Avril Phaedra Douglas Kim Campbell – 19^th Prime Minister of Canada

Born: 10 March 1947, Port Alberni, British Columbia, Canada

Educational background: University of British Columbia, BA Political Science (1969);

London School of Economics, Doctorate (1970-1972);

University of British Columbia, LLB (1983).

Career: 1984-1986 - British Columbia Bar (Vancouver), a lawyer;

1986-1988 – British Columbia Legislative Assembly, a member;

1989-1990 – Canadian Government, Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development;

1990-1993 - Canadian Government, Minister of Justice;

1993 – Canadian Government, Minister of National Defense;

1993 – Canadian Government, Prime Minister;

1994-1996 – Harvard University, a lecturer;

1996-2000 – Consul-General of Canada in Los Angeles;

2001-2004 – John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University, a lecturer.

Public activity: 1999-2003 – Chair of Council of Women World Leaders;

2003-2005 – President of International Women's Forum;

Served on Board of International Crisis Group, Forum of Federations and other international organizations. She was a founding member of the Club of Madrid. Campbell is the Chair of International Advisory Board of the Foundation for Effective Governance.

Marital status: divorced, is in a common law marriage to actor and composer Hershey Felder.

Books: Time and Chance, autobiography (1996)

In encyclopedia articles and chronicles Kim Campbell’s name mostly stands next to such expression as “first female”: first female Minister of Justice, Minister of National Defense, and, finally, first female Prime Minister of Canada. Mrs Campbell evolved development strategy for depression regions, was engaged in integration of aboriginal and newcomer minorities, participated in overcoming Quebec separatism and optimized public governance structure. By the way, she was the Prime Minister on the eve on another referendum on independence of French-speaking Quebec. Ottawa’s victory was quite ephemeral: independence supporters won 49.42% vs 50.58% gained by federalists. It is notably that it was aboriginal peoples of Northern Quebec - the Cree and Inuit – that saved Canada from the split. They all voted for the country’s integrity. Such issues are relevant for Ukraine as well. Kyiv is coming to the point when it has to value a vote of each Crimean Tatar. Today Quebec citizens are a separate nation from social and political perspective. This is entrenched in the country’s laws. Now they have little in common with the federal center, but their wish to separate also has subsided: separatism advocates lose influence every election.

Now only 20-40% of the province citizens advocate full independence of Quebec; and in foreseeable future no third referendum on Quebec independence is expected. So, the Biznes decided to discuss these problems with former Canadian Prime Minister. 

 

Indeed, I've come as the Chair of International Advisory Board of the Foundation for Effective Governance that consists of renowned public and political figures from different countries. The Board ensures the Foundation’s independence, participates in formulating the Foundation’s strategy, helps selecting priority projects focused on long-term development of Ukrainian economy and approves them. The project in question pursues improving competitiveness of Donetsk Oblast and Lvov city.

 

The Foundation together with local government and the leading international company Monitor Group will identify investment opportunities of these sites and suggest an economic development strategy and a detailed action plan to realize it.

 

As to expansion of powers of the regions, such decisions should be based the practical sense: what powers does a region need to realize its economic potential in full? A city and an oblast propel the economic development, and the decisions made on this level are very much important in terms of attracting business and encouraging establishment of companies. Many advanced nations witness decentralization today – handover of powers to local and regional governments.

 

 

The Constitution of the USSR allowed a withdrawal of republics in theory, not in practice. Already this fact shows that the Soviet Union was not a real federation like Canada or USA. When the national government in Canada unduly interferes into affairs of provinces, they file suits against the centre. It was impossible in the USSR.

 

 

The rights of aboriginal people in our lands had been protected by the British Crown even before Canada appeared as a state. There are also tensions around a big state-forming French-speaking community, which has recently celebrated its 400^th anniversary. Relationships between regions in Canada are uneven, just like in any other country: most people live in the centre of Canada, in Ontario or Quebec. The citizens of, for example, British Columbia, where I come from, feel often that they don’t have such influence as the inhabitants of more populated regions do.

 

However, preservation of the French culture was called the national mission by the Canadians. Unlike the USA, Canadian provinces can boast of a strong layer of French culture – writers, musicians, art directors and playwrights, whose works are popular across the globe. All this results from the commitment of the Government to maintain identity of minorities. Ukrainian Government can follow this example and should support local culture without discriminating Russian culture but ensuring their productive co-existence. For example, the Parliament in Canada speaks two languages and simultaneous interpretation is in place. Interpreters are invited even to private meetings of the Government! Canada is an example how institutions can be successfully established to enable two communities to co-exist and cooperate, as well as preserve their endangered cultures.

When I went to Ottawa from British Columbia, they gave me an opportunity to learn French. Some of my colleagues came from Quebec and didn’t speak English but learned it thanks to some dedicated programs. Although they didn’t have to, because there are interpreters. I know Russian-speaking people in Kiev that wish to learn Ukrainian. And Government must encourage the desire to be bi-lingual.

 

 

The number of independence advocates is 20% in Quebec, not all of them are French-speaking. Ensuring that Quebec gets the proper share of the national wealth was the vital thing to be done to address the issue. Now this is a very rich province.

 

Also, you indeed need to pursue a bilinguism policy: even if someone speaks only English or French, he will receive all services from the state. (In fact, there are not so many bilingual Canadians – only in the west of Quebec and the east of Ontario). When the people realized that their Francophonism won’t deprive them of some benefits, the desire to separate went noticeably down. With other conditions being equal, it is better to live in a big country that will protect your interests more effectively.

