The West Block Season 7, Episode 37

Good morning,

Please find attached the West Block transcript for posting at 11:30 a.m.

Thanks and have a wonderful weekend.

THE WEST BLOCK
Episode 37, Season 7
Sunday, May 20, 2018

Host: Eric Sorensen

Guest Interviews: U.S. Ambassador to Canada Bruce Heyman,
Former Chief Justice Beverly McLachlin

Food for Thought: Minister Scott Brison

Location: Ottawa

On this Sunday, intense negotiations for a NAFTA deal before the end of the month, and clear differences are emerging. How close is an agreement? The sticking points and what happens if there is no deal, soon?

Then, Canada’s first female Chief Justice Beverly McLachlin left the Supreme Court last December. After years of interpreting the law and dealing with the facts, she has turned to fiction. We’ll ask the author and former Chief Justice what lessons she brought from the bench to her book: Full Disclosure.

Plus, a return to our occasional series: Food for Thought. We’ll head down the street from Parliament Hill for a conversation with Treasury Board President Scott Brison.

It’s Sunday, May the 20th. I’m Eric Sorensen, and this is The West Block.

Well late last week, Foreign Minister Chrystia Freeland headed back to Washington, to push NAFTA towards a deal. The U.S. Congress has given negotiators a little more time, till the end of the month. After that, the congressional process would push the deal beyond the midterm elections in November. So, are we close? Here’s what Prime Minster Trudeau said, late last week:

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau: “To be honest, we’re down to a point where there is a good deal on the table.”

Eric Sorensen: But hours later, U.S. trade representative Robert Lighthizer released a statement saying NAFTA countries are nowhere near close to a deal. What to make of such stark public differences?

Joining us now from Toronto is former U.S. ambassador to Canada, Bruce Heyman. Ambassador, thank you for joining us. You understand diplomacy between our two countries. How could our prime minister and the U.S. trade representative be so off-key with each other at this stage of the talks?

Ambassador Bruce Heyman: So, you know, one of the things I learned very clearly after being in Canada is that two people can look at the exact same thing, see it completely differently and both be absolutely correct. Think of a glass half full and the optimist saying it is half full, but the pessimist saying it’s half empty and we’re nowhere near full. So, in this particular case, I think if the U.S. administration wants a deal, there is a deal to be had here. And I think the prime minister is absolutely correct, there’s a deal to be had. We have the best trading relationship in the world with Canada and I would say also in this particular case with Mexico and Canada as part of NAFTA. And I think that business leaders, members of congress, I would say the Chamber of Commerce, I would say the farmers, everybody would like to see us get this behind us and have a good and fair updated NAFTA. So, it’s capable of getting done, but we’re getting down to some short strokes here because of the clock.

Eric Sorensen: Is there sort of an audience of one when each of them was speaking? They both want to reach Donald Trump and the immediate people around him to sort of send a particular type of message?

Bruce Heyman: I think you’re hitting the nail right on the head. So, there are competing interests, and let’s just stay in the Republic Party for a minute, if you look in the Republican Party which controls the House, the Senate and the administration. If you look at the Republican Party, I think that there are constituencies in that party that want this deal done, that know the value of it. They understand the economics. They understand the importance of the U.S.-Canada relationship and I’d say even the Republican governors of all those states that have their number one export market as Canada. I think they want a deal done. There are others that seem to be a bit more in transit, and they’re fighting deals. These are the people who are whispering in Donald Trump’s ear, or himself, that walked away from Paris, that walked away from TPP, that just walked away from Iran. That just walked away from so many other deals that this is the battle that’s going on, I think, within the administration. But from my perspective, this deal should happen. There’s no better partner or trading relationship that the U.S. has than with Canada.

Eric Sorensen: If they could just persuade that there is a win here to be had. I mean, Mr. Lighthizer named at least half a dozen issues that he thinks are still outstanding and they are big ones: intellectual property, agricultural access. That would be our marketing boards, energy labour rules of origin. What are the main sticking points, do you think?

