitution. First in this section and first chronologically is a speech that Clark gave to parliament the day after the first referendum on Quebec independence. He used the celebratory atmosphere to call for a “renewed Canadian federalism” through constitutional change that would create institutions that had the genuine respect of the various parts of Canada. This was a way to harness a post-referendum build-up of good will to create change that better reflected the realities of Clark’s time. Though he mentioned the three main parts of the forthcoming constitutional package, Clark’s main focus was on strengthening parliament, specifically the House of Commons. In this way, Clark sought to reverse the trend of increasing concentration of power which Clark believed may have caused some Quebecers to lose faith in the federal system. This is a trend which still saps support for federalism in Canada today. Of course, having the power to amend a state’s constitution means nothing if there is no mechanism detailing how it would be changed. Therefore, second in this chapter is a speech Clark gave to the House in support of what was then known as the “Vancouver formula.” This A Man of Parliament; Selected Speeches from Joe Clark, edited by Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon. Montréal and Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press, Queen’s Policy Studies Series. © 2019 The School of Policy Studies, Queen’s University at Kingston. All rights reserved.
236
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
formula, known today as the 7/50 rule, stipulates constitutional changes may be made with the consent of parliament and two thirds of the provinces comprising at least 50 percent of the population. This formula was appropriate in Clark’s eyes as it was supported by all the provincial premiers of that day. The Vancouver formula was opposed by Prime Minister Trudeau who was in favour of the Victoria formula which gave a veto to Ontario and Quebec. In this moment, the two visions of the federation are apparent. Of additional note in this speech is the forceful argument Clark gives against the use of closure to stifle parliamentary debate, a protocol he detested from his earliest days of political awareness. Clark remained committed to fighting against executive overreach throughout his political life. The third speech was given in the House a year before the constitution’s repatriation. Clark rails against the dangers of party discipline and federal overreach into areas of provincial jurisdiction and the damage this can do to Confederation. Focusing specifically on the Trudeau government’s attempts to unilaterally patriate and amend the constitution in provincial legal jurisdictions, Clark fought to ensure that party interests did not come before meaningful representation. The last two speeches included in this chapter jump forward to the early 1990s and deal with the Meech Lake and Charlottetown accords and the struggle and politics that surrounded them. Clark, as a minister in the Mulroney government, had returned to the government side of the House and sought to frame the accords not as the end of a chapter, but the beginning of one. Speaking in June 1990, Clark forcefully proposed that passing Meech Lake would be a win for both Quebec and Aboriginal rights. He argues that by passing this accord, legislatures could create “a moment when Canada came to terms with itself and decided to move forward, recognizing that, of course, all was not perfect, but the perfection could not be approached until the country was whole once again.” Fatefully, Elijah Harper did not agree and so Meech Lake died a mere three days later. No matter, for Clark was used to picking himself up after a setback. In a little less than a year, Clark again proposed the importance of Canada coming together despite its imperfection, this time relating to the Spicer commission and Charlottetown Accord. Though it hangs ominously over the speech from our perspective in time, Clark only mentioned the possibility of a federal referendum twice throughout the entire speech. Instead, what he devoted the most time to was considerations of the
The Constitution
237
ways in which the various constituent communities, societies (explicitly mentioning Quebec), and nations might work together with the various governments to create a new political order. But beyond the obviously high-flying and inspirational rhetoric, Clark also acknowledged the compromises each must make to remain a part of the greater whole which conveyed great economic, political, and social advantages. For example, he acknowledged as an Albertan that Western Canadians should accept Quebec as a “distinct society.” And, despite what many settler Canadians thought (and still think), not all issues important to Indigenous nations revolve around the improper use of public money, thus firmly putting the “progressive” in Progressive Conservative. For Clark, the second constitutional round in Canadian history was a chance to entrench a vision of Canadian Confederation. In contrast to the centralized vision of his Conservative predecessor Sir John A. Macdonald, Clark did not want to see the constituent parts of Canada subordinated to Ottawa. Instead, standing as a personification of intra-state federalism Clark attempted to ensure that the voices from outside Ottawa would be heard, be they provincial first ministers or individual private citizens speaking before the Spicer commission. Clark believed that by recognizing the distinctiveness (with a nod to Quebec) and the difference of these voices in the constitution we could be better brought together to strive for our future as one country. It is a vision we are still striving for to this day.
238
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
The Patriation of the Constitution House of Commons Debates 22 October 1980 32nd Parliament, 1st Session: Volume 4, 3936–3940 Right Hon. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition) moved: That this House supports the immediate patriation of the Constitution of Canada, incorporating only the generally agreed upon amending formula known as the Vancouver consensus, so that all other constitutional changes shall be made in Canada by Canadians.
He said: Madam Speaker, I regret that I must rise today to introduce a motion which, I believe, could move Canada from a bitter impasse over constitutional questions in the shadow of the announcement by the government House leader that the Government of Canada intends to invoke the rules of closure to stop the Parliament of Canada from debating the Constitution of Canada. Some hon. Members: Shame! Mr. Clark: I regret indeed that hon. members opposite invoke closure when there have been more speakers on the motion from the government side than there have been from the ranks of the official opposition. This matter will be discussed at greater length in the country and in the House of Commons, as indeed it was discussed during the pipeline debate when closure was used to stop the right of Parliament to debate a matter— Mr. Cousineau: And to filibuster. Mr. Clark: —which would have struck at the heart of the nation. We will discuss it more, but I want to make two points. One is that this is not the normal kind of stoppage of debate we have had. This is the closure of C. D. Howe. This is not the modified Standing Order 75C, so-called. This is pipeline closure. This is the kind of closure which was used, unhappily, in 1957 to try to ride roughshod over the rights of this House of Commons. That is what is being done again today by this government. Some hon. Members: Shame! Mr. Clark: It is interesting to note that the last time this kind of C. D.
The Constitution
239
Howe closure was used, it was used to force upon Parliament changes in the rules of Parliament. It was used then for the first time in the history of the British parliamentary tradition anywhere in the world to change the rules of parliament. Now again that extreme and extraordinary measure of closure—that full force C. D. Howe kind of closure—is being used, to stop debate which has not been excessive, because government speakers have spoken more than hon. members in this party have, it is being used not on a minor matter but on the fundamental law of the land. Hon. members opposite do not want our constitution debated. They want to cut off debate. They want to stop the right of Canadians in Canada’s Parliament to discuss the constitution of this country. That is unacceptable. Mr. Collenette: Rubbish! Mr. Clark: Because we respect both this institution and this nation, for which disrespect has been shown by the actions of this government, and because we respect the constitution of this nation, what we are proposing, by contrast, is a means by which Canadians can act today to bring the constitution of Canada home today so that Canadians can change it here in Canada. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Clark: The motion that we have introduced provides: [Translation] That this House supports the immediate patriation of the Constitution of Canada, incorporating only the generally agreed upon amending formula known as the Vancouver consensus, so that all other constitutional changes shall be made in Canada by Canadians.
[English] This motion calls for the Parliament and the people of Canada to act quickly on the one constitutional question with which virtually every Canadian agrees, that is, to have the constitution of Canada here at home in Canada. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!
