Transcript Episode 33 April 20

THE WEST BLOCK

Episode 33, Season 3

Sunday, April 20, 2014

Host: Tom Clark

Guests: James Bezan, Lewis MacKenzie, Colin Robertson, Mark Kennedy, Laura Stone

Location: Ottawa

 ** please check against delivery

On this Sunday morning, Canada has ordered six fighter jets to Eastern Europe.  What will they be doing and how will Russia react?

And another voice against Keystone:  Former US President Jimmy Carter says passing Keystone would spell disaster for Obama.

Plus, Nigel Wright gets the all clear from the RCMP but where does that leave Mike Duffy?  One source says he’s got criminal charges in his future, which means Nigel Wright could still end up in court.

It is Sunday, April 20^th and from the nation’s capital, I’m Tom Clark, and you are in The West Block.

Well six CF18’s, the support staff that goes with them and 20 additional military personnel are heading off to Europe.  The deployment is part of a bigger NATO mission to strengthen the defences of NATO member countries along the border of Ukraine and Russia.  In making the announcement, the prime minister said Russia’s actions represent a serious threat to global peace and security.

Well joining me now from Winnipeg is the parliamentary secretary to National Defence, James Bezan.  So exactly then, what are these CF18’s going to be doing; what is their mission?

James Bezan:

Well that is still being on by all allies since there are still a number of states still committing assets to the mission.  But this is about providing good security to all NATO members.  We are very hopeful with the decision that was made on Thursday in Geneva by the US, the European Union, Ukraine, and by Russia on a path forward to find a solution to the situation in Ukraine.  But ultimately, the de-escalation attentions ride solely on President Putin and his kleptocrats surround him in the Kremlin.

Tom Clark:

Okay well but Mr. Bezan, I mean we use those words which are very aggressive words and they may apply in this case, but when you say we are there to provide security…I mean have we got rules of engagement?  Are we ready to pull the trigger?  Are we ready to launch missiles?  Presumably war planes commit war, right?

James Bezan:

But right now, we’re talking about, let’s keep the two silos apart.  One is the NATO context within the NATO member states.  Ukraine is not a member state of NATO, however, we are very concerned about the aggression that has been shown by the Russian Federation by the black ops forces that they have on the ground in Ukraine, as we saw previously in Crimea, did orchestrate the takeover and ultimate annexation of Crimea.  We’re starting to see that played out so yeah we are definitely going to have NATO forces in the region while we’re…

Tom Clark:

But how far are we prepared to go?  We’re sending over military assets, are we prepared to pull the trigger?

James Bezan:

We’re prepared to defend NATO members under Article 5 which Canada is a signatory to and would expect the same type of consideration by all NATO members if it was us.  Article 5 has only been invoked once and that was of course after the 911 attacks in the United States.

Tom Clark:

And I’ll just add that Article 5 for people who don’t know, it’s basically the line that says an attack against one of us is an attack against all of us and that’s why we go…

James Bezan:

Exactly…

Tom Clark:

We’re talking about Poland, Lithuania, Estonia and other NATO countries.  And how much is this going to cost or do we even know?

James Bezan:
I think it’s too early to tell.  We are still in the process of planning because we still aren’t sure where our fighter jets and the ground troops and support personnel are going to be stationed with those fighter jets, as well as who will be collaborating with in what air force bases.  So that is still being worked out and those numbers will be coming forward in the days to come.

Tom Clark:

Just a final question Mr. Bezan, although it is not required, have you consulted, or did you consult with the Opposition parties before you announced this deployment?

James Bezan:

Well since this is part of our already existing agreements under NATO, and I know that in discussions that I’ve had with members of the Opposition, they are very supportive of us being an active member of NATO and that this deployment is a correct step.

Tom Clark:

So the answer to my question, which was did you consult with the opposition parties, the answer would be no.  Is that correct?

James Bezan:

You know I think that this is just regular business under the NATO context.

Tom Clark:

So the answer is no?

James Bezan:

To tell you the truth Tom, I’m not aware of those discussions.  I have talked to my colleagues and I know that they are supportive.

Tom Clark:

Okay so you’re not sure whether the Opposition was consulted.

James Bezan:

Whether it’s consulted whether or not the prime minister had talked previously.

