Transcript Season 5 Episode 32

THE WEST BLOCK

Episode 32, Season 5

Sunday, April 24, 2016

Host: Tom Clark

Guests: Donald Bayne, Ed Holder, Daniel Turp, Susan Delacourt

Location: Ottawa

On this Sunday, a judge dismisses all 31 charges against Senator Mike Duffy. We’ll talk to the senator’s lawyer, Donald Bayne.

Then, doing business with Saudi Arabia, is it principle versus pay cheque? We’ll debate the issue.

Plus, we’ll unpack the politics of the Duffy trial and what it means for Canada’s upper chamber.

It is Sunday, April the 24^th and from the nation’s capital, I’m Tom Clark. And you are in The West Block.

Well, it has been three very long years for Senator Mike Duffy, but late last week he was cleared of all 31 charges of fraud and bribery. Here to discuss what we can learn from the trial is Mike Duffy’s defence lawyer, Donald Bayne. Mr. Bayne, awfully good to have you here.

Donald Bayne: Pleasure.

Tom Clark: You know, it may have been your client that was on the stand, but it seemed to me that it was the government of Stephen Harper that received the indictment from the bench. Were you expecting that because the judge was very tough on the PMO?

Donald Bayne: If you remember the history of this, I got involved before there were any charges. I went up, which is rare for me, I don’t much engage the media, and did a press conference on Parliament Hill. And in an effort to try and forestall what I saw as a rush to judgement, a sort of a herd mentality; didn’t realize the degree of political pressure out of the PMO at that point on these senators, but I hoped that I could stop the train wreck in the Senate from what they ultimately did, suspending without pay, leading to criminal charges by saying look there’s all of this evidence. There’s quite a different side to this story. There’s a major role that the PMO has played here. Senator Duffy didn’t do this willingly and you’ve got to hold judgement until all the facts are in. I had no success. The Senate leadership at the time deemed it appropriate to suspend without pay, which I took as a presumption of guilt contrary to the rule of law.

Tom Clark: And denied the pension too.

Donald Bayne: And denied income and the pension, the benefits. And I mean from that point forward, I would have been happy to have and welcomed an opportunity to discuss this with the police and the Crown before they got going with these charges to say look there’s really no basis for this which is what the judge ultimately found. He said most of this was administrative Senate finance matters, not proper material for a criminal court.

Tom Clark: Which of course brings up the question, should this have gone to court at all?

Donald Bayne: In my view, it never should have. I never go the opportunity to meet with the Crown and the police before they decided to rush into charges. I was shocked when the proliferation of charges occurred. No, I’m not surprised that the judge found that. I was always of the view if a person looked at all the evidence rationally and dispassionately, and this is a very senior, highly-experienced, highly-respected judge. Everybody says this guy—I’d never laid eyes on him before he walked into the courtroom. This guy is a paragon of right down the middle; neutral, impartial, fair judge. You heard what he said. You read what he said. I’m not surprised because I expected that—I would say this—I would add this though to his judgement, extremely courageous. Judges sometimes differ to the State, differ to the Crown, differ to the police—there was none of that in this judgement.

Tom Clark: Well I can’t remember any other criminal trial in the history of this country where a judgement from the bench was so excoriating of a government and particularly, a prime minister in his office.

Donald Bayne: Right. Well, he didn’t make it up. It’s all in the material.

Tom Clark: You know, a good trial sheds light in dark areas and I’m wondering as you walk away from this trial now, what’s the takeaway, especially when it comes to the Senate and the senators?

Donald Bayne:  Well, I would hope, as the judge did, that there’s been a learning process here. The auditor general has spoken. Mr. Justice Binnie has spoken through the mediation process. And now most forcefully, Justice Vaillancourt has spoken. There can’t be rules that tell a newly appointed senator, partisan activities are the core. They’re an essential principle and part of your parliamentary functions and you’re entitled to Senate financial resources to pursue them. And then turn around and say oh you weren’t allowed to do that. You see Tom it’s not just there were no rules. There were rules. It’s not a case of no rules. The rules said you specifically can do this. Mike Duffy didn’t walk into a situation and say I’m going to take advantage of a vacuum. He read the rules. He then went to the Senate Tory caucus leader and got instruction on them. He was told these expenses are perfectly valid: living expenses, travel expenses. It’s perfectly valid for you to claim them. He didn’t make this up either. He was told to do it and that’s what the rules said. So the rules have to be redone. There have to be definitions. And you know what, there has to be a value for money accounting. And some of that came through in the judge’s reasons. When he you know I’m uncomfortable that some of these expenses are allowed. They aren’t criminal, but it isn’t Mike Duffy that was the issue. This is a matter for administration of Senate finance.