240
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
Mr. Clark: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has consistently said he wants our constitution home, I have consistently said I want our constitution home, so has the Leader of the NDP and so has every other member of the House of Commons. What this motion offers is an opportunity to stop talking and to start acting to bring the Canadian Constitution home to Canada in a way that respects the rules and traditions of this House and respects the rules and the nature of this country. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Clark: More than that, this motion today provides a way to ensure that we can work with our constitution once we get it here. It allows the whole Parliament of Canada to approve an amending formula which was accepted in principle by the committee of officials working on constitutional reform through the summer and, even more than that, which was accepted in principle by all the provincial premiers when they met in Ottawa in September, and which was accepted in principle by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chrétien). Some hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Chrétien: Not true. Mr. Clark: Those are matters of Canadian agreement, agreement on having our constitution home, agreement on the Vancouver formula as the way to work with that constitution once we have it home. Unfortunately, in recent days the focus of attention in the nation has been on the disagreements which exist on constitutional questions, disagreements which are deep and which are in danger of becoming even deeper. But we should not let those serious disagreements obscure the fact that very real progress was made this summer, and that Canada is, for the first time in at least a decade, in a position where agreement exists as to both the necessity and the means of bringing our Canadian constitution home. We in this party want Canada to act on that agreement, and our motion provides the instrument to let Parliament start the action to get the Constitution of Canada home so that Canadians can work with it. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Clark: We are all aware in this House and throughout the country that discord and disagreement in Canada on how we should renew
The Constitution
241
our federation grow worse with every passing day. We know that, with budget and energy policy coming, other deeply wounding controversies may well lie ahead of this Parliament and of this country. For the sake of our country, all Canadians must come together on common, solid ground. We must do it free of partisan recriminations, and we must do it free of any kind of narrow perspective. On September 13 the first ministers’ conference broke down. Now is not the time to assess blame for that; we have had enough blaming. It is time in this country for some building, building for Canada. To that September conference all the participants came with packages of reforms which they wanted. Obviously, it would have been the best thing for our country if a balanced, comprehensive compromise package of reforms and improvements in the constitution had been agreed on. But that did not happen, as the House knows. What did happen, however, was the emergence of the Vancouver consensus as a formula accepted in principle by virtually all of the participants in a closed session in September. The formula allows amendments to the constitution, and allows them now, Mr. Speaker, not two years hence. It does not freeze the Constitution of Canada for two years, so that the people of Quebec, who might want more changes are told, “No, you cannot have them for two years.” It does not freeze our constitution for two years so that the people of western Canada who might want changes are told, “No, you cannot have them for two years; it is frozen.” Instead, it gives us a means and an instrument by which we in the country can use and change our constitution right now. It is a device we can use today. It is not a device we must wait for two years to use. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Clark: And as the House will know, that formula also protects the provinces of Canada, because it provides the fundamental guarantee that no province can be affected by an amendment unless it chooses to be affected. Thus does it reflect the essential partnership of Canada. Thus does it respect the essential nature of a federal system. [Translation] There is no ideal formula but that one has the decided advantage of having been approved, in the present context, by all the partners in federation. Given this approval in principle, it is time all partners set aside,
242
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
for the time being, all the constitutional amendments they propose. It is time they join in bringing the constitution back to Canada so that the required changes can be effected afterwards by Canadians, in Canada. Let us ask the British Parliament merely to give us back our constitution with the generally accepted Vancouver formula. Let us make that happen quickly and let us then, without the intervention of another country, promptly update our federative agreement. [English] I cannot understand, Mr. Speaker, why the government insists on a procedure that would have Britain pass amendments to the Constitution of Canada instead of letting Canada pass amendments to the Constitution of Canada. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Clark: Surely, Mr. Speaker, our constitution is our business. We should be dealing with our constitution here in Canada and we should not be waiting two years, we should be doing it now. What is so tragic about the way we are proceeding is that the Government of Canada not only wants the British to change our constitution but wants us to be prevented from working with our constitution for at least two years. Neither of those is acceptable to me. I am a Canadian, I want to have my constitution here. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Clark: I see no reason to wait. I see no reason to put in an unnecessary two-year delay, because we can have our constitution home quickly, we can have an amendment formula agreed to quickly, and we can do it quickly. If this motion is accepted, the will of Parliament will be clear. The will of the premiers is already clear; they accepted in principle the Vancouver consensus when they met in September. Mr. Chrétien: Not true. Mr. Clark: The Minister of Justice says that is not true. But he knows that is true. Mr. Chrétien: Ask Bill Davis. Mr. Clark: He suggests that we ask the Premier of Ontario. The Premier of Ontario indicated, in the last 15 to 20 days, that he is prepared to ac-
The Constitution
243
cept the Vancouver amending formula. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Clark: That is why we have a basis of agreement here. If I could speak of the one provincial government of the party which in this House agrees with the Minister of Justice, the Premier of Saskatchewan, he has indicated that he too would find the Vancouver amending formula acceptable. Those are the facts, and the Minister of Justice, if he has any respect for the truth or the federal system, should accept that fact and act on it. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Clark: Then, with the will of Parliament clear, as it could be if members rise above party and vote to support this amendment, and with the will of the premiers clear, we can work quickly on the details of the Vancouver formula, to which I will come later. Then we can work on amendments which will allow us to begin work immediately to change our constitution here in this country. If that happens, if the House of Commons is prepared to rise above party matters and is prepared to accept this motion which allows the House of Commons to bring our constitution home today with an acceptable amending formula, I believe we can then start immediately, we can start this week. Instead of bringing in closure which will divide this country, we could start this week to have officials sit down and discuss the wide range of amendments Canadians might want. The chairman of the premiers, Mr. Lyon, has suggested that it would be useful to meet again, that we should not write off all the work done this summer, that we should not let the failure of the September conference mean the failure of constitutional reform. He said that there should be more meetings, there should be more discussions. How much more fruitful it would be if those new meetings and new discussions occur in the context of agreement, not only on having our constitution here, but on the formula by which we can have it here? That agreement exists; that agreement exists. Mr. Chrétien: Not true. Mr. Clark: It was accepted in principle by all of the first ministers. The Minister of Justice says that it is not true. Perhaps his boss, perhaps the Prime Minister does not agree with it, but every premier does. Every premier is prepared to accept that formula and to use it to bring the
244
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
Constitution of Canada home. Mr. Chrétien: No, no; it is not true. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Clark: If the atmosphere is positive we can get agreement on constitutional change. If the atmosphere is negative in this country, and it shows that there is a real risk of it becoming deeply negative on this question, on energy questions and other questions, then we will not get agreement on even the simplest kind of changes. That would set back deeply and dangerously the process and the promise of constitutional change in this country. If this motion is accepted, if we bring our constitution home with the Vancouver formula, then we will have both the momentum and the means to achieve Canadian amendments to the Canadian Constitution right here in Canada. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Clark: Ever since the end of the first ministers’ conference we have been calling for precisely that approach: patriate with the Vancouver consensus amending formula and then make changes in the Canadian Constitution in Canada by Canadians. In our view it is undeniably the way to make constitutional change a source of bringing Canadians together rather than driving them apart, because they will be driven apart, and they are being driven apart by the current proposed constitutional resolution of the government. Our views on the dangers for federalism in the proposed resolution are well known, and we intend to keep on making them as forcefully as we can. If we are gagged in Parliament by the use of closure, we will carry our case to the country. A majority of provinces are now testing the constitutionality of this proposal in the courts. It is not just a few provinces but a majority of the provinces of Canada. Premiers are attacking premiers. Federalists in the province of Quebec are disastrously divided, to the joy and to the benefit only of the separatists of the province of Quebec. Western Canadians and Atlantic Canadians justly resent the second-class status and the third-class status of their provinces inherent in the Prime Minister’s redesigned Victoria amending formula. All provinces have just cause to fear the dangers to the basic federal character of Canada in the proposed section 42 where a federally written, federally timed referendum could allow Ottawa to go around
The Constitution
245
the other order of government entirely. Plans for provincial referenda multiply. What kind of a situation will we have with different levels of government asking different questions on the same subject of the same people, and getting different answers? What will that lead us to here in this country? It will lead us to chaos in this country, constitutional chaos in this country. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Clark: We have no need for that chaos because we have the means here for agreement. There is a Canadian will to have our constitution at home. There is a Canadian way to have our constitution at home in the Vancouver amending formula. What is needed is a willingness on the part of the Liberal party to rise above narrow partisanship and to support this principle which will let Canadians have their constitution home. Why does the Liberal party oppose having Canada’s constitution home this week? Why does the Liberal party oppose the amending formula which is accepted by all the first ministers? Why is the Liberal party standing in the way of the people of Canada having the constitution of Canada here at home so we can amend it, live with it and work with it in Canada? Why is there that kind of opposition? There should not be. What we need, instead, is a determination to move forward now, immediately, to bring our constitution to Canada in a way that we can work with it in Canada. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Clark: The government can introduce closure if they will. They intend to do that with the respect for Parliament that was shown by the late C. D. Howe. That is their intention. An hon. Member: What respect do you have when you filibuster? Mr. Clark: They talk about a filibuster. This must be the first time in the history of Canada or in the history of the British parliamentary system that anyone has talked about filibuster when the government has spoken more than the official opposition. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Collenette: Not true. Mr. Clark: I will admit that the speakers of the official opposition have made more sense than the speakers of the government party. There
246
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
have been 19 Liberal spokesmen and only 18 Progressive Conservative spokesmen, and they call it a filibuster. Mr. Collenette: What about the NDP? They are part of the opposition. Mr. Clark: The Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Collenette) suggests that the NDP should be considered part of my party. I am not exchanging letters with the hon. Leader of the NDP (Mr. Broadbent). Some hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Clark: But I say to members like the hon. member for Yorkton–Melville (Mr. Nystrom), the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Hovdebo), members who, I know, are concerned about the substance of the resolution brought forward by the government, and to members such as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) who, I believe, would be opposed to closure on a constitutional question, that I hope when the time comes for them to cast their votes at a quarter to six this afternoon they will consider whether they want to invite deep rancour and deep division in this country by proceeding both with closure and with a constitutional package they know is divisive, or whether they would prefer to adopt the motion before the House now which would let the Parliament of Canada act today to bring the constitution home immediately in the way that Canadians want. There are a number of merits to the constitutional amending formula which has been agreed to by the premiers. Of course one merit is the single fact that it has been agreed to. When all of the conditions that were uttered at the first ministers’ conference are set aside, when all connections to any packages are put aside, the House must ask the question: why was that formula given virtually unanimous approval in September? Why did it emerge as the only focus of ministerial consideration this summer? Why was the Victoria formula of 1971 not that focus? Why did Premier Davis just the other day acknowledge that he understood the Victoria formula was no longer acceptable? What other generally agreed on formula has ever emerged over all the last several years of debate? The Vancouver consensus is the inescapable amending formula in 1980 for this country. It is the only formula that seeks harmony in the federalism of Canada and allows unity in the national life of this country.
The Constitution
247
[Translation] The Vancouver formula applies to the realities of the day and will allow us to build the Canada of tomorrow. At present, it provides the constitutional changes may be made with the consent of Parliament and two thirds of the provinces comprising at least 50 percent of the population. However, if the amendment approved by the required majority concerns first, the powers of a provincial legislature to make laws, second the rights and privileges granted or guaranteed by the constitution to the legislature or the government of a province, third the assets or property of a province or fourth, the natural resources of a province, dissenting provinces may dissociate themselves from the amendment which would not apply in their case. [English] I want to emphasize that among those advantages of the Vancouver formula—I draw this to the attention of my colleagues in the New Democratic Party—there is a clear guarantee of natural resource jurisdiction. It is not a guarantee which can be overriden by a referendum triggered unilaterally without any other cause than the will of the Prime Minister. It is a guarantee that will endure. It is a guarantee that provinces can count on unless they choose themselves to surrender or to modify that situation. The words which I have just used to describe that proposal are drawn from the report to the first ministers by the continuing committee of ministers on the constitution, a committee which I must say was ably co-chaired by the hon. Minister of Justice and by the attorney general of Saskatchewan. There remained some details to work out, especially concerning how to deal with amendments of universal applicability, which cannot be subjected to opting out, whether constitutional provision should be made for the financial implications of opting out of amendments. Those are details. Those are details which can be dealt with. The Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) and the Minister of Justice propose to use closure to stop Parliament from debating a matter when the government spokesmen have out-numbered the spokesmen of the official opposition. The Minister of Justice is skeptical that we can work out those details. I have faith in Canada. I have faith in the capacity of Canadians to work out those details.