Tom Clark:

Okay.  Mr. Bezan parliamentary secretary to the minister of National Defence.  Thanks very much for your time today, I appreciate it.

James Bezan:

Any time Tom.

Tom Clark:

Well joining me now to talk more about this is retired major-general Lewis MacKenzie, a veteran of peace keeping missions and a former commander of UN troops in Sarajevo.  Lew awfully good to see you again. You just heard parliamentary secretary Bezan talking about the mission.  A lot not known about it; cost.  We even asked for example, how many people go to take care of six planes?  And we asked every department in the government; nobody knows.

Major-General Lewis MacKenzie:

A lot.

Tom Clark:

But nobody in the government seems to know.  Now when you don’t even know how many people it takes to service one CF18 when it’s deployed, what does this tell you about the deployment itself?

Major-General Lewis MacKenzie:

Well there was a rush…I guess I should start by saying with the prime minister really taking the lead in condemning in what’s going on in the Ukraine, Eastern Ukraine in particular, and we were a little bit slow of committing.  I think we’re about eighth or ninth in line in committing resources.  That was the rush; get the resources announced sort of thing.  Now to put the package together with somewhat of the confusion coming out of the meeting a couple of days ago regarding a possible solution to the crisis, I’m sure they’re not taking the weekend off over at DND and Foreign Affairs right now.  They’re trying to figure out exactly what the mission would be because it’s full of bloody risk.  The reason it’s full of risk is the aircrafts that are deploying, about 35 or 40 NATO aircraft deploying have absolutely nothing to do with what’s happening on the ground in the eastern part of the Ukraine because you can’t sort out belligerence or people taking over buildings or whatever with fast air; you don’t do it.  And the much greater risk is if Putin calls our bluff and sends a mechanized battalion of 800 soldiers across the border into Eastern Ukraine.  Are we going to attack those with our NATO resources?

Tom Clark:

Well that’s a very good question and it was one I was asking.  Are we prepared to pull the trigger?

Major-General Lewis MacKenzie:

Yeah absolutely.

Tom Clark:

On the one hand, everybody wants de-escalation of this.  On the other hand, we’re beefing up our military support in those NATO countries in the Baltic area.  Is there necessarily a contradiction there?

Major-General Lewis MacKenzie:

Well we have a whole bunch of…we now have 28 nations in NATO and over half of them have just joined in the last decade and a half.  And they are waiting for some indication that NATO is going to come and rescue them in the event that they are not only threatened by invaded.  We know that’s an impossible because we’re dealing with Russia who happens to have all of its resources in its own country with an ability to move them to the border, and we’re talking about the major player, the United States that took a couple months and a half to get set up in the dessert in Gulf War 1.  It just isn’t going to happen that we are going to attack Russian forces that are coming across.  But he’s not stupid enough to do that.  Putin’s not stupid enough to do that.

Tom Clark:

So ultimately then, is this sort of like a military Kabuki Theatre?  I mean is this all for show and if so, is this the proper way to be using our forces?

Major-General Lewis MacKenzie:

It’s posturing.  It’s posturing and we’re making a very modest contribution and I don’t think it’ll go beyond that.  The staff officers that are going to supreme headquarters, allied powers Europe, not Brussels as previously announced I’m sure will help in the staffing but it’s more for a show of solidarity and quite frankly, NATO needs a show of solidarity.  If you’ll recall the mission in Afghanistan, where less than 20 per cent showed up and took it seriously and some of them were there for show and some didn’t show up at all.  So we have a very factious alliance and this is an example for at least the standard people; Denmark, the UK, Germany, Canada to show up.  You’re wondering what all the rest are doing.

Tom Clark:

Retired General Lewis MacKenzie awfully good seeing you again sir; nice to have you on the show.

Major-General Lewis MacKenzie:

My pleasure Tom.

Tom Clark:

Thanks very much.

Still to come, no charges for Stephen Harper’s former right hand man, Nigel Wright but we’ll explain why he could still end up in court.

And, the anti-Keystone movement gets more star power as a former US president says no.  Will that sway the White House?  Former ambassador to Canada, David Jacobson joins us in a minute.  Stay tuned.

