John Turner (Interview)

Turner, John (Interview)

John Napier TURNER, Canada's 17th prime minister, recently marked two milestones: his 50th anniversary of becoming a lawyer and, on June 7, his 75th birthday. More than 100 friends and current and former colleagues feted him in Ottawa. Turner, who practises law at Miller Thomson in Toronto, talked to Maclean's Editor Anthony Wilson-Smith:

As a former prime minister yourself, can you give a snapshot of some of the other prime ministers you have known?

I got to know John Diefenbaker well when he was leader of the opposition. I have never seen anyone dominate the House of Commons the way he did. Lester Pearson was very intellectually competent. Very persuasive. A very agreeable man to deal with. Trudeau was like a chairman of the board. He gave a lot of freedom to run your department, to run your own deal, and I did that in Justice and Finance with him. He wasn't as good at economics as he thought he was. He was forever bringing in John Kenneth Galbraith to give him advice, and I'd have to intercept Galbraith before he went in to find out what Trudeau was looking for. Brian Mulroney I've known since we both were young lawyers in Montreal; in fact, I offered him a job. As prime minister, he had great presence and charm. We disagreed about many things - most notably, of course, free trade - but it was not personal.

Do you still have the same opposition to the Free Trade Agreement that drove your election campaign in 1988?

The deal we ended up with isn't free trade at all, and hasn't been in terms of steel, softwood lumber, all sorts of things. Whatever the Americans wanted, they got. They still feel they got access to all our water under that agreement, too. I'm a free trader, but that is not a free trade agreement.

What foreign leader impressed you the most?

Despite Watergate, Richard Nixon was tremendously impressive to deal with. Trudeau and Nixon didn't get along, so he used to send me to Washington. I'd go to the White House with an agenda, authorized by Trudeau, and play tennis with George Schultz, who was secretary of the treasury, and I was minister of finance. Nixon didn't play tennis, but George and I would have a game, get into the locker room, have a scotch, have a shower, then George and I would go up and have dinner with Nixon. I'd have a bunch of items on the agenda, we'd solve about three, and settle them with a handshake. One time, Nixon said to me, "You know, you're taking a big chance," and I said, "Why is that, Mr. President?" He said, "There's just us two and you here, and no other record of our deal." And I said, "Mr. President, if I thought I needed a witness, I wouldn't be here." He laughed. Nixon was always extremely well-briefed. He didn't have any notes before him when we had dinner or in conversations, but he knew the issues at hand, and he knew exactly what he wanted.

The House of Commons seems to have been a more collegial place in the past than it is today. How has it changed?

The House in my day was much more freewheeling. There was no TV, which made a big difference, and we had evening sessions. When you have evening sessions, you end up having a few drinks with the guys across the aisle and dinner and so on, and you get to know each other better. Today, with televised sessions, it's much more presidential in manner. Once you had cameras, leaders started to talk straight to viewers; the atmosphere changed completely.

How have relations changed between politicians and the media?

The writers I used to deal with as a young man, you could talk with regularly off the record. If they asked, "OK, John, what was behind this decision?" you could tell them frankly, without being betrayed, and they'd have background as to how to handle it. Today, I don't think anything is off the record. People in the media, they've been seduced into printing everything they hear.

You are active in efforts to restore confidence in the democratic process. What are your specific concerns?

Even at the federal level, where voter participation is highest, turnout is around just 60 per cent. It's especially low among younger people, and that's a huge concern. People feel their vote doesn't count. It's hard to get people to run for public office. They're concerned about the financial sacrifice, pressure on their marriage, media intrusion into their private lives and, finally, the current irrelevance of a member of Parliament. So they ask, "Is it really worth being elected?"

Any regrets about your political career?

I was justice minister at the 1971 Victoria conference where we achieved agreement on constitutional reform - until Robert Bourassa backed out. That was a mistake by Bourassa. Trudeau never forgave him. And I strongly supported the Meech Lake accord, which I felt would have been good for the country.

When you look at your return to elected politics in 1984, what are your feelings?

I was doing well in private life, having a good time, but there was enormous pressure to go for the leadership. And I've always had a very strong commitment to the importance of public service, so it didn't feel right to say no. But fairly quickly, journalists wrote that I looked rusty. In retrospect, they were probably right. It's tough when you're away for a long time.

Your involvement in elected politics began in 1962. As you've said, you could have made much more money by staying in the private sector. Any regrets?

When I first ran for office, I was 32 years old and managing partner at a law firm in Montreal. The reason my partners let me run is that they were sure I would lose. I kept that job after I was elected, which is something that would be impossible now. In financial terms, I'm still compensating for what I lost in 25 years of elected politics. But I always said public service is one of the highest forms of calling. So I would do it all again.

Will you ever retire?

One of my earliest cases was against a 90-year-old lawyer who was sharp as a whip. That's the way to go.

Maclean's July 1, 2004