Bruce Heyman: So, I think that first of all, they’ve worked very hard, all three countries, over the last several weeks on what is called ROO: Rules of Origin. This is on content, on U.S. automobiles or North American automobiles and the amount of U.S. content and North American content. That’s where the battle has been going back and forth and then they’ve tried to find some creative ways to deal with wages even. If they can adjust wages, then maybe the content rules will be different. I think a lot of progress was made there over the last few weeks. And again, I think that that gap can be closed. The other things I don’t think have actually been touched significantly yet and are still work in progress. Like a sunset clause which is a no-go zone for the Canadians, like dispute resolution, which is covered in a number of chapters in this 30 chapter agreement and very important to the Canadians when they got into NAFTA. I think it’s going to be very important going forward and I totally understand that. So, there are these issues, but those were placed by the administration late in the game and, you know, either they’re negotiating points or they’re impediments. And I think that the jury’s out where this administration’s going to fall on this. But a lot of threats are being made right now by the White House, which, you know, is unfortunate that you have to fall into threats at this stage of the game.

Eric Sorensen: The U.S. Congress has more or less put down, not a hard deadline, but yet another kind of deadline. We seem to be within a few days or a couple of weeks of needing to get this done because of all the protocols with Congress. Can you just give us your sense of how urgent it is to get done very soon, if it’s going to get done at all, this year?

Bruce Heyman: So, you know, Congress has all kinds of interesting ways of changing the rules of the game. But if you follow the rules very strictly under TPA, I think, you know, House Speaker Ryan went through that this last week. And looking at the clock and the time schedule, if you were very strict on that, I think he’s absolutely right, we’re either past the deadline or right at the deadline and you might get a few extra days based on ITC review and things like that, but we’re close to that. But there are creative ways in which the Congress and the White House can deal with this if they get a deal. And so, you know, deadlines may be replaced by other deadlines. My bigger concern is the threat by Secretary Ross which said that steel and aluminum duties which we have an exemption until June 1st, he basically said we’ll see how NAFTA negotiations go: a veiled threat in my view and completely inappropriate given our relationship with Canada. And then you have the threat from the president himself, who has said he’d tear up NAFTA, rip it up, bad agreement. And so my concern with that is, that was his language in the campaign, he’s leaned in on that language a few times during his administration and he has demonstrated his ability to rip up agreements. And so I have continually said, the worst thing that could happen is that somebody quits the negotiation as opposed to continuing.

Eric Sorensen: So again, you’re so familiar with Canada-U.S. relations, how do you see Canada best playing its cards over the next short term with these matters hanging over their heads?

Eric Sorensen: That’s the question. Ambassador Hayman, thank you so much for joining us.

Bruce Heyman: It’s a pleasure.

Eric Sorensen: Up next: We’ll talk to Canada’s first Chief Justice about the lessons learned from the bench and why she is promoting full disclosure.

Eric Sorensen: Welcome back. For 17 years, Beverly McLachlin was Canada’s Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, the longest serving and the high course first female Chief Justice. She retired last December. Ms. McLachlin has continued writing about the law but in a very different way as a writer of fiction. Ah, but is it all fiction? Her first novel is called Full Disclosure. Joining us now, former Chief Justice Beverly McLachlin. Thank you so much for being with us.

Beverly McLachlin: Delighted to be here, Eric.

Eric Sorensen: So, what have you been containing all of these years that you could finally let out after so many writing decisions on the Supreme Court?

Beverly McLachlin: Yes, well before I ever became a judge, which is a very long time ago—I became a judge at the trial level in ’81—I had started to write a little fiction and I would have pursued that, but then I was offered a place on the bench and I decided to become a judge, and it’s not really compatible, I decided with a career as a judge. So I put it aside for almost 40 years and didn’t think about it very much at all, if at all. And then when I was facing mandatory retirement, I said well, what am I going to do now? And it came back to me and I thought I should give it a try again. So I started getting up at 5am and doing it, and pretty soon I had a little bit of a story going and one thing led to another. So now much to my amazement, I’m a published author.

Eric Sorensen: Well and here it is. This is the book: Full Disclosure. The main character, Jilly Truitt, she is a Canadian lawyer, a woman, so these seemed to be some connections to your life, but she has a lot of issues in her life that maybe aren’t. So, to what degree, over these 40 years, would the story have changed from when you first took it up then and finished it now?

Beverly McLachlin: I started from scratch. I used my characters and I just built a contemporary story. And it was a new story, totally different.

Eric Sorensen: Let me ask you a little bit about your own career, here. What would be the most significant impact you feel you’ve had on the bench?

