THE WEST BLOCK
Episode 37, Season 2
Sunday, May 19, 2013
Host: Tom Clark
Guests: Brent Rathgeber, Michelle Rempel, John Cruickshank, Connie Hedegaard
Location: Ottawa
Tom Clark:
Welcome to The West Block for this Sunday, May the 19th. From the nation’s capital, I’m Tom Clark.
Well what a week in politics. Tory insiders pushed out. Senators Pamela Wallin and Mike Duffy resigned from the Conservative caucus but is it all too little, too late?
And Europe is trying to classify Alberta oil sands oil as dirtier than other oils. The EU’s top official on this file will join us.
Plus, the Toronto Star alleges that Mayor Rob Ford allegedly used crack cocaine. The Star’s publisher, John Cruickshank allegedly joins us.
But first, just when you thought the news on the Senate couldn’t get any worse, it does. On Friday night, Senator Pamela Wallin resigned from the Conservative caucus. That follows Senator Mike Duffy’s resignation on Thursday. Both were party insiders, very close to Stephen Harper and big fund raisers for the Conservatives. Their resignations were supposed to put out the fire in the party but is it all too little, too late?
Well joining me now is Edmonton Conservative MP, Brent Rathgeber. Mr. Rathgeber thanks very much for being here. First of all, what are you hearing from your constituents about all of this?
Brent Rathgeber:
Well as you know Tom, we’re on a break week so I’ve been back in Edmonton and St. Albert for the last eight or nine days and our constituents are very concerned and I would say many of them are quite angry about the stories that are coming out of Ottawa, changing day-by-day and sometimes hour by hour. So, first of all, I would say there’s confusion because nobody’s quite certain exactly who did what and who did what in what order. But I think enough drips and drabs of these stories have now emerged that my constituents are very, very concerned when it is seen that public officials are treating taxpayers disrespectfully. Whether it’s with respect to travel allowances or whether it’s respect to housing allowances that an individual may not be entitled to. Any suggestion certainly among my supporters in Alberta, any suggestion that taxpayers are treated disrespectfully is met with significant concern. I would say even angst.
Tom Clark:
Is this hurting the Conservative brand in your area?
Brent Rathgeber:
Well it is to a certain extent. I think the irony of this situation to some extent is, I hear from constituents all the time; daily, weekly and individuals for the most part that are calling or e-mailing me with respect to recent stories that are coming out of the Senate are not the normal people that are critical of the government or critical of me. These are actually more people that I consider to be our supporters, that they expect public officials to hold themselves up to an exceptionally high standard of conduct and it’s those individuals…Who I mean I identify with because I’m one of them. I do advocate for respect for taxpayers and for treating public resources effectively and legally, and respectfully. So, it’s among individuals who I consider to be my supporters who seem to be the most upset as this story continues to roll out.
Tom Clark:
You’re going to be back here in Ottawa next week when the House resumes, you’re going to have an opportunity to speak to the leaders of the party, to the prime minister. What do you want to ask Stephen Harper about this whole situation?
Brent Rathgeber:
Well my biggest concern and it has been my concern for some time, even before this story broke in the last few weeks, and that’s what I see as an inadequate degree of separation between the legislative and executive branches of government. The senators in question and myself, we are parliamentarians. We are legislators and our job is to vet and ultimately vote on, yay or nay on legislation that’s before the respective houses. And most of that legislation is government sponsored and government drafted legislation. And when there’s inadequate separation I would suggest between the executive and of course the prime minister’s office is at the very apex of the executive. When there’s inadequate separation between those two institutions, it appears to me that both are compromised. I mean I don’t…as a legislator I don’t want to be beholden or indebted to individuals from the executive at any level.
Tom Clark:
So how do you…
Brent Rathgeber:
It compromises my ability I think to objectively assess legislation that’s before me.
Tom Clark:
So how do you get accountability here? How do you get to the bottom of this? And how, in your view, do the transgressors, if they are transgressors, what sort of consequences should they be facing?
