THE WEST BLOCK
Episode 29, Season 3
Sunday, March 23, 2014
Host: Tom Clark
Guest Interviews: Alexandre Cloutier, Bob Dechert, John Baird, Jennifer Ditchburn, Vassy Kapelos, Peter Stoffer
Location: Ottawa
**Please check against delivery**
Tom Clark:
On this Sunday, denied; the Supreme Court says no to Stephen Harper’s pick for a new Supreme Court Justice. How did he get it so wrong and is there another message in this ruling?
And as Russia continues to overrun Ukrainian military bases in Crimea, G7 leaders meet to figure out what’s next; an exclusive interview with Canada’s foreign minister, John Baird.
Plus, does the government have a moral obligation to the men and women who risk their lives serving our country? Well you might be surprised by the government’s answer to that.
It is Sunday, March 23rd and from the nation’s capital, I’m Tom Clark, and you’re in The West Block. Well as you can see, we are back in Canada and what a week to return; the Supreme Court sending a very strong message to the Harper government. In a six to one decision, the court ruled, that Marc Nadon was not qualified to join their ranks. Nadon, a semi-retired federal court judge, was handpicked by Stephen Harper to fill one of three Quebec seats on the bench. The Quebec government, among others, appealed his appointment and they won. The court also overturned the government’s attempts to change the law to make Nadon’s appointment legal.
And joining me now to talk more about this Quebec’s minister of intergovernmental affairs, Alexandre Cloutier. And Minister, thanks very much for taking the time to be with us this morning.
Alexandre Cloutier:
It’s my pleasure.
Tom Clark:
What is the lesson in all of this? What was the takeaway lesson in this?
Alexandre Cloutier:
Well the takeaway lesson, I would say it is just follow the rule. If there is a lesson that the federal government should get from this reference from the Supreme Court, it’s basically don’t try to change the rule or don’t try to bypass the legislation that is in effect in Quebec. We have a specific disposition, Article 6 of the Supreme Court Act basically that is there only for Quebec and the federal government has tried to not respect it and now the Supreme Court has given full reason to…total reason, pardon, to the Quebec government.
Tom Clark:
Does it in some way though show that the federal system works because here you have the Supreme Court defending the position of Quebec against a federal government?
Alexandre Cloutier:
Well it will work better if we didn’t spend almost eight months in court what is for so obvious that they couldn’t do that. And it was also obvious for the federal government, you know I’m saying that because they knew that they were trying to do something that was unsure and they knew it because the thought it was important to ask the opinion of someone else. They asked an external opinion from a former Supreme Court Justice because they knew it was the first time they were trying to go that way, and for us in Quebec it was obvious they couldn’t do so. While for us, it’s more like an example of bad federalism where there is unilateral decisions made in Ottawa. They do not respect the three names that was presented by the Quebec government. They wanted to go their way but in fact, it turns out that we spent six months for nothing and we’ve spent thousands of dollars to defend ourselves and we didn’t have the three judges for the last four or five months now, at the Supreme Court in Ottawa.
Tom Clark:
What is the way forward from here minister? Is the Quebec government going to propose any?
Alexandre Cloutier:
Well absolutely, there is no doubt for us that we will propose a new name for the federal government but what we’re saying, please follow the rule and please respect the fact that in Quebec we have a different system of law that goes back to 1774. The civil code is here in Quebec for more than two hundred centuries…ah two centuries, sorry, now. So of course we wish that the federal government now will respect the list that we do submit to Ottawa.
Tom Clark:
Just a final question because a lot of people saw in this judgment a hint about what the Supreme Court may say about Senate reform. If your government is re-elected, is there any circumstance in which you would agree to re-open the Constitution to reform the Canadian Senate?
Alexandre Cloutier:
Well the Canadian Senate is a very tough question. As you know, we’ve been presenting our argument in court and we’re saying that the federal government cannot change the rule only by a law and they have to go through the Constitution…the modification Constitution process and that’s our position and that’s the position we still believe, but I really doubt that the federal government wish to open the Constitution. And of course if they do so, that brings a lot of other questions.
