Transcript Episode 7 October 20

THE WEST BLOCK

Episode 7, Season 3

Sunday, October 20, 2013

Host: Tom Clark

Guest Interviews: Terry O’Sullivan, Ed Fast, Tom Mulcair, Laura Brown

Location: Ottawa

***please check against delivery

Tom Clark:

On this Sunday morning with just two days to go before she faces suspension from the Senate without pay, Senator Pamela Wallin fights back.  Calling the Senate motion the actions of a third world dictatorship, Wallin’s lawyer demands the Senate conduct a public inquiry.  Terry O’Sullivan is here on The West Block.

A terrifying moment as native protestors in New Brunswick carjack a global news vehicle after a so-called cooling down period was agreed to.  Global journalist, Laura Brown will be here with her story.

And, one of Canada’s biggest deals ever:  free trade with Europe, one of its architects, Trade Minister Ed Fast is standing by as is Opposition Leader Tom Mulcair.

All this ahead on this Sunday, October 20th, from the nation’s capital, I’m Tom Clark, and this is The West Block.

Well Tuesday is going to be a remarkable day on Parliament Hill.  The Senate will debate whether to suspend without pay or benefits, three Conservative appointed senators:  Mike Duffy, Pamela Wallin and Patrick Brazeau.  Now the idea for this comes from the Conservative government itself as discipline for what it calls gross negligence and deliberately abusing the rules.

Now one Senator, Pam Wallin is fighting back.

Well joining us now from Toronto is Terry O’Sullivan.  He is the lawyer for Senator Pam Wallin and Mr. O’Sullivan thanks very much for being here.

Terry O’Sullivan:

You’re welcome.

Tom Clark:

In a few words or a few sentences, what do you think is going on here?

Terry O’Sullivan:

Well it’s my impression, very strongly Tom, is that what’s going on here is a matter of political expediency on behalf of the Conservative majority in the Senate to try to rid themselves of what they perceive to be a continuing political irritant political by sending their political opponent into exile with an unheard of indefinite suspension without pay or benefits before the Conservative convention next weekend in Calgary.  That’s what I think has driven this. There are other legal issues associated with it but that’s very much my sense of the motivation of this process.

Tom Clark:

And I think in a previous conversation we had, you even referred to it as something worthy of a third world dictatorship.  Is it really that bad?

Terry O’Sullivan:

In my view, the ability to suspend without due process a member of the Government of Canada for an indefinite period of time without pay or benefits speaks to the practices in third world dictatorships where political opponents are set into exile for no apparent reason merely because people say they can.  That’s not the way we do things in Canada.

Tom Clark:

So Mr. O’Sullivan then, what is the proper way in your view to go about this?  We know that the motion is coming up on Tuesday.  What in your view is the proper way to proceed at this point?

Terry O’Sullivan:

Well you’re to forgive me because you asked to interview a lawyer so I’m going to speak a little bit about the law.  First of all, under the rules of the Senate of Canada that apply to suspensions there is a presumption of innocence.  The first point I make here is that there is no presumption of innocence associated with this process.  The motion introduced by the Senate majority leader speaks of gross negligence on the part of Senator Wallin.  That is a phrase with specific legal meaning, which is not found anywhere in either the Deloitte report or the Senate subcommittee report which dealt with Senator Wallin’s expenses.  We have not seen any evidence which supports a finding or word even capable of supporting a finding of gross negligence.  So the first thing we say is that they must put forward in a public hearing the evidence and witnesses they say that support a finding of gross negligence.  If they do that, then we will respond to that evidence by cross-examining those witnesses and calling our own evidence.  You don’t do this by saying to Senator Wallin she can stand up and speak for a few minutes on the floor of the Senate next Tuesday afternoon because that is a completely inappropriate process.  It doesn’t get to the evidence and it doesn’t get to the conclusions.

Tom Clark:

Well you’re talking about a public hearing.  That’s not going to happen.  We pretty well know that.  The Conservative side of the Senate is telling us that they feel that they’re on solid legal ground, that there is precedence for this.  They’re going ahead with the motion.  How do you think Tuesday is going to go?

