Home The Ambassador Media January 30, 2006

DATE: January 30, 2006 (1:30 p.m.)

LOCATION: Via Teleconference from the Canadian Embassy, Washington, D.C.

PRINCIPAL(S): Frank McKenna, Canadian Ambassador to the United States

SUBJECT: Canada's Ambassador to the U.S., Frank McKenna, Gives a News Conference via Telephone Conference from the Canadian Embassy

Frank McKenna: Premier of New Brunswick in 1997. I spent 15 years in public life, 12 years as leader of the Liberal Party of New Brunswick, two years as leader of the opposition and 10 years as premier.

Lorsque j’ai quitté mes fonctions du Premier ministre du Nouveau-Brunswick en 1997 j’avais consacré 15 ans de vie publique, 12 ans comme chef du Parti libéral du Nouveau-Brunswick, 12 ans comme chef de l’opposition et 10 ans comme Premier ministre.

This period was the most intensely fulfilling time of my life. Unfortunately, it was also the most completely absorbing experience of my life. I became addicted to my responsibilities — seven days a week, 24 hours a day. I was unable to find the appropriate balance then and I’m certain I would not be able to find the appropriate balance now. I reminded myself this week of my vow upon leaving office that, having escaped the trap, I wouldn’t go back for the cheese.

Contrary to the belief of some, being prime minister of Canada has not been a burning ambition for me. I didn’t accept the position as ambassador to Washington to create a platform with such a motive. It was simply an opportunity to provide four more years of service in the interests of my country. Contrairement au point de vue de certains, l’accession au poste du Premier ministre du Canada n’a pas été une de mes ambitions ardentes. Similarly, I didn’t resign from my position as ambassador because I wanted to pursue this objective. That should be obvious today. I resigned for reasons that I stated last week — in what I thought was the best interest of the country.

This week the result of the federal election and the resignation of the prime minister have forced me to give serious and immediate consideration to this opportunity once again. I had to balance the enormous sense of obligation I felt to my party, my country, my friends and supporters with what was right for me and my family. It was clear that any aspirant for this office must look for a time commitment of eight to 10 years.

I love my country and would do anything for it but I’m not vain enough to believe that I alone can provide the leadership that our great country and party need at this time. I’ve dedicated almost 16 years to public service and I was proud and humbled to do so. I’ve done my share.

J’aime mon pays et je ferais tout en mon pouvoir pour le servir mais je ne suis pas assez vaniteux pour penser que je suis le seul capable de fournir le leadership dont mon pays et mon parti ont besoin maintenant.

Having made this decision I feel an enormous sadness at being unable to honour the support and the aspiration of so many close friends and supporters. I know, however, in my heart of hearts that I will have no regrets. Like so many other Canadians, I stand ready to serve my country in other ways. Thank you. Merci. Any questions?

Question: (Inaudible)

Frank McKenna: Truthfully, having said what I just said, I’d go back to being ambassador and that has certain consequences as well, one of which is that my ability to comment on politics is pretty limited. Suffice it to say the field is very open and, look, I, as an observer of public life over the years, find it a phenomena worth watching the motivation of people that come out and become involved in the political process and to stand up. I don’t have any doubt there’ll be lots of candidates for the position.

Question: (Inaudible)

Frank McKenna: Well, to somewhat paraphrase and perhaps mangle Mark Twain, the prospect of success does wonders to fixate your mind. And the opportunity which I was deeply grateful for, I’ve never been more humbled in my life than some of the kind things that were said to me this week. But it does require that you concentrate on it very, very quickly and it is emotional just because so many people seem to hold such high hopes for me. But at the end of the day I’ve been there. I’ve been at the centre of the storm a long time. I’m a veteran of the free trade debate, of Meech Lake, of Charlottetown, of Calgary declaration, of some of the great debates of our time. And I know what it takes from you. And I had to balance that against the opportunity to spend more time with friends and family, to watch my grandchildren grow, you know, to do things that are meaningful and to do things that would be good for my country but perhaps not at that level of service.