Tom Clark:
Okay, Alexander Cloutier, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs for Quebec. Thank you very much for taking the time today to be with us. Thank you.
Alexandre Cloutier:
You’re welcome. Thank you very much for the invitation.
Tom Clark:
Well federal justice minister Peter MacKay was out of the country when the ruling came down and he has not spoken publically about it since. A spokesperson in the prime minister’s office said the prime minister was genuinely surprised by the Supreme Court ruling. Well I’m joined now by Bob Dechert. He’s the parliamentary secretary to the minister of justice. Mr. Dechert, thanks very much for coming in this morning. I appreciate it.
Bob Dechert:
Thanks Tom. Good to see you.
Tom Clark:
I want to start off, yesterday one of your colleagues, a fellow Conservative MP went on Twitter and among the things he said was this. This is Bob Zimmer. He said, “We, as elected officials, enact legislation and it is the courts job to enforce. Period.” Is that how you see things? Is that how you see the role of the Supreme Court of Canada?
Bob Dechert:
Well of course not, there is the Constitution, there is the Charter of Rights and all legislation has to comply with the Constitution and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In this particular case, as I think you mentioned in your previous piece, the government did have the opinion of a former Supreme Court Justice, Ian Binnie, confirmed by former Supreme Court Justice, Louise Charron, and also endorsed by Canada’s foremost Constitutional expert, Professor Peter Hogg, that a federal court judge from Quebec met the requirements of the Supreme Court of Canada Act. So maybe this was a grey area and it’s been clarified.
Tom Clark:
Maybe you need better advisors because I think they got it wrong.
Bob Dechert:
Every law student in the last 30 years has read Professor Hogg’s book on constitutional law. He’s considered one of the foremost experts on constitutional law in Canada and he obviously…
Tom Clark:
Fair enough but he…he got it wrong.
Bob Dechert:
It was obviously a grey area…well
Tom Clark:
Well it’s not grey I mean the Supreme Court was very clear.
Bob Dechert:
Yeah but…
Tom Clark:
Well the Supreme Court was very clear; it’s not grey.
Bob Dechert:
His opinion is different from the Supreme Court’s opinion but ultimately they’re all lawyers and as we know, you get a number of lawyers in a room and you’ll have a number of different opinions.
Tom Clark:
That’s right, the old expression, put five lawyers in the room, you get ten different opinions. I appreciate that.
Bob Dechert:
Something like that. Having been a lawyer myself, I certainly understand that.
Tom Clark:
Listen, you said, or the prime minister’s office said in its statement that you’re now going to examine your options and I’m wondering what that is because you can’t appeal this. This is the Supreme Court of Canada. What are your options?
Bob Dechert:
Well I think that’s really for the minister of justice and the prime minister to discuss. It’s their prerogative. As you know, they’re out of the country right now dealing with some very weighty international issues but I’m sure that they will look at those options as soon as they return to Canada and make a decision very soon. Obviously it’s the government’s wish to have a full complement on the Supreme Court as soon as possible.
Tom Clark:
Would you rule out trying to get Marc Nadon on the court through some other means?
Bob Dechert:
I think all the options are on the table. The prime minister will be looking at those. As I said, I don’t wish to speak for him or for the minister of justice. I haven’t had a chance to speak to either of them since this decision but certainly they’re looking at the options. I will point out Tom that the names that were submitted to the minister of justice and the prime minister were selected by a panel of MPs from all parties. None of the opposition MPs raised any concern about federal court judges from the province of Quebec being qualified to sit on the Supreme Court of Canada. So you can understand our surprise.
Tom Clark:
Well okay, I’ve only literally got 30 seconds left. One of the points made by Minister Cloutier is just follow the rules? Are you going to follow the rules next time?
