THE WEST BLOCK

Episode 23, Season 5

Sunday, February 28, 2016

Host: Tom Clark

Guests: Preston Manning, Rob Oliphant, Gérard Deltell, Nathan Cullen

Location: Ottawa

 

Tom Clark: On this Sunday, remaking the Conservative movement after the election; we'll ask Preston Manning what he thinks is right for the right.

Then, the debate over dying. The government has just three months to bring in a law on doctor-assisted death. A parliamentary committee has released its recommendations. We'll talk to two of its members.

And we once again take to the skies for some 'plane talk' with the NDP's star MP, Nathan Cullen.

It is Sunday, February the 28th, from the nation's capital, I'm Tom Clark. And you are in The West Block.

 

Tom Clark: Conservatives from around the country gathered in Ottawa this weekend to brainstorm how to recharge the right at the annual Manning Centre Conference. From policies and leadership contenders to electoral reform, it is all on the table when it comes to wooing back Canadian voters.

Joining me now in the studio is the conferences namesake, Preston Manning. Mr. Manning, good to have you here, as always.

Preston Manning: Thank you again.

Tom Clark: We're at the point in this country right now where there's not a single Conservative leader, premier, prime minister anywhere in the country.

Preston Manning: Well, except for Brad Wall and Christy Clark, which they would—

Tom Clark: I think that they might take exception with that. But nevertheless, why did the Conservatives become so unpopular in this country?

Preston Manning: Well, I don't think they are that unpopular. I think they are at the bottom part of the electoral cycle. The average length of an administration in Canada, a substantive one that wins more than one election, both provincially and federally since 1900, is nine years. So in the federal case, once you get past nine years, you're living on borrowed time.

Tom Clark: Fair enough, but do you really think that the demise of the last Conservative government here in Ottawa was simply due to a best-before date?

Preston Manning: No, no, I think there's other factors, but I think that is a big one. I think the other practical factor was the fact that the split between the Liberals and NDP went south, but that doesn't deny and that's why this conference is called Rebuilding the Right. There's a rebuilding job out of office in we would say eight of 10 provinces in opposition federally. In a minority position on most of the big city councils and on university campuses, so there is a whole rebuilding job to be done.

Tom Clark: Looking back at the Harper years, because one of the things that you said in your opening speech to the conference is that you said that we have to—we Conservatives—have to gain the trust of Canadians again. I'm wondering when you thought that the Conservatives lost the trust of Canadians and why?

Preston Manning: Well I'm not so sure—I mean relatively speaking, they did pretty well in the election. They got almost six million votes, which is enough to almost form a majority government if you got the split. They got 100 in the Parliament and they ended up in the black. But we did this poll for the last conference — I think I even talked to you about it — where we asked Canadians 'what's most important to you on a scale of one to 10? Is it that your people be knowledgeable? Is it that the elected people have certain skills? Decision-making, communicating or what about character traits?' Honesty, transparency, empathy, and character trumped everything else. And I think there's a lesson in that, not just for the Conservatives, but for every political party. That you can have good policies, you have skillful people, but if you don't appear to have those characteristics, inspire trust, the rest almost doesn't matter.

Tom Clark: Isn't there an inherent danger though that when you go from power party to protest party, which is essentially what Conservatives are in most of this country right now, that that very thing that you're talking about, character, becomes one of anger? I mean inevitably when you're in opposition, you're angry about something all the time. You're angry at the government and what the government is doing. How do you square that circle?

Preston Manning: Well, I think you have to take even what you're saying as a word of caution. You can't just be against everything. You've got to build alternatives and that's one thing we're trying to do at this conference is, what is the Conservative alternative? Not just on the economy and fiscal, which people know, and Conservatives are going to have a good chance to emphasize that, but what are your alternatives for these provincial parties? What's a constructive Conservative alternative on health, education, and social assistance, which are the three biggest areas of business if you're in a provincial government, and what's your alternative on the environment? So there's a need to build in those areas, not just hammer away on your main areas of economy and fiscal.

Tom Clark: And you know, one of the last times that we had this discussion, you brought up the question of the environment. At the time you said, "Conservatives have got to start looking at the environment as a sword issue, not a shield issue," right?

Preston Manning: Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Tom Clark: Which meant that you should be proactive on the environment. Since the time that you and I talked about that, do you think that there is a cohesive, coherent and compelling Conservative narrative on the environment?