Tom Clark: I’ve only got a few seconds left, but you got to know Mike Duffy pretty well over these past few years. He’s keeping very quiet. How’s he doing?

Tom Clark: Don Bayne, thank you very much for dropping by and congratulations on the case.

Donald Bayne: Thanks.

Tom Clark: Still to come, should human rights play a role when it comes to trade and jobs. That’s next.

Tom Clark: Welcome back. The government continues to defend the $15-billion arms deal with Saudi Arabia and it continues to defend the secrecy surrounding it. And it’s not alone. Tomorrow, a former Canadian Conservative politician will lead a business delegation to Riyadh pushing for even more trade and business.

And joining me now from London, Ontario is the chairman of the Canadian Saudi Arabian Business Council, Ed Holder, who of course was also a minister in the previous Harper government. Mr. Holder thanks very much for being here. You’re leading this trade mission and a lot of people might say well the timing is a little bit coincidental considering all the controversy about trade with Saudi Arabia at the moment but why are you doing it now?

Ed Holder: Well this particular trade delegation has been in the works for a number of months. It’s only been a few months since I was appointed the chair of the Canada-Saudi Business Council. And as such, we actually pushed it back a month just so that I would be ready to ensure that all things were organized for our delegates as they go over for this major trade conference.

Tom Clark: Let’s take a look at the elephant in the room. Obviously, when we’re talking about Saudi Arabia, we’re talking about the current controversy over the labs, the military hardware that we’ve sold the Saudis. But in a larger sense, in dealing with any sort of trade with Saudi Arabia how do you square the circle of try to increase trade with a country that by every measure seems to be one of the worst human rights offenders in the entire world, right up there with North Korea and perhaps Iran.

Ed Holder: Well you mentioned General Dynamics Land Systems and of course they’re based out of my hometown here in London, Ontario, which I’m always proud to say is the 10th-largest city in Canada. But more importantly, the issues of trade with Saudi Arabia well preceded the GG less contract. In fact, listeners might recall the impact that Bell Canada had in laying the phone cable infrastructure for Saudi Arabia many years before defence issues were ever even a consideration. And in fact, we currently handle some $3 billion plus dollars of trade both ways between Saudi Arabia and in fact, that’s in a number of diverse areas throughout the Canadian economy.

Tom Clark: But are you saying—forgive me for interrupting, but are you saying then that trade in no way should be connected with the human rights record of the country?

Ed Holder: You know we’ve just recently elected a Liberal government who I know is dealing with this issue and I will certainly give them their room to do that. My job as chair of the Canada-Saudi Business Council is to promote the Canadian economy by promoting Canadian jobs and I think Saudi Arabia becomes the linchpin of the Middle East. It’s an opportunity for us to do business and bring jobs right here for Canada.

Tom Clark: But Mr. Holder is there a red line when dealing with states such as Saudi Arabia? Is there a red line that you believe no country should go past or should trade just have a blind eye to what’s happening internally with a country like Saudi Arabia?

Ed Holder: You know, before I became Minister of Science and Technology, I was five-and-a-half years on the International Trade Committee and we dealt with countries around the world with various records. And I have to tell you, what’s most important is that isolationism is not the answer. In my personal view, if you want to encourage the kinds of things that are important to Canadians. I think that you dialogue with them. I think you trade with them, you do business with them. I think that opportunity creates and environment where we can talk, whereas as isolationism does exactly the opposite.

Tom Clark: Does that mean then, in your view that Canada should also be trading with Iran for example?

Ed Holder: Well you know Canada trades with every country in the world and I certainly know that from my experience on the International Trade Committee. And to the degree that we have in Saudi Arabia, an economic ally, a political ally, and one that brings stability in the Middle East. I would suggest to you that the relationship that we have and that we will continue to expand through the Canada-Saudi Business Council will be good for that relationship, but also good for Canadian jobs and our economy.

Tom Clark: And just in the minute that we’ve got left then and it is the current debate, and I understand that. That on the one hand, there are principles and on the other hand there are paychecks. And I guess the job of a government is to figure out what that balance is. But clearly what you were saying is, and from the council’s point of view, is that paychecks are the key element in that relationship.

