THE WEST BLOCK
Episode 18, Season 2
Sunday, January 6, 2013
Host: Tom Clark
Guests: Pam Palmater, Greg Rickford, Laura Dawson, Paul Wells, Dr. Kellie Leitch
Location: Ottawa
Tom Clark:
Welcome to The West Block from the nation’s capital on this Sunday, January 6th, the day that the NHL decided to lace up its skates again. So those guys have got a deal, let’s see what the owners and the players are willing to offer us, the fans. I’m Tom Clark.
Well coming up on today’s show, native protests have succeeded in forcing a meeting with the prime minister so why do protests continue? We get the story from both sides.
Then, a look inside Canada’s ongoing attempts to hammer out a trade deal with the European Union.
And the double life of one Member of Parliament who moonlights as a pediatric surgeon.
But first, threatening to shut down the country, the Idle No More protestors blocked border crossings across the country yesterday. They say they will continue their protests and the transportation disruptions even though the prime minister has agreed to a meeting with First Nations Chiefs. Theresa Spence also says she will continue her fast.
Well let’s bring in Pam Palmater. She’s a lawyer and a spokesperson for the Idle No More movement. Ms. Palmater, thanks very much for being here. A lot of people looking at these images of the delays and disruptions on the border in particular, might ask how on earth is that helping your cause. How is it getting public opinion on your side?
Pam Palmater:
Well when you think about it, what we’re trying to do is educate both Canadians and Americans about how the Harper government’s omnibus bills, which gut environmental and water protections, will impact both sides of the border. And it’s really hard to educate on the other side of the border when Canadian issues aren’t very high profile. So by causing temporary, minor border slowdowns and handing out leaflets and giving out information, that’s a really direct way of informing both Americans and Canadians about what’s happening. And today, the ones that we’ve done in the past have been very successful, including the temporary highway and rail slowdowns. And in some of those slowdowns, we actually have people get out of their cars and join us on these slowdowns and want to ask more questions.
Tom Clark:
Okay, let’s go to the heart of the issue here though, and that is, what is the ultimate objective? What are you hoping to achieve? What is that one thing that the prime minister can say that is going to make you go, ah, there we are. We’re situation resolved.
Pam Palmater:
Well there’s nothing he can say that’s going to say situation resolved because that’s all we ever get from politicians is all of their flowery wording. And similarly, one meeting that’s being called a first step isn’t going to cut it either because we’ve had 5,000 first steps. What we need is the next step forward and actual commitment to action. So I think at this meeting, the best Prime Minister Harper could do is come in and say, ‘listen, we’re going to put some good faith on the table and here’s what it is. We’re going to deal with the crisis is First Nation communities, around lack of water, housing, sanitation, education and we’re going to do that immediately. And then we’re going to set up a process, a longer-term process to deal with how we’re going to deal with the lands and resources.’ Now if he made an actual commitment to that, that would be some form of success.
Tom Clark;
You mentioned though, Bill C45, that was the Budget Implementation Act; the omnibus bill. Are you calling on the government to withdraw the Budget Implementation Act?
Pam Palmater:
Oh yeah, at least the provisions that impact the lands, waters and First Nations because it’s not just C45 and C38, for example. There’s about fourteen pieces of legislation that’s being imposed on First Nations without their knowledge, consent and against their will. That’s a very easy thing for the prime minister to do. All of those bills that haven’t passed yet take them off the table until they get First Nation consent.
Tom Clark:
How in the end does all this end? Is there ever an end to this?
Pam Palmater:
Well that’s the whole point of this movement and why we’re asking Canadians to stand beside us because we have got to deal with this treaty relationship once and for all. I mean we started out with nation-to-nation relationships; we made a treaty promise to share these lands in resources that we would all have some wealth and prosperity. So far, that’s only been Canada. First Nations remain at the bottom of all socio-economic indicators and that’s clearly not a just relationship. We need to sit down and work this out once and for all because nobody wants to be here perpetually. We have to do something or there’s going to be a much greater flashpoint at some point in the future.