Bob Dechert:
Well certainly the rules as clarified by the court, the government will certainly do that of course; they always do that. And I think you know what we have to look at though is there is an anomalous situation here which treats federal court judges from Quebec differently than from federal court judges from other provinces. You have a former federal court justice currently on the Supreme Court, Justice Rothstein, several others such as former Justice Iacobucci came from the federal court as well. I think this will put Quebec in a rather difficult situation where you’ll have a potential jurist not wanting to go the federal court from Quebec because it would then prevent them from ever being on the Supreme Court of Canada and that’s something I think we need to be concerned about.
Tom Clark:
Okay, obviously a lot more to discuss on this but Mr. Dechert, I really appreciate your time this morning, coming in to start the discussion.
Bob Dechert:
Thanks Tom.
Tom Clark:
Well still to come, foreign minister John Baird joins us exclusively from the G7 meeting in the Netherlands. Will Russia get the boot from the G8?
And then later, they put their lives on the line for our country but veterans find themselves in yet another fight with the Harper government. We’ll explain why, coming up.
Break
Tom Clark:
Welcome back. Well Ukraine’s acting president says that Russian troops are now holding prisoner, a top Ukrainian air force commander this morning. Troops stormed the Crimean air base yesterday, firing shots and smashing through concrete walls with armoured personnel carriers. The actions were cheered on by local residents. Now at the same time, Prime Minster Stephen Harper visited the new interim government in Kyiv. He’s now in the Netherlands for an emergency G7 meeting. Travelling with him is Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird. He joins us now exclusively from the Netherlands.
Minister thanks very much for being here. You know, your boss made it pretty clear the other day that Canada wants Russia out of the G8. Will that be discussed tomorrow? What are the chances of it happening?
John Baird:
I think even last year, last year’s G8, the prime minister began to call it the G7 plus one because Russia is just so fundamentally not aligned, particularly on the issues of values, human rights and respect for liberal democracy. Obviously this will be one of the central issues that the G7 leaders discuss tomorrow so let’s let them have that conversation first.
Tom Clark:
By ratcheting up the pressure this way and also through sanctions, is Canada essentially saying that this can only be settled through total capitulation by Russia?
John Baird:
Well listen, I mean we obviously want to protect two things. One: Ukraine’s democracy. And two: their sovereignty and their territorial integrity. Simply put, it’s unacceptable in this century for the Kremlin to try to redraw the boundaries of Europe and we think we need to stand up pretty strongly to this unilateral provocation and to work with likeminded friends and allies the United States, the European Union amongst them.
Tom Clark:
Sanctions thus far, have not stopped Russia from doing what Russia wants to do. How much further are we prepared to go in ratcheting up the sanctions and what could they look like in a week from now, a month from now if Russia still remains in Crimea?
John Baird:
Well I think it’s absolutely imperative that we can…Canada can act alone but we don’t accomplish as much than if we act together. That’s why we have a key voice not just in the G7 but at the OSCE in Vienna, at NATO and in our relations with both the United States and the European Union. So I think we’ll work together to try to ratchet up the pressure. Simply put, it will not be business as usual for the Russian federation in the future. These type of actions are completely unacceptable. While we’re worried about obviously Crimea, we’re tremendously concerned about eastern and south eastern Ukraine and its sovereignty. So this is one of the big issues that will not just be on the formal agenda when G7 leaders meet but obviously a key issue when we meet with friends and allies here.
Tom Clark:
Yeah, and I mean you bring up a very good point, having just been there myself, I know that the eastern part of Ukraine is probably the next tinder box to be worried about but is there any circumstance in which you can see an acceding of Crimea to Russia in return for security on the borders of eastern Ukraine?
John Baird:
That would be very similar to a Neville Chamberlain type deal done before the Second World War. Obviously we strongly support Ukraine’s sovereignty. It’s unacceptable for the Kremlin to march in soviet-style and take over and annex part of a sovereign neighbour; one that they had committed as part of the Budapest pack to support.