248
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
Some hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Clark: What is more, I believe Canadians should be given the chance. Why leave the decisions to the British? We are an independent, sovereign country. I want us to act like Canadians, not like colonials. This provision would allow us to do that. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Clark: Various proposals were suggested in the continuing committee’s report, and it seems clear that final agreement was clearly within reach with no fundamental issue of principle threatening to polarize or divide opinion. In our view those final stages of negotiation could be completed in short order. No participant in the September conference has suggested otherwise. Perhaps the Minister of Justice will today, but it will be the first time because he has not suggested otherwise before, nor have the representatives of the premiers. We do know that the Prime Minister himself was prepared to accept the Vancouver consensus if—and he applied a condition—he got agreement for his package of constitutional changes. And I cannot believe that he would have taken that position concerning an amending formula that was neither sensible nor workable. He was bargaining with it. He was bargaining with the Vancouver formula but, by being prepared to bargain with it, he knew that if his bluff was called, if there was agreement with this price, then he would have to deliver on the package. So clearly on the question of principle, on the question of the merits, the Prime Minister of Canada himself accepts the Vancouver amending formula, as did every other first minister at that table in September. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Clark: Indeed, the government’s leaked memo is at pains to list several advantages to the formula, advantages to Canada, and to minimize the disadvantages. One disadvantage, which the Prime Minister has talked about since that time, is that the opting-out formula might lead to what he calls a checkerboard effect. On page 28 of that leaked memo it said: No amendment could be made without the consent of Parliament. So there would be a federal check on any checkerboard effect that might be brought about by “opting out”: that is Parliament or the government could decline to proceed with an amendment where the provinces did not all agree.
The Constitution
249
Finally, the government’s advisers from the Department of Justice contend that—and again I read from page 29 of the document: —if the provincial consensus (on the Vancouver formula) … holds, the federal government could consider joining the majority position.
That was the secret advice, the secret decision of the Government of Canada prior to the first ministers’ conference. Why will they not accept in public what they accepted in secrecy? Why will they not let Parliament act today on a formula which they were prepared to accept in September? What has changed? Why do they want to stop Parliament from acting now to have our constitution here in Canada where we, in Canada, can work on it? The secret document went on to suggest appropriate arrangements on the side of details referred to earlier. We know now that the provincial consensus on the Vancouver formula did hold. But the Prime Minister would not agree to join that clear consensus without agreement on his package. It was then the Prime Minister who stopped agreement. As I said earlier, no partner in our federation should now hold all of Canada up to ransom for their own hidden agenda items. The way lay open in September to patriation with the Vancouver formula. It lies open now. And beyond that achievement, which could be finalized in all stages in a matter of weeks, lies the prospect of having the means here in Canada for Canadians to amend our constitution, free from hidden agenda, free from veto, free from referenda, which could override the provinces and destroy the nature of the federal system, and free from blockage. I believe we have a great opportunity here today to make the most out of unusual circumstances. There is great hope among the people of Canada that we can get an agreement on constitutional change. I remember going into the province of Quebec during the referendum campaign and speaking sincerely about the need for constitutional renewal. I know the attitude in western Canada, the region of Canada from which I come. I know there is a deep sense there that change is needed. I know that in every corner of this land there is a determination to end the colonial system that leaves our constitution in another country and that permits decisions affecting us to be taken by another government. There is a desire to have Canadians act, not only to bring our constitution home but to have it here where we can work with it. The Prime Minister has amendments that he wants. The Leader of the NDP has amendments that he wants and I have amendments that I
250
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
want. Premiers have amendments that they want. They can all be dealt with here in Canada and they can be dealt with in accordance with the Vancouver formula. I know I am approaching the end of my allotted time, and so I will conclude by saying that everyone in Canada wants to have constitutional change. Everyone in Canada wants to have our constitution here at home. The reason there is opposition to the government proposal is that they want to have Britain make changes which we believe should only be made here in Canada. They want to continue a colonial status which we want to end. But instead of holding up the House of Commons in debate, our party is today proposing a means by which the Parliament of Canada can act to bring the Constitution of Canada home, to be amended in Canada. It can be done if there is a will in the House of Commons to do it. I pray that there is that will, so that Canadians can change our own constitution here in our own country. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!
Meech Lake Accord House of Commons Debates 20 June 1990 34th Parliament, 2nd Session: Volume 10, 13055–13058 Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs): Mr. Speaker, let me begin, if I may, with the words uttered by my friend from Churchill as he concluded. He is, as he knows, a member whom I respect in the House. He said that the work of the last three years has been wasted. I think that is precisely the question that we are debating here tonight, whether or not the work of the last three years has been wasted. I think that there is a genuine feeling throughout this House that it would not just be a shame, it could almost be a tragedy if that work were wasted. There has been talk here, rather to my surprise, of bullying and of blame. As someone who has been involved in these discussions and these negotiations, and who is not myself blameless, I can certainly say that if blame were our purpose I could give you a list as thick as the Toronto telephone directory of people to whom blame can be ascribed. But surely that is not our purpose because that takes us nowhere. What we want to do now in these last hours of this debate is find some way which we can bring Canadians together to achieve, not an end, but
The Constitution
251
to achieve a beginning, first, of constitutional renewal but then, and I think this is a much larger question, the beginning of a process of national renewal because none of us who has lived these last months can doubt that there are profound problems in this country that go beyond disagreements that arose in a particular negotiation among First Ministers. These are the last hours of this debate. It is a question that is of fundamental importance to the whole country. By the turn of events the last debate will occur not in this Parliament but in the legislatures of Manitoba and Newfoundland and Labrador. I certainly do not take my place in this Chamber to try to lecture the elected members of those two legislatures. I know better than that. I tend to share something of the view of my colleague from Churchill with regard to the counter-productivity of one legislature trying to lecture another legislature. It is not any more helpful in politics than it is in other aspects of life for people to undertake that sort of conduct. But, sir, I think it is, on this question that is so fundamental to the country, legitimate that we express our views in these final hours in the hope that our views might be useful to the individual members of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba and the individual members of the House of Assembly of Newfoundland and Labrador who have this final decision to take. Let me begin with four propositions which inform my approach to this crisis in our national life. First, I believe that we are the luckiest country, the luckiest people in this world. Some of that good fortune we have earned ourselves. Some of it was given by God or was earned by others before us who surely have a right to expect that we would treasure and respect what it was that we inherited. Second, there is an anger and a distemper in Canada that is more widespread that I can ever remember before. Hatred, sir, is not too strong a word for some of the emotions that I have seen and heard. Obviously, anger that strong reveals a frustration that is profound and that is personal and we must all ask ourselves seriously why people are so angry and what we need to do to rebuild the basic bonds of goodwill that any community needs to hold itself together. We cannot repair anger by blaming others for it, but if we do not repair that anger it will feed, it will grow and it will tear this country apart. Third, Meech Lake has become far more than a document signed by First Ministers. It is a symbol. More accurately, it is several symbols. For Canadians who oppose it, it is a symbol of something they dislike—a
252
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
process, a government, a perceived unfairness; for some, unfortunately, a people. For the wider world it is a symbol of the stability of Canada, whether we are a country the world can count on or a risk. For many Quebecers the symbol is direct and it is personal. Acceptance or rejection of Meech Lake is seen as acceptance or rejection of Quebec; not Quebec as the author of five conditions, not Quebec as a participant in an amending process, but Quebec as a partner in this country. I have heard opponents of Meech Lake tell me that if Meech Lake is rejected Quebecers would be angry for a while and then would forget. Well, sir, I do not believe that. Of course, I can be wrong, as we all can. But I have spent three decades in national affairs trying to understand what makes our different communities work and work together. All of that experience tells me that this rejection of Quebec as a partner in Canada would damage this country permanently. I have no right to decide for others, but I pray that Canadians whose decisions might affect Meech Lake would consider my view and would consider the consequences if I happen to be right. The fourth proposition concerns aboriginal rights which appears to be the issue which was causing people to urge Elijah Harper to stop constitutional reform. I have some history on the question of aboriginal rights. In 1973, Flora MacDonald, Frank Howard and I moved a motion that caused the first acceptance by a parliamentary committee of the concept of the legitimacy of aboriginal title. I have been involved throughout my public life with native people. I simply cannot understand the logic which says Meech Lake must be killed in order to advance aboriginal rights. Killing Meech Lake has the opposite effect. It makes action on aboriginal rights more difficult to achieve. Aboriginal interests are, by definition, constitutional interests. If there is a constitutional impasse, nothing will be done on aboriginal rights. That is not theory, that is history, that is recent history. That is what happened when we tried to deal with aboriginal rights in 1985 and did not have the votes because Quebec, which would have voted for change, was not a part of the Constitution. The only way to make progress on aboriginal rights, on Senate reform or on the other priorities agreed to by the First Ministers is to start with what we have. To reject Meech Lake is to reject progress on aboriginal rights. Anyone who takes that action should be fully aware of the consequences.