Preston Manning: Yeah, I think it is developing. It's more in the think-tanks when you get into the political arena and it's got three pegs underneath it. One is conservation in Conservative comes from the same root, so it shouldn't be something philosophically incompatible. Secondly, living within your means, which is at the heart of fiscal Conservativism, is actually an ecological concept. You can't take more out of these natural systems than they can carry. And then, what I've argued, and it's slowly coming around, is that the signature contribution of Conservatives should be harnessing market mechanism, pricing mechanisms to solving environmental problems rather than just increasing micro and macro regulation by government. And I think those are the three foundations on which a Conservative environmental policy should become. They're slowly getting more traction, mainly with the younger crowd, but it'll take some time for it to go further.

Tom Clark: Did you feel that any part of that came through in the last election campaign federally? Do you think that the Conservatives at that point had it?

Preston Manning: No because I think at the federal level, the environment's still conceptualized, or has been, as one of the shield issues where you kind of think the other guys have got the high ground, we can't win, so let's just do the best we can, but let's not be proactive on that.

Tom Clark: You know, you can't help but think of Conservative movements these days and not take a look south of the border of what's happening down there with Donald Trump and Cruz.

Preston Manning: Yeah, it's certainly entertaining anyway.

Tom Clark: Is there a possibility, I won't call it a danger because I don't want to be pejorative about this, but is there a possibility that the Conservative movement in this country could move into that populist realm occupied by Donald Trump in the south and perhaps by a guy like Kevin O'Leary here up in Canada?

Preston Manning: I don't think that's so much a populist reaction. I think the danger, and this is a danger, not just for Conservatives, it's for everybody, is to go and pick leaders who are the exact opposite of what you don't like. I think that's what's happening in the US. You've got a whole bunch of people that are tired of the slick communicator guy like the current president who can talk a good game, but can he do? And they go looking for what's exactly the opposite of that, and you get a Trump. A little bit like in Toronto, went looking for the opposite of David Miller and got Rob Ford. And I think the caution in that is picking your leaders and your candidates or whatever on the basis on some criteria as to what constitutes a good leader and a candidate. Don't just go and pick and say I want something that's exact opposite of you. [Laughs] I didn't mean that personally. [Laughs]

Tom Clark: No, that's quite alright, but I will end the interview on that. Preston Manning, thank you very much for being here. I appreciate it.

Coming up, the debate over dying: who should have access to medically-assisted death?

 

[Break]

 

Tom Clark: Welcome back. Well here is the question, who should be allowed to end their life with the help of a doctor and under what circumstances? Those are the tough questions that a special committee of MPs and senators were tasked with to help the government frame legislation, and that has to be done by June 6th. That's a deadline imposed by the Supreme Court of Canada last month. And then late last week, the divided committee unveiled their recommendations.

Joining me now to talk about how this report will shape the debate over the next few months are committee members. Liberal MP Rob Oliphant, who led the committee, and Conservative MP Gérard Deltell, who was a committee member and a dissenting member of the committee. Thank you and welcome to you both.

Mr. Oliphant, I want to start here. The Supreme Court told the Parliament of Canada that we had to come up with a new law dealing with physician-assisted suicide or death. You went well beyond what the Supreme Court said you had to do by including provisions in your recommendations for young people, for the mentally impaired. Why did you go further than what the court told you to do?

Rob Oliphant: I would say we went modestly beyond. And what it is, is obviously when a Supreme Court decision comes down, it's dealing with the facts at hand. And they were very clear in paragraph 127 of their decision to say, 'we are dealing with the facts that are in this case, we're not making pronouncement on other situations.' So as a committee, we then had to say what other situations could occur? What cases could be brought before the Supreme Court in the future? We can't anticipate everything, but you begin to look at it and say, the case that Kay Carter brought and the case that Gloria Taylor had, they were cases with older people. They had diseases they were struggling with, so we had to look at the full range to be fair. And the other thing we did was we recognized, and the Conservative Party has known this for years, that judges should not write laws. And they've been arguing for years that judges should not write laws, legislators should write laws. So there's no template from the Supreme Court. What it was, was a striking down of two sections of the Criminal Code that required us to come up with a legislative framework to do this.

Tom Clark: Let me go over to Gérard on this one because as a dissenting member of that committee, it was precisely that extension that Mr. Oliphant was talking about that you objected to. Why?