Break

But first, I’m Shirlee Engel with a story that’s been developing over the weekend:  Another major blow to supporters of the controversial Keystone XL pipeline.  I’ll explain next.

Break

Welcome back.  I’m Shirlee Engel.  The controversial Keystone XL pipeline hit yet another delay this long weekend, after some powerful Americans added their names to the project’s growing list of critics.  It’s a delay that further frustrates the Canadian government.  The prime minister has called the decision a no-brainer and his office says the latest delay is political.

On Good Friday, the U.S. State Department effectively paralyzed the project, saying it needs more time to prepare its recommendations to President Obama.  Officials said they need to assess the impact of a court battle in Nebraska that could force a change in the pipeline’s route.  The department has extended the deadline for government agencies to comment, punting the decision past the November midterms.

It has taken more than five years for the White House to make a decision.  Joining me now is Colin Robertson, former Canadian diplomat who was at the State Department two days before this delay was announced.  And Colin, thank you very much for joining us.

Colin Robertson:

Good to be here, Shirlee.

Shirlee Engel:

So who do you think ordered this extension?

Colin Robertson:

Oh this came out of the White House and has everything to do with the midterms as you suggested.  I think they’ve made the political calculation that as they go into what’s going to be a very difficult November election for the Democrats and the president, for the one-third of the Senate and the House representatives. They needed to mobilize all their support and the environmentalists are a big piece of that, both for enthusiasm and for money.

Shirlee Engel:

That said, the pressure on President Barack Obama has only increased.  We had last week, a letter from former U.S. President Jimmy Carter.  The first former U.S. president to come out against it, with nine other Nobel laureates and we’ll just read you a part of that letter:

“You stand on the brink of making a choice that will define your legacy on one of the greatest challenges humanity has ever faced – climate change.”

So that’s on the one hand.  On the other hand, he has some Democrats pressuring him to make a decision, a positive decision by the end of May.  Is this tearing the Democrats apart?

Colin Robertson:

The 10 Democrats in the Senate who will be affected by the pipeline, who want to see the pipeline built, they’re concerned naturally.  But the whole issue, the pipeline and the letter, is symptomatic of a bigger issue and that’s of course climate change.  The pipeline has come to represent the oil sands, and the oil sands have come to represent climate change in the American mind, and that’s what this debate is all about.  It’s almost taken on the overtones of a religious conflict between those who favour it and those who do not.

Shirlee Engel:

That said, it’s a lot of pressure for our prime minister who has said he’s disappointed in this decision that politics play a role.  At this point if you’re a diplomat in Washington, there are a number of other bilateral issues, how does this whole showdown affect your ability to move forward on other files?

Colin Robertson:

Well unfortunately, it’s our top ask.  Gary Doer, our ambassador has been articulate.  We’ve been waging a vigorous campaign making the case for energy security for the United States that we are their best neighbour; their biggest trading partner and why this is in the North American interest to have this pipeline, that this is the safest way to move oil or gas and that there are of course a whole series of pipelines that already cross the border.  In fact, the Americans are building some pipelines into Mexico to carry gas.  And the State Department themselves has said that pipeline is the safest way to move oil and gas but what’s happened is that this has cast a chill over the relationship.  It sucked most of the oxygen out of the room for other big and important issues, such as the customs plans between Detroit and Windsor, such as country of origin labelling which of course is preventing Canadian beef exports into the united States because this has been the top issue and it has dominated unfortunately to the exclusion of other important issues; take the Arctic.

Shirlee Engel:

So how do you as a diplomat then continue to work in this environment where we have this now longer delay, inevitable delay, we don’t know how long it’s going to take.  But you’re still in Washington.  You’re still trying to work the channels.  What would you have done in that situation?

Colin Robertson:

Well that’s exactly right. Well you do continue but I think you take this as a teachable moment, similar to what we experienced with the failure in 1978 of the East Coast Fisheries agreement.  At that point we changed our game.  We realised we couldn’t depend on the administration so under then-Ambassador Allan Gotlieb,we began to work congress in an aggressive fashion and we’ve been doing it ever since. But we take this and say all right we’ve got a lot of allies in congress.  We’ve got most of the public favours this pipeline.  We’ve got to do more first of all with congress.