The Constitution
253
Sir, I can fully understand why the National Citizens Coalition would act against aboriginal interests, but I cannot understand why Indian leaders themselves would do that. [Translation] Mr. Speaker, the situation is critical. There is not much time left. But there is still time to succeed if we really want to. Meech can still be signed by Manitoba and by Newfoundland and Labrador. It is not over yet. In the last three years, many have said that Meech was dead. Yet, it made it to this day. Maybe there are still some nice surprises left in Meech, one last time! I wish it were so with all my heart, for our greater benefit and for the benefit of our country, Canada. [English] Mr. Speaker, all of us watched, some of took part in that long discussion of seven days and seven nights. The most poignant moment on that ninth of June was when the pen passed to premiers whose earlier positions had put the Meech Lake Accord in doubt. Those premiers, Mr. McKenna, Mr. Filmon and Mr. Wells put their pen to paper at the end of the day, and in so doing demonstrated the best of Canadian qualities. They had travelled far, they had strong views, principled positions and deep concerns. But in the overriding interests of keeping this country together—and I trust that is the overriding interest of all members of this House—they compromised, and all First Ministers compromised. They vowed to take Meech Lake back home, to put it to the representatives of their peoples and to let democracy take its course. Other societies and other countries do it differently. They deny legitimacy to the concept of compromise. They do not accept that different parts of their societies can hold different things to be true. They prefer to resolve their differences through fiat or through fighting. That is not Canada. That is not the unique achievement which is admired around the world without reservation or without caveat. That has not been our experience, and it never can be if we wish Canada to continue. Eleven days ago, eleven First Ministers made a solemn pledge to each other, to the Canadian people and to future generations. The three Canadian premiers who had travelled so far promised to use every means at their disposal to allow their people to decide on their Constitution. That was eleven days ago. Three days from today, Meech Lake will pass
254
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
into history. It will either pass into history as a moment when Canada came to terms with itself and decided to move forward, recognizing that, of course, all was not perfect, but the perfection could not be approached until the country was whole once again. Or it will pass into history as a serious step backward for our country. As was indicated in debate earlier today, and as I believe Premier Wells has now indicated, Newfoundland will vote, either tomorrow or on Friday in the House of Assembly. As the House knows, debate has now begun in the Legislature of Manitoba. That debate was delayed longer than anyone anticipated by procedural difficulties. The fact of that unanticipated and procedural delay has created a special situation that nobody anticipated. There was a commitment to make every effort to ensure that the agreement reached, after careful compromise and discussion in the best Canadian tradition, would be moved through the legislatures of the respective provinces. It is clear that the country is counting on that. Just as procedural moves delayed debate in Manitoba, so surely procedural ways can be found to move debate forward so that the word of the three leaders of Manitoba can be honoured and so that the country can move forward to other priorities, whether those priorities are constitutional or whatever they are. Just prior to the conclusion of the last conference on the Constitution in Ottawa, I spent two days in Europe in separate meetings with the foreign ministers of NATO and of the Helsinki process. Naturally, whatever point I tried to make in advancing the foreign policy of Canada, I was asked about Canada’s problems at home. I was asked by incredulous ministers from Hungary, Germany, the United States, United Kingdom, and Yugoslavia. They could not believe that a country as envied and respected as Canada would put itself at risk, and particularly, that we would put ourselves at risk over the question of how we deal with different cultures. Because that is the signature of Canada, that is the success that is admired around the world, the success the new governments in Czechoslovakia, a united Germany, and a new South Africa, will want to copy. Nelson Mandela left Canada this morning. I had the privilege of bidding him bon voyage. He spoke to this House and to the people of Canada of his hopes for his people. He spoke of a country which would discover tolerance and compromise, which could learn to live in unity, which could consecrate itself anew as a nation among the leading de-
The Constitution
255
mocracies of the world. He spoke of the bitterness, the intolerance, the hatred and the prejudice which have governed South Africa. He spoke of Canada as a society to be admired, a concept which inspired him as he faced the enormous challenges which lie ahead. Nelson Mandela was right. What we have achieved here has been achieved nowhere else on this earth. We are a society of many cultures, many regions, many races. It is a society that has always said yes to compromise and no to intolerance. It is a society which says that different cultures, different regions and different races can more than co-exist; they can thrive and prosper in community with diversity. The history of this remarkable land has been a continuous act of affirmation. We can never forget that the existence of this country was not a given, that the building of Canada has been a task accomplished against the greatest odds; geographic, economic and demographic. Tending the community that is Canada requires great care. How ironic it would be, how wasteful if, at a time when the rest of the world was thrusting forward with vision, the people of this country were to turn away from our strength and our future. The Parliament of Canada has spoken. The Parliaments of eight provinces of Canada have spoken. The premiers of all provinces are committed to letting their people speak. Let that process proceed. Let history judge the results. Let us pray for Canada. Then, together we must define new shared goals for Canada which reflect the new realities of this new world in which we live. Everywhere in this world, there are dramatic changes that shake old conceptions and raise new hopes. People everywhere are hoping to become what we are. That is the reality. There are serious differences in this country. There are serious issues to resolve. We have to find ways to define this country that make sense to all of its people. We have not yet succeeded in doing that. That is what the bitterness of these recent months has demonstrated. In doing that, if we succeed we can preserve one of the most respected nations in the world. That is the issue now. This is the challenge that faces us, the legislature of Manitoba and the House of Assembly of Newfoundland and Labrador who have the right of the final vote to decide the future of this accord, of this process, in many ways perhaps of this country. The next step is for them. I say this as only one member with some experience here; the work is not over for us. Then the challenge to all of us is to recognize that this country is not as united as it needs to be, that the goals we have set for
256
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
ourselves are not as contemporary as they need to be, that the definition of this nation does not mean as much as it should to people in different parts of the country. This is not something which should not cause us to lay blame or to distribute retribution. It should be a challenge to us all, to get on with the redefinition of this extraordinary country. But I fear deeply that, if we fail in the challenge that is before us now, we will not have the opportunity to move to that new agenda.
National Unity and the Quebec Referendum House of Commons Debates 21 May 1980 32nd Parliament, 1st Session: Volume 2, 1264–1267 [Translation] Right Hon. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition): Madam Speaker, I wish to begin my remarks in the House today by congratulating Mr. Claude Ryan and all the members of his team who won yesterday an important victory for Canada after an honest and strong campaign which showed a deep faith in Canada’s future. I also want to commend the role played by my friend, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chrétien), by the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and by all other members who were directly involved in Quebec by their actions or by their remarks in this House during the referendum period. [English] I think that it would be well too to underline that many of the Quebecers, many of the 40 per cent who voted for the “Oui” yesterday in the referendum, were people who were not at all lost to the federalist cause. Many of those who allied themselves proudly and enthusiastically with the “Oui” option did so because, for one reason or another, they had come to lose faith in the force of federalism. I believe we can prove that that faith should not be abandoned among those Quebecers and among others. I believe it is important for Canadians across the country to know that a large number of the 40 per cent who voted for the “Oui” option yesterday are people who can be won back to federalism.
The Constitution
257
I think that we, particularly in this House, and those who serve in governments across the country, should recognize that the obligation is very heavy upon all of us to take a role of leadership in reaching out to those who, for a moment, lost faith in the viability of the federal system and to prove to them by our actions that there is a great deal of room for growth, a great deal of room for their aspirations as Quebecers and as Canadians, to be realized within the context of a broad, large land. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Clark: Also if I may, I want to commend the Prime Minister for acting so quickly after the referendum to set in train activities which will move us quickly toward real progress on the development of a new constitution for the country. I am pleased that the Minister of Justice and Minister of State for Social Development (Mr. Chrétien) will be visiting provincial governments. I would hope that he will not forget to visit the governments of the territories. Mr. Neilsen: Right on. Mr. Clark: In any consultations that carry forward, and in any machinery that is established, I hope there will be an opportunity for the elected members of the Yukon and Northwest Territories Council to play a full and an active role in those discussions. We are dealing with circumstances now which have never before existed in Canada. [Translation] First of all, as the right hon. Prime Minister said during the referendum campaign, the main federal political parties, my party, the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada, as well as the Liberal Party of Canada, have both solemnly committed themselves to a renewed Canadian federalism. The same commitment was made by the provincial premiers who were unanimous in denouncing the status quo. We were sincere in making that commitment and I am confident that the Prime Minister and his provincial colleagues were every bit as sincere as I was when they called for a renewal of the Canadian federation. Madam Speaker, we must make the best possible use of the climate of sincerity and good will that now exists throughout Canada, and see to it that our common objective, a renewed Canadian federalism, is achieved.
258
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
[English] The second circumstance that is new is that, for the first time in a long time, it is my view the public of Canada are now interested in constitutional reform. There is a genuine feeling on the part of Canadians, in whatever province, territory or region of this country, that it is time to bring our constitution up to date with the realities of a modern country. That is true and that is important. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Clark: Finally, a third circumstance that has changed and is significant is that this country, Canada, has changed in the last 20 years. It has changed dramatically. It has changed to the point where old constitutional arrangements no longer fit. In my view it is this last point which perhaps is most important—the old constitution no longer fits the modern country. That is true not just in Quebec but in other parts of Canada where real and profound changes have occurred in the last 20 years. We are not dealing now with an academic matter or a question of interest only to governments. We must bring our way of governing Canada into line with the modern realities of the country. Constitutional forms are an important part of that process. We need a new constitution. I welcome the commitment made by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice which was reaffirmed here today. It is a commitment, which I share, to a new constitution for Canada. We need a constitution that is located here in our country, a constitution that can be amended here in our country, a constitution that guarantees certain fundamental rights, and a constitution that articulates a sharing of powers that is appropriate to a diverse federal country. We now have a climate where that can be achieved. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Clark: But I make the point that more than the law and more than the constitution is at issue here. There must also be a positive attitude among citizens and among governments, an attitude which is consistent with the changes in law and the changes in form. Among the citizens of Canada there is developing an attitude of respect for fellow Canadians of different backgrounds and a growing pride in the diversity and the strength of the Canadian family.