Beverly McLachlin: Well I could say charter law, I could say Indigenous law. Those have been hugely important areas and my career spanned them completely. The Charter was adopted and the Indigenous Rights Constitutional protection. In 1982, I became a judge in ’81, so I’ve been there the whole time. It’s been my constant companion and of course I’ve had to participate in a lot of cases on those areas and I think they’re very important areas. But a part from that, and other level completely, it sometimes has seemed to me that the most significant part, particularly about being a female chief justice, is the example you set, the role model you set, so many people have come up to me over the years with their little daughters in hand or whatever and say it’s just so important to my daughter, or my cousin, or my niece, or to me that you are there. So, part of it, I think, is just that I was a woman at a time people were really hungry for women in leadership positions.

Eric Sorensen: You also wanted—offered people a chance to get better access to the legal system, to not feel that it’s so daunting. That can apply to women, but it can apply to everyone.

Beverly McLachlin: Everyone. And you know it’s an inclusive message. The law is there for everybody in society: women, men, children, and it’s got to work for them all. So this is why I was so keen on access to justice, and I continue to be and I will be after retirement, working very hard in this field.

Eric Sorensen: What are the challenges that are still ahead, do you think, in Canadian law?

Beverly McLachlin: Well, the challenges are to continue the path we’ve started down, which is reduced delays, reduced costs, so that ordinary people find other means of providing legal advice and services so that people who don’t have a lot of means can get justice, because I believe that’s their fundamental right.

Eric Sorensen: Any decisions you would see differently now than 40 years ago? Or just that you view the world differently than you might have then?

Beverly McLachlin: Well obviously, one does view the world different, but I’ve been in a process for just the memory bank of the court going over with an archivist some of my decisions and actually, you know, I don’t think things have changed that much on the fundamental values and themes that go through my work.

Eric Sorensen: You’re going to Hong Kong, so I read that it wasn’t that easy to give up being a judge and it seems like you’re not going to be entirely.

Beverly McLachlin: Yeah, well, this is—I’m not moving to Hong Kong, for those who’d like to get rid of me. I’m going to stay in Canada, but I will be sitting on the Hong Kong final court of appeal, it’s part of their agreement with China on the handover that they maintain the British style justice system and that they have a foreign jurist on each panel. And so they have a roster of these people, mostly from England, one or two from Australia and now they’ve asked me. So I’ll probably spend three or four weeks a year in Hong Kong, starting in ’19.

Eric Sorensen: And coming back to your writing. Is there more fiction? Is there another Jilly Truitt or other fiction or non-fiction?

Beverly McLachlin: Well, a lot of people have asked me. They say there has to be another one, we want more and I’d certainly like to give that a try. Right now, I’m very busy. I’ll probably bring out a—try to bring out a memoir where I discuss through the lens of my own experience, some of the issues and passions that have driven my life and then perhaps more fiction.

Eric Sorensen: When have you ever not been busy?

Beverly McLachlin: Yeah well, I love being busy.

Eric Sorensen: Thank you very much for joining us today.

Beverly McLachlin: Thank you, Eric. It’s a pleasure.

Eric Sorensen: Up next: Coming out. That can have more than one meaning when treasury board president Scott Brison offers us some food for thought.

Eric Sorensen: You can just see Parliament Hill from the Mad Radish, a favourite eatery of Scott Brison, whose treasury board offices are right around the corner. The restaurant’s variety of salads is perfect for lunch, and this is where we meet with the Liberal cabinet minister, for some Food for Thought.

I’m glad to see they don’t have just radishes here. Scott Brison, thank you for joining us on Food for Thought.

Minister Scott Brison: I’m delighted to be here with you.

Eric Sorensen: Shall I call you minister or president Brison of the Treasury Board?

Minister Scott Brison: Scott works. Scott works here.

Eric Sorensen: What is it you like about this dish and this restaurant?

Minister Scott Brison: Well, I really like this restaurant. I like Mad Radish very much. I like salads, and I eat from here a lot, usually at my desk.

Eric Sorensen: And did this salmon come from somewhere that you were–?

Minister Scott Brison: Well it’s funny you should ask.

Eric Sorensen: Funny I should ask.

Minister Scott Brison: Because this salmon is not just any salmon. This salmon is sustainable blue salmon, which is a sustainable aquaculture company: On Land Aquaculture, which is about 10 minutes from my home in Cheverie, Hants County, Nova Scotia.