Question: (Inaudible)

Frank McKenna: Yeah. Well, your question gives me a chance to remark on just how much I’ve enjoyed the experience here. People had told me how when I was asked to do this just what a wonderful place it was to represent Canada and I have enjoyed every second of it here. We’ve got the most marvellous group of men and women representing Canada at this embassy. And the embassy itself, I wish every Canadian could come and visit it. It is such a statement for Canada, the embassy that we have in Washington. I would have loved to have done this job for as long as the country would have me. But that wasn’t to be and as it stands now I’m really in the hands of the prime minister. As soon as he names a replacement to take over I will be gone and I don’t know whether that’s a matter of weeks or months but it would be in the near future. As to what happens after that, it’s just a closed curtain that once I leave here I’ll have to open. But, you know, I’ll find things to kick around doing afterwards. There’s lots to do.

Question: (Inaudible)

Frank McKenna: No, on the contrary, I’ve always enjoyed wonderful support in Quebec and Quebec is a neighbour of New Brunswick and I was always the premier that was called to go to Quebec on various campaigns. Remember, moi j’étais le Premier ministre d’une province qui est bilingue, complètement bilingue, la seule province qui est officiellement bilingue. I live in a Francophone community in New Brunswick — not an Anglophone there except me.

Question: (Inaudible)

Frank McKenna: J’étais toujours sympathique. I’ve always been sympathetic to the aspirations of Quebec and I would have loved the chance to work in Quebec again and campaign in Quebec. But, no, this was a much bigger issue than that and came right down to me being comfortable with devoting eight or 10 years of the rest of my life to this very, very important but very demanding job.

Question: (Inaudible)

Frank McKenna: No. No, it wasn’t. And it has nothing to do with the election of a new Conservative government. I know Prime Minister-elect Harper and many of the people in his government and I have respect for him and for them and for their aspirations. They were very supportive of me in coming here in fact. But it’s just a matter of being respectful of not what’s good for you but what’s ultimately good for your country and in this city power is important and the perception of power is very important. And it’s not just who you can access in Washington, it’s who they believe you can access back in Canada that helps you do things. And it was well known here that I would speak to our prime minister many times a day sometimes on issues and had very close access. It’s a tradition here that political ambassadors resign and I think it would have been hard for this city to understand any other behaviour in this case. So no, it was just because of those reasons. And when the election first started I’d mentally kind of mused about maybe I could stay on but as I thought about it more and talked with others it became obvious to me there was only one correct course of action.

Question: (Inaudible)

Frank McKenna: With respect to the first question the answer would be no. That wasn’t a factor at all. In fact, the prime minister, Prime Minister Martin left the Liberal Party with a very, very strong number of seats and a very good vantage point to rebuild the party. I think most people would say they were surprised election night at just how strong the roots were of the party. It’s exactly the opposite of that, Tim, that it’s the prospect of success that was the influence on me and might have been on John Manley, I don’t know, not the challenge of rebuilding the party. I don’t think that would have been a daunting task at all and I think there’ll be lots of candidates available to do that. But one has to assume that you’re going to be successful and so if you do assume that you have to assume that you’ve got to be prepared not to just come in on an impulse and leave very quickly, you’ve got to be able to stay there through a leadership convention, one, two, maybe more elections. You have to make a commitment when you do this to eight to 10 years. You know it’s not a secret I guess that almost every Liberal leader we’ve had had become prime minister of Canada. In fact, as Colin pointed out this morning, that the only one that didn’t was Blake and I don’t know if historically that’s true but it sounds about right. So it tells you you’ve got pretty good odds of being prime minister if you’re the leader of the Liberal Party but then you have to really reflect on whether that is how you want to spend this next most productive part of your life. And I admire and applaud those who do and will do it but I did my period in the limelight.