The Constitution
259
[Translation] Perhaps I can speak more specifically of the changes that now exist in Quebec, that exist in the so-called Anglophone community in the rest of Canada, because I am very much impressed by the deep changes achieved outside Quebec especially with regard to the aspirations of the Quebec people and the respect for the French language throughout Canada. There has been a change, a new respect upon which we can build a great country in the future. [English] I must say, however, that while those attitudes have changed among the citizens of the country, it is not so clear that attitudes among governments have changed. I think it is important that we address that question frankly here today. I want to take the opportunity, in the climate of good will and of near celebration that exists in this House today after the referendum results, to point out to the Prime Minister that it would be futile for the Government of Canada to be seeking to draw provinces together to discuss constitutional change if, at the same time, the actions of Ottawa on other fronts were driving provinces and people apart. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Clark: I think we all know that the sense of being a nation is influenced as much by conduct as it is by constitutions. The success of renewal will be based upon genuine respect for the other partners in confederation. It would be both unwise and irresponsible for the Government of Canada, or for the governments of the provinces, to perpetuate an attitude of confrontation, or to seek to resolve legitimate differences by methods which erode trust or make co-operation impossible. Hopefully yesterday’s referendum in Quebec will provide very real impetus to the process of change and renewal. But the desire—indeed it is more than a desire—the demand for change is not simply a matter of that referendum and indeed not simply a matter of that province. It is a desire shared by all of the provinces and virtually all of the people of Canada. That fact must be reflected in the agenda for change which this government now has a responsibility to place before the country. It must be truly a Canadian agenda not simply an Ottawa agenda, a Quebec agenda, an Alberta agenda or a Newfoundland agenda. Other provinces and other regions have specific proposals for change to
260
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
which they are equally committed as Quebecers are, and which they have a right to expect will be debated openly and honestly by all involved in the process. Certainly patriation, an amending formula, and entrenchment of rights are legitimate subjects … more than the constitution is at issue here. There must also be agenda, but so is resource jurisdiction, including offshore resources, so is communications policy, and so are proposals to make some national institutions more effective and more representative of regional realities and regional needs. It is not simply that we have before us a rare opportunity, a rare atmosphere of openness and good will, within which to address the whole Canadian agenda. It is equally that we simply will not achieve a genuine or lasting consensus if some parts of this country or some regions of Canada feel their needs are excluded from the Canadian agenda or are given secondary status in national debate and negotiation. [Translation] I was encouraged by the remarks of the right hon. Prime Minister when he said earlier today that except for the basic principles he mentioned, all the other matters are negotiable because, to my mind, that commitment is essential to the future of the constitutional renewal process, since hon. members of the House of Commons and the Canadian people throughout the land view differently some of the constitutional proposals. [English] For example, I believe the Prime Minister and I have different views about the contribution to Canadian unity of the consciousness of being a people like the Quebecers, or of being a region like the west, or of being a province. I have a sense that he is concerned that these more local loyalties will drain strength from the larger community. I believe they are a source of strength. Some members of his party agree with me; probably some members of mine agree with him. But, that question must be addressed openly by all sides. We cannot let our work be limited by the prejudices of a Prime Minister or a Leader of the Opposition, or anyone else. We are agreed on the framework of the federal system. The people of Quebec yesterday in a massive and dramatic way indicated their agreement with a federal framework, and now we must build and go where the facts of modern Canada lead us in giving flesh and form to that federal system.
The Constitution
261
Some hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Clark: The Prime Minister has indicated his intention to consult leaders of other parties here, and I welcome that. I want to anticipate that consultation and make publicly one suggestion that I think should be very much on the agenda of change. As the Prime Minister and as the House know, one of our weaknesses as a country so far has been our failure, at least to this date, to develop national institutions which genuinely command the respect of the whole country. Some progress has been made. I believe progress was made by the late Right Hon. Lester Pearson and his government with the introduction of the Canadian flag. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Clark: I am delighted to learn that today a Standing Order 43 motion moved by my colleague, the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle), regarding a national anthem for this country, was accepted. But, Madam Speaker, we sit here today in one Canadian institution, the only one that has live and genuine roots in every corner of this land. Parliament itself can become the strongest genuine national institution, but it will not have strength until it has real power, and the tendency of the last several years has been to take power from Parliament and to concentrate it in parties, or concentrate it in government. When we were the government, as the House knows, we introduced proposals for parliamentary reform which were designed specifically to increase the influence of individual members of Parliament, and consequently to expand both the range of advice available to government, and the respect available to this institution. I would hope that the Prime Minister will recognize that one of the ways to connect the parts of this country to the whole of this country—one of the ways to ensure a genuine sense of the Canadian nation—will be to strengthen the most representative and national of our institutions, the House of Commons itself. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Clark: I said frequently during the referendum campaign that the referendum itself was a question for Quebecers to decide, but that the work of constitutional renewal was the work of all Canadians. Yesterday’s vote in Quebec ended the referendum campaign, but it did not end the demand in Quebec for change; in fact, it reinforced it vividly and reinforced it dramatically. That referendum cannot and should not
262
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
be used to silence the aspirations of Quebecers, for in fact it was an expression of faith and an expression of those aspirations. For the rest of Canada the vote yesterday was an expression of pride and belief in this country in which we can all joyfully share. It represents a demand for change in which Canadians have every reason to join and, indeed, which other Canadians have articulated in other ways for reasons of their own, or reasons relating to their own situations. That result in Quebec should be used, if I might employ that term, not to frighten or divide Canadians, and I am happy that there is no hint of that today, but to unite Canadians in a common determination to build a renewed federation which can make this a stronger country, a richer country, and a better country in years ahead. That common determination, Madam Speaker, exists among Canadians; of that I am totally confident. Indeed, as is so often the case, in a very real sense constitutional renewal is catching up to the attitude of Canadians. Canada already has changed and the people of Canada know it. It has changed for the better in our new strengths and our new maturity. What is demanded now; what is fairly and justly demanded of all of us, particularly in this House, is a political system, a federal system, that recognizes the change that is about us, and shapes that change to the betterment of all of Canada. The vote which took place yesterday, May 20, was but a date in a continuing process. It was by no means an end but a beginning, and now it is up to us in this Parliament and in the Parliaments of the territories and the provinces of Canada to implement the changes which are being sought by Canadians all across this country.
The Constitution
263
Repatriation of the Constitution House of Commons Debates 23 April 1981 32nd Parliament, 1st Session: Volume 9, 9442–9446 Right Hon. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to find the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) involved in debate. He usually comes in when the government is in trouble. I have heard the Deputy Prime Minister speak very aggressively, very much on the offensive and very much on the defensive. I find it very hard to recall a time when his speech was more lined with defensive comments than was the case in the remarks he made in the House today. They have a great deal to be defensive about. We are meeting now at the end of one phase of this debate. I must say for my party that we enter this phase of the debate with some pride, because we have waged a fight which has kept this question Canadian. The plan of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) was to have this measure out of Canada by Christmas, to have it decided in Britain before Canadian courts could consider its legality and before Canadian opinion could consider its propriety. As we all know, this Parliament or this institution exists to enact and improve good measures and to stop or delay bad measures. My party and I are proud of the work we have done in having Parliament delay and improve this resolution. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Clark: It is very clear that this most basic Canadian question about our own Constitution remains in Canadian control today only because the Progressive Conservative party stood and fought in the House of Commons and in the country. We have not yet won the war to protect Canada’s federal institutions, although we have made it possible for that war to be won, but we have demonstrated the strength of Canada’s parliamentary institutions. The government used every available instrument, from media manipulation to dishonesty about our diplomatic exchanges, to bulldoze this measure through. This party, with no help at all from the New Democratic Party, proved that Parliament is strong enough to stop bad measures being forced down the throats of the people of Canada. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!
