PM POWER

Notes for a speech by the Right Honourable Joe Clark, P.C., C.C., M.P., at a luncheon hosted by the Calgary-West Rotary Club
Danish Canadian Club
Calgary, Alberta
Friday, March 16, 2001
Check against delivery - Le texte prononcé fait foi

Canada has become virtually a one-party State. Our system gives unusual power to the Prime Minister. He controls both his Party and his Caucus. So he faces no serious internal political threat that would hold him accountable.

He has an extraordinary power of appointment - of everyone from other legislators - senators - to judges, to senior public servants, to ethics counsellors.

No other leader of a major democracy enjoys such unfettered power. Tony Blair in Great Britain is answerable to his caucus, and works in a parliament much more powerful than Canada’s parliament. George W. Bush shares the power of appointment with Congress, and works in a system which builds in checks and balances.

The Prime Minister should be held accountable by the opposition parties, who challenge him in Parliament, in elections, and in the media. But, for three elections now, the Opposition has been so divided that the Prime Minister has been elected by default.

No opposition party has made the Prime Minister lose sleep at night. Until recently - thanks to the voters of Calgary Centre.

No other major democracy is in a situation where so much power is concentrated in one person.

You would expect me to refer to the ethical embarrassment that has been dubbed “Shawinigate”, a media moniker that risks diminishing the seriousness of what is at issue here.

The Prime Minister intervened with the Business Development Bank - a Crown Corporation - on behalf of a friend, with whom he once had an important personal business relationship. At the time of the intervention, the Prime Minister may have had an interest himself in an adjacent golf course, whose value would be enhanced by the loan. That is just part of the story, and one that is being well-chronicled in the media.

The less important story here is about the Prime Minister’s judgement.

The more important story is about his power - and how easy it is to abuse power like that - and how tempting to try to cover up the abuse.

We simply must make the Prime Minister - any Prime Minister of Canada - more accountable.

Shawinigate is not the first time this Prime Minister has viewed himself as being above the law.

In 1993, he cancelled a legitimate contract between the previous government and a private consortium to manage Pearson airport. He introduced legislation that would have prevented the consortium from going to court to mitigate its damages. That same legislation immunized the government from any lawsuits, including one that had already been launched. To its credit, the Senate eventually blocked the legislation.

In 1997, at the APEC Conference, the Prime Minister had promised a visiting Head of State that there would be no embarrassing public demonstrations on human rights. Placards and demonstrations are not against the law in Canada. Yet, at APEC, one young man was arrested - and held without charge - for the crime of peacefully holding a polite sign outside the security perimeter of the Summit.

And now there is the Auberge Grand-Mère.  

The Prime Minister first denied any involvement at all. Then he changed his story, and admitted to telephoning the Bank President twice, and inviting him for a little chat to 24 Sussex Drive. On at least two occasions, the Prime Minister has told me something in the House of Commons that has later been demonstrated to be, to use a polite term, in error.

He has also embarked on a very dangerous campaign to try to shut down criticism.

Last week, Southam newspapers published a letter - from David Asper, whose family owns Southam newspapers - telling me, and the journalists who work for the Aspers, to “put up or shut up”.

That family controls Canada’s largest news network - 27 daily newspapers, 126 weekly newspapers, and 15 television stations.  It is also a family that gave 120 thousand dollars in corporate or personal donations to the Liberal Party, including to Mr. Chretien’s personal campaign, over the last four years.  

As a sidebar, the Asper media empire must seek renewal of its broadcasting licences, by the CRTC, in just a few weeks. Some argue this timing is coincidental.

They point out that the CRTC is an arms-length agency free of political interference. The Business Development Bank, where this story began, is an arms-length agency, supposed to be free of political interference. Journalists have confided privately to me that the Asper letter sent a chill through reporters who consider themselves professionals but who, like you and me, rely upon a weekly paycheque. The boss was clear. The Prime Minister was off limits.

This story goes to the heart of whether government respects democracy.

This uniquely powerful Prime Minister has tried to put himself above the Courts, above the Charter of Rights, above the Code of Ethics, above the House of Commons, and above freedom of the press.  

What is it that we can do?

First, we challenge him. I have asked the Prime Minister to appoint Mr. Justice Ted Hughes, who investigated the APEC scandal, to have full powers of investigation in exposing the truth of the Prime Minister’s role in the funding of the Auberge Grand- Mère.

I also wrote a response to David Asper’s article, which, to their credit, the editors of most of his newspapers ran prominently. I will continue to challenge the Prime Minister in the House of Commons, and to work with other opposition parties to enforce accountability.

Second, Canadians themselves must put pressure on the government. Public opinion matters, and the government counts upon complacency.

After all, this is not a government with a massive national mandate.

In the last election, only 61% of Canadians even bothered to vote. Of those who voted, only 41% voted for the Liberal Party. In other words, fewer than 25% of eligible Canadians - one in four - actually chose the government that now enjoys such dominance of the public agenda. Only citizens can change that reality, person by person.  Most important, we must examine some fundamental changes to our parliamentary system, to limit the excessive power of whoever happens to be Prime Minister.