Tom Clark:
You know, here’s what may be an obvious question to some, and that is that if we have a number of northern communities, native communities, that are uneconomic, that have got sort of systemic problems, why not move some of those communities? It’s happened in other parts of Canada when communities become non-sustainable. Is that something that might be looked at as well?
Pam Palmater:
I would say no because you have to look at the root causes of the extreme poverty in those northern communities. Is it their location? And nine times out of ten, these northern communities are located to diamond mines, oil fields, chromium deposits, they’re in some of the most wealthiest places in Canada so the issue isn’t that there are resources, it’s that those resources aren’t being shared with those communities and that everybody else but those communities are benefitting from it. And when you think about it, these communities are 100 per cent controlled by Indian Affairs. Indian Affairs and the Indian Act have controlled everything that happens on First Nations for the last 150 years. So if there’s any finger pointing to be done, it’s to look at the giant 5,000-person Indian Affairs bureaucracy and say, ‘you’re not doing your job.’
Tom Clark:
Pam Palmater joining us from Toronto this morning. Thanks very much for being here, appreciate your time.
Pam Palmater:
Thank you.
Tom Clark:
Well, we asked Aboriginal Affairs Minister, John Duncan to come on the program. He was not available but his Parliamentary Secretary is and he joins us now by phone. Greg Rickford welcome to The West Block. Good to have you here.
(***Mr. Rickford’s phone was cutting in and out during the interview, so there are some missing parts in the transcript.***)
Let me just start with you, Mr. Rickford, on the ongoing protests. In your view, well, what is your view of the ongoing protests even though a meeting has been set up for next week?
Greg Rickford:
Well first of all, you know, going back to before the Crown First National gathering, there was a joint action plan that was done by the Minister and the National Chief Atleo focusing on land claim, governance, education, some of the issues mentioned by the previous (INAUDIBLE). At the time of the Crown First Nations gathering, we arrived at a work plan and number of things we wanted to see move forward. We know that these are long term challenges, Tom, but we have remained committed to (INAUDIBLE) and as recently as November, National Chief Atleo met with the prime minister and (INAUDIBLE) at our future meetings follow progress and ensure we’re making progress on all of these items. So we have faith in (INAUDIBLE) determine the composition of the delegation later this week and will move forward, continue to move forward on the (INAUDIBLE), particularly economic development and treaty work.
Tom Clark:
Okay, I’m not sure I heard an answer to how you think, how you feel about the protest but let’s move on to something else…
Get breaking National news
Greg Rickford:
I’ll answer that, Tom. In terms of various protests and demonstrations, you know in this country, people have the right to demonstrate and express their point of view peacefully, as long as they obey the law and certainly don’t, from a public safety perspective, jeopardize transportation infrastructure. I think the Canadian population expects everyone will obey the law in holding such protests. Beyond that, we’ll, you know we’ve got local law enforcement officials (INAUDIBLE).
Tom Clark:
Okay, let’s very quickly go to the substance. The Idle No More group said, you just heard them, they said, “Remove elements of the Budget Implementation Bill from the table”, specifically the Navigable Waters Act, Environmental Review Provisions in that act as well. First of all, are you prepared to do that? And secondly, and this is really important, were the Aboriginal communities and leaders consulted in advance of this legislation being presented?
Greg Rickford:
There are numerous examples of where we have performed extensive consultation and responded directly to the requests of First Nations Chiefs to provide them with more flexibility. The clauses in Bill C45 with respect to decisions to lease out their land not only remain voluntary for First Nations but have significantly and positively impacted communities like the Penticton Indian Band, sitting there on the edge of the beautiful City of Penticton; Ponju Lac Denesuline First Nation; communities that can develop jointly with the private sector on major resource. Ring of Fire, Tom, is another example. We have First Nation communities, contrary to what has been said just previously, working through an environmental process. They’re generating small business centre activities in their communities and their developing capacity in land mapping, and that process is well underway. So to say that Bill C45 counter…has a negative impact on that is simply untrue. We…
Tom Clark:
All right, unfortunately, we’ve got to leave it there. We’re out of time but Greg Rickford thanks very much for being here this morning. I appreciate your time.