264
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
Mr. Clark: There is one other aspect of this phase of the debate of which I am particularly proud. At a time when Quebec is questioning whether it can find a full future in Canada, the Progressive Conservative party, whose greatest strength is outside Quebec, defended and argued the cause of Quebec when its own elected members chose to be silent. Quebecers have reason to question the wisdom of trusting the Liberals, but, more important, they have proof now that Canadians other than Quebecers, from Alberta, Ontario, Newfoundland and elsewhere in our Canadian family, share and are prepared to fight for the federal principles which are essential to the survival of Quebec and Canada. The Liberal party may betray Quebec, but Canada will not betray Quebec. [Translation] I deeply regret the discipline which the Liberal party has forced upon the elected members of Quebec who, unfortunately, do not speak on behalf of that province in this House. Only the Liberal member for Montmorency (Mr. Duclos) has had the courage to put the interests of his province ahead of the instructions of his party. Mr. Lalonde: Shame! Mr. Clark: The minister says shame. Indeed it is a shame for the members from the province of Quebec to abandon their electors just as the Liberal members have abandoned the electors of the province of Quebec. What an ordeal for the people of Quebec who see the members they have sent to Ottawa to represent their interest, who see their own members remain silent or behave like sheep instead of rising against a measure which threatens the federal system, a system which is so important for Quebecers and for the province of Quebec. Is it not ironic that all members of the National Assembly decried this measure, that all the provincial parties denounced this measure? And yet the members who were sent to Ottawa to make sure that federalism would enable Quebec to grow within the Canadian family, those members do not utter a single word against a measure which undermines federalism, genuine federalism. [English] I recall that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chrétien) used to entertain
The Constitution
265
thoughts about going to the province of Quebec to win a provincial election. Well, he has done that; he and his Prime Minister, by pushing this measure through, have gone to the province of Quebec and have won an election. They won it for René Lévesque and against Claude Ryan. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Clark: It is well for us to review what is at issue here. This resolution proposes bringing our Constitution home; that is a goal which everyone supports. It proposes a means to change the Constitution when it is at home, and everyone agrees that we need an amending formula, an amending process. It proposes a charter of rights, which all parties in Parliament support. Those are the goals. But the issue is that the government has determined to pursue those goals in a way which ignores Canadian history, which abandons Canadian practice, which may violate Canadian law, and which very seriously threatens the future of a united Canada. The Supreme Court of Canada will decide the narrow legal question, although it is worth noting that the Liberal government tried every trick in the book to keep that Canadian question from going before a Canadian court. The legal question is important and it is legitimate. My colleagues and I are pleased that the government failed in its attempt to deny Canadian courts the right to decide the Canadian legal question. However, the court is only part of the process. The court can tell us whether this resolution is legal according to past law and past practice; but only we in this Parliament can decide whether it is good law and good practice for the future of Canada. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Clark: That is a decision for legislators, not for judges. The Supreme Court will decide whether the federal government now has the power unilaterally to change the Constitution in areas of direct provincial jurisdiction. Our decision in this Parliament is whether we want future federal governments to have that power, for that will be the effect of passing this resolution in its present form and through the present process. The Parliament of Canada will be asserting, as the newest and strongest precedent for future courts, that we have the power exclusively and arbitrarily to change any parts of the Constitution we want to change. That is the underlying principle of this measure and of this
266
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
process, and it rips the heart out of a federal system. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Clark: That is not just my view. That is also the view of distinguished Canadian Liberals, who sit among other places in the Senate, where they exercise more freedom to speak their minds. I want to draw to the attention of the House and read into the record the comments, for example, of the former Liberal leader in the province of Ontario, Senator Andrew Thompson, who said on March 2, 1981: Putting it bluntly and simply, my question is: are we keeping our word; are we breaking the rules by which we agreed to govern ourselves in the federation? No matter how noble and worthy the purpose of this resolution—and I believe that what we are trying to achieve is worthy—the end does not justify the means.
[Translation] Here is what former Liberal minister the Hon. Jean-Paul Deschatelets had to say, and I quote: This unilateral project goes against and negates everything in which I have believed, which I have supported and endorsed in all my years in Parliament. If Parliament agrees that we need an amending formula, an amending formula as it remains in its present form, I shall not be able to support it. In my opinion, this unilateral proposal threatens to break up, for all practical purposes, the balance of powers which has always existed between our two levels of government.
That is the opinion of a Liberal Senator, Mr. Deschatelets. [English] Then I quote the remarks made last month by Senator George McIlraith, who served with such distinction for so long in this House, including as House leader on the government side: I have served in Parliament now for the past 41 years. During that time the governments have been headed by five Prime Ministers. I have been a Liberal all my adult life. All of the political leaders I noted earlier in my remarks were leaders I respected and ad-
The Constitution
267
mired. With the exception of Sir Wilfrid Laurier and the Honourable Hugh Guthrie—whom I merely met but could not say I knew—they were friends of mine. Were they all wrong? Were all the leaders of the Liberal party in the past three-quarters of a century totally wrong, or could it be that our present government is wrong in taking a diametrically opposed course of action to the one all those leaders thought necessary and proper? Could it be that the present government is wrong in this attempt to make these basic amendments to our Constitution unilaterally, with a bare majority in the federal Parliament? I want patriation but I cannot acquiesce in the wrong and dangerous course we are being asked to follow in most of the proposed legislation before us. In the exercise of my responsibilities as a senator, I have no alternative but to vote against this resolution in its present form.
Thus spoke Senator McIlraith. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Stevens: A great Canadian! Mr. Clark: The Prime Minister has not listened to the Liberals in the Senate. He has not listened to the member of Parliament for Montmorency-Orléans (Mr. Duclos). He has not listened to Claude Ryan. He has not listened to Gordon Gibson. He has not listened to the long list of others in his party who are offended by what he is saying and what he stands for. He has not listened to the elected premiers of the eight provincial governments who oppose his measure. He rejected our proposal in the fall to bring the Constitution home with the Vancouver formula. He rejected our proposal to split the resolution and to send the charter to the provinces for consideration. Now he indicates that he will accept none of the amendments we proposed to improve the charter of rights and respect the federal nature of Canada. Instead of treating the Constitution as though it belonged to the whole country, he has acted as though it is his alone, to change in ways that are his alone to choose. Some hon. Members: Shame, shame! Mr. Clark: The Liberal party lets him get away with it, as does the NDP, sitting complacently back while the constitutional measure which is one
268
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
man’s obsession is forced through this Parliament. I do not begrudge the Prime Minister his place in history, but I would like him to leave us a country to live in when he is gone. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Clark: It is that country which his measure and his method deeply threaten. He has one more opportunity now to prove that his concern is for the country and that his motive is national and not merely narrow and personal. [Translation] The Prime Minister now has a chance to do his duty as a Canadian statesman. He has at least six weeks ahead of the Supreme Court ruling, six weeks in which to try to achieve a consensus. Once the Supreme Court decision is handed down and if the latter asserts the legality of the resolutions, at least as far as its format is concerned, the order of the House will provide the Prime Minister with two days of debate in the House, followed by speedy action in the Senate, and this will conclude the consideration of this proposal by Parliament. This time frame has been set, and we accept it. But it also allows the Prime Minister, without any delay whatsoever, to follow up on the premiers’ initiative. In September, the ten premiers made him an offer. He failed to make a counterproposal. There are now eight premiers who are proposing a detailed amending formula. He does not have to accept it in toto. But we consider it a basis for serious round of discussions, in the same way that we consider the government resolution, including the charter of rights with the amendments we propose, as a basis for serious and reasonable discussions. I maintain that the Prime Minister of Canada has the duty to call a meeting and the right to draw up its agenda. Why will he not call such a meeting? Why will he not respect the federal system? What is he afraid of? He has just been rejected by the people of Quebec. Is he afraid to face the Premier who has just served him a good thrashing? The Prime Minister of Canada should not be afraid of such a meeting. If it does not lead to any agreement, he could then follow up on his resolution unless the court finds it illegal. And if there is an agreement on the procedure to follow with respect to a charter of rights, an amending formula, and perhaps the application of Section 133 to Ontario, he and Canada as a whole will have gained enormously.
The Constitution
269
The Prime Minister should put aside his personal vanity and take advantage of this opportunity to gain so much for Canada. He has the absolute obligation to call a first ministers’ conference. [English] We now have before us amendments from the three parties. I want to deal very briefly with the very skimpy amendments put forward by the Liberal party, by the government. Of course, they come in two batches: the official ones under the name of the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard), and the unofficial Liberal amendments in the name of the New Democratic Party. We want to congratulate the NDP on agreeing with our wording on equality for women in the amendment. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Clark: Of course we shall be voting for that, even though it is tied to a so-called “aboriginal rights” clause which merely requires the provinces to approve amendments to aboriginal rights. What of the official Liberal amendments? Because of our assistance and insistence, particularly that of the hon. member for Provencher, they are grudgingly putting the word “God” in the preamble to the charter. Not with the eloquent and inspiring wording from the Diefenbaker Bill of Rights, with accompanying references in that document, but not in this one, to “the dignity and worth of the human person and the position of the family in a society of free individuals and free institutions,” but instead, words inserted as an afterthought. This is what I find especially reprehensible: they are saying we can have a little bit of God if we accept their amending formula. They ask us to join them in making 70 per cent of the people of western Canada—the population of Alberta and B.C.—irrelevant so far as constitutional amendments are concerned. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Clark: They want us to join them in making those provinces third class in exchange for a reference to God. There is a better way to reflect the supremacy of God in the Constitution of Canada, and that is to accept the amendments in the name of my colleague, the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker). That package respects both God and the federal system. That is the way we should proceed in the Canadian
270
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
Parliament. The amendments which we put forward give proper recognition to the sovereignty of God, the worth of the person and, which is very important, the position of the family in a society of free individuals. The government rejects that approach. It rejects enshrining the right of Canadians to enjoy property. It wants to allow the courts to decide conscience questions for Canadians. It wants the courts to be free to bar Canadians from deciding laws on capital punishment and abortion. For months the government has talked about the tyranny of unanimity and has practiced the tyranny of unilateral action. In the amendments we have put forward, we have offered them a reasonable definition of consensus which we would join with them in supporting, a definition which includes seven provinces representing at least half the people of Canada, acting in concert with the Parliament of Canada. But the government is not interested in that. It is not interested because it does not want a Constitution or a charter of rights that anybody but the Liberals write. It deliberately keeps the charter hostage to a divisive process. It is trying to trade off rights for an amending formula. When the eight premiers met in Ottawa they all dropped their packages and their conditions. The Liberal government does not want to drop its conditions. A Quebec government finally agreed to patriation but the government says, “who cares?” The government wants its agenda in its way, in its time. We will have nothing to do with a process of that kind which is wrong. It is a process which is deeply wrong and is deeply divisive. This government’s preference and guiding star is to proceed unilaterally. It rejects proposals which respect the history and nature of Canada. The government invents new phrases to condemn the enduring realty of a diverse Canada. If “checkerboard” means that different standards apply at different times, at different places, that has always been the case in Canada. That, indeed, was the political principle that allowed medicare to begin in this country. The same principle allows Quebec to enjoy a different pension plan, allows Newfoundland to have a school system different from that of British Columbia, and Ontario a system different from that of Quebec. Some of those differences date from before confederation; others, such as the Newfoundland school system, were specific conditions of entry into confederation. Of course there are differences in Canada. That is our history. That is our nature. To condemn it is to condemn Canada.