Terry O’Sullivan:

Well two things:  if they have solid legal grounds for doing it, we haven’t seen them, neither have you.  And so I invite them to share them with you and through you with the public.  I’d be happy to comment on them if they’ll share them with us.  What they’ve done here is deprived among other things, the people of Saskatchewan, of the right to have a senator in the Senate for an indefinite period of time, perhaps up to two years or more without any process. We don’t believe that’s constitutional.  If they have a legal opinion that says it is, I’d love to see it.  What we will do on Tuesday still remains a matter of discussion with Senator Wallin and her other advisors, but I agree that it’s unlikely they’ll do the right thing and grant us a public hearing.  If they proceed with the motion and if they succeed in suspending Senator Wallin in this Kafkaesque way, then we will explore all our options and those options do include the possibility of legal action.

Tom Clark;

Is Senator Wallin going to appear in her defence on Tuesday?

Terry O’Sullivan:

That is a matter that I’m afraid you’ll have to wait until Tuesday to see.

Tom Clark:

Explore for me just a little bit what options you think are available to you.

Terry O’Sullivan:

Well, I mean I’m a lawyer so the options of course that I’m being asked to explore is the possibility of legal action to set aside or declare unlawful the actions of the Senate in expelling Senator Wallin.

Tom Clark:

And that would be legal action against who, against the government and the Senate?

Terry O’Sullivan:

Yes.

Tom Clark:

So the leader of the government in the Senate would be the person…

Terry O’Sullivan:

Well I mean we haven’t identified who the main parties would be but it would involve the Senate of Canada and perhaps unnamed individuals as well.

Tom Clark:

Terry O’Sullivan thank you very much for taking time out of your day, I appreciate it very much.

Terry O’Sullivan:

You’re welcome Tom.  Bye-bye.

Tom Clark:

Now we requested a number of senators on both sides for an interview on this subject but no one said they were available.

Well coming up next, the inside story of the free trade deal with the European Union.

And then later, reporters threatened, their vehicles and equipment seized by protestors in New Brunswick.  Stay tuned.

<<Break>>

Tom Clark:

Welcome back.  Well we heard about it last week, the biggest trade deal that Canada has ever signed with promises of jobs and new opportunities for investments.  So what does it mean for Canada?  Well, cheaper prices on European goods as 98 percent of tariffs are removed, access to European cheese in Canada.  Now on the flipside, more Canadian pork and beef will be allowed into the European market.  The deal also includes greater protection for pharmaceutical companies and European contractors will now have access to local and provincial contracts here in Canada.

Well joining me now, one of the chief architects of this deal, Trade Minister Ed Fast.  Minister thanks very much for being here today.

This deal took a lot longer to conclude than you had originally thought.  How close did it ever come to falling off the rails?

Ed Fast:

Well this is an historic deal.  It is a huge win for Canada.  Obviously there was some very tough negotiating that took place.  The reason it took longer was because a year ago, the deal that was on the table was not one that we could defend to Canadians.  Six months ago, the deal that the EU wanted to sign was one that was not in Canada’s best interests.  But today, we have an agreement that is a big win for Canada.  It is historic but it’s also a big win for the EU and we’re very pleased.

Tom Clark:

Well just in the background though because negotiations are always fascinating and so on, was there ever a time prepared to walk away from the table or the Europeans said they were prepared to walk away from the table?

Ed Fast:

You always have to be prepared to walk away from the table if it’s a bad deal but at the end of the day, I believe both the EU and Canada understood this is absolutely critical that we liberalize our trade, provide new opportunities for our businesses to thrive, new opportunities for consumers to have better choices, better prices and at the end of the day, what it took of course was the prime minister who was the visionary, who started the whole process, who had his fingers in this process the whole way through.  When the negotiators were done, when the trade ministers were done, he engaged and he got the deal done at the end.