Gérard Deltell: Well, first of all because the Supreme Court doesn't write the law, but they give the framework to do so and they always talk about adult. They never talk about minor. And you know, yes there is a Supreme Court, but there is also the Quebec experience. In other words, I'm talking about, I've been member of the National Assembly for seven years, and I have been witness from Day 1 to the end of the vote for this law. They're in their sixth full year of hard work and studious work in Quebec and I've been there, and I voted for the law. So, the Quebec experience guides us on that issue, especially for minor. The Quebec experience, put aside the minor, just 18-years-old and plus, and the Quebec experience is not about mental illness.

Tom Clark: But why not? What's wrong with that? What's wrong with dealing with dementia? I mean hundreds of thousands of Canadians at this very moment are dealing with this horribly difficult topic. Why stay so narrow in the definition of this and not take Mr. Oliphant's point that we really should be looking at the full spectrum?

Gérard Deltell: Well because during six full years, in Quebec, we study very seriously that issue. And at the end of that, we conclude that talking about children is too difficult and too touchy. Let me give this example, if a guy of 16-years-old asked to die, but his parent doesn't want? What are we doing? Or if the guy wants to die, the father wants, but not the mother, what's happened?

Tom Clark: But surely a law would have safeguards in there for that wouldn't it?

Gérard Deltell: I know that, but just open the door to that kind of discussion, to that kind of reflection for us, is too far, and it doesn't follow the guideline made by the Supreme Court who talks always about adult. And the same thing for mental illness, how could you know exactly when the guy who suffer from a mental illness is clear in his mind that he want to die? It's so touchy. It's so difficult. It's so fragile that we have to be very careful and this is why in Quebec, after six full years of hard work and studious work, we conclude that we have to put out the illness, mental illness and put out the minor.

Tom Clark: You know, Mr. Oliphant, it's an interesting point though because Quebec has done this much work taking a look at the subject of physician-assisted death, why wouldn't the committee have just adopted pretty well entirely what the Quebec experience was?

Rob Oliphant: Well because they were acting before the Supreme Court decision was made, so they were necessarily acting in a vacuum where we still had a Criminal Code that had not been changed. So I understand why they were necessarily conservative in their approach and they had a healthcare bill only. We have to make changes to the Criminal Code and we have to anticipate future Charter challenges. And the reality is there are many safeguards in this all through the system that there's nothing fundamentalist about this. What we are saying, this is an art, and this is the capacity—there are people who are 18 and a half years of age and over who don't have capacity to make this decision and there are people 17 and a half year old who do. And what we're saying is that age is arbitrary and what we've said is, for the first three years, we're recommending that it's 18 years of age and over, and we take really thorough time, three years, to investigate best practices and how we can determine capacity, talk to experts, talk to parents, talk to legal advisors and talk to medical practitioners and pediatricians to get the best way of doing this. But, everyone has rights in this country. Your rights don't begin when you're 18 and the mentally ill people have rights. And we have to safeguard that no one preys upon them. They're vulnerable, but that we also make sure that their rights are maintained and we don't stigmatize them.

Tom Clark: Both of you have got a bigger issue though and it's a process issue more than anything else, that you have been instructed by the court to come up with an answer to this by June 6th at the latest. Is there a possibility though that you could simply decide to vacate the area? In other words, have no law on assisted dying and then leave it up to the provinces, would that be a possible solution?

Gérard Deltell: I don't think so because we're talking about the criminal code and the Supreme Court was quite clear, we shall adopt a law on the end of June with the criminal code modification. So for sure, we talked about the criminal code which belonged to the federal, but we're talking about health care, which belong to the provincial powers. So we have to deal with the federal and the provincial power, but I think that we cannot let it down. I mean we have to adopt a law.

Rob Oliphant: We could. I mean we could and in fact, that if there is no law by June 6, then all practices are open. So our committee's task is done. We were given a deadline of Feb. 26. We had to get a report in. The committee worked exceptionally hard and I want to talk a little bit about being a co-chair of a committee with a senator and it was a fantastic experience, working Senate and MPs. I think we did it in a non-partisan way. We disagreed on issues, but the respect was high—

Tom Clark: And this is an interesting point because this is truly one of the first committees I've ever see in Ottawa that is not based on partisanship, but is based more on some pretty deep principles that have to be discussed, right?