Secondly, let’s start working the state level.  Former premier, now Ambassador Doer understands this. He was very good with his governor counterparts, working at the state level because that’s important in this American complex.  At the same time, let’s start targeting who is likely to be the next president of the United States.  It’s not that you ignore this administration where there’s still work we can get done with this administration but we need to look forward, and we know who the likely candidates are.  We need to educate them on Canada so we don’t have our president again who doesn’t appreciate the strategic importance of Canada.

Shirlee Engel:

Well that said, is there anything that Canada can do between now and whenever this decision comes, after the midterms that can try and sway this towards a yes?

Colin Robertson:

Oh well we continue to do what we’re doing.  We’ve got a pretty active campaign now but everybody understands the positioning is pretty clear on both sides.  This is a political decision made for political reasons, everything to do with the midterms.  So we’re not likely to change that but might there be movement after the midterms should the complexion in congress change?  Possible, if there is a vote out of both houses.  We are close to that in the Senate now.  We have had several votes in the House in support of the pipeline.  Then the administration will make a different calculation after the midterms as to what they want to do with this.

Shirlee Engel:

If you were a betting man, what would you say about the timeline on this kind of decision?  It’s anyone’s guess.  We know we have to wait for this Nebraska court decision, that’s what the State Department is saying but when do you think we’ll finally have a final decision on Keystone XL?

Colin Robertson:

Well I don’t think we’ll have a decision between now and the midterms.  I think that’s what the effect of Friday, Good Friday’s announcement.  But after that, again we’ll wait and see what happens out of Nebraska but I would think, it’s not as though we need to know any more information if they in Nebraska ask for a change in route and things.  That can be done.  We’ve already changed the route once in Nebraska.  So hopefully after the midterms, but who knows.  Again, the politics that play into this have been long, convoluted and we’re into its sixth year.

Shirlee Engel:
And we could be facing a very different congress after those midterms, depending on what happens.

Colin Robertson:

Yeah we could.  You know currently projections suggest the House stays with the Republicans and the Senate could shift over to the Republicans as well.

Shirlee Engel:

Colin Robertson, very good to have you on the show.  Thank you very much for joining us.

Colin Robertson:

Thanks Shirlee.

Shirlee Engel:

Up next, the RCMP is saying Nigel Wright won’t face criminal charges for that $90 thousand cheque he wrote to Mike Duffy but what about the embattled senator?   We’re hearing he could still face charges.  Tom Clark is back with that discussion, next.

Break

Tom Clark:

Welcome back.  Some big developments in the senate scandal last week:  Nigel Wright hearing from the RCMP that he will not be charged for writing that $90 thousand cheque to Mike Duffy.  But then there was the exclusive story on Global News that charges are likely coming for the suspended senator.  Well joining us to unravel all of this, Mark Kennedy, parliamentary bureau chief for the Ottawa Citizen and Laura Stone of Global News; the person who broke the story about Mike Duffy.

So Laura, let me start with you. Just remind us, what is Mike Duffy being investigated for?  If charges are coming in the next few weeks, what could they possibly be?

Laura Stone:

Well we know Mike Duffy is being investigated for frauds on the government, breach of trust and bribery and that all has to do with his dealings with Nigel Wright or his lawyer’s dealings in securing that $90 thousand cheque to pay off his expenses.  But then there’s also the matter of the expenses themselves.  We know that he was allegedly claiming per diems from the Senate while campaigning for the Conservatives.  And we also know that police are alleging that he used his office resources, his Senate resources; taxpayer money to pay his friend for “little to no work”.

Tom Clark:

All the stuff…details we’ve forgotten about because the story went so quiet for a couple of months.  But if Laura’s source is correct, this could all be back on the public plate in the next couple of weeks.

Mark Kennedy:

Oh absolutely Tom.  Listen if Stephen Harper thought the nightmare that he was experiencing throughout most of 2013 is over, it’s not.  And it will come back and it might come back at the worst possible time for him because if this case goes to trial, if Senator Mike Duffy, who let’s not forget was appointed by one Stephen Harper.  If that case goes to court, you can count on his former chief of staff, Nigel Wright to be testifying.  And much of the information we were hearing in dribs and drabs through the RCMP, ITO will come out in full glare, every day, drip by drip by drip.  It’ll be Chinese water torture.  And the last thing Stephen Harper needs is for this to be happening months, if not weeks before an election campaign.