More free votes in Parliament offer one correction.  A few weeks ago, under instructions from the Prime Minister, almost the entire Liberal caucus stood in the House of Commons and voted against a promise from their own 1993 election platform -- a promise to appoint an independent Ethics Counsellor who would report to Parliament.  Why could that not have been a free vote? Simply, because it might have embarrassed the Prime Minister. That isn’t good enough. It is a corruption of Parliament to impose the Government’s will on every issue, and could easily be changed, without interfering with the Government’s duty to govern.

I have proposed a fundamental change in how Parliament can control spending. Were I the Prime Minister, I would empower the Leader of the Opposition to select two departments of government each year which would be subject to line-by-line examination of their proposed spending. The government, as a whole, would not be granted authority to spend until all parliamentarians were satisfied about the spending plans of the two departments being examined. Those two departments would be selected at the last minute, so that each department would have to anticipate examination, and would be obliged to submit spending estimates it could justify.

At the heart of Parliament’s duties is control of spending. But today, Parliament has no real authority over the government’s spending decisions. Annual spending estimates are deemed to have been approved by Committees on a fixed date, whether or not MPs have even examined them.

The outgoing Auditor-General, Denis Desautels, warned, and I quote: “Parliament cannot play its oversight role unless it has good information.”

That raises another critical obstacle to accountability - the current government’s obsessive secrecy. Information Commissioner John Reid criticized them sharply last fall for creating a culture of secrecy, and actively resisting their legal obligation to let the public know what government is doing.  One important parliamentary reform - that would require no legislation, no debate - would be to simply respect the letter and the spirit of current laws concerning privacy and access to information.

Parliament should also be empowered to review major Prime Ministerial appointments, as is done in the United States, and as was proposed in the Charlottetown accord. While those approval hearings are not always tidy, they give the public an insight - and potentially a veto - respecting people holding the nation’s highest appointed offices.

Is there a risk that opposition parties would abuse their new powers for partisan obstruction or media attention? Of course there is. But that is a risk worth taking. My experience tells me that opposition members would be more constructive if they were given more constructive things to do.

We should also not be afraid to consider changes to our electoral system, to better reflect the electoral choices of citizens. While our constituency-based system has a lot to recommend it, it creates real distortions. For example, in the last election, my Party won 12% of the vote, but only 4% of the seats.

Canada is one of only three democracies which have a population of more than a million, that does not employ some element of proportional representation in the selection of its government.  

We used to have that system, in Calgary and Edmonton, when we elected members at large to the Legislature. A different system, based on constituencies, operated in the rest of the province. We should not close our eyes to variations that would make our Parliament more representative, and our Government more accountable.

There is one other thing we must do.

Canada’s opposition parties must find a way to form an alternative to the Liberals that would actually threaten their grip on office.

In December, immediately following an election which demonstrated that a narrowly-based party cannot form a government in this diverse country, I called for public discussion on how to build a viable alternative.

I believe there are four fundamentals that will lead to success.

First, any alternative must have as its clear goal its intent to replace the Liberal Party in government. There is a place on our political spectrum for parties that advocate minority opinions on the far left or the far right, but, realistically, such parties will never challenge for Government in Canada.

Second, any alternative must be broadly-based. It must be acceptable to a large enough cross-section of Canadians to actually form a government. Inclusive parties win. Exclusive parties lose.

Third, any alternative must offer a centrist political program, with conservative fiscal policy balanced by progressive social policy. Canadians are centrists in our political thinking, not radicals. The challenge of modern times is not to articulate a new political philosophy but to offer innovations and new ideas that will bring Canadians together, and move us forward.

Finally, in my view, an alternative that is going to be trusted enough to win should be built upon the solid foundation of a well-known political brand name, with a record and a leadership Canadians can count on.

Those four foundations provide plenty of room for Canadians of good will and shared values to find a way to give this country a realistic choice in the next election.

We have begun some significant steps in that direction.  

Members of my Parliamentary caucus have met with members of the Canadian Alliance caucus to discuss public issues on which we could effectively work together in Parliament - issues such as agriculture, and parliamentary reform.  

We are co-operating in Question Period, with both the Alliance and the Bloc Québecois.

My Party is also surveying our membership, to see what options for joint action would be acceptable to our rank-and-file base.

If deftly handled, these careful steps could make Canadian politics competitive again.

The consequences, if we do not succeed, are very serious.

Parliament lacks legitimacy because it has been neutered. The Government lacks legitimacy because its power is both unchallenged and suspect. The Opposition parties lack legitimacy because we have not found a way to shake the dominance of the Liberal government.  As a nation, we must solve these problems.  Citizens must help with the solutions. As Rotarians, you have an interest, and a commitment to public service, that can help lead the way.

I got my start in public life on a rotary-sponsored trip to Ottawa. I needed your help then to begin my “Adventure in Citizenship”.

The wheel has come full circle.

This time, I need your help to reform a government that no longer has the legitimacy, and the respect, that are required to lead this complex nation in a tough and competitive world.

Thank you.