The Constitution
271
Some hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Clark: Indeed, one of the most alarming elements of this highly centralist Liberal position is the underlying assumption that difference is dangerous. The Fathers of Confederation believed the opposite when they wrote a Constitution which protected local identities. So did the British parliament well before confederation when it wrote laws which guaranteed the distinct identity of the French Canadian society in Quebec. So do those of us who today celebrate the excitement of multiculturalism, which is the incarnation of difference or respect for diversity, or those of us who cheerfully work to learn a second official language. The Prime Minister and his colleagues like to suggest that they speak for Canada against the provinces. In fact, they speak for official Ottawa against Canada. The Prime Minister and the little clique that advises him will sometime learn, I hope, that there is a Canada beyond Ottawa, a Canada beyond official bilingualism, a Canada beyond a charter of rights. It is a Canada of diversity and emotion, of innovation and of proud identities. Those Canadians cannot all be shaped into the same mould. Mr. Speaker, they should not be, because were they so shaped they would lose the essence and value of this great and unique nation. Our speeches are limited to 30 minutes in this debate, but there is one brief theme that I want to touch on because this has been one other common theme in our history. I refer to the need to have a national feeling that unites us. We know that laws are not enough to unite Canadians; there has to be a feeling of nationality. It is one of the most bitter of ironies that the means the Liberals have chosen with which to impose the centralist view has weakened the Canadian feeling of common nationality. A Constitution which should have been the source of Canadians coming together and growing proud together has instead become the source of division in this country. That is entirely the fault of the way in which the government has proceeded. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Clark: When I hear the Prime Minister speak, as he does at length, and when I hear other members on the government side speak, one word recurs and that is the word “failure.” The Prime Minister speaks of 54 years of failure in constitutional negotiations. He speaks of failure with the premiers. Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister can find failure if he seeks it. The point that must be made is that we have also succeeded dramatically in this country. This has been a country of success when
272
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
governments sought success. It has been a country of agreement when governments and leaders sought agreement. We have faced much more complex questions in the past than some of the questions we face today regarding the Constitution. It was a far more complex matter for the Diefenbaker government to negotiate with the Sauvé government, a means by which federal funds could be made available to the province of Quebec. Yet that was done, overcoming decades of suspicion and reluctance, because there was a mutual will to make the federal system work. It was far more complex to introduce and have accepted a system of medicare across the country, but that was done. And the Canada Pension Plan was accepted across the country because there was determination to seek agreement to go forward. Therefore, when the former government in Ottawa was prepared to seek agreement on a national energy policy, we were able to achieve agreement, something which has eluded this government for 22 months. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. McDermid: The Prime Minister laughs. He has not been able to do it. Mr. Clark: There is a secret to this. There is bound to be failure when a government ignores the nature of this country and runs counter to its nature. We have succeeded in Canada when we have respected the nature of Canada. This proposal fundamentally attacks the basic federal nature of Canada. Even if it is upheld in the courts, it will create a legacy of bitterness and division. Mr. Trudeau: What about the flag? Mr. Clark: It is not necessary to go this way. We can bring our Constitution home. We can have a charter of rights. We can have an amending formula, and we can have it by agreement if we work within the Canadian tradition instead of abandoning it and if we follow the Canadian way to agreement. I urge the government to accept those amendments and, just as importantly, to accept the federal spirit which inspires those amendments. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!
The Constitution
273
The Charlottetown Accord House of Commons Debates 16 May 1991 34th Parliament, 3rd Session: Volume 1, 172–178 Right Hon. Joe Clark (President of the Privy Council and Minister responsible for Constitutional Affairs): Mr. Speaker, let me begin by expressing my congratulations to the member for Saint-Maurice and the member for Regina–Wascana for the excellent way in which they began this debate. This session of Parliament will be more important than most, perhaps more important than any before it. During this time, our country will either agree to go ahead or decide to close down. That determines our obligations today. As all the leaders in this House have said, this is not about the preferences of a party or the agenda of a government. The only agenda is Canada. That has never been a partisan purpose before and it will not be now. Those of us sitting here are far from perfect, as individuals or as a Parliament. Whatever our past failings, we are determined that we shall not fail Canada. I understand fully that the non-partisan approach requires the government to involve all of Parliament in basic decisions. That is why the Prime Minister stated explicitly yesterday our willingness to accept sensible proposals from any party or parliamentarian. That is why I began my new responsibilities by reaching out deliberately to Canadians who had felt excluded in the past—native leaders, northerners, western Canadians. We have an obligation to listen, to learn and to lead, and I know we must do all three if we are to succeed. No individual, party or government is going to compel Canada to continue. Canadians must decide whether we wish to keep our country. That is a decision for all of us. Elected members of this House have an extra obligation. We have to ensure that the issues are clear, that the stakes are understood, and that Canadians have the chance to consider every reasonable proposal to renew and to save this country. We will need a lot of help in that work. We cannot lock ourselves into old ways which Canadians no longer respect or trust. Neither should we lightly put aside our parliamentary process which has earned its legitimacy through 124 years of Canadian experience. Parliament needs to be reformed, not abandoned, and on behalf of the government I am prepared to consider any serious proposal any mem-
274
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
ber might make as to how we involve Canadians who are not elected. Involving them does not mean that we should step aside from our most basic responsibilities. None of us would deny that this country is in crisis. This crisis can also be an opportunity, a new beginning, a journey of liberation from the worst of our past and a freedom to build upon the best within all of us. I believe that Canadians across this country are beginning to see it that way too. They are beyond simple despair at how things have gone wrong, and are wondering how to help set things right. This is a time for this country to reflect on our past and get to know it, to reflect on our present and decide how to improve it, and to look ahead to our future to determine how best to achieve it together. [Translation] Mr. Speaker, our plan consists of four separate phases. Phase one is nearing its conclusion. By July 1, we will have received the reports of the Citizens’ Forum on Canada’s Future and the Special Joint Committee on the Process for Amending the Constitution of Canada. Both have done a good job, and the government will examine their conclusions with all the attention and care the views of Canadians deserve. The next step will be the tabling of a set of proposals on how to reform the country. These proposals will be detailed, they will be specific and they will be published. They will not remain in the private domain, known only to a chosen few. All Canadians will know our vision of the future. These proposals will not be final. However, during the third phase, Canadians will have a chance to tell us what they think. A joint committee of Parliament will meet Canadians across the country to hear their views. The committee will hold public hearings, not to discuss the country’s future in general but to discuss specific changes. The committee’s mission and purpose will be clear-cut. It will be asked to consider concrete proposals for constitutional change. It will seek comments from Canadians and make recommendations to the government. The committee will have discussions with committees or similar groups of members of the various provincial and territorial legislatures, on how they will proceed and the witnesses they wish to invite. This will be more than just a matter of joint hearings. It will be a full-fledged association. The resulting dialogue can then be used to build a national consensus.
The Constitution
275
[English] A major priority will be an intensive dialogue with the aboriginal community whose constitutional concerns must be addressed in this committee while simultaneously its economic and social concerns are the subject of a royal commission inquiry. In the final step, we expect Parliament will propose reforms that will set this country on a sound and sure course for the next century. In order to leave open as many options as possible, this House will be asked to pass legislation which would enable the people of Canada to express themselves directly in a referendum. It is not our preference nor is it our intention to seek to resolve complex, constitutional questions by way of referendum but we believe it is prudent for the federal government to have the full authority to conduct a Canadian referendum— Some hon. Members: Hear, hear. Mr. Clark (Yellowhead): —should that become the best way to achieve consensus on defining our future together. We are prepared to consider other methods of consulting Canadians, including any proposals that right come from the mixed committee, the Beaudoin-Edwards committee. I do not believe there has ever been a more open process put in place for the people of Canada to decide themselves the destiny of our country. I wish to turn to some of the tasks which I believe are in front of us in the months ahead. First, this time constitutional change must address several issues simultaneously. This cannot be a Quebec round, an aboriginal round or a Senate round. We have to make progress on many fronts together. This must be a Canada round. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear. Mr. Clark (Yellowhead): Second, we must be guided by a sense of both pragmatism. and history. We want a country that works well and works together in one of the most challenging periods in world history. The only way for our reforms to succeed is to respect the special nature of this country, including the objective reality that Quebec is a distinct society. Third, the country must get to know itself better. The stories which suffuse our history are extraordinary. They are stories of achievement,
276
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
of strength in the face of adversity, of a unity built on diversity. We do not tell those stories so we do not know them. Let us tell them again. Nostalgia will not hold this country together, but knowledge can. We need to know our history, but we also need to get to know each other better. In Yellowknife last week, Mayor Pat McMahon brought a few people together to talk to me about Canada. One woman observed of Canada, and I quote her: “Everybody feels misunderstood.” That says two things. First, misunderstanding is widespread but, second, for most of us the priority is to have others understand us. It is not a one way street. If we want to keep and build this country, citizens everywhere must work at understanding why other Canadians have priorities different from their own. Quebecers must try to understand why western Canadians feel that institutions like the Senate must be changed fundamentally. Western Canadians must try to understand why recognition of a distinct society is so important to Quebec. Those of us whose ancestors came to Canada from somewhere else must try to understand that aboriginal claims are about respect as much as they are about money. Fourth, there is a real desire in this country for information. Canadians want to base their decisions on evidence and not on ideology. They are ready to move beyond accusation to deliberation. They want to know what unity gives them. They want to know what taking away unity would leave. Sometimes I think we talk too much about our differences and too little about our common Canadian citizenship. I celebrate the diversity of this country, but the real strength of Canada is that we have made these different parts work together. That has required a basic respect for others that is not at all common in the world. We Canadians use our gifts of wealth and freedom to advance our neighbours’ interests, not just our own. That sense of duty to a larger community is evident everywhere in Canada. We have to make more of that common Canadian citizenship. [Translation] According to any standard, we, as Canadians, have accomplished a great deal. We are free, we are prosperous, we are tolerant and we are educated. Taken individually, these qualities are exceptional. Together, they have made Canada a country that is both unafraid to tread un-
The Constitution
277
charted paths and that cares for its people. Mr. Speaker, it cannot be repeated often enough that the integrity of Canadian values is part and parcel to the integrity of this country. Canadians did not choose the path of mutual respect because they felt like it but because our diversity implies the mutual respect of our component parts, so that our relations can be peaceful and productive. Canadians did not choose the path of tolerance because it was fashionable but because different cultures must work together if they are to survive. Mr. Speaker, most Canadians have other, more pressing concerns and priorities than changing the Constitution. They have to look after the education of their children, maintain their prosperity and keep their neighbourhoods safe and clean. However, they must also keep pace with the rest of the world. [English] People can unplug their phones, countries cannot. While we are deciding whether Canada should continue, other countries are moving forward without us. What price are we paying for quarrelling at home while others are focusing on the future? What price are we paying while others are preoccupied with innovating, educating, changing and competing? Unlike Peter Sellers’ last movie, countries do not succeed by just being there. I am not saying that Canada should stay together just because some accountant or economist might say it makes sense. Canada is not a corporate merger but being poor is no foundation for doing anything. I do not know of one economic argument which says that being smaller means being better. If there were such an argument, Europe would not be uniting. If there were such an argument, Asia would not be trading. If there were such an argument, Confederation would never have happened. Our ancestors would have seen a better life apart than they found together. If that was the decision in the middle of the 19th century, when the global economy had barely begun, how on earth can it be different now when the global village is at our doorstep, and at our doorstep forever. Whatever the options in the past, whatever the differences Canadians have had, our advantage in the future is to be together as one strong, large, effective country. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear.
