bout de papier, Vol. 14, No. 3 (1997) — Fall 1997 // Automne 1997, pp. 33–35
“In some respects,” Jack Granatstein has written, “Arnold Heeney fitted the concept of a perfect civil-service mandarin.” Heeney had been recruited personally by W.L. Mackenzie King in 1938 to serve as Principal Secretary to the Prime Minister: Steering adroitly around King’s more political intentions, Heeney added the title of Clerk of the Privy Council less than two years later and with it responsibility for the creation of a cabinet secretariat. Heeney’s well-earned reputation as a capable administrator prompted Lester Pearson to consider Heeney as a possible successor when Pearson transmigrated into politics in the fall of 1948. As the first document reproduced below demonstrates, however, Pearson had had in mind nominating a senior francophone as the next Under-Secretary of State for External Affairs. When the prospective nominees preferred to stay abroad, Pearson decided that Heeney would give the Department of External Affairs the administrative direction it required, to complement his own leadership on foreign policy questions. For his part, Heeney would have preferred an appointment as Ambassador to the United States, a post then inconveniently occupied by Hume Wrong.
Heeney had learned about political manoeuvering from a master, so that he secured a commitment to a senior posting abroad to follow the prolongation of his purgatory in the East Block. When Canada decided to establish a permanent mission to NATO, then headquartered in Paris, Heeney was named as the first Ambassador, but not before he had reminded Pearson about Washington. The second document provides ample proof of Heeney’s deft hand at senior bureaucratic politics. That carefully orchestrated shuffle of appointments satisfied both Heeney and Dana Wilgress, his co-conspirator, who was never happy as a deputy minister. As for Wrong, he became ill after only two weeks as Under-Secretary and died in Ottawa in January 1954.
These developments are described in Canada’s Department of External Affairs, Volume II, Coming of Age 1946-1968 [en Français: Le ministère des Affaires extérieures du Canada, Volume II, L’essor 1946-1968] by John Hilliker and Don Barry, who provided bout de papier with a copy of the memorandum. The context and additional documentation associated with Heeney’s appointment as Under- Secretary can be found in volumes 14 and 15 of the series Documents on Canadian External Relations.
Hector Mackenzie
Senior Departmental Historian
[National Archives of Canada, L.B. Pearson Papers, Volume 32, file: External Affairs Department — Personnel 1946-8]
Personal and Confidential Ottawa, Nov[ember] 19, [19148
Dear Mike [Pearson],
For some time I have intended writing you, but you know how it is!
Your department is getting along well on the whole, so far as I am able to judge, but the combination of your acting-Minister [Brooke Claxton, Minister of National Defencel and acting-Under-Secretary [Escott Reid] is pretty exhausting as you can imagine. The production of papers and the volume thereof has struck an all time high I should think and the North Atlantic crusade which you started is in danger of being checked by memoranda. I’ve to comment this afternoon on the umpteenth edition of Escott’s opus which by now you will have seen — a tour de force but not a document to put before your colleagues, at least till a later stage. I have so far played my usual role of dampener on these activities for I’m frankly afraid of a reaction among the Ministers or at least a revulsion against the officials if we try to go too far too fast. It would be more than a pity if having gone along the right path the government were to stop short and grow frightened by looking over the principles which surround it. It’s a shame you can’t be here and in Cabinet these next few meetings.
I still have the Under Secretaryship in my mind though I am not at all sure whether I want it or not. In many ways I do, partly no doubt because it would be flattering to my ego to be asked to take a place in such a distinguished succession — partly too because, as I’ve told you, I feel that I’ve grown stale where I am. On the other hand I suppose that I should be content with my present lot particularly under the new conditions [Louis St. Laurent succeeded W.L. Mackenzie King as Prime Minister on 15 November 1948] and, indeed, I’ve told St. L[aurent] that I will stay until the election if that seems to him and to you to be best in the general interest. Of course, quite frankly, I would have been happy had it worked out that I should go to Washington – or London — but it didn’t, and I shall hope that, before too long, it may yet, for I make no bones of my aspirations in that quarter.
