The Inquiry into Reasons for Sitting as a

Progressive Conservative Senator

February 2004

Honourable Senators,

I did not put down this enquiry on the Order Paper lightly. I wanted an opportunity to speak about my decision to continue to sit as a Progressive Conservative Senator, how my views evolved, the people who most influenced them and then to put on the record in this place, the thinking that lead to my decision, while most of my Senate colleagues declared themselves to represent the Conservative Party of Canada.

I want to set out my thoughts and how I feel about the party - the Progressive Conservative Party and the decision to dissolve it.

I have been a Progressive Conservative from the time I was eighteen years old, beginning as a gofer in the 1952, provincial election in New Brunswick. In the last 52 years, I have been involved in 38 election campaigns in one way or another - some of them have been leadership campaigns, some provincial and others federal. All have been under the banner of the Progressive Conservative party.

The party has changed its name a number of times since the 1850's. However, for me, the name Progressive Conservative came to mean much more than the title of a political party. It came to mean for me, what the party stood for.

The name signified the joining together of not two parties, but of two sets of values. The values represented by those who espouse fiscal, economic responsibility living within one’s income - a balanced budget, little or no debt and government intervention in the economy only when truly necessary. These are the conservative values. Combine with that, the “Progressive” name - meaning for me social policy directed at the less fortunate in our society. Social policy, which means accessible, adequate health care paid by the government and an education system where “all who are academically qualified can access post-secondary training and education”. Policies that recognize that both people and even provinces are not created equally and we must from time to time recognize the need for a hand-up - be it through social welfare or equalization payments.

This is what I have fought for since my first campaign in the 1952 New Brunswick election. An election which saw Hugh John Flemming’s party take 36 of 52 seats. An election that made an impression on me as a young student, the importance of leadership, policies and democracy at work.

Through campaigns for the Right Honourable Robert Stanfield, both federal and provincial in Nova Scotia, Duff Roblin in Manitoba, Walter Shaw in P.E.I., Bill Davis in Ontario, Richard Hatfield in New Brunswick, the Right Honourable Joe Clark and the Right Honourable Brian Mulroney, I have always believed in the cause and was fighting for the cause of the Progressive Conservative party and its leadership, a party which believed in self-reliance, but also in wealth distribution.

I am a moderate Tory in the same way my friend, Dalton Camp, saw himself as a moderate Tory. As he said in an interview with Pamela Wallen in 1995, “I am in favour of people, and I am in favour of trying to alleviate the problems people have, and I think that is one of the functions of government, and I just don’t want to see us abandon that role.”

I do not want to see that happen either - and I would rather carry on the fight for what I believe in than to join with others who may not share that philosophy. To me, Robert Stanfield set the bar very high and it is that standard that I wish to hold.

The people I have known in politics, the people I admire, never compromised, never gave up the fight for the country and its people. To mention a few, Peter Lougheed fought back against enormous odds to form a government and introduced a Bill of Rights as his first piece of legislation. Richard Hatfield stood for equal opportunity; Duff Roblin had the courage and showed the leadership to build the Floodway against great opposition - as did Bill Davis when he stopped the extension of the Spadina Expressway.

Robert Stanfield, whose life we have celebrated so recently, did not compromise his principles in the 1974 “wage and price controls” general election.

Brian Mulroney and Joe Clark, following in the footsteps of John Diefenbaker, stood against the government’s of Britain and the United States in taking an anti-apartheid stance, on behalf of Canada, in support of Nelson Mandela. At home, the federal Progressive Conservative Party has been a champion of national unity and in particular, of Quebec’s place in Canada.

It was under the Prime Ministership of Joe Clark that in 1979, Canada reached out its hand to take the Vietnamese Boat People fleeing oppression, to safety in Canada.

All of this has been done by those who believed that the party name - Progressive Conservative - actually had evolved into a common set of values or a common center if you will - not just the joining together of political party labels.

The leaders I have known, the leaders I have been close to, did not give up when faced with great challenges or odds that seemed impossible to overcome.

They stayed to fight for what they believed in.

It is my firm belief that this is what we who called ourselves progressive conservatives should have done. Yes, there may be a possibility of electoral success - but at what cost. What is the cost to Canadians if a group of political leaders abandon the core beliefs of the party they represent to achieve electoral gain? Are we right in sacrificing the cause of the less fortunate on the altar of political expediency?

This is my concern.

We have inherited a legacy from the past leaders of the Progressive Conservative Party. This is a legacy to be cherished - a legacy of never giving up, of succeeding against all odds, Stanfield, Lougheed, Hatfield, Clark and Mulroney did that. A legacy of common fiscal thinking combined with social compassion. It is a legacy I cannot shrug off. A legacy I will not abandon. The Progressive Conservative Party had a history and tradition I believed would last forever - whatever the circumstances.

If there was to be some form of co-operation between parties, it must be based on principle, not expediency.

So, I will continue to support and advocate my beliefs as a Progressive Conservative Senator. In Question Period, in debate and in committee, I will continue to speak out to defend the values I believe are emblematic of a Progressive Conservative.

I will be watching with interest, both the Leadership and the policies of the new party, to see whether they address my concerns. It is my hope that they will reflect the values and beliefs Progressive Conservatives hold so strongly.

I thank you for giving me the opportunity to put my thoughts and reasoning for continuing as a Progressive Conservative Senator on public record.