Note: Transcripts may contain errors. If you wish to re-use all, or part of, a transcript, please contact CBC for permission. Please check the corresponding audio before quoting in print. Copyright © CBC 2019

The Current Transcript for September 25, 2019

Host: Laura Lynch

STORIES FROM THIS EPISODE

Prologue

[Music: Theme]

SOUNDCLIP

Boris Johnson has been found to have misled the country. This unelected prime minister should now resign.

[Crowd cheering]

LAURA LYNCH: British prime minister Boris Johnson, unelected or not, is not resigning in the wake of a court ruling that he acted illegally by suspending Parliament no matter what the opposition demands. And the United Kingdom is in turmoil yet again over Brexit. Things are a little different in the United States, where for only the fourth time in that nation's history formal impeachment proceedings against the president Donald Trump are set to begin. Those stories first up. Then we return to Canada and relatively calm political waters.

SOUNDCLIP

I think the best public policy and laws are created through a minority situation because people, parties, members of parliament have to cooperate in order to pass laws.

LL: Jody Wilson-Raybould expelled from the Liberal caucus still wants to return to Parliament and she's not ruling out working with the very party that spurned her. All that plus the first former Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin has penned her memoir and it includes her musings on why she wanted to name her dog after Stephen Harper. I'm Laura Lynch and this is The Current.

Back To Top »

Republican dam of support for Trump 'could break in a hurry,' says impeachment expert

Guests: Jeffrey Engle

[Music: Theme]

SOUNDCLIP

The actions of the Trump presidency reveals dishonourable sect of the president's betrayal of his oath of office, betrayal of our national security and betrayal of the integrity of our elections. Therefore today I'm announcing the House of Representatives moving forward with an official impeachment inquiry. No one is above the law.

LL: And so it begins. U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced a formal impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump last night. Even Democrats who have resisted the idea are now ready to go into battle. Here's Georgia Congressman and civil rights icon John Lewis.

SOUNDCLIP

The future of our democracy is at stake. That come a time when you have to be moved by the spirit of history. To take action to protect and preserve the integrity of our nation. I truly believe the time to begin impeachment proceedings has come.

LL: President Trump took to social media to respond calling it witch hunt garbage and presidential harassment. For more on what can happen as the process unfolds I'm joined by Jeffrey Engle. He's the founding director of the Centre for Presidential History at Southern Methodist University. He is in Dallas, Texas. Hello.

JEFFREY ENGLE: Hi. Good morning. Nancy Pelosi's remarks last night were pretty brief. I wonder what struck you most about what she had to say?

JEFFREY ENGLE: What struck me most about what she had to say was the fact that she was saying anything at all. Pelosi of course had been largely against impeachment. Basically up until now thinking that it's a political loser for Democrats. But frankly the president's transgressions, as she saw it in the national security realm over the last week really just pushed her over the edge. So I thought we saw a woman who was reluctant but at this point appeared to be very determined. I think one thing we can say about Pelosi she counts votes and she was unlikely in any way to have gone forward with this move unless she thought that she could get the votes for impeachment if she needed them.

LL: Okay well outline it for us. What's the case for an impeachment inquiry as she sees it?

JEFFREY ENGLE: You know the case is really for her is really focussed on the actions of last week. And I have to stress first of all that of course the purpose of the inquiry itself and of any impeachment hearings is to determine exactly what happened and determine if there was a high crime or misdemeanour committed. But essentially Donald Trump has been accused of using the power of his office to leverage foreign aid to Ukraine in order to get political dirt on his primary rival at this point, Joe Biden, essentially asking the Ukrainian president to provide some sort of information or open an investigation against Biden. And until he did so, so the story goes, he would not receive the military aid that Ukraine desperately needed. This is basically a conflation from Pelosi's perspective and from the Democrats perspective presidential priorities and also national policy. That's simply the kind of action that a president is not supposed to take putting himself above the law.

LL: It's interesting that Pelosi chose this moment and this aspect of his presidency to to start an impeachment inquiry, because there's been many other calls for his impeachment over the last several months. We still haven't seen the transcript from the phone call, we haven't heard from the whistleblower, we don't even know who it is. Why would she move forward, not knowing exactly what the case is going to be?

JEFFREY ENGLE: Well you know here I think history actually provides some guide. There's only been of course a handful of cases of impeachment — or in the case of Richard Nixon near-impeachment, leading to resignation — in the nation's history. But they have one thing in common, which is that each of them centres in many ways around a president defying the will of Congress. And so I think what really brought this to a head in many ways for Pelosi was the administration's refusal, which is still somewhat ongoing to release the full details of the whistleblower report. Now the law on this is very clear; that if there is a whistleblower and if the Director of National Intelligence determines that this is actually something that is a critical issue, the information is required to go to Congress. And consequently when President Trump's administration is at this point not conceding a full version, that essentially the president thumbing his nose, if you will, at Congress. Whenever we see congressional prerogatives —especially in the realm of national security — violated so blatantly, that's the sort of thing that a congressional leader simply can't turn her back on. But I think that's why this escalated so quickly.