There is nothing new to you in this but I repeat it because I should like to know just as soon as possible whether there is any likelihood now of my being asked to take the Under-Secretary’s chair on your return. Has the position changed with respect to [Jean] Désy? So far as we know it has not and Jack P[ickersgill] has the impression that St. L[aurent] has grown pretty cold to the idea. It may be that a French]-Can[adian] appointment to the new Dleputyl/M[inister] to [Robert] Winters [Minister of Reconstruction and Supply] might relieve the pressure. I do not know.
Meantime, [C.D.] Howe and [Lionel] Chevrier are pressing for John Baldwin and I shall have to let him go probably no later than Dec[ember] 15th. As yet I have no satisfactory successor in sight. I have spoken to Gordon Robertson on the basis of coming in at [the] P[rivy] C[ouncil] Olffice] but not, at first anyway, as Assistant Secretary. I think that might do. He is however undecided — has had other attractive offers and is not sure that he should not go back to External (I told him that I was sure coming to PCO would not prejudice his eventual career in your department).
So much for my troubles – I should apologize for reminding you of them — but do not since they affect us both. If you tell me to put your department out of my own calculations altogether I shall do so — in some ways I shall be relieved.
The changing of the guard last Monday was a strange, in some curious way an unreal experience. Mr. King came through it all very well really but I’m afraid I found his role somewhat pathetic. Jack [Pickersgill] and I called in at Laurier House [King’s residence] to see him when it was all over, however, round 130 and found him in bed. He said he’d had 1½ h[ou]rs sleep since returning from Government House! It’Il be difficult to regard him (or for him to regard himself, I suspect) as merely the Man from Glengarry.
St. Laurent is bearing up well. His first press conference was very successful and he shows every sign of being able to take it all in his stride. His O’Donnell daughter [Madeleine St. Laurent; married to Hugh O’Donnell] told me that she found Mme St. L[aurent] the morning of the big day peeling potatoes in their apartment.
Spoke to Walter Gordon [former public servant and partner, Clarkson, Gordon & Co. of Toronto] on the telephone earlier this week. He reports you & Maryon [Pearson] as in fine fettle. Stick to it but for Heaven’s sake not for too much longer.
Our best to Maryon — no doubt her French is now quite elegant.
Y[ou]rs, Arnold [Heeney]
[Postscript] We were relieved to hear that you had accepted office in the new government.
[National Archives of Canada, Arnold Heeney Papers]
Personal & confidential Paris, April 29, 1953
Memo re my future posting in the Service
1. When the Minister [Pearson] was in Paris for the NATO Ministerial meetings last week I had a number of opportunities for private talks with him. He told me early in the week that he would discuss “postings” with me Friday or Saturday and we arranged to lunch together at my house on the former day April 24.
2. During the April 24 morning meeting, [Dana] Wilgress drew me aside and told me that that morning, walking down to the Palais de Chaillot, Mr. Pearson had opened the subject with him. He had indicated that it was settled that Wrong would leave Washington, sometime in June, and that he would have to make recommendations for a successor. I, he said, was “dead set” on Washington “for some reason. “ There were, however, other possibilities that he had been considering along with me — Graham Towers [Governor of the Bank of Canada], himself (Wilgress), [Jean] Désy [Ambassador to Italy] & [Georges] Vanier [Ambassador to France]. He agreed with Wilgress that Towers could hardly be spared from Ottawa in the next year or so because of the critical Canadian interest in developments concerning the “Collective approach.” Wilgress reaffirmed his own interest in the NATO appointment. Désy & Vanier were not seriously discussed.
Wilgress received the impression that the Minister intended to propose my appointment, Wrong going to Ottawa & he to the NATO Mission.
3. Mr. Pearson and I lunched alone on Friday April 24. After lunch he raised the question of Washington and the whole range of senior appointments in the Service. He said that he knew that Washington was the one I was most interested to hear about.
4. With respect to Wrong’s succession, he had had a chat with the P.M. before leaving Ottawa. It was understood that W[rong] would leave. A number of names including mine were mentioned as possible successors. The P.M. was aware (from my conversation with him last year) that I was anxious to be appointed. The possibility of an “outside” nomination was considered, briefly I gather, but no particularly suitable names were mentioned. the question was left open and Mr. P[earson] would take it up again with Mr. St. L[aurent] on his return to Ottawa.