At the same time, Quebec is represented individually, for example, in UNESCO because it has its own culture. Other Canadians don’t object.

 

By the way, he is my close friend! His father was a prominent senator…

 

Well, firstly, Canadians are not that easy. They, just like other people, often oppose to strangers. But our country developed thanks to immigrants. About 80% of all people living in Canada at the turn of the 19^th centuries were born in Great Britain. Later, most immigrants came from the Eastern Europe. Today they are coming to us from all over the world. The Chinese initially came to build the railways, the Sikhs had a special status in Canada, Russian Jews ran away from massacres. Our approach differed from the US “melting pot” concept. Following the policy of cultural mosaics, we encourage immigrants to preserve their languages and cultural heritage. We believe, this makes Canada richer and helps us understand situation in other countries better. This principle is written in our Constitution.

 

We’ve spent much to advance cultural diversity and eradicate discrimination. Recent reduction in funding of such programs won’t deliver anything positive. We need to keep the course, and in this sense the experience of Canada can be an example for many other countries.

 

Alongside the Government, many private organizations work in this area in Canada. The Canadian Council of Christians and Jews comprising leaders of two communities was among the first. These traditions are very weak in post-soviet countries. But you can hope that Ukrainians will stop rely on the Government and start to unite. But the Government must encourage and coordinate these processes.

 

As the Minister of Justice, I called the first national symposium to address these issues. Many judges-delegates were astonished with the claims of the women activists. For example, the law didn’t protect women from domestic violence, and the victims initiating suits ran the risk of being in the dock themselves. Much has changed since then. It was the reform of the law that triggered changes in the society.

The issue of representation is still open with women making around 20% of the parliament. And with the majority election system this problem can’t be solved by quotas.

 

Yet women are playing a big role in business. Having been discriminated in large companies, many women leave them and set up own business that are successful, as a rule. Researches show that women pay bank loans more regularly; their enterprises achieve better results than businesses run by men and become an essential source of new jobs. So, women in Canada have realized their potential in full for the past 40 years. And not only as workforce. They were successful in small and medium-size business as well.

 

It isn’t about cutting the number of state officials, but rather giving their work a proper direction. The biggest problem was that the ministries didn’t interact. We had to bring them together and make coordinate their actions. So, you don’t necessarily have to reduce the number of agencies. For example, I established the Ministry of National Defense that consolidated all efforts in this area. But I separated the Ministry of Public Health from the Ministry of Social Policy because this area is essential by itself. Most important thing is not to cut but to make your left hand know what the right hand is doing to avoid duplication of functions.

 

Taking advantage of language and geographic proximity, the USA export their culture to us – we know about them more, than they about us. Still, our countries are very different. It is interesting that since the 1988 free trade agreement, our countries haven’t become more similar, on the contrary, even less. Canada has turned into a more socially liberal nation, while the US – more conservative. We maintained our public health system and social programs, while the bilateral trade between Canada and the USA is the biggest in the world. If asked about the largest trade partner for the US, most Americans would probably mention Japan. But in fact, Canada is three times more important for the American economy, than Japan. A free access to the vast US markets is important for us, too. This was the reason, actually, why Canada was reluctant to agree to Mexico's joining the free trade zone. There were concerns that the American capital would be partially channeled to the south. But it happened the other way round – Mexico’s integration opened the way to Latin America for Canadian businessmen.

 

Proximity to a big country always gives rise to a sort of paranoia. As one of our prime ministers said, it is like being a mouse and sleeping with an elephant. But the example of Canada shows how this neighborhood can be turned into a benefit. Now the Canada-USA trade makes a million of dollars per minute! Canada is the chief supplier of electricity, oil and gas for the USA, more important than Venezuela and Saudi Arabia. Ukraine has all chances to be an indispensable partner for Russia.

 

First, I don’t think that Ukraine will join the EU in the nearest future. But the European Neighborhood Policy being discussed today by your diplomats can be very useful. You don’t have to be a member of the EU to benefit from European neighborhood. Ukraine is in talks now about creation of a free trade zone with the EU, and this is excellent. The European Union is a huge and rich market, and any exporting country wants to access it. Free trade will stimulate development of your production.

 

The EU can also propel political changes in Ukraine, as a carrot that makes a donkey move. So, Europe will be not only a valuable partner for Ukraine, but an engine for development of institutions that must progress with the pace unseen in old European democracies.

 

Canada is one of NATO founders. The Alliance was established to repel a potential attack by the USSR or China. When I was the Minister of National Defense, we were closing our military bases in Europe, because there was no more threat from the Soviet Union. But the members have been so close and complementary in their military industries for the time of NATO existence (e.g. Canada is focused on repelling submarine attacks only) that the decision was made not to dissolve the alliance. On the contrary, NATO started to expand. It was strange to sit at the meeting the NATO council for the first time near the Minister of Defense of the Czech Republic and realize that he was no more an enemy but an ally.

 

But NATO has been looking for its proper place in the changed international environment. Ukraine and Georgia have been urging this search. No NATO country wants to fight against Russia but how can it observe obligations towards allies then? Besides, all decisions in the Alliance are made through a consensus. The more participants are involved in the discussion, the harder it is to reach a unanimous consent. Isn’t it enough to expand? Another problem is a new type of wars that NATO is not adapted to, because it was established at the dawn of the Cold War.