Ed Holder: Well I’ll let the federal government deal with the issues around their dealings with Saudi Arabia at that level. Earlier, Tom, you made reference to the General Dynamics Land Systems contract. Let me say that one of the decisions that perhaps Canadians have to decide is do we want a defence industry at all? And it goes beyond just building labs. But for the largest employer in London, Ontario, which has 3,000 direct jobs, and there are some 500 companies and thousands of indirect jobs that are absolutely related to this contract, plus all the other dealings we have with Saudi Arabia and other countries around the world. To suggest that we not trade with those countries would be at our economic peril and that is not in the interest of Canada.

Tom Clark: Ed Holder, I appreciate you taking the time to talk to us today. Thank you so much.

Ed Holder: Tom, that’s very kind. Thank you.

Tom Clark: Well, not everyone agrees that we should be doing this sort of business with Saudi Arabia. Lawyer, professor and former member of the Bloc Quebecois, Daniel Turp, is leading a court challenge against the government’s $15 billion arms deal. He joins me now from Montreal. Mr. Turp thanks very much for being here. I’m just wondering if you could as succinctly as you can describe the core of your court challenge against this deal.

Daniel Turp: Well it’s a challenge that wants the federal court of Canada to declare null and void the decision to allow for the export of those armed vehicles to Saudi Arabia. And it’s about human rights because a country like Canada who has laws and guidelines that say that you shouldn’t export vehicles to countries that repeatedly and severely breach human rights. Well that’s the law in the books and that’s the law that Mr. Dion and the government should respect.

Tom Clark: Let’s go to the heart of the issue thought because this seems to me that it’s coming down to be a question of paycheck versus principle. And on those grounds, people who support this deal, among other business deals in Saudi Arabia say look, what’s wrong with doing business with them and providing jobs for Canadians, in this case, in London, Ontario. It means a lot for hundreds, if not thousands of families here.

Daniel Turp: Yeah, but for some, the heart of the issue is not trading, especially when it comes to military equipment with countries that breach human rights. And Saudi Arabia is a country which has the worst record when it comes to breaching human rights, and it’s all about the rule of law. In Canada, there is legislation, there’s guidelines adopted in 1986 that say you do not export military equipment to countries that breach human rights.

Tom Clark: But let me ask you about that because military equipment, it seems to be an easy definition. If it’s a tank, then it’s military. But in the case of the Canadian connection with Saudi Arabia, one of the first companies in to Saudi Arabia was Bell Canada and it laid the telephone lines. But presumably it gives then a country capacity for command and control. How far does this definition go in terms of military aid to a country like Saudi Arabia?

Daniel Turp: Well I guess in our case, it’s very obvious that these light-armoured vehicles are military equipment when it comes to the definition found in those 1986 guidelines. So there’s no question this is not military equipment that should not be exported to Saudi Arabia because of its record on human rights. So you could compare with what was done in the past with Saudi Arabia, but the comparison will not work because these are armoured vehicles that could jeopardize the human rights of the Saudis and maybe of people in other countries, neighbouring countries like Yemen if those vehicles are exported to Saudi Arabia.

Tom Clark: But how do you answer, not only the Liberal government, but the Conservative government before them were saying that look, this is a secret deal. We can’t tell you what’s in it. We can’t tell you what the penalties are going to be, but trust us when we tell you if you cancel this contract there’s going to be hell to pay for Canada, not only on this deal, but the world will say you can’t keep your word. That’s an argument being put forward by the Liberals right now, what do you make of that?

Daniel Turp: Oh I’ve heard that argument and the same argument would be made by Conservatives or was made by them before when they made that contract. But that contract should never have occurred in the first place because you don’t do contracts to sell military equipment to countries like Saudi Arabia. So the fact that it’s done should not mean that the Liberal government should have continued and delivered those export permits. And it could have economic consequences. That’s unfortunate, but it should never have happened in the first place, this contract.

Tom Clark: Daniel Turp I appreciate your time. We’ll watch with interest, the progress of your trial. Thanks so much.

Daniel Turp: Thank you.

Tom Clark: Well coming up next, we unpack the politics of the Duffy trial right after this.