Tom Clark:

You know, the devil in all these things is in the details and we haven’t seen the details.  The few things that I was able to lay out is pretty well all we know about the deal right now.  When will we know the details of this trade arrangement?

Ed Fast:

Well the technical and the legal details are being worked out right now.  As you know, any trade agreement has to have a legal text.  That legal text is now being drafted.  What we did is we provided a full summary of all the points of agreement that the EU and Canada have settled upon.  There a number of different documents we’ve released to the public.  They’re on our website:  international.gc.ca for the public to get a real taste and flavour for what this means to them.  But again, I say this is the biggest trade deal Canada has ever signed.  It’s broader in scope than NAFTA.  It’s dealing with a larger consumer market than NAFTA did and we have dramatically opened up opportunities for Canadian businesses and Canadian investors in the EU.

Tom Clark:

One of the aspects of this, and you talked about it already, is that we are going to have to… the federal government is going to have to compensate provinces and other stakeholders in this as the winners and losers, we compensate the losers.  Do you have any idea how much we’re going to have to pay out in compensation for this deal?

Ed Fast:

Well one of the big wins out of this was that we worked very closely with the provinces and territories and in fact they were partners with us.  They negotiated at the table with us when it was areas of their sole or partially exclusive jurisdiction.  And so that’s why all of them have come out very strongly in favour of this deal.  We don’t yet know exactly what the impacts…the financial impacts will be.  We know they’re going to be significantly less than what’s being stipulated.  But we said to the provinces, listen we want to keep you whole.  If there are additional costs eight to ten years down the road that you’re going to have to bear, we will compensate you for that, and that’s why there’s been tremendous resonance across the country for this agreement.

Tom Clark:

In the hundreds of millions?  Billions?

Ed Fast:

Well we’re not talking billions, I can assure you of that, but it’s very difficult to tie down exactly what those costs will be.  We’re going to work out a methodology with the provinces to make sure that they are compensated.

Tom Clark:

I’ve only got 20 seconds left but I want to talk about that province in the throne speech in 2011 that we would have a free grade deal with India this year.  We’ve got about a month and a half left in 2013, how are you doing on that?

Ed Fast:

Well we continue to make progress.  It is slower than we had hoped for but we are absolutely committed to concluding an agreement with India as well.  It’s…

Tom Clark:

But not this year…

Ed Fast:

Well we’re working very hard to try to get it done this year but really that’s up to the Indians whether they want to engage at that high level of activity.   We certainly have been prepared to close off before the end of the year.

Tom Clark:

Ed Fast thank you so much for being here.  Congratulations.

Ed Fast:

Thank you so much.

Tom Clark:

Okay.

I want to go to Trois-Rivières Quebec right now where NDP leader Tom Mulcair is standing by.  And Mr. Mulcair, let me start with you where we just left off with Minister Fast. Details still to be published; we don’t know what’s in it.  Are you prepared to wait much longer before you see the details?

Tom Mulcair:

Well that’s the very question. Canadians have a right to be consulted, everyone from First Nations to business groups to ordinary Canadians.  It’s nice to hear that the provinces have been on board but what will that mean practically for an agreement that exists for example in Manitoba where First Nations have a certain amount of public works reserved to them every time there’s a new hydro project.  That’s the type of thing Canadians have a right to know.  I also heard the minister admit that he had no idea of what type of compensation would be required because we’re talking about drug companies and we’re talking about not only the cost of the provincial programs, we’re talking about costs to individuals.  We’re looking at dairy farmers who are going to lose a large part of their livelihood.  They’re talking about compensation which is a good thing but again, we don’t know the size and scope of it.  We’re in favour, the NDP with more trade with Europe.  There’s an even playing field.  They’ve got good labour standards, good environmental standards.  They’ve got independent tribunals.  That’s all in our interest to work more with Europe but again, the government has a track record of not consulting, of not being transparent and that’s what’s worrying us in this whole process Tom.