Eric Sorensen: You know, some years ago, you came out of the closet to become a Liberal. And I thought it was a very active time in your life, both personally and in terms of politics. Were those things—were they intertwined at all in terms of coming out and coming out?

Minister Scott Brison: Yeah, and it’s a good point because I think it was actually November or December 2002 when I officially came out as being gay. And I wasn’t really in. In fact, I was outed during my first campaign in 1997, in fact, even before the campaign started.

Eric Sorensen: Somebody was trying to use that?

Minister Scott Brison: Yeah.

Eric Sorensen: Yeah, yeah.

Minister Scott Brison: Yeah, exactly. And then—but—so I never really was in, but it was unofficial, everyone knew. I told my colleagues in Progressive Conservative caucus, in fact, shortly after the election I told them, which was a surprise to some of them. But this was a time when I guess a bunch of things were happening, 1) is I came out officially, and 2) the merger between the two parties became an issue. And the party with which the Progressive Conservative Party was merging, the Alliance Party or the Reform Party, depending on what you wanted to call it, had very different views on these kinds of issues than the Progressive Conservative Party, and down to the leadership of people like Joe Clark. You know, I chose to follow my values, as opposed to follow my party, like one follows a hockey team or something like that. That was—it was a time when a lot of change was happening.

Eric Sorensen: Society was just coming to a tipping point, because Canadian society even then said marriage: man and woman, nah that sound about right to me. And as soon as the Supreme Court said, hmm, that’s actually discriminatory. Society kind of said, yeah okay, I get that.

Minister Scott Brison: Which is what brings me—that’s what brings me to one of the most amazing acts of political leadership in our time was the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. If Pierre Trudeau had not done what he did at that time, I would not be doing what I’m doing today. And I’m not talking about my job necessarily, but I’m talking about my life in general, because I’m part of a generation where I can be open and honest about who I am and serve the people of Canada in a number of roles that I’ve found very fulfilling as a member of Parliament and other roles I’ve been given by prime ministers, have a spouse, a husband, in fact, and raise a family. I mean, when I was dealing with as a teenager, this whole idea that I might be gay, and I was fighting it very much, one of the things that I felt that that meant would be that I would have to do a lot of trade-offs, both in terms of my career because I liked politics very early and I wanted to go into politics. I felt that that was going to be pretty much off—off—

Eric Sorensen: Yeah, and rural Nova Scotia at that time.

Minister Scott Brison: I didn’t think that that would be on. Having a spouse and a family that—well, that’s not going to happen.

Eric Sorensen: That was another world.

Minister Scott Brison: And I had to kind of rejig my expectations for life, or potentially, do something which a lot of people had to do at that time and they’d compartmentalize their life and they would in a lot of cases marry and have a wife and a family and pursue their career, and in a lot of cases have another life that was quite compartmentalized from that. And I’m not judging them because if I were of that generation, I very possibly would have ended up doing the same thing. But I just feel lucky to be part of a generation where I can have such a privileged life, to be part of a—to be born in Canada is a lottery. It’s a lottery win. To be born as part of this generation is just incredible good fortune, and to have lived life during a time when there’s been so much change and progress and I benefitted from that.

Eric Sorensen: And I want to ask you about your daughters. They’re four years old.

Minister Scott Brison: Yeah.

Eric Sorensen: And like do they have the t-shirts that say I have two dads?

Minister Scott Brison: They have a daddy and a papa because Maxime is a francophone and it may not be obvious but I am an anglophone. And when we were at home in rural Nova Scotia we feel very much part of a community that absolutely loves and supports Max and me and our daughters. And they’re going to grow up—I can see it now—they’re going to grow up with an awful lot of love and support. But it’s just of great a lot, and I think that they’re going to have a life full of love, not just from Max and me and our families but from the whole community in Nova Scotia and the Annapolis Valley, which I feel very privileged.

Eric Sorensen: That’s wonderful to hear. And you, and we, have lived through tumultuous social times and so thank you very much for joining us today on Food for Thought.

Minister Scott Brison: Can I ask a personal question?

Eric Sorensen: Mm-hum.

Minister Scott Brison: When do I get to eat the salad? I’m hungry.

Eric Sorensen: Right now.

Minister Scott Brison: This is lovely.

Eric Sorensen: And that is our show for today. We always want to hear from you. You can find us online at http://www.thewestblock.ca. You can also reach us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram. Thanks for joining us today. I’m Eric Sorensen. See you next week.