1996 Recipient of the Award for Excellence in the Cause of Parliamentary Democracy

Introduction by William R. Herridge, Q.C., at the 1996 Churchill Dinner

As Solicitor General, Minister of Justice/Attorney General, John Turner set a record of accomplishments including creation of the Federal Court of Canada and extensive changes in provisions of the Criminal Code relating to sexual misconduct – each of which produced profound change. As Minister of Finance (February 1972), and unlike Sir Winston, who as Chancellor of the Exchequer was said by Prime Minister Atlee to have been the most disastrous Chancellor of the 20th century, one must look long and hard and dig very deep, even at the Albany Club, to find anyone who was critical of John Turner as Minister of Finance.

Overall, John Turner had such complete personal integrity that he was willing sometimes to act to the detriment of his political career... This should be an example for all future cabinet ministers. Calling up the words of your predecessor, William Lyon MacKenzie King, which we have no doubt apply to you: I believe that the main incentive for most public men is not so much derived from a pursuit of gain, or of position, as it is from the desire to prevail among the affairs of men righteousness, justice and truth.

Acceptance address by John Turner at the 1996 Churchill Dinner

As a former Parliamentarian, I am very sensitive to the honour that is presented to me tonight…

I think Parliamentary Democracy in Canada, while healthy, is out of balance. One reason it is out of balance is that neither the Federal nor at the Provincial level is there adequate opposition. Governments only work when there is strong oppositions. The great success of Westminster – the greatest democratic forum in the world – has been that there have always been parties able to succeed each other, challenging each other. We have weak opposition in Ottawa. It is regional, some of it is not committed to the future of the country; there is inadequate representation on the Left and strident representation on the Right. But the problem is not limited to Ottawa. There is only one province in Canada that has a significant amount of opposition. So there is an imbalance in the parliamentary system at the moment. Governments work better if challenged continually by strong oppositions who can claim to be a legitimate alternative government. I am thinking now in parliamentary terms.

I also continue to think, as I did when I was a young Member of Parliament representing St. Laurent-St.George in Montreal and spoke to the annual parliamentary debate at McGill University, that the role of the individual member of parliament needs to be enhanced in Canada. What I admire about Westminster is that the individual member of parliament has his or her own stake and own voice. There are fewer votes on the whip; there are more opportunities for Private Members’ Debates. Frankly, the debates are better reported from London, in terms of the individual members of parliament, than they are, either by television or the printed media, here in Canada. I believe the success of the system depends on the individual man or woman who represents us in the Legislature or in the Parliament of Canada…

I thought [television broadcasts of parliamentary proceedings] was a great idea. I thought it was going to convert Parliament from something remote into a town hall and every family in Canada could watch on a daily basis what was happening in the town forum, in the town hall of the country. What has happened is that this has exaggerated the role of Question Period and has minimized the role of the major debates.

I love Question Period (whether on the government side or the opposition side). It is a great system – our Prime Minister, Ministers of the Cabinet on a daily basis called before the forum of the nation in full view of the country to answer and to hold themselves to account... Sure, it is theatre. Sure, it sometimes gets a little rowdy. I want to remind everyone that this is a parliamentary gathering… Parliament is not a legislative machine. Parliament is theatre. Parliament is the forum of the nation. Parliament – parler – to speak, to debate. Parliament is where the issues of the country are entertained, resolved, debated. This is a great, great tradition from the English heritage.

The question is posed in Question Period to put the Minister on the spot… to expose the weaknesses of the government from the Prime Minister down. I hear all sorts of people telling me “The House of Commons is out of control; it is too rowdy! What a terrible example to the people of Canada!” Democracy is tough; democracy is confrontation; democracy is argument to bring out the truth. If we think our debates are rough or ill-mannered, read the debates preceding Confederation. Read the debates between George Brown and John A. MacDonald. Read the debates during the days of Sir Wilfrid Laurier. Read the debates between Arthur Meighen, R.B. Bennett and William Lyon MacKenzie King. We are milk-toasts compared to those parliamentarians. Let me remind you that decorum is one thing; freedom of debate, freedom of expression, is another thing. It is no accident that those of us who spoke in the House of Commons had complete privilege from libel and slander because under the British tradition we wanted the fullest debate possible. This is the greatest heritage we have received from Britain... This is why we are, honouring Sir Winston Churchill.

One of the reasons I believe that Canada is distinct from the United States... is that the United States just wanted a balance of power… They did not want strong government necessarily; they wanted a balance. But I believe our system is better. I believe that ministers like Alistair Gillespie, Barney Danson and myself and those who have served, chosen to serve in a government as elected members of a Legislature or elected members of Parliament, we are more responsible to the people; we are more responsible to Parliament; we are on the grill every day and are more responsible to Parliament and more responsible for the public weal. Compare that with the United States.

The President doesn’t have to appear before the Congress, except at show time; you know, the Budget, the Union. In my view, the Viet Nam war wouldn’t have lasted more than six months if the President of the United States of America at the time, Lyndon Johnson, and the Secretary of Defense, Robert MacNamara had been obliged to appear on a daily basis before a Parliament. They couldn’t have sustained it. I suggest to you that, when President Nixon got into his problems with Watergate, I don’t think he would have lasted two weeks before a House of Commons. The grilling before the House of Commons on a daily basis would have absolutely pulverised him. So I think our system is the most responsive system in terms of democracy in the world. I think we Canadians have made some improvements on the British system, but we inherited everything from Westminster. Having said that, the greatest honour I’ve ever had in life is to have served in the House of Commons.

I want to thank you once again for the great honour bestowed on me.