Question: (Inaudible)

Frank McKenna: You know it gives me a chance to say something which I really haven’t had a chance to say because I haven’t been able to speak during the election campaign. I’ve been really grounded. And that is that the characterization of the relationship here is somewhat mistaken. Things are actually in very good shape and it’s got nothing to do with my leadership. It’s just the people on the ground working on files I think would tell you that we’re in really good shape. There was a tone at the top that I think created an environment where perhaps a lot of Canadians and Americans felt that we had a huge number of fundamental problems. But if you go through the issues — BSE resolved with the support, strong support of the U.S. government and now working on expanding the role on that, Devil’s Lake in large measure in very good shape, softwood lumber the duties have been halved, the Byrd amendment which we thought was almost an intractable problem is going to be removed in two years’ time. And if you go through the list, Katrina and the wonderful way in which Canadians were greeted because of their support for the U.S. in Katrina, the close relationship we have in Afghanistan and in Haiti and Darfur and places around the world or NORAD renewal which is almost about to take place. On almost every front we’ve got either success, total success or a very complete success on the file. WITTE (phonetic), we’re halfway there. We’ve got a partial solution. We think we can do better than that. Softwood lumber, we have reason to believe that this is a situation that has the potential for being resolved to everybody’s satisfaction. So just on all of these files we’re in very good shape.

My wish, because that was I guess really the heart of your question, would be to see a really civil tone at the top, respectful tone at the top that would allow the people, the companies, the industries, the associations and employees that work on these files every day to have the best possible environment to settle issues. And I think that both countries need to invest a bit more time in getting to understand each other better. But I think the relationship is actually in pretty good shape.

Question: (Inaudible)

Frank McKenna: Pour cette semaine seulement mais c’est une décision extrêmement difficile. Moi j’ai décidé pour les raisons simples de garder ma vie privée mais il y avait beaucoup de pression, certainement. Et la deuxième question concernant la relation, moi je suis satisfait qu’en général la relation entre les deux pays est en très bonne condition en général et les dossiers sont en bonne forme et moi je suis très confiant avec une bonne volonté que l’environnement va être propice pour régler les autres problèmes.

Question: (Inaudible)

Frank McKenna: The first question, it’s water under the bridge but I think most people would agree that there have been some things said that, you know, that have been said that haven’t been necessarily helpful but it’s history now. In a sense the relationship gets to start over again, certainly in terms of the relationship at the top.

With respect to the nomination here, I want to answer your question directly but it might not be quite as unambiguous as you would like. I believe it should be a more political appointment so that’s the direct answer. But you can have political appointments who are public service appointments. My view is that Derek Burney was a political appointment and a meritorious appointment in that he was of the public service but it would be known here that he had the ear of the prime minister of Canada because he had been chief of staff. Raymond Chrétien was a meritorious appointment because he’s a longstanding and highly respected diplomat but there’s no doubt he was a political appointment and people in Washington knew he had the ear of the prime minister of Canada. So I believe the person who comes here is going to work in the most political city in the world and that his access to power in both Washington and Ottawa is critical to his success and that that person should have very strong political and communication skills.

Question: (Inaudible)

Frank McKenna: Simplement moi je crois que le Premier ministre du Canada doit avoir le choix de nommer son candidat pour ce poste et d’assurer que la relation est extrêmement étroite entre les deux et que la perception ici est respectée, un lien étroit entre les deux. Et pour ces raisons moi j’ai déposé ma démission et pour permettre le Premier ministre du Canada de nommer son candidat à ce poste.

Question: (Inaudible)

Frank McKenna: Well, it’s interesting. I mean they express a lot of respect and appreciation for the relationship as it’s been because at the working level people really work well together. And even at the top the prime minister and the president worked well together. But there’s no doubt that perhaps because in Canada we’ve had so much politics in the last year or two with the minority government situation, two elections in a row, that it’s given a fertile bed for more acrimonious sentiment than I would like to see. I think the administration knows that every election is a jumping off point at which time you have an opportunity to reboot the relationship and so I think they’re very much looking forward to having a good, strong, civil relationship. And nobody wants pushovers. Everybody wants to respect Canadian sovereignty and Canadian aspirations. Nobody’s looking for a pushover but we’re neighbours. We’re friends. We’re cousins. We inhabit the same piece of geography and we have to show at a time when the world has never been in more turmoil that there is a relationship that can be a model to the world. And if we don’t get it right, there’s not much hope for a lot of other places. Thanks, everybody. We’ll see you all before we go I believe. Bye bye.

TRANSCRIPTION