LL: But this White House has done that time and again, refusing to allow witnesses to testify and not turning over documentation. Is it simply that this case is an easier one for Americans to grasp?

JEFFREY ENGLE: I think it's an easier one and it's also potentially the most blatant, in the sense that this is something that involves national security. It's as you say easy to grasp, and there is that unknown, which of course neither you nor I nor hardly anyone in the world knows, of what the whistleblower might be actually saying or what evidence he or she might actually be bringing to bear. Whatever it is, it appears to be enough to cause the entire government to essentially stop and focus on what they are saying. It's a really remarkable turn of events in some ways. You raised the great question for which there is the old force the only answer is that this is actually remarkable that we've gone down this road as a country time and again for the last two-and-a-half years. Why is this time different? It appears just to have been enough.

LL: Any idea how long this impeachment inquiry could take?

JEFFREY ENGLE: You know a Trump administration would love for it to take wealth through the re-election campaign. That's one of the interesting dynamics here is that of course Donald Trump in many ways welcome an impeachment thinking that his being vilified by his enemies would help rally his own base to the polls. The truth matter is you know the impeachment process goes first through the House as the House of Representatives has to determine if they want to pass articles of impeachment and then the Senate would take it and have a trial. Now having that sounds a lot easier than what it is in practice, which is to say there's really very little roadmap on what happens next in terms of process or time. As I said, we've only had a few examples of this. And frankly the constitution only requires that the Congress, the House, pass a resolution. They could do that this morning. I think it's more likely they'll do it in several months and several weeks as the pressure builds on this. The real interesting question it seems to me is that the Constitution does not necessarily require the Senate to hold a trial. That is to say most Americans at this point are calculating that Mitch McConnell the Senate majority leader would not allow Donald Trump to be convicted in the Senate. I'm not entirely convinced that he would allow him to go on trial.

LL: Right. Because the Republicans are still standing by him. How is the leadership viewing the impeachment inquiry — the Republican leadership?

JEFFREY ENGLE: They appear to be trying to do the same playbook they've been doing for last two-and-a-half years, which is to say any critique against Donald Trump's actions as president are really critiques about the outcome of the 2016 election. It's sour grapes or a witch hunt, as the president would say. I think that's one of the reasons why this appears to be a different case. This case, unlike the Mueller investigation, and unlike previous scandals and near-scandals that the president was involved in, has nothing to do whatsoever with 2016. This is about his time in office and about going forward. So at this point Republicans are to some extent circling the wagons. But I do have to say here's another place where history is a little bit of a guide. Richard Nixon — who of course resigned under pressure of impeachment — was himself like Trump tremendously popular with Republicans. He actually was relatively popular with the country as a whole throughout the whole of 1974. He of course resigned in August. The truth of the matter is once his support eroded however, once that piece of evidence came out that seemed just too believable to be discounted, his support evaporated almost overnight. Within 72 hours or so Nixon went from believing he had more than 40 votes in the Senate on his behalf down to about 15. That's what caused his resignation, which is to say when the dam of support breaks it can break in a hurry.

LL: Remind us what it was that caused his support to dissolve in Nixon.

JEFFREY ENGLE: Yes. It was something called the famous smoking gun tape which is they had an audiotape of Nixon essentially admitting to doing all the things that he had said publicly he did not do. That to say he worked very hard. We know behind the scenes to cover up the Watergate investigation and to help the Watergate burglars in particular stay silent. Having denied that publicly once the public heard audiotape of their own president, in his own words, with his own voice admitting to the things that he actually said he did not do. Well that was enough. Now I have to stress that that audiotape that we will call that smoking gun tape didn't immediately pop up. It took many months for this until the Supreme Court finally ruled that the president was required to hand over the tapes. That's another avenue that this could go down. Which is to say if the administration continues to decide that they want to refuse all information for Congress in the upcoming weeks that could necessarily go to the Supreme Court ultimately and that itself could take months. So essentially the lesson we take from that is that once the public hear something that is just too believable to refute that's when the president has done for.

LL: Jeffrey angle I suspect we will be speaking again. Thank you.

JEFFREY ENGLE: Thank you. I think this is going to go on for a while.

LL: Jeffrey Engle is the founding director for the Centre for Presidential History at Southern Methodist University. He was in Dallas, Texas. You're listening to The Current on CBC Radio One and Sirius XM. I'm Laura Lynch.