Tom Clark:

And Laura pick up on that because as we said at the beginning, Nigel Wright, even though he’s been cleared by the RCMP doesn’t mean that he’s not going to be front and centre in this case, as Mark said.  But when you were investigating this story, what were you hearing from the Nigel Wright camp about their dealings with the RCMP in relation to potential charges?

Laura Stone:

Well we know that there was no deal between Nigel Wright and the RCMP.  He didn’t make a deal with them to cooperate and then they would waive the charges.

Tom Clark:

He didn’t plea his way out of a charge.

Laura Stone:

Exactly and he didn’t agree to testify in exchange for not being charged.  But we do know that he has been a hundred per cent cooperative with the police up until now.  He gave them a huge binder of information and he will be, if Mike Duffy is charged, he will be on the stand and he will be explaining everything that happened in the prime minister’s office.  We already saw the nasty politics that was at play when they were negotiating this $90 thousand dollar deal.  Mike talked about…Mark talked about Chinese water torture; I think Nigel Wright actually used that term when he was talking about the Senate story.  So it will be really, really nasty.

Tom Clark:

And it is so far out of the prime minister’s control at this point.  It really is up to the courts to decide, first of all, if there are charges.  Secondly, how quickly those charges are going to proceed and none of us can guess what’s in the mind of Canada’s justice system.  But nevertheless, once the charges have been laid, it’s almost at that point fair game just to start talking about all of this again.  Is there any defence at all at this point Mark that the government can use to try…put yourself in the situation room inside the Langevin Block right behind me and say okay boss, here’s what we do.  What do you do?

Mark Kennedy:

You know what; I think all they will do is everything they’ve done before, both in the House of Commons and interviews with others.  I sat down with the prime minister in December and I talked extensively with him about this.  And he said, listen, I didn’t know about it.  I felt betrayed by it.  I was surprised by it and if I had my way I would have known about it.  And that will be the only defence he can come forward with on a continual basis.  And the opposition parties are going to stand up in the House of Commons every day and they’re going to say, what did he know and when did he know it?  And why should we believe you?  And Canadians, they’ll have a choice, either they believe him or they don’t.

Tom Clark:

You know in a way though, the fact that it goes before the courts gives them a bit of an out to say, hey can’t talk about it, it’s before the courts.  But what everybody can talk about though Laura is that the same time as this is unravelling, the Supreme Court is getting ready to rule…a reference made to it by the government, what can we do about the Senate?  Constitutionally, do we have to consult the provinces?  Do they have to agree?  This is coming down on Friday, again, outside of the government’s control.

Laura Stone:

Right and the government is arguing that they don’t have to re-open the Constitution to make these changes to the Senate; to have an elected Senate.  To appoint senators for a certain number of years and then they move on.  You know what we’re hearing and what we’ve seen from the court versus the Harper government is perhaps a different opinion and we might see quite the battle set up between the court and the government on how they can change the Senate.  And the court is probably going to say you can’t change anything without opening the Constitution.

Mark Kennedy:

It’s a huge political risk for this prime minister.  As Brian Mulroney once famously said, it’s a roll of the dice.  On this one, they could come back conceivably and say everything you’ve been trying to do since you took office is A-Okay with us constitutionally.  That would be his dream come true.  Most people expect that not to happen.  If it doesn’t happen, he then has to ask himself, I have been adverse to sitting down with premiers and holding constitutional meetings, might I start doing that now because if he does start doing it now, it won’t be just the Senate that he’s talking about.  Premiers such as the new one in Quebec have said, if you start having constitutional talks, what we believe is important, such as distinct society, should also be on the table.  So it won’t be an easy process to start opening up.

Tom Clark:

And very quickly, if nobody can remember when the last time Stephen Harper met with the premiers you can’t blame them because I’m not sure I can remember; it was that long ago.

Laura Stone of Global News and Mark Kennedy of the Ottawa Citizen, thanks very much for being here.

Laura Stone:

Thank you.

Mark Kennedy:

Thank you.

Tom Clark:

And that is our show for this week.  Join us in seven days from now for another edition of The West Block.  I’m Tom Clark.  Have a great week.