Brent Rathgeber:
Well certainly with respect to the specific expense claims of now two or I guess four independent senators, depending on which files you’re talking about. It appears to me that I don’t believe that the Senate is in any ability to conduct an examination or a thorough examination that Canadians will trust. I think that the auditors who were brought in initially, but now the suggestion is that they were, to use the adjective, “stonewalled” or that there was lack of cooperation from some of the subjects at some time. I mean I think they’re in a better position to provide an objective and forensic report of what happened and what didn’t happen because there are still a lot of unanswered questions on this. I don’t believe…
Tom Clark:
Brent Rathgeber, I’m going to have to leave it there but I want to thank you very much for coming in this morning. I appreciate your time.
Brent Rathgeber:
Thank you for having me.
Tom Clark:
Well, as we mentioned, Pamela Wallin’s departure comes just after Senator Mike Duffy’s stunning fall from grace but we know more about the investigation into Duffy’s expense claims than we do about Wallin’s. Who paid off his expenses and how was the prime minister’s office involved? Here is your weekly West Block Primer:
When the investigations started, here’s what was on the table: Senator Duffy’s bank accounts, his tax returns, his day timers to determine where he was on certain dates and an expectation that Duffy would talk in person with the auditors. But then in February, Mike Duffy got a cheque for more than $90,000 dollars from Nigel Wright, the chief of staff to the prime minister. That covered everything that Duffy had to repay. What did that money do? Well it made a lot of things go away. Duffy no longer would allow the auditors to look at his tax returns. They couldn’t see his day timers. Bank accounts were off the table and there was not going to be any face to face meeting. Why? Because Duffy said, “he had paid back all the money”, which left Deloitte with practically nothing to investigate.
Well we asked the government for a representative to talk about this story. The only person they offered us was only made available on Friday afternoon, before the Wallin resignation. Michelle Rempel is the parliamentary secretary to the minister of the environment and also the government’s designator hitter on this file. I started off by asking her whether Nigel Wright’s bailing out senator Mike Duffy was proper.
Michelle Rempel:
I was encouraged today by hearing that the Senate leadership had made a decision to look further at these particular expenses given the new information that came forward. So I’m sure that there will be more information forthcoming shortly.
Get daily National news
Get daily Canada news delivered to your inbox so you'll never miss the day's top stories.
By providing your email address, you have read and agree to Global News' Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.
Tom Clark:
But you know that new information that came forward was information that Deloitte could have had, had the investigation not stopped. It was only because of media organizations digging into the files that this new information came to light.
Michelle Rempel:
yeah, you know, this one’s a tough one for me because you know I’ve been involved in this party, in this government because we are the government of accountability. We’re the government of the Accountability Act and you know to see a former colleague…you know if the allegations are made in the media are true, it is disappointing.
yeah, you know, this one’s a tough one for me because you know I’ve been involved in this party, in this government because we are the government of accountability. We’re the government of the Accountability Act and you know to see a former colleague…you know if the allegations are made in the media are true, it is disappointing.
Tom Clark:
In terms of being the party of accountability, you know the old quote that’s going around, 2005, your leader Stephen Harper saying that, if you bend the rules you will be punished, and if you abuse the public trust you will be sent to prison. Neither seems to be happening in this case.
Michelle Rempel:
Well I think that it’s worth noting that it was our government and our prime minister that put forward the Accountability Act. So since we’ve come into government, there’s actually been a step in the right direction in making ethical requirements and obligations of those that hold public office and hold the respect and the accountability of the Canadian public to task.
Tom Clark:
But let’s talk about accountability for a second because that seems to be the one thing that’s missing in all of this. Nigel Wright, chief of staff to the prime minister, pays off Duffy’s debts. Duffy doesn’t have to answer any questions. We’re getting very little information from the prime minister’s office. Where are the consequences? Where is the accountability in all of this?