Tom Clark:
You know one of the things that you hear from the Russians is they say, well in the end what they want is Ukraine to remain neutral. I know that your government a number of years ago was the pushing the idea that Ukraine should become a full member of NATO, and I think that’s the very thing that Russia was concerned about. Does this come down to trying to find a way to ensure security and perhaps the neutrality of Ukraine at the end of this?
John Baird:
Well here’s what exactly what Canada wants for Ukraine: peace, prosperity, security, and most importantly freedom. And any notion that some observers have tried to say, well if the people of Ukraine had not fought for their freedom, had not fought for their sovereignty, had not fought for human rights and their political rights that maybe Russia wouldn’t have bothered them. These are inalienable human rights and we obviously strongly support the people of Ukraine and their government at this hour of need.
Tom Clark:
Canada’s Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird in the Hague this morning. Minister Baird, always a pleasure to have you on the show. Thanks for being here this morning.
John Baird:
Great to be with you again.
Tom Clark:
Up next, a premier hounded from office. And a government declaring it has no moral obligation to our veterans. Our panel is coming up next.
Break
Tom Clark:
Welcome back. This is Alison Redford’s last day as the premier of Alberta after being forced to resign by her own party. And that’s an incredible statement when you think that she won a majority government just 24 months ago. But that’s just one story from an incredible week and here to help me unpack some of it, Jennifer Ditchburn of Canadian Press and Vassy Kapelos of Global News. Thanks very much for being here. Let’s start with Alison Redford Vassy because I can’t remember the last time the premier of a majority government was hounded from office by her own members. Was this just politics or was there something else behind this?
Vassy Kapelos:
Well I think a lot of people are asking whether or not there is a gender issue here. I think the question deserves to be asked given some of the comments made by some of the people from caucus leaving, but I don’t think that’s what it was. I think from the time she took office, she was continually…she was dodged by scandal after scandal after scandal and this $45,000 dollar trip to South Africa was, I think the straw that broke the camel’s back. Once you have members of your own caucus speaking out publically against you, musing about whether they should be sticking by your side. I think it’s game over and it was.
Jennifer Ditchburn:
I think it was, you know gender was probably one component of a bunch of different things. For example, the one MLA who came out and said, she’s just not a nice lady. It’s hard to believe any MLA coming out saying, he was just a big old meanie or a bully. You know Paul Martin…
Vassy Kapelos:
I remember that being said about Gordon Campbell in BC, he’s not a nice man.
Jennifer Ditchburn:
Right, but Prime Minister Paul Martin too, I mean there were many stories of him blowing up and having explosions. You could say the same thing about Stephen Harper. So there might have been some gender issues there but I think one of the main components there was a lack of a relationship with the caucus and perhaps, you know this might have been brushed aside had she had a little bit more rapport with some of the MLA’s that she was working with.
Tom Clark:
Well it makes you wonder too because the PC Part of Alberta has been described as one of the biggest political tents in the country, accommodating everybody left right and centre. Are those days over now Vassy? Is this great, grand coalition coming to an end?
Vassy Kapelos:
I don’t know. I mean you can never count them out; 43 years in power, you can’t discount that. But there’s no argument that they are in a mess right now. People are speaking out whether they should stick with the party, whether they should go. This is the second premier in a row they have basically forced out. So you know, it’ll be a long road ahead but you can’t count them out, for sure.
Tom Clark:
Let me switch topics here for a minute because there was a court proceeding last week that really caught a lot of people’s attention where the government was making the argument that this country does not have a moral obligation to its veterans. Peter Stoffer of the NDP Veterans Affairs critic had to something to say about this. Take a listen to what Peter Stoffer had to say:
Peter Stoffer:
“If indeed, the minister is correct, which we believe him to be, that there is a social contract, why are we spending more taxpayers dollars on lawyers to defend that there isn’t one?”
Tom Clark:
Of course what he’s talking about there, Jen, is that afterwards, Julian Fantino, the Veterans Affairs Minister said well we may not have a moral obligation but we’ve got a social contract. Now I’m very confused. Where are we on this?