Rob Oliphant: You see the Conservative Party's quite split on this. The Liberal Party is united. The NDP are with us, but half the Conservatives that were on the committee supported the majority report. They were senators, but they're Conservatives, and half of them didn't, they were the MPs. So the Conservative Party's not of one mind on this and I think Canadians are—

Tom Clark: But that's healthy debate isn't it?

Gérard Deltell: You know, I've been a member of National Assembly who voted for that kind of law, sitting with guys who are—we all know that are not very open to that kind of discussion, but they did so well during the committee. There was 16 Canadian Members of Parliament, Senators working for the best of the future and there was no good guy or bad guys, just honest Canadian trying to get the best for this country.

Tom Clark: You know, we've only scratched the surface of this, and this is going to be probably one of the biggest discussions we're going to have in this country in the months ahead. And I'd like to invite both of you back to continue the discussion as this moves forward.

Rob Oliphant: We look forward to it. I'm anxious to see the legislation that comes out, how the provinces respond, and how the professions respond.

Tom Clark: Rob Oliphant and Gérard Deltell thank you very much for being here. I appreciate your time.

Rob Oliphant: My pleasure.

Gérard Deltell: Thank you.

Tom Clark: Well, up next, we go flying with Nathan Cullen and learn what's on his play list.

 

Nathan Cullen: The she is the cheese and I'm the macaroni, and that is all I'm going to do for you. That's it.

 

[Break]

 

Tom Clark: Welcome back. Time to return to the skies now with a new edition of 'plane talk': Nathan Cullen has been an MP for British Columbia for 12 years and throughout that time, he has been a key member of the NDP caucus. He even ran for leader of the party. So, what has he learned and where is he going? Take a listen:

[Tom starts his plane] Rockliffe traffic, Charlie, Gulf, Bravo, X-ray, Papa, is rolling 0-9.

Tom Clark: Nathan Cullen, welcome to 'plane talk'.

Nathan Cullen: Thank you very much, I love it.

Tom Clark: You know how this works?

Nathan Cullen: Yeah.

Tom Clark: I ask you a few questions. We get to know you a little bit.

Nathan Cullen: Yeah, yeah.

Tom Clark: What's the worst thing about politics?

Nathan Cullen: That intelligent people get together and do really stupid things for partisan reasons or for ego or vanity.

Tom Clark: Are you talking about your caucus?

Nathan Cullen: [Laughs] Wow, no I mean collectively. We sort of—we can also come together and do brilliant things and despite ourselves and despite the partisanship, but we put a lot of effort and spend a lot of money in running government. And the number of times where I see stupid things done by what are exceptionally smart people is worrisome.

Tom Clark: Do you want to be prime minister?

Nathan Cullen: I don't think so.

Tom Clark: Really?

Nathan Cullen: Yeah, I don't think so.

Tom Clark: Is that the truth?

Nathan Cullen: Yeah.

Tom Clark: Okay.

Nathan Cullen: Yeah, yeah. If I were going to spin it a bit, I'd say, 'oh who knows, maybe one day.' It's you know—but it's got a personal cost equation for me when I look at—I admire people who pursue it. I admire people who are able to sustain any kind of sanity while doing it, integrity. But I think the cost of leadership is enormous and not just for the person, I think the family. I think for your friends.

Tom Clark: What's the one thing that happens in the House of Commons on a daily basis that grates you the most?

Nathan Cullen: People reading things that they don't believe and often don't understand. I know, it's radical, but if you're going to get up and talk about some bill or some issue facing the country, then have an honest and original thought about it.

Tom Clark: I just want to ask you a couple more personal questions. Then we're going to get onto something else.

Nathan Cullen: Yeah.

Tom Clark: What type of music do you listen to?

Nathan Cullen: I got a real love for early hip hop and the Beatles. Those sort of occupy a lot of my play list right now. I'm—

Tom Clark: Okay, let me put you on the spot.

Nathan Cullen: Yeah.

Tom Clark: Favourite song, what's your favourite song?

Nathan Cullen: Ah, favourite song, wow. There's a whole album called Check Your Head from the Beastie Boys.

Tom Clark: But one song, what's the favourite song?

Nathan Cullen: What You Want is great. It's just this raw sort of great. It hit me at university. It was perfect.

Tom Clark: Okay, but now I'm going to ask you, can you sing a little bit of it?

Nathan Cullen: No way, man.

Tom Clark: Oh, come on.