Greg Rickford:
I appreciate it, Tom. Thanks.
Tom Clark:
Well, coming up next on The West Block, what’s the hold up in Canada’s trade deal negotiations with the European Union? Stay tuned.
Break
Tom Clark:
Welcome back. Well, a trade deal with the European Union has been in the works for years now and the government’s already missed two of its own deadlines that it set for itself. So what’s taking so long? And what are the sticking points in these negotiations? So here it is, your weekly West Block Primer:
Canada and European Union have been in the market for a trade agreement since 2009 – a deal that Ottawa had hoped would be in the bag by the end of 2012. But a week into the new year, and the two sides are still shopping for a deal. Canada wants tariff-free access to Europe’s highly protected market for beef and pork, a market that has effectively shut out Canadian farmers and ranchers. Ottawa is also looking to get more access to fish and seafood markets. In return, Europe wants better access to Canada’s poultry and dairy markets, which are currently protected by supply management. The EU also wants stronger patent protection on prescription medicine. And they’re demanding a chance to bid on government procurement contracts at all levels of government. But Canada says that access to the EU’s 500 million consumers would far outweigh all of these concessions by creating tens of thousands of new jobs and boosting the national economy by about $12 billion a year.
Well, joining me now, two people who know a lot about this trade deal. Paul Wells, columnist from Maclean’s magazine and Laura Dawson, a specialist in international trade agreements.
Paul, let me start with you. Here’s the narrative: Europe is in shambles, the economy is in the dumps, the 21st century belongs to the Asia-Pacific region, so why are we getting ourselves tied in knots about tying our economy to the old economy of Europe and not the new economy of Asia?
Paul Wells:
Probably two reasons, Tom. First of all, despite its troubles, the European Union is a half a billion people who are almost as rich as we are. That’s a pretty good market for whatever you want to sell. The second is that implementing an ambitious trade deal with Europe we would deregulate the Canadian market and make it a better market internally for Canadian businesses so that if a German firm can bid on a transit contract in Montreal, it would just make sense that a firm from New Brunswick or from Nova Scotia or from Manitoba could do that too which is not the case now.
Tom Clark:
So you’re saying this could take down inter-provincial trades areas?
Paul Wells:
This is stealth liberalization of the Canadian market with the added benefit of better access to the massive European market.
Tom Clark:
Laura, if you take a look at it though, I mean I was interested. I went on the website of International Trade today and there on the page, it still says we expect a deal to be made in 2012. Well we’re already 2013; obviously they haven’t updated their webpage but what is taking so long here?
Laura Dawson:
Well I think we need to lower our expectations a little bit. I mean in the lead-up to the segment you talked about the tariff rates and really our new trade agreements aren’t about tariffs. We’ve pretty much done away with the major tariffs within the World Trade Organization. So this is about negotiating new ways of lowering the costs of particular transactions. Lowering the transaction costs on regulations, technical barriers, inspections, certification, whether what we call “organic” in Canada and what they call “organic” in the European Union, whether those things really line up. And those details are just devilish and it takes a really long time to work those things out.
Tom Clark:
But there are a couple of big things in here too, for example, the patent protection for prescription medicines. By Canada’s own admission, that could increase the cost of health care in this country by about a billion dollars a year. Politically, Paul, that’s a tough sell isn’t it?
Paul Wells:
And it helps explain why almost the only really active public information campaign in favour of the European trade agreement. There are an awful lot of opponents to this deal. Almost the only public advocates for it are big pharma because they would make out like bandits if this deal passed. They say that in return for that they would rapidly increase the amount of research, pharma research that happens in Canada and makes Canada more of a hub of pharma research. That’s contested, but that’s what they say. But yeah, there’s a real good chance that if this deal were to go forward, (prescription) medication would become more expensive because it would be protected from generic competition longer.