Tom Clark:

Do you feel in any way Mr. Mulcair, and I just want to point out to the audience there’s a slight delay in the audio, you hearing me so it’s not as if you’re taking your time to think about the question but, the provinces seem to be on board, including the province of Quebec.  Does that sort of leave you as a bit of an outlier in terms of criticizing this deal?

Tom Mulcair:

Well it’s not a question of criticism as much as it is a question of asking what the details are.  And that’s not a question of saying that it’s wrong.  We’ve been in favour with trade with Europe all along. Canadians have a right to see the deal.  You just heard the minister say it’s still being drafted now so we’re at least two years out from a final deal.  Is there going to be a proper consultation process or is it going to be the type of thing that we’ve become used to with Stephen Harper?  Him saying, trust me the cheque is in the mail you’ll be very happy with the final result.  There are always surprises in these things.  To use the ministers own term, there are winner and losers. So people have a right to know exactly what it means and what that…you know how it will translate in their lives and if Mr. Harper is serious, if this is about more jobs being created and greater opportunities.  And if he’s sincere and that turns out to be the case, why wouldn’t he want to consult with Canadians and put the text on the table?

Tom Clark:

I want to switch gears here a little bit.  Earlier in the program we heard from Terry O’Sullivan.  He’s the lawyer for Senator Pam Wallin and in essence what he’s saying is that the move to have her suspended from the Senate without pay or benefits is akin to a third world dictatorship rounding up political prisoners at midnight and sending them away.  Do you buy that?

Tom Mulcair:

As you know, the NDP has a longstanding position in favour of Senate abolition. So someone telling me that several senators are going to be suspended without pay.  For me, it’s just a good start.  Why stop there?  We’d keep going with all of them.  It’s an undemocratic institution.  These are not elected people.  Stephen Harper swore up and down that he would never name an unelected senator.  He’s gone on to break even Brian Mulroney’s record by naming 59 party hats and bagmen to the Senate.  We’d get rid of the whole thing.  So we’re not going to worry about the details on this one.  We’ll let them fight that one amongst themselves.

Tom Clark:

All right but isn’t there a question of fairness in here?  I mean as tough as it may be to come to the defence of any of these senators.  Nevertheless, not one of them has been charged with anything.  There’s only an investigation going on.  There are allegations.  Would you permit somebody in your office being suspended without pay if in fact there were no charges and merely allegations?

Tom Mulcair:

Well I’m sure that’s why Pamela Wallin has retained competent legal counsel of the type we heard speaking a little bit earlier on your show, but don’t expect me to start defending the existence of a Senate of unelected people that cost Canadian taxpayers a hundred million bucks a year with the type of ethical lapse and shortcomings we’ve seen.  These are people who don’t respect taxpayers’ money.  They have used every strategy under the sun to cheat the system.  A lot of them have been forced to pay back but whether they’re Conservative or Liberal party hacks matters little to the NDP.  We’ve said for fifty years, get rid of the place.  It’s undemocratic.  It’s unelected and it’s under indictment.  Some of them…one of them is still in jail.   Several of them are under investigation by the RCMP.  Why in heavens name would anybody fly to the defence of an institution like that?  For the fine technicalities, I’m sure they’re totally capable of retraining their own legal counsel but don’t expect me to be the person who’s going to be defending the existence of that institution.

Tom Clark:

Okay, well there’s certainly consistency in your views on that one.  Mr. Mulcair, in the 40 seconds I’ve got left here, you’ve been waiting for this Question Period to arrive where Prime Minister Harper is going to be opposite you in the House of Commons.  You’ve waited since June for this moment so what’s your first question going to be tomorrow morning?

Tom Mulcair:

Well don’t forget we waited for Stephen Harper last week after he had prorogued Parliament he decided that he would skip out of town as he often does.  If it’s not to Peru it’s to Brussels.  Tomorrow, Monday is usually the day that he doesn’t show up.  I have a long scheduled speech in Quebec City so if we get to see each other it won’t be before Tuesday.  But you can be sure it’ll be types of questions that Canadians have been asking all summer on government mismanagement, on the scandals in the Senate.  I also started last week, my first questions following a whole summer tour with First Nations was about missing and murdered Aboriginal women in Canada and the need for a national inquiry on that.  We’ll continue to press the government on that type of issue as you can be very much sure.