Michelle Rempel:
Well you know I don’t think it would be accurate to characterize Mr. Duffy as not having answered any questions, Tom. You know, I’ve lived through this in the last few days and he’s not sitting as a member of our caucus right now. And I work with people, both in the government in both houses with volunteers, with staff, with people that have really been behind our vision for government accountability for a long time and they all want to make sure, as I’m sure your viewers do, that everything that we do here passes the sniff test. And…
Tom Clark:
Does this?
Michelle Rempel:
You know, I have to tell you that I think that I’m guessing that the person who is most disappointed with this whole situation is the prime minister because as somebody who has dedicated their career to following that vision, I followed that vision because of what we put forward with the Accountability Act; the desire to distance ourselves from the way that government was handled in the past.
Tom Clark:
You know you were talking though about saying that Mike Duffy has in fact answered questions but I think that there are more questions than answers. Mike Duffy has said that in fact Nigel Wright didn’t pay him off that he took a loan out of RBC. We’ve got stories that Nigel Wright’s $90,000 dollars was a gift – no it was a loan. No it went in trust. There are so many questions out there and no answers. Do you think the time has come for somebody to stand up and say here’s exactly what happened?
Michelle Rempel:
Well sure, absolutely and I think that anything less than that is something that the Canadian public would be concerned if there wasn’t. That said…
Tom Clark:
Who should do that? Who should answer that?
Michelle Rempel:
That said, I think that there’s an implication here that there hasn’t been communication. First of all, Mr. Duffy is no longer part of our caucus. Second of all, you know I think it’s worth noting that the entire desire behind the $90,000 dollar payment was to acknowledge the fact that perhaps these expenses did not pass the sniff test and that taxpayers should not be on the hook for them. You know in the go-forward, I’m sure that myself…
Tom Clark:
But why should Mike Duffy not be on the hook for them? Why should Nigel Wright have paid this off?
Michelle Rempel:
Well I think that…
Tom Clark:
I mean Mike Duffy’s got assets.
Michelle Rempel:
What I was going to say in the go-forward that myself as someone who is accountable to my electors in my constituency, my colleagues who are watching here today, we’re all going to be watching the outcome of the next level of the Senate review very carefully.
Tom Clark:
Michelle Rempel thanks very much for joining us.
Michelle Rempel:
Thank you.
Tom Clark:
Well coming up on The West Block, Rob Ford is accused of allegedly smoking crack and the Toronto Star walks a fine line. That’s coming up next.
Break
Tom Clark:
Welcome back. Well it is a story that has been heard literally around the world from Iceland to New Zealand people have been reading and marveling at the as yet unproven allegations that Toronto mayor, Rob Ford was caught on camera smoking crack cocaine. The Toronto Star put it on their front page after two of their reporters saw the video and were convinced that it was indeed his honour.
Well joining me now from Toronto is the publisher of the Toronto Star, John Cruickshank. And John thanks very much for being here.
John Cruickshank:
Good morning Tom.
Tom Clark:
You haven’t…I take you have haven’t seen the video yourself personally but you’ve got to be pretty convinced that it does show the mayor smoking crack otherwise you wouldn’t have put it on the front page.
John Cruickshank:
No, absolutely right Tom and both these reporters are intimately familiar with the mayor. They’ve been covering him and frankly they’ve been covering his problems for a couple of years now. They’ve both seen this video a couple of times and they are personally convinced that it’s him. Now we were never able to absolutely validate that which is why we’ve couched everything with the reserve that we have.
Tom Clark:
Well it does sort of lead to the idea that one of two things is going to happen out of this story. Either Rob Ford’s political career is about to come to a fiery end or he’s about to own your newspaper.
