Peter C. Newman has been writing about Canadian politics for nearly half a century. He has published 22 books, including his 2004 best-selling memoir Here Be Dragons: Telling Tales of People, Passion and Power. Throughout his career, Newman has earned the title of Canada’s “most cussed and discussed” political commentator. His most recent book, The Secret Mulroney Tapes: Unguarded Confessions of a Prime Minister (Random House Canada) has been called a “no-holds-barred profile.”
Common Ground: Our November theme is remembering who we are. What are your thoughts about who we are as Canadians, both in our families and communities, and on a global scale?
Peter C. Newman: I truly believe it’s a very valuable thing to be a Canadian. There are many reasons for that. One is that the world runs on technology now and we can offer the world North American technology without the burden of American imperialism. If you buy American technology, you get a hidden agenda with it. We just sell a technology, and that’s a huge advantage.
Secondly, we have established a fairly decent multi-cultural society, which is again a valuable quality to have in terms of fitting into the 21st century, because everybody, every country, has to be multi-cultural.
We have a huge advantage, something incalculable, in that we have the world’s largest amount of fresh water and oil. I mean, what two more precious commodities are there? Now, we may or may not have the wisdom to market them, or sell or rent them in a way that most benefits the country, as opposed to giving them away, which has been our pattern in the past. So, I’m a little bit hesitant to name this quality, because our politicians may completely wreck the possibility of doing something creative.
I’m not saying we shouldn’t trade, because if people are thirsty they’ve got to have water, but I am saying we shouldn’t give it away to the Americans; we should get something back, which we didn’t really in the free trade deal.
The other advantage is that we speak English, which has become the world’s language. Everybody either knows English or is learning it, and for most of us it’s our mother tongue. In terms of doing business, of doing almost anything in the world now, you have to know English.
Finally, despite all the problems we have and the very real difficulties, when you go to any other country and look back on Canada, we still look like we have fewer problems than most other countries. You have to experience that to realize it. I’ve been living abroad for four and a half years now and I didn’t know it before I went abroad. If you compare anybody’s problems with our problems, ours are not as serious.
CG What are you reading now? Which is your favourite newspaper and magazine, and which books are you reading?
PN: I’m reading all the novels by Oliver Stone, one of my favourite authors. I’m reading a book about Derek Burney, who was the executive assistant to Mulroney. I’m re-reading The History of Canada by Donald Creighton, which I think is the most important history book ever published in Canada.
CG: In terms of newspapers or magazines, is there a particular one that you prefer?
PN: I read all of them: all the Canadian papers and the New Yorker. I like Gerald Hirsch, the guy who does all those exposes.
CG: Given that you’ve met all these people with different degrees of political power, how would you separate personality from principles? I sometimes think the personalities rule the day.
PN: You’re right, but I don’t bother with personality. I’m interested in character. I find that personality, especially among politicians and big businessmen, is something they can put on and take off every night. Whereas character, which is who they really are, who Mulroney really is in my book [The Secret Mulroney Tapes], as opposed to his personality, is much more difficult to gauge and to debate with.
I think Trudeau had character. He was tough and knew exactly what he wanted for the country and for himself. I don’t think Chrétien has character, and certainly Martin doesn’t.
In a funny way, Mulroney does and it comes out in the book, and in his case that’s Irish. He’s an ultimate Irishman, the Irish being a people who are born to tell stories, which are not always connected with facts. They’re romantics and dreamers. They have a tendency to exaggerate. But they also have wit and humour, which he does, and in a way, his character as being Irish as opposed to his personality, which is the son of Baie-Comeau who became prime minister.
CG: Do you make a distinction between who has power and strength, and who has wisdom?
PN: In terms of wisdom, it’s a rare
commodity among these people. One reason, and I’m talking about both politicians and big businessmen, is they have no sense of introspection, which I think you have to have in order to have wisdom. They’re about as introspective as heavyweight boxers. They’re not in the wisdom business. They would see it as a liability. It stops you. If you think about things too long and consider all the possibilities and options, you might gain wisdom, but you wouldn’t gain profits, and they’re in the business of harvesting profit, whether that’s numbers of votes or numbers of dollars.
CG: Is Canada capable of surviving globalism? What would be the best way to play our cards amidst the US, Britain, China with all the shifts that are occurring?
PN: This is one of my few original
theories. I think globalism is going to shift into very unexpected directions. While the 20th century was essentially a century of nation states, I think the 21st century will be a century of city states, including Canada.