Tom Clark:

Tom Mulcair, NDP Leader – Leader of the Official Opposition. Thanks again for being with us this morning. I appreciate your time.

Well coming up, tension is still high in Rexton New Brunswick where anti-fracking protesters turn violent last week from reporting the story to becoming part of the story.  A frightening moment for a young video journalist after the break.

Break

Tom Clark:

Welcome back.  Well things are relatively calm today in the New Brunswick Town of Rexton.  After two violent days of protest between native protestors and the RCMP, everyone has agreed to take a bit of a break.  The main issue remains however and that is fracking for natural gas.  A weeks’ long protest turned violent when RCMP moved in last Thursday.  Six police cars were torched, 40 people arrested and a calming off period has been announced Friday night but when reporters went back to the scene to cover the story, well things were anything but calm.  Take a listen:

Protestors screaming at reporters (profanity used)

Tom Clark:

Well joining us from New Brunswick is Global News journalist Laura Brown.  She’s been covering this story and was in the middle of all of that yesterday.  Laura we just saw some people threatening the media, presumably you…telling them to leave.  Tell me what happened next after what we just saw.

Laura Brown:

Well Tom, after what you just saw, the protestors, very angry I might add, came over to each of our vehicles, told us to get out; said that they were seizing our vehicles, told me that my vehicle and my camera gear were now in their possession.  They threatened me and were rather scary to say the least.  So when I did get out of my car, I told them not to hurt me.  I said I didn’t mean to do any harm.  We were just trying the cover the aftermath of these protests and they definitely wouldn’t have that.  They were very angry.  They told me to start walking that they were seizing my vehicle. And I asked to get my camera out of the back of the vehicle and they said absolutely not, to start walking with the other news organizations that were kicked out of their vehicles as well.

Tom Clark:

Laura, did you feel physically threatened at any time?  Did you worry for your own personal safety?

Laura Brown:

Unfortunately yeah, and I hate to say that but…and you never want to feel that way, especially as a journalist but it was terrifying to say the least.  The biggest moment for me was when they were knocking on my vehicle and telling me to get out, that they were seizing my vehicle and when I actually got out, I was quite worried that they were going to do something.  And unfortunately, this was just three or four people.  It should not blanket everybody else that has been entirely peaceful while we’ve been covering this shale gas movement the past couple of months.

Tom Clark:

Well let me pick up on that because you’ve been covering this story for quite some time now and it came to a head where nationally it was noticed last week.  But where are we in this story?  I mean the native protestors don’t want fracking on their…what they say is their land.  What happens next in all this?

Laura Brown:

I call it a stalemate to honest.  I feel like the province is pretty sure that they want to continue with.  They see this could be a possible resource in our province but then you’ve got SWN Resources who have also said we want to continue we believe this can be a resource in New Brunswick.  And then you’ve got protestors who are saying absolutely not.  We are too worried about our health and our water to let this come into our province and we just don’t want this here.  So we’re at a stalemate now.  We’re waiting to see…actually on Monday to hear what a judge has to say in regards to the court injunction which was enforced on Thursday and now the province and SWN Resources has asked for that injunction to be enforced indefinitely.  So that would mean that protestors could no longer be along Route 134 in Rexton.

Tom Clark
Okay, Laura Brown, Global News in New Brunswick.  Glad to see you’re safe Laura.  Thanks very much.

Laura Brown:

Thanks Tom.

Tom Clark:

And that is our show for today.  It is shaping up to be one heck of a week on Parliament Hill.  The Senate will debate those motions to suspend senators without pay on Tuesday.  So you’ll want to tune into Global National on Tuesday night to find out all the details of what happened.

As always, we like to hear from you.  There’s our address on the bottom of the screen.  We will be back here next Sunday with another edition of The West Block.  Until then, I’m Tom Clark.  Have a great week.