- B.C. mother says son was returned to her care but ministry not answering questions
- Saskatchewan honey producers face uncertain future amid Canada-U.S. trade war
- Danielle Smith wants Ottawa to resume negotiations with U.S. before counter-tariffs
- Recovery Alberta closes Edmonton addiction treatment program, drops hundreds from wait list
-
![]()
Trump threatens to rename Lake Ontario as Canada-U.S. trade war escalates -
![]()
Canadian businesses prepare for ‘serious hit’ as Carney ends U.S. trade talks -
![]()
Carney vows ‘dollar-for-dollar’ retaliation after Canada-US trade talks collapse -
![]()
Alberta premier says cutting off energy exports ‘not viable’ amid U.S. trade dispute
John Cruickshank:
(Laughing) No I think frankly that we’re on very strong grounds having done what we’ve done. We’ve seen a video. It’s one that raises a ton of very important public policy issues, if it’s genuine. And we put it out there for people to reflect on and certainly for the mayor to definitively refute.
Tom Clark:
And I want to get into that in a second but just I want to stick with the video for one more question here John and did you not though have a larger obligation as a paper to have obtained the video yourself so that you could verify its authenticity before you put it on the front page?
John Cruickshank:
Well as you know Tom, we didn’t actually break this story. We were still in the course of trying to verify at the point that it went, the story really went viral through Gawker. They didn’t seek to verify. They went with it and frankly, you’ll see, the language that they used is the language of conviction rather than the more tentative words that we used in this case.
Tom Clark:
It’s going to be pretty hard though for you to back down if indeed you have to at some point. I mean that front page doesn’t leave much wiggle room.
John Cruickshank:
Well you know the wiggle room is not the issue for us. I believe it’s the issue for the Mayor of Toronto.
Tom Clark:
Fair enough and in your Saturday edition in fact, John, the paper itself calls on the mayor to provide some straight answers. Characterize for me, if you can what his reaction has been to all of this?
John Cruickshank:
Well his reaction has been, unfortunately what it’s been in other cases where he denies first and then under repeated questioning eventually confirms. Don’t know that that’s going to be the case again but he has a history of that. Interestingly, he usually goes on radio today and he’s cancelled that Sunday appearance.
Tom Clark:
John, final question for you, you know the hit that he makes against you is that the Toronto Star has a vendetta against Rob Ford. Certainly a story like this would seem to add some weight to those who believe that but can you address that for me?
John Cruickshank:
Well you know the notion that we’re out to get Rob Ford is just silly. You know we’ve said from the start that what we want is good decent government for this city. We cover the city with a kind of depth and clarity that nobody else does. We’re there with a lot of reporters who work very, very hard at it. All we want is the truth and I think every Torontonian is owed that.
Tom Clark:
John Cruickshank, publisher of the Toronto Star, quite a remarkable week for your paper. Thank you very much for joining us John, appreciate your time.
John Cruickshank:
Thanks Tom.
Tom Clark:
Well coming up next on The West Block, Canada’s fight with Europe over Alberta oil and its attempt to make it undesirable. We’ll talk to Europe’s top official spearheading that policy.
Break
Tom Clark:
Welcome back. Well Canada’s fight to defend Alberta’s oil sands it turning into a two-front war; one down south in Washington, the other in Europe. Ministers’ Joe Oliver and Peter Kent have both been to Brussels in the last weeks to lobby against an EU policy that would see oil sands crude classified as dirtier than conventional crude. The Canadian government is worried that will hurt sales of Canadian oil to other countries and punish Canadian manufacturers who would also be penalized for having used the oil sands oil in the first place.
And joining me now is Connie Hedegaard, the European Commissioner for Climate Action. Commissioner thanks very much for being here. Good to have you on the program.
Connie Hedegaard:
Thank you very much for having me.
Tom Clark:
Let me start with what is the nub of the issue here, is that the Europeans are saying that the oil sands oil is more polluting than any other type of oil. Canada says that is demonstrably untrue. How do you reconcile these two views?