Jennifer Ditchburn:
Well it’s strange, so you have these government lawyers out in BC who are arguing that there is no social contract or moral obligation that Prime Minister Bennett around the first World War said there was a political decision that was made to support the troops and not a moral obligation. But now you have the minister saying the opposite so which is it, as Peter Stoffer said, why pay for all these high falutin lawyers to be fighting this if you feel differently. So I think what’s happening now, is some sort of consultation perhaps on improving the Veterans Charter which gives them payments after they retire. So we’ll see what they come up with but I think they’ve lost a lot of credibility on an issue which was one of their strong selling points coming in as government.
Tom Clark;
That’s a really good point. I mean if you wanted to chase away your military voters and your veteran supporters, I can’t think of a more effective way of doing it than this, Vassy. I mean how badly is the government been hurt in that community?
Vassy Kapelos:
Well this has been a story for the past…you know, for a long time but for the past few months, it’s just confusion, and confusion over communications. It just seems like a file that they don’t know how to handle anymore. For sure the union is playing a part in organizing a lot of veterans with a lot of these cases but at the same time, what they’re saying really resonates with Canadians. You know they don’t feel as though the government is taking care of them or making them a priority. And things like this…okay, do we have a social contract? Do we not? You know it’s just not clear and that’s the case with a lot of stuff on this file.
Tom Clark:
Is there political damage here the government?
Jennifer Ditchburn:
Absolutely and I think it’s a cumulative thing. It’s not just this; it’s closing down the veterans offices. It’s riffling through the private files of people who go before the Veterans Board. It’s the Last Post fund which took years for them to put more money into so that they could hold funerals for poorer veterans after they pass away. So it’s a cumulative effect. It’s true what Vassy was saying about some of the unions being involved, especially with these offices closing but these other issues, riffling through medical files of veterans that has nothing to do with unions. That’s just some missteps that they’ve made over the years.
Tom Clark:
I want to get your view on the other big story; we’ve covered it in the show this morning and that is ruling from the Supreme Court, Marc Nadon is not qualified to join their ranks. Big hit to Stephen Harper; you know it was his personal choice to go there. So let me ask the same question there, has the government really been hurt doing this? And I ask that somewhat mischievously because could this also be a fundraiser for the Conservative Party fighting against the bench? What do you think?
Vassy Kapelos:
It could be. I don’t know if the Supreme Court is as easy a target as the Liberals or the media, which they’ve used to fundraise before, but yeah, I think this is particularly damaging because what now? What happens now? I mean this was Harper’s specific handpicked appointment and the court could not have been more clear on a number of matters concerning this but also, for future reference, what Parliament can and can’t do alone. Can you change the compositions of court? No, the decision says you can’t. What does that mean for the Senate reference in front of the court right now?
Jennifer Ditchburn:
And it’s very tricky how they proceed, right, because you have Quebec in the middle of an election. If you decide that you’re going to push through Nadon somehow through the back door, that’s not going to go over well and they’re going to say, hey look, the federal governments against us, we need a separate Quebec. On the other side, if they go and fundraise on this issue, remember years ago, in 2004 election, Randy White the former Conservative MP saying, to heck with the courts. That was one of the aspects that helped them lose that election; the whole hidden agenda issue of wanting to undermine the courts. Do they want to revive that in a fundraising drive that says let’s stack the courts or whatever. I think that’s going to be problematic.
Tom Clark:
And just a last point, it’s interesting to note that five of those eight judges in the Supreme Court were appointed by Stephen Harper and the Conservatives.
Jen Ditchburn of the Canadian Press and Vassy Kapelos of Global news, thanks very much for being here. I appreciate your time.
Well that’s our show for today. We’re always eager to hear from you. You can find all the ways to get in touch with us at: www.thewestblock.ca and all these other addresses. Thanks for joining us, I’m Tom Clark. We leave you now with some moments from the last of our troops in Afghanistan returning home last week. To them, thank you and welcome home.
Comments