Nathan Cullen: You want me to rap?

Tom Clark: Yeah.

Nathan Cullen: That is such a—

Tom Clark: Oh, come on.

Nathan Cullen: That is career suicide.

Tom Clark: Come on, it's just between you and me. Nobody else is around here.

Nathan Cullen: Well there's a line that I really like.

Tom Clark: Yeah.

Nathan Cullen: I don't even know if it's in that song and it goes, "Because she's the cheese and I'm the macaroni." But I'm always—it's going to run through my head sometimes when I'm in Parliament and I want to see if I can slip it into a speech sometime.

Tom Clark: She's the cheese and I'm the macaroni.

Nathan Cullen: And I'm the macaroni. Like it's just it's like we go together. We go together. You know, "we're meant because she's the cheese and I'm the macaroni." And that is all I'm going to do for you. That's it. That's more rapping than I've ever done. I thank God I didn't name some of the other bands that I like.

Tom Clark: I know you've been in a lot of small planes before, bush planes and that sort of thing, have you ever flown one?

Nathan Cullen: Yes. Yes, back in—

Tom Clark: Okay, so you'll be able to show me how well you do flying a plane.

Nathan Cullen: Yeah, absolutely.

Tom Clark: Now right over there is Harrington Lake.

Nathan Cullen: Oh yeah.

Tom Clark: You can't go there. You can't go there because you're the third party.

Nathan Cullen: Oh, that hurts. It's too soon man.

Tom Clark: This is the prime minister's summer residence here.

Nathan Cullen: You don't think I can buzz the residence without getting into some kind of trouble?

Tom Clark: You could do it once.

Nathan Cullen: Right.

Tom Clark: Yeah.

Nathan Cullen: Well, I think parliamentary privilege should allow me access to do really dangerous things like this.

Tom Clark: No, seriously, we can't go there.

Nathan Cullen: [Laughs] Well, I go back over this way, away from the prime minister's residence because I just said, you know, I don't ever want to be there.

Tom Clark: [Laughs] That's right.

Nathan Cullen: Isn't it a bit creepy? Okay, I shouldn't say creepy.

Tom Clark: What's that?

Nathan Cullen: Well, I admire ambition when somebody says 'I'm in this and I want to go there and I'm going to be the leader of this or the leader of that.' I admire that. That's very purposeful. But when someone wants it real bad, a little creepy, you know what I mean?

Tom Clark: You're talking about politics?

Nathan Cullen: Yeah.

Tom Clark: Okay.

Nathan Cullen: Yeah, I like a little reluctance in my politicians.

Tom Clark: What was your worst political moment?

Nathan Cullen: There was a lot of pressure on our party around, you remember, the gun registry and all of that. And I come from a riding that was not supportive of it and I wasn't going to vote for it, but it was so close. It was one or two votes. And Jack asked me to switch and I didn't want to and I wouldn't, but he was very—and I understood why he was insistent. And so, I just made a private conversation with myself where I said I'll do the switch, but I resign that night. And so I went into the House with my resignation letter and we didn't know. We didn't know how the votes were going to work out and they didn't need my vote in the end, so I stayed voting the way I told my constituents I was voting and kept my resignation letter in my pocket. That was the worst moment. I felt sick. I felt like physically sick, which I've never felt that way before.

Tom Clark: I ask this to a lot of politicians: do you believe in losing as much as you believe in winning?

Nathan Cullen: What do you mean by that?

Tom Clark: Are there circumstances and times when you have to hold onto your principles even though it means that you know you're going to lose an election?

Nathan Cullen: Maybe, but I think sometimes it's held up as an excuse, especially from the left. You can either have power or principles, you can't have both. And I hate that type of thinking. That is absolutely wrong because it leads to some really stupid conclusions.

Tom Clark: Alright, Nathan Cullen, thank you very much for being here.

Nathan Cullen: That was great. This was a real privilege. Thank you for not killing me. I think that's wonderful that we're back on ground.

Tom Clark: That's our test for how well things went. Yes, if you're still alive at the end of it, then it went well.

Nathan Cullen: Another happy customer. [Laughs]

Tom Clark: So, is there somebody that you'd like to see on 'plane talk'? Well, let us know. Here's how to get in touch with us. Any of these addresses work. In the meantime, thank you very much for joining us. Have a great week ahead and we'll see you back here next Sunday for another edition of The West Block.

-30-