Tom Clark: Welcome back. Well, what a week in politics. Joining me now, to kick it around a little bit, is author and political columnist, Susan Delacourt. Wow, I mean where do you start on this? Well obviously let’s start with Mike Duffy. And the fact of the matter is that Don Bayne as we heard earlier in this program basically sort of kicked open a door to let us look inside the Stephen Harper PMO, an opportunity that none of us would have had, had it not been for this trial. But what we heard in that trial and the judgement of Judge Vaillancourt at the end, this is going to be a big part of the Harper legacy now is it?

Susan Delacourt: It can’t help but not be, if that wasn’t too many double negatives. But I agree with you. And I think all of us have been saying this all along, there was basically an official trial and an unofficial trial. There was the official Mike Duffy charges, which were long, complex and as we saw, in vain. And then there was what was going on inside the Prime Minister’s Office and that was a really interesting thing to see during the election. It confirmed a lot of our suspicions too about the way business was done during the Harper years. But as you said to Mr. Bayne and Mr. Bayne said too, I don’t think we’ve ever seen a ruling like this about a sitting prime minister.

Tom Clark: No, I never have. And it was interesting because in your column this weekend you were talking about this and the essence of leadership and the essence of political character. And that being that the time to say no to your political bosses is not after you’ve lost an election campaign or after charges have been laid, it’s at the moment.

Susan Delacourt: Yeah, I thought it was very funny to—not funny, ha ha, but curious to see Kellie Leitch, the former—I can’t remember what her title—Minister of Status of Women—

Tom Clark: Minister of the hotline.

Susan Delacourt: Yes, the hotline minister. Yes, getting quite emotional and saying that she regretted it this week.

Tom Clark: And just so everybody understands, this is the Barbaric Cultural Practices hotline that they promoted in the last election campaign that even horrified many Conservatives.

Susan Delacourt: So we heard at the doorstep. And she is obviously hearing at the doorstep now as she goes about her leadership bid, so it was time to do a mea culpa. And it reminded me of Mike Duffy’s cri de coeur in the Senate of a couple of years ago too where he said you know they made me do these horrible things. And I think really the test of political principles is not doing them in the first place. Like not doing them just because they work for you. And it may have been that Mike Duffy, as he says, was intimidated. Kellie Leitch hasn’t really explained why she felt that she had to do something which was at odds with political principle. But I think this should be an object lesson to this new government and to any new politician. You know, you can say no.

Tom Clark: Speaking of the new government, we were talking earlier in the show about the Saudi arms deal, that $15-billion arms deal. And whatever you may think about it, whether it’s a good thing or a bad thing, the one thing that has been a hallmark of this deal from the beginning is we know nothing about it. Under the Harper government, we knew nothing about it. Under the Trudeau government, we still know nothing about it. Even though the Trudeau government has promised a new era of transparency, so what’s going on there?

Susan Delacourt: Well it seems there is an exception you can cross your fingers behind your back if it involves business or jobs, that openness and transparency. Just because you say you’re open and transparent and just because you say it with a smile and sunny ways doesn’t mean you’re more open and transparent. And I think that’s where the rubber is going to hit the road in the next year with this new government too. It’s very easy to say you’re going to be. But it’s a lot harder to do it, especially when political truth can be embarrassing or awkward. Yeah, we’ll see.

Tom Clark: I’ve only got a minute left, so a brief thing. But you’re book, Shopping for Votes, is out with a new edition and new research in it. And interestingly, because you’ve talked about this, the role of the millennials, the young voter in the last election campaign, turned out to be quite significant. The research you’ve done and what’s in your new book, is this a one-time thing? Is this just a blip or is this something that’s going to become part of the landscape of politics in this country, more engagement at a younger level?

Susan Delacourt: I wrote about this, this week a little bit too as apart from being in the book too. It reminds me of the Seinfeld episode about taking the car reservation. The secret isn’t just taking them; it’s keeping them, right? I think a lot of work has been done about getting young people to vote. They found new channels to reach them. I think the Liberals were very good at this. The good thing is that other parties will imitate them. And the other good thing is that once a young person has voted once, they tend to vote again, so you start to have it early.

Tom Clark: So good news at least in all of these crazy weeks.

Susan Delacourt: Yes, sunny ways. Yes.

Tom Clark: Susan Delacourt thank you very much for joining us.

Well that’s our show for today. Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, 90-years-old: Happy Birthday ma’am. I’m Tom Clark. See you next week.