5. Ireaffirmed my unwavering desire to be appointed to Washington. As Mr. P. knew, this had been my fixed ambition for a number of years. I had written him frankly about it when it seemed likely that he would be leaving the Ministry (to become S[ecretary] G[eneral] of the U[nited] N[ations]). There was no other post in the Service which I would be willing to accept as an alternative; nor indeed would I want to remain another winter in my present post. If the government decided upon someone else for Washington, I would have to consider seriously leaving the Public Service for law or business. In addition to my ’professional’ desire for the Washington post, there were family reasons why I should return to North America before long. After Washington, if I were appointed, I would be interested in returning to Ottawa — perhaps to the head of a revamped Civil Service Commission.
6. Mr. Pearson said that he had been glad that I had written him as I had. He understood my position. He would have complete confidence in me fulfilling the duties satisfactorily as Ambassador to the United States. He would have no qualms in putting my name forward to the P.M.
Other names had been mentioned – Towers in many ways would be admirable but he did not think, apart from other considerations, that he could be spared; Vanier would not be suitable; Désy wanted Paris. He would have full confidence in Wilgress but he seemed to want to come to NATO.
7. Mr. Pearson mentioned the possibility of the Prime Minister suggesting the appointment in succession to Wrong of some “outstanding Canadian” from outside the Service. This had been referred to in his talk with Mr. St. L[aurent]. He did not think the P.M. had any particular person in mind; if he did and the candidate was genuinely outstanding — C.D. Howe, J.W. McConnell ten years ago [then a prominent industrialist and proprietor of the Montreal Star] — Mr. P[earson] would not oppose. But he felt sure that C.D. would not be interested and he knew of no other of that category; he would resist strongly any lesser person.
8. Mr. Pearson referred to the possible risk of accepting appointment to W[ashington] before the election. If the Conservatives formed the next government, they might impose their own appointee; there was this risk. I said I was quite prepared to take it.
9. It was important, Mr. P[earson] thought, that the W[ashington] appointment should be made as far ahead of the election as possible. This would mean a decision in Ottawa within the next two weeks or even sooner; in any event by the end of May — because the P.M. would be leaving for the Coronation May 15 and the election campaign would get underway at once on his return. The time-table for taking up this and related appointments was flexible & could be worked out between those concerned
10. It was finally left that Mr. Pearson would take the matter up with Mr. St. Laurent immediately on his return to Ottawa and let me know the result. I could count on hearing from him within two weeks.
He would put my name, Wilgress (If after speaking to him W[ilgress] wished it) and perhaps Désy’s — in that order. I would be his first choice. He gave me the impression (justified I think) that, barring the production by the P.M. of some outstanding and unexpected cat from the bag, my name was very likely to be accepted. I agreed with his suggestion that he should mention the position to Mr: [Brooke] Claxton [Minister of National Defence] and Mr. [Douglas] Abbott [Minister of Finance] on his way home [Claxton and Abbott were also in Paris for the NATO Ministerial Meeting].
11. We also discussed a great many other senior appointments at home & abroad. That same afternoon I was able to indicate to Wilgress how the land lay. On Saturday Wilgress gave me the attached proposed schedule of changes which I said would be wholly agreeable to me.
12. On saying good-bye to me at the airport Apr. 27, Mr. Plearson] again said that I w[oul]d be hearing from him soon. He had already spoken to Mr. Abbott who seemed favourable (Mr. A[bbott] had given the same impression the previous day).
[A.D.P. Heeney].
[Attachment:]
Suggested Programme
Week of May 4th
appointments to be taken up in Cabinet
agreement to be sought from Washington
Week of May 11th
appointments to be announced
June 15th
Mr. W[rong] to leave Washington
Mr. H[eeney] to leave Paris
July Ist
Mr. Heeney| to assume charge in Washington
August 1st
Effective date of transfers
Mr. W[ilgress] to leave Ottawa
September 15th
Mr. W[rong] to assume charge in Ottawa 2
View the original scanned pages →
Originally published in bout de papier, Vol. 14, No. 3 (1997) — Fall 1997 // Automne 1997, pp. 33–35. Read the rest of this issue →