278
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
Mr. Clark (Yellowhead): I believe we have time. In 1864, Confederation was constructed in four short months between the conference in Quebec City and the conference in Charlottetown. Although our problems may be more complex, surely we can begin to save a country in the time it took to build one. In 1865, George Brown, one of the Fathers of Confederation made a statement. He had not been a fan of Confederation, but he came to be a convert. He said, and I quote: We are endeavouring to adjust harmoniously greater difficulties than have plunged other countries into all the horrors of civil war. We are striving to settle forever issues hardly less momentous than those that have rent the United States of America, and are now exposing it to all the horrors of civil war. Have we not then great cause of thankfulness that we have found a better way for the solution of our troubles than that which has entailed in other countries, such deplorable results.
Canada is still the better way. The world knows it. Our ancestors knew it when they chose to come here from around the globe. Canadians know it today. It is our obligation to build that better way, not to discard it, knowing the value of our achievement and knowing that we can make it better still. Mrs. Coline Campbell (South West Nova): Mr. Speaker, the minister had a very effective speech. As he put the four stages of the process before us, it certainly cleared up some of the concerns I have and I am sure other people have. Having been on the Beaudoin-Edwards committee and knowing that everybody who came before us said that public participation was critical to the process, I had hoped the minister would come up with proposals that the public would have had a chance to discuss. I will ask about that again in my second question. But from that discussion, a new set of proposals, some reinforced or some discarded, and then more public participation after it had been looked at again. I am wondering if there is to be a two-stage public participation in the process. Second, I cannot believe that we have to wait until September to get the proposals. I think everybody in Canada knows that the Senate and Parliament have to be reformed. The Supreme Court could easily be, by bringing together the provinces to look at it. The distribution of powers
The Constitution
279
does not need unanimity. There was not one expert who said it was the Constitution that was to blame. They said it was the process that was used around Meech. There was not expert who did not point out that we had two amendments since the new Constitution was in place that passed, and only one failed. I just cannot believe, with the government having a majority here and in the Senate, that we cannot get together and reform the institutions within our own jurisdiction this summer. I do not know any Canadians, since I crossed Canada, who felt that we were giving them leadership, from this place down to the people, in the areas we have control over. The other thing is the power of spending. That is something that the government can talk about and talk about immediately. I do not believe that you can roll the dice, come February, to the Allaire or the BélangerCampeau committees and not have time next fall to undo it. I know the feelings out there and I am sure the minister is aware of the feelings right across Canada. There is a hope we can come together in Canada and redefine ourselves but I do think there is a lot that could be done immediately to make that process a lot easier. I am wondering if the minister would tell me why the proposals cannot be done, and some of the things done immediately. Mr. Clark (Yellowhead): There is no question about two realities concerning public opinion: One is that there is a profound cynicism about existing institutions, and each of us will attribute that to different origins, but there is no question about the reality of it. There is also no question about the fact that that, if we simply succumb to it, it is corrosive, that could be destructive of this country. What we have to do is not succumb to criticisms of our institutions but to prove that by reforming them we can make them work better. That cynicism is there and we have to take account of it. The second reality, flowing from the first, is that Canadians very much want to take part. Individual Canadians do, but so do some particular Canadian groups. The hon. member has been engaged in this process more intensively over the last few months than I have been but since any appointment to this portfolio I have, for example, made a point of meeting with native leaders, going to the north and speaking to people who see their interests not simply in terms of their own particular interest, but also in terms of the regions they represent or the groups from which they come. Speaking of public participation, we have two processes that end on
280
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
July 1. The hon. member is part of the joint committee and we have the Spicer committee. There was a lot of skepticism about the Spicer committee but I think that process has engendered a great deal of participation and a lot of originality across the country. Public consultation cannot stop. We all have obligations to carry it forward, and I have to find ways in which some of the work that was started by Spicer can be carried on. It is important that the next phase of public consultation not be about issues in general, but about specific proposals that can put things in a general context of reform. We are not talking here simply about changing institutions within the federal jurisdiction; we are talking about basic changes in Canada, including changes in the way we see ourselves and changes in attitude. There needs to be some over-all context within which we act and we are trying, hoping and expecting to have it ready for the fall. We expect to be able to put before this House in the fall an over-all position as to how these changes which we must pursue together can be put together to advance the country. Then the discussion, the next phase of public participation, will be a phase which will allow individual Canadians to focus specifically upon particular proposals placed in a Canadian context that have been put forward by the government. We will welcome amendments, changes and improvements in that process. We think that is the best way to take account of what is being done now and to ensure that Canadians have a constructive opportunity to help define the future of the country. The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski): The hon. member for Saanich– Gulf Islands. I would like to recognize the hon. member for Parkdale and also the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre and the hon. member for Shefford, but I only have six minutes. Ms. Lynn Hunter (Saanich–Gulf Islands): Mr. Speaker, I want to begin my remarks by congratulating the minister on his appointment to this portfolio and to wish him well. I hope that the esteem in which he is held in this country will bring a resolution. Having said that, he knows what is coming next. The remarks in his speech were well-suited. He talked about reaching out to those who felt excluded, and as a member of the Beaudoin-Edwards committee, that was the over-riding theme. I caution and urge him and all of us to have the political courage as politicians to step back from this issue, look at it and take the condemnation of the Canadian people sincerely.
The Constitution
281
We deserve it. This is a wonderful country we have, and we are at the risk of losing it. As you, sir, know better than most people, we have a wonderful country. People outside of this country are wondering what we are on about here when they are talking about issues of survival and here we are navel gazing. That criticism is real. It is very sincere. Please do not dismiss a constituent assembly made up of politicians and those who have felt excluded. Please do not exclude that option, because that is something that I think is a balance. Please do not exclude that. My second point is with respect to your reference to a Canadian referendum. Referenda have been divisive tools in Canada’s history. My question is: What do you think would constitute a majority? Would Quebec need to have its referendum on the same issue? The west? The north? The aboriginal people? This is the complexity. As one of the witnesses at the Beaudoin-Edwards committee hearings pointed out to the committee, any parliamentary reform is like a Rubik’s cube. You change one thing and the whole thing changes. We in this place have to have the wisdom to be able to see what those changes will bring. Mr. Clark (Yellowhead): Mr. Speaker, first, on a referendum. I have said publicly that in our view a referendum cannot be used to force any group of Canadians to do something that it does not want to do. We are in a situation in which the Government of Canada does not have the legal authority that we require for the kind of consultation that might become necessary as we seek to achieve the broadest possible consensus in the country. We are not introducing it because we intend to use it; we are introducing it because we think we may have need for it and we think it would be prudent to have that in place. With respect to the other question, I agree with the hon. member’s comment about the force of Canadian opinion. I do not intend to reject in advance anything that might be proposed by the Beaudoin-Edwards committee. Here is the challenge that I think we all have to look at in the next little while. We have a parliamentary system. It is heavily criticized, but it has served the country well for over a century. Churchill once called it the worst system of government in the world except for all the others and that reality continues. We have that base. How do we add to that base in this committee process to make all Canadians, particularly people who have felt excluded,
282
Jonathan Rose and Hugh Mellon
feel more a part of the process? I have some ideas. Some of the proposals put in the throne speech are regarding working with legislators from the territories and from the provinces. That has never been done before. That is an innovation that may be helpful. There are others we are prepared to consider, and I say very sincerely that I would very welcome practical proposals from any member of the House as to means in which we can combine the fundamental nature of a parliamentary committee with the necessity to involve people who felt excluded before.