Senator of the Month

Transcription

1 Senator of the Month Senator Lowell Murray Independent Progressive Conservative Ontario In his own words, Senator Murray (Ontario) has "spent most of my adult life in and around politics and government, federal and provincial." An active participant in Canada's most important policy debates for over five decades, he was appointed to the Senate in In this interview he recalls some of the events in which he played a pivotal role and decries the decreasing relevance of Parliament in contemporary times. GDC: Senator, you've been in the Senate for as long as I've been alive and in politics longer still. What lured you into public service? LM: Cape Breton, where I grew up, is a political place to be. My father being Conservative while other family members were Liberal made it very obvious to me that government played an important role in raising standards and helping citizens. GDC: Looking back over the past 50 years, it seems to me you've been right in the middle of events that helped define Canada as a nation. Tell me about your first job. LM: In 1961, I was Executive Assistant to the Minister of Justice, Davey Fulton. In those days, the Justice Minister had a much larger portfolio than is the case today. His responsibilities included the RCMP, penitentiaries, the parole board, the full duties of an attorney general, and any and all additional tasks that Prime Minister Diefenbaker asked him to undertake. GDC: Is Davey short for David? I only ever see him referred to as Davey. LM: Actually, Davey was his mother's surname. In any event, Fulton was a highly regarded lawyer from BC, and the Prime Minister asked him to be Canada's chief negotiator for the Columbia River Treaty. It was an important treaty for the US and Canada, giving rise to massive hydroelectric benefits in both countries. I joined him just after the treaty was first signed in But it wasn't ratified until 1964, partly because BC wanted to sell all our downstream rights to the

2 Americans for 30 years. We tried our best to dissuade the BC government, believing this was not a good deal for Canada. Although we kept the discussions going for another three years, in the end we gave way. Of course, that was just one of the major issues we were involved with. We also shepherded extensive correctional reforms through Parliament, and spearheaded a massive investigation into widespread abuse of indentured Chinese labourers. It was a busy time. GDC: Wasn't Medicare introduced in the '60s? Were you involved with that too? LM: Yes. I'm very honoured to have had a ringside seat during the advancement of any number of significant policy issues. I worked with Senator McCutcheon during the debates on Medicare, and also when the Canada Pension Plan was legislated in Later, after Robert Stanfield became Leader of the Opposition in 1967, I acted as his Chief of Staff. We worked side by side responding to Trudeau's controversial amendments to the Criminal Code regarding abortion and homosexuals. Then, when Stanfield supported official bilingualism in 1969 (an issue which practically caused a caucus revolt), I helped him through that as well. GDC: You also worked closely with Richard Hatfield (Leader of the Opposition in New Brunswick) as his political advisor when Louis Robichaud was Premier, and then served as Premier Hatfield's Deputy Minister. LM: Those were immensely significant years. Louis Robichaud was the father of modern New Brunswick. He transformed the province in the ealy '70s, but it was Premier Hatfield who really made the new government model work. We made sure that educational, social assistance and tax reforms were entrenched and helped the people of New Brunswick prosper for the next two decades. GDC: Prime Minister Joe Clark appointed you to the Senate in Again you were thrust into the thick of major Canadian debates.

3 LM: Joe Clark succeeded Stanfield as Leader of the Opposition in Trudeau had run up large budget deficits and imposed tough wage and price controls in the face of high inflation and unemployment. In the 1979 election, Clark campaigned on the theme "Let's Get Canada Working Again". He won (the only politician ever to defeat Trudeau) and we repealed wage and price controls the same year. However, it was a minority government and soon the Liberals were back in office. Within weeks, we were in the midst of intense debates on the Constitution (which was repatriated, without Quebec's assent, in 1982), on the National Energy Program (vigorously resisted by Alberta) and various other quite disastrous fiscal and economic policies of the Trudeau government. Then in 1983, Brian Mulroney formed a majority government. As cabinet minister in his government, I had responsibility for the Meech Lake Accord (an attempt to bring Quebec into agreement on Canada's constitution), and was a member of the cabinet committees that directed Canada-US Free Trade negotiations, introduced the GST, oversaw Canada's participation in the first Gulf War and dealt with numerous other controversies. I was also present at the creation of ACOA (the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency) and became its first minister. GDC: You served as Leader of the Government in the Senate until 1993, when Jean Chretien became Prime Minister, but continued to be a lead advocate on several important issues, I believe. LM: Yes. As Chair of the Social Affairs Committee, for example, I led a study of social cohesion which highlighted some of the problems created by globalization and technology. And as Chair of National Finance, I led two in-depth studies examining Canada's system of equalization payments. More recently, I also served on a panel appointed by the provinical and territorial Premiers on this subject. We made substantial recommendations designed to rebalance the system in the interests of fairness all across the country. GDC: Perhaps one of the most significant events of this century has been the merger of the Progressive Conservatives with the Reform/Alliance party in December You refused to join the new party,

4 and as a consequence you sit as an independent senator rather than as a member of a party caucus. Why is that? LM: I no longer have a party to sit with. While I do not disagree with everything Mr. Harper says, I do not want to be involved with the Reform/Alliance. I also do not agree with his approach to the role of government. I believe very strongly that government should act to raise standards and help citizens. And I would be horribly uncomfortable to be in a party whose ministers, backbenchers and senators are so severely regimented by the Prime Minister. I have very strong opinions about political parties. I believe they play a critical role in a healthy democracy. Today parties are weaker than they used to be, which is a shame. If they were stronger on a constituency level, MPs would be more accountable to their voters rather than their party's whip, who acts on the orders of the party leader. GDC: Indeed, these days many important decisions seem to be made with no involvement of Parliament whatsoever, whether it's MPs or Senators. LM: That's not the way it used to be. Ministers, for example, seriously took responsibility for decisions within the scope of their own portfolios. If you read Canada and the Cost of World War II, for instance, you'll see how involved ministers used to be. The author, Robert Bryce, used to be Chair of the Privy Council and so had a front row seat to observe ministerial involvement. Ministers in his day were intimately and constantly involved in working with caucus and Parliament to forge positions that best reflected public opinion. Contrast that with the conduct of today's Afghanistan engagement as described in the Unexpected War written by Janice Stein and Eugene Lang.

5 An area of particular interest to me in the Senate is the decreasing relevance of Parliament. Parliament evolved as an institution to oversee and curtail arbitrary decisions imposed by the executive branch. The "power of the purse is the most effective measure to hold a government (that is to say, cabinet) to account, but Parliament has forgotten this. Too many decisions are made without reference to Parliament or are "ratified" by overly obedient backbenchers and senators. GDC: Was the Senate paying attention when it came to the last budget? LM: The Senate fell down. Let me be clear, I am never in favour of defeating such legislation but, in this case, the Senate should have amended the bill. It's a shame, because the Senate could play a tremendously useful role in advancing the effectiveness of Parliament. GDC: What advice would you give current Senators st as we move into the second decade of the 21 century? LM: I believe strongly in political parties and in political partisanship as indispensable elements of our parliamentary democracy. However, the Senate has a mandate for sober second thought and representation of minority populations. On both sides, we need to be less stridently partisan. Opposition Senators should stop copying the worst features of the House of Commons and concentrate on trying to improve legislation. Government Senators should stop rejecting mindlessly every and all amendments to government legislation. We are not the "confidence" chamber. That responsibility belongs solely to the House of Commons.