Laura Dawson:
But the global trajectory is moving towards that stronger protection and so it’s Canada’s decision whether to move there now or to wait a bit. And so this is one of those bargaining chips that we can use in the negotiations to try to further some of our interests.
Tom Clark:
You know, one of the other interesting things, we talk about government procurement, and a lot of people’s eyes glaze over when you say that word, but here’s the thing, we have a thing called NAFTA with the United States and with Mexico that basically says if you come to a better trade agreement with another country, we get the benefit, too. So, let’s bring this down to Main St. In any town in this country, if we go ahead with this, we’re talking about the Europeans, if they get their way, being able to bid for roads, sewer and bridge contracts in any town Canada, but that also opens the door, removes the exemptions to that sort of thing for the Americans and the Mexicans. I mean, this seems to have a domino effect, much larger than just the European agreement itself. Am I right on that?
Laura Dawson:
You’re kind of right. Government procurement is a separate section, so you do have to itemize those areas that you’re going to open up and it’s tediously slow. But at the same token, Canada has a lot to sell in the procurement market. Water, wastewater, construction, transportation … We want to be selling this internationally, and by figuring out new ways to do this with the Europeans, we can also make inroads into Asian and other fast-growing markets.
Paul Wells:
The tendency is always to look at what will we give up. Oh my goodness, we would have to let German firms bid on sewer contracts in Edmonton. But first of all, incidentally, that’s a good idea because it means that the Edmonton firm would get a contract not because it was local but because it was good. And secondly, the Edmonton firm could go into Utrecht and Maastricht and Warsaw and bid for sewer contracts there and get rich. So you know, and incidentally Canada has already offered better access to European firms in Canadian municipal markets than other Canadian provinces have in individual…they’ve already offered better access to that firm from Warsaw than a firm from the province next door has today, which is why I say that this is sort of stealth deregulation. If we get this deal with the Europeans we would have to give it to ourselves and we would have to make Canada a bit more of a real market, which is one of the reasons this is worth doing.
Tom Clark:
Let me pick up on that word “if” because I want to explore first of all, what or is there a deal breaker in here for Canada? Is there something where we say, that’s the line in the sand that we’re not going to cross?
Laura Dawson;
Well, what they’ve done is they’ve back-end loaded all of the tough issues. They’ve done the simple issues over the past couple of years and now it’s things like supply management, government procurement, pharmaceuticals, intellectual property services and those are tough. The deal-breaker might be supply management. The government has made a very strong stance in defending our protective markets in dairy and in poultry and eggs. They may say ‘this far and no further’ on supply management, but I think they’ve admitted that they’re willing to give on anything as long as the deal is good enough at the other end.
Paul Wells:
This is ending the way it always going to end. It’s now pure politics. How much does Stephen Harper want to liberalize and deregulate the Canadian market because he’s going to have to get a deal? There are sometimes talks about getting a modest deal with the Europeans that won’t change much. That’s not on, because the Europeans won’t accept it. They are beginning monumental trade talks with the United States, and they will not accept a dish-watery, bland Canadian deal that serves as a lousy model for that American deal. They will only accept a deal if it’s ambitious, which means if we want to be able to sell Alberta beef in restaurants in Paris, we’ve got to allow French cheese into Canadian restaurants. And frankly, I think that’s a hell of a deal because I like Alberta beef and French cheese.
Laura Dawson:
And that U.S.A., that is the key to the whole deal. Canada is really good at starting free trade agreements but we’re not good about completing them. Once the U.S. gets into a negotiation, countries will negotiate with us to practice and then they’ll ease their way up into negotiating with the U.S. Once the EU and the U.S. start to talk, we’re going to be yesterday’s news, so we need to finish that deal before the U.S. is seriously at the table.