So, Canada can survive globalism in a limited way through its city states. We might have three or four. The thing about a city state is that it has the critical mass to live with modern technology, to exploit it, whereas smaller concentrations of populations don’t. That requires good universities and a highly educated labour force, which we have.
I see that as the future of Canada, with rural areas continuing to accelerate in decline, and city states taking over and eventually joining into some kind of global or semi-global coalition such as the Hanseatic League which was a coalition of harbour cities in Northern Europe that lasted 300 years. That’s the way I see globalism going and where we’re going.
CG: Who in this country is worthy of being prime minister, and who in BC is worthy of being the premier?
PN: How do you mean worthy?
CG: Well, I see it as someone who would actually work for the best interests of Canada and the people that live here, rather than on behalf of multinational corporations that aren’t based in Canada. Someone honest who would leave a legacy rather than a debt.
PN: Everywhere I go people ask me who I think can lead us. I’ve never come up with a name. I’m not dodging the question. I’m just saying that we’re at a peculiar stage in our history where there’s no identifiable leader. I use the word “identifiable” because I know there’s somebody out there, but I don’t know who it is any more than you do. There’s no obvious choice that I know of.
CG: If there were such a person capable of making a major change in Canada and the world, what would that change be?
PN: Well, you’ve got to get somebody who’s there not to get a better job or make more money, but to genuinely improve the conditions of life.
CG: Some have said that they thought you were basically a Libertarian with a conservative streak – someone who has not taken the CanWest Global approach to journalism, but went on to have things such as power more out in the open, celebrating more of a diversity of you with a sense of humour. Where would you say you’re at politically and philosophically?
PN: I guess I’m a small “L” liberal, but I don’t buy all those definitions any more. I think they’re obsolete. I think what matters is whether or not you’re a nationalist, whether or not you believe in your country. That’s more important than left or right, because being left or right. You know, in some situations you’re left, and in some you’re right. So, I’m looking for people who believe in and are willing to work for Canada. Whether they’re left or right is a detail, because eventually they’re all going to be in the middle anyway.
CG: I love your quote from Orwell: “the lower-upper-middle class.” Why would Gordon Campbell, Ralph Klein, and Dick Cheney meet on a ranch recently?
PN: I’ll give you three guesses: energy, energy, energy. And how to get it cheaply into the US.
CG: How does the emergence of China figure into the world scene in terms of Canada?
PN: I think Canada is going to have a lot of trouble. China’s not a democracy. They don’t have a viable legal system. And my prediction is it’s India that’s going to be the next great power, because they are a democracy and they have the British legal system so people aren’t afraid to invest in it and they’ve got a billion people too. They’re also much more open to the modern world than China.
CG: What do you love most about Canada and Canadians?
PN: Well, there’s a lot I don’t admire. Canadians are too scared and too deferential. But unlike the US, Canada is a country that’s still in the process of becoming. The evolution hasn’t stopped. It has a long way to go. And we have seven people per square mile, which makes us one of the less populated industrial countries in the world, which gives us a lot of potential for growth. We’re blessed with natural resources, including the water and oil that I mentioned.
Mostly, again unlike the US, you can be a Canadian and still be a Newfoundlander or a Czech or a German or whatever, whereas in the States you’re just an American and you have to forget all your other roots.
CG: I thought up a new term: USNA or US of North America. Are Canadians sleepwalking into the Amero-dream where Mexico and Canada would be merged with the US?
PN: Why would they merge with us? They own everything that’s profitable here now. If they merged with us, they’d have to be subsidizing the Maritimes and doing all kinds of stuff they don’t want to do. They don’t need to merge with us. They’d have to foster the arts and do all the things the government does now. This way, they just own the profitable parts.
CG: It seems like the only things that get privatized are the things that are profitable. Why is that?
PN: Because the government would sell them off and make more money.
CG: Given that you’re now spending a lot of time in England, what advice would you give to Canadians?
PN: Appreciate your country. Too many Canadians take it for granted, which is inexcusable. We have the mandate of heaven and we don’t appreciate what we have.
CG: How should people appreciate it more?
PN: Maybe become a politician and pass some enlightening legislation, take care of the environment, or write Canadian songs and poems.
CG: How did you get into writing and journalism?
PN: I couldn’t think of anything else to do. I tried to be a businessman and it didn’t work, because I’m not that interested in money. I went to one of those vocational guidance places where you pay for them to tell you what you should be, and they decided I should be a weatherman.