Connie Hedegaard:
Well what we’re doing in Europe, that is to try to take climate change seriously for once, and in order to do so, we also need to do something about transport; the whole sector of transport. What we’re trying to do is to say: when we’re talking about fuels, it could be fossil fuels or bio fuels, we are trying to make each fuel account as much as we can from the knowledge we have, from the science we have for the real CO2 value it has. That’s why we are trying to making a differentiation between conventional fuels and non-conventional fuels. And that is where this debate started because science tells us that there is a difference. And the only thing we’re saying in Europe is, therefore it should be accounted for in the right manner. We are not prohibiting to import the oil from Canada. Of course we are not. We’re just saying it must account for its real true value.
Tom Clark:
Well yes but, if you’re saying that you have to account for its real value, you’re saying you’re not going to prohibit it from being imported into Europe but it would be so prohibitivelyexpensive at that point that it just wouldn’t make sense. One of the other aspects of this from the Canadian point of view, some Canadian politicians are saying, well you’re going easy on Russia because you rely on Russia for oil and that you couldn’t possibly come down heavily on them whereas you can come down heavily on us because you take very little of our oil. How do you respond?
Connie Hedegaard:
I do not know how many times I have heard different Canadian politicians claim as if we are stigmatizing in particular, Canada. Can you imagine any good reason why Europe should do that or would do that? Of course that’s not what is at stake. What we’re doing here is not targeted any country in particularly, obviously not. This could go for unconventional oil from Venezuela or from whatever sources. It’s exactly the same treatment.
Tom Clark:
You know commissioner, I know that your file is action on climate change but when you take a look at the whole European-Canadian picture, I mean not only do you have this disagreement over our oil sands but also, you know we are keeping you out of observer status on the Arctic Council because of what you’ve done with seal imports into the EU at the same time that we’re trying to negotiate a free trade deal with the European Union. When you put it altogether, what is the state of Canada-European relations because on the surface it doesn’t look all that good?
Connie Hedegaard:
I think that the state is very fine but among friends, now and then you can have your disputes. That is what often keeps friendships alive but we have different approaches sometimes in the climate field. That is not strange. That’s a fact. You know, in Europe we have this binding target for all our 27 member states that they must reduce their emissions by…at least… we must reduce emissions by at least 20 per cent in 2020. And I know that Canada also has a target but I also know that you’re really not on track to meet that target. In Europe, we are very much on track to meet that target. That did not come automatically. That came through a lot of very, very conscious policy choices to be made. It comes through regulation. It comes through setting a price on carbon. It comes through fuel standards. It comes through car standards. It comes through a lot of policies and you must understand that this is part of that. It is not targeting Canada. I know that this myth has been building up in Canada and it is really false.
Tom Clark:
Very quickly, can I pick up on a point that you’ve just made. You said that Canada doesn’t seem to be on track to meet its goals in terms of greenhouse gas emissions. What is the European view of Canada’s track record on the environment?
Connie Hedegaard:
I’m not going to comment on that. I just say that in Europe we actually made a pledge back from the beginning, from the whole international climate negotiations. We made a pledge and we are very sincere in delivering on this and we’re on track to do that. But you cannot do that if you sector after sector after sector say, oh no, here we cannot touch this and this, that will also be a bit inconvenient.
Tom Clark:
Commissioner Connie Hedegaard from Brussels, thank you very much for taking the time to be on The West Block today. I appreciate it.
Connie Hedegaard:
Thank you for having me.
Tom Clark:
Well that is our show for this Sunday. It’s going to be a very busy week here on Parliament Hill. Here’s what we’ve got our eyes on:
On Tuesday morning, Harper will meet with his Conservative caucus and you can be sure he will get an earful about the Senate controversy but he won’t be sticking around for very long because that very afternoon he will jet off for a three day trip to Peru and Columbia.
Now you can get all the latest information on those stories and more by going to www.globalnews.ca/politics and tune in to Global National, Monday to Friday with Dawna Friesen.
Well thanks for being with us today. I’m Tom Clark. Have a great long weekend. We’ll see you back here next Sunday.
Comments
Want to discuss? Please read our Commenting Policy first.