Joe Clark is available. I'm just saying that there are prime ministers.
I think we've gone down a bit of a slippery slope here in recalling former prime ministers to talk about what happened during their governments.
Mr. Mulroney, respectfully, through his lawyers, declined to come. He came the first time, which I think we expected. We as a committee asked him to come again, and he respectfully declined, through his lawyers, to come again.
I'm a bit concerned that from a political point of view, and let's be frank about it, the harassment of former prime ministers could become not just a bad precedent but a bad habit at the committee and at the House of Commons. You know, not all of us see the glory of each prime minister that others may see, or the policies they promoted or implemented, or some of the actions they may have taken while they were in office or shortly thereafter or shortly before. But there is, I think, for me, specifically—and I'm assuming for the rest of us—a general respect for someone, man or woman, who makes it to the office of prime minister.
As you know, being parliamentarians, it's not a very easy job, no matter what side of the House you're on and which party you belong to. Leadership takes a significant toll on us individually and personally and is a 24/7 opportunity. And I'm talking leadership of all parties, not just those who become fortunate enough to lead this great country for the short period of time that they all do. But we all respect that, and I think we should continue to respect that after they have left office.
I think prime ministers are fair game, rightly or wrongly, while they're in office. We have question period every day. To make your point, some use of the press is also available to many of us around the table. While the Prime Minister is in office, that individual has that responsibility, has that accountability. But in my view, once the Prime Minister has left office--and it's not a rule, of course--he is a Canadian citizen and a citizen like anyone else.
I think as parliamentarians, we have a responsibility to respect the office and respect the individual who has made it to that office. Having this committee set the precedent of repeatedly asking prime ministers to come back and talk about different things during the time they are in office, or in this case after they've left office, I think is very bad, not just for this committee but for the Parliament of Canada. I think we'll lose respect as parliamentarians if politics follows that individual after they've left office.
The issue for me is that we need to be very careful when starting a process of recalling the prime minister, whoever that prime minister may have been, and for how long. We were fortunate, in my view, that the previous prime minister came in this case. He did his individual duty as a Canadian, in my view, to come to this committee and talk to us. The job is tough enough while you have the job, but to be worried about it for the rest of your life I think is completely inappropriate.
I think the history books will write what they believe to be accurate about a prime minister after they've left. They'll look at their legacy. They'll look at their policy. They'll look at their actions, and history will decide, based on writing and documentaries, what the general view of the prime minister has been. It's not the responsibility of the House of Commons or of parliamentarians to continuously ask to try to reframe or frame the legacy or the work of a particular prime minister.
That is why this motion, which I'm not supporting, when it recalls--