Tom Clark:
In the 30 seconds that we’ve got left, can you encapsulate what the consequences to us would be of not making this deal with the Europeans?
Paul Wells:
I think this prime minister would be perfectly serene with not having a deal with the Americans. The only domestic chatter on this is from the Council of Canadians and the big public sector unions that don’t want a deal at all. And you know 30 municipalities, or however many municipalities, have passed resolutions saying no CETA in my backyard. I think the prime minister could walk away from this without taking a political hit at all, but Canada would lose a chance to become richer.
Tom Clark;
Okay, Paul Wells of Maclean’s Magazine, Laura Dawson, I’m sorry we’re out of time but thank you both very much for being here. Good conversation.
Well, when we come back, we go behind the scenes with one MP who spends her free time practicing as a pediatric surgeon. Stay tuned.
Break
Tom Clark:
Welcome back. Rookie MP, Kellie Leitch is a rising star in the Conservative caucus. The MP from southern Ontario is also the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources. But that is not the only job that Kellie Leitch has. Take a look:
Dr. Kellie Leitch speaking in the House
Tom Clark:
By day, Kellie Leitch works the Hill as a prominent Conservative and a Parliamentary Secretary. But by night, she’s Dr. Leitch, clocking hours as a pediatric orthopedic surgeon at the Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario (CHEO).
Working on-call, often very late at night, Leitch does emergency surgeries for kids with everything from broken bones to cerebral palsy. She has to put in a minimum of 70 days a year. All of the other hours are filled with public policy.
Tom Clark:
In your medical practice you help one person at a time. Politically, in your political life, you can affect the lives of millions of people. Which is more satisfying?
Dr. Kellie Leitch:
They’re satisfying in different ways, you know. It’s exceptionally gratifying to be able to take a kid and get them back playing out on the playground or to take a young child with cerebral palsy who may not be walking the best and get them out and playing with other kids on the playground. I can’t tell you how wonderful that is. But at the same time, to be able to empower a whole group of parents to allow their children to do things and help them is amazing.
Tom Clark:
Deciding to do both jobs at once was one thing but figuring out how to do it was something else entirely. Scheduling was the first challenge.
With the help of her staff they figured out a schedule that allows for both, but there was another roadblock: her own party’s Accountability Act.
Dr. Kellie Leitch:
Initially, I had been told by the Ethics Commissioner that there may be some challenges to me practicing, because I was the Parliamentary Secretary…
Tom Clark:
What on earth is the ethical challenge for a Member of Parliament to save the life of some child?
Dr. Kellie Leitch:
Well the act said that you can’t practice your profession. You know to the credit, as I say, of the Prime Minister having looked at this, and you know things are anomalies that happen; you don’t foresee having a pediatric surgeon in your caucus.
Tom Clark:
It was a request that few would make given the heavy hours that Leitch logs as a Parliamentary Secretary, but she says that keeping up on her first job makes her better at her second job.
Dr. Kellie Leitch:
I can tell you a mom or a dad that comes to clinic doesn’t just tell you about their child’s broken arm or the challenges they’re having with a wheelchair, they tell you about how terrible the road was getting there and that they like the Children’s Fitness Tax Credit but really they could do without these other things. And so it’s like having a little focus group every week and its very grounding.
Tom Clark:
But with such a busy schedule something’s always got to give.
So have you just given up sleeping? Is that how you do it?
Dr. Kellie Leitch:
(Laughing) I am very fortunate, I inherited my mother’s genes and she only used to sleep for a brief, well probably four or five hours a night so I can survive on that pretty easily. And residency trains you for it a bit.
Tom Clark;
Kellie Leitch, MD and MP.
Well that’s our show for this week. To keep up with the week’s events, be sure to visit us at thewestblock.ca and follow us on Twitter and on Facebook where we also love reading your feedback.
Thanks for being with us, I’m Tom Clark. Have a wonderful week ahead.
Comments