Back To Top »

Brexit Turmoil

Guest: Ben Bradshaw

SOUNDCLIP

This was not a normal prorogation because it had the effect of frustrating or preventing the ability of Parliament to carry out its constitutional functions. The decision was unlawful.

LL: The decision was prime minister Boris Johnson's move to prorogue the British Parliament. The ruling came from the Supreme Court yesterday and the reaction was emotional starting with the prime minister himself.

SOUNDCLIP

[Music]

VOICE 1: I strongly disagree with this decision. There are a lot of people who basically want to stop this country coming out of the EU and I think it's time we took things forward.

VOICE 2: It's perfectly obvious that the reasoning and the motivation was bogus and I am delighted the Supreme Court has stopped this unconstitutional act in its tracks.

VOICE 3: I'm not surprised by the judgment because of the gross misbehaviour by the Prime Minister who has been pushing the envelope of our Constitution to the point where he's prepared to breach it.

VOICE 4: I invite Boris Johnson in the historic words to consider his position.

[Crowds cheering]

VOICE 4: And become the shortest serving prime minister there has ever been.

[Crowds cheering]

LL: While the court has ruled and the politicians are back in the House of Commons today barely five weeks before the country is scheduled to leave the EU without a deal. Ben Bradshaw is the Labour MP for Exeter. He joins me from London. Hello.

BEN BRADSHAW: Hello Laura.

LL: Well we've got a president facing an impeachment inquiry. We've got a prime minister facing calls to resign. What was your first reaction to the court's decision yesterday?

BEN BRADSHAW: Well I wasn't wholly surprised. I have to say because if you if you had listened to the hearings last week I mean the government didn't even provide a witness statement for its case so weak was it. And so we were hopeful those of us I was one of the opponents in the case that the Supreme Court would rule in our favour. We were pleased that it was a unanimous ruling but also very pleased at the strength and the tone of the statement that lady Hale issued and the fact that they made quite clear the Supreme Court that it would be up to Parliament to organise its own resumption, rather than give the government any leeway to make a decision over that.

LL: And as I said the Commons has resumed. What was the atmosphere like in the Commons?

BEN BRADSHAW: Well it was quite lively just now. We've just had a an urgent question tabled to the Attorney-General who is our chief legal officer inside government. He's the chap who gives legal advice to government ministers because MP has wanted to ask him about his legal advice and how he could have got it so wrong. They also wanted to ask him why it appears that a number of Cabinet ministers at the time off to see his full legal advice and were refused being able to see that. Now he says he wasn't responsible for that. But the very serious questions being asked here as to who was it in government who prevented cabinet ministers seeing the full legal advice which is something that they are absolutely entitled to as ministers of the crown.

LL: Let's talk about the impact on Brexit. How do you see the ruling affecting the Brexit debate?

BEN BRADSHAW: Well it's not really relevant to Brexit, this ruling. This ruling is about the rule of law and whether the Prime Ministers obey the law. And the fact is we have a prime minister who has been found guilty by our highest court, not only of breaking the law, but of misleading and lying to the Queen. You call it an offence more serious than that. Any politician with a shred of morality left would have already resigned but we know very well that Boris Johnson isn't such a human being, which is why now what will happen is that Parliament will take back control of the whole Brexit process. We have already passed a law to ensure it is illegal for the United Kingdom to crash out to the European Union at the end of October without a deal that has been agreed by Parliament. And then there are a number of options open to Parliament; either take control in order to organise fresh elections - I think what is more likely though is that Parliament will move in the direction of another referendum as the only way of settling this Brexit crisis once and for all.

LL: Boris Johnson is on the record saying he strongly disagrees with the court but accepts the court's decision. Other umpires were more colourful in their reactions. This is Tory MP and Brexit supporter Andrew Bridgen.

SOUNDCLIP

I think what we've got is a parliament is completely out of step with sentiment of the country. They're holding our democracy to ransom. They're completely ignoring the vote we have in 2016 to leave the European Union. We've got a zombie Parliament that won't go back to the people and be held to account.

LL: Now he used that phrase zombie Parliament. What's your reaction to that phrase?

BEN BRADSHAW: Well some of these hardline right Tory MPs don't seem to understand what parliamentary democracy and the rule of law means. And the Supreme Court made that quite clear yesterday. What is much more worrying though, about nonentities like Andrew Bridgen sounding off like that is the fact that you have the current leader of the House, Jacob Rees-Mogg apparently telling the cabinet that he thought the Supreme Court ruling was - and I quote "a constitutional coup". Now Jeffrey Cox, The Attorney-General, has said to Parliament in no uncertain terms that the Government accepts and respects the court's decision. Well if that's the case why is Jacob Rees-Mogg still in his job as a minister of the crown? They clearly don't accept and respect the court's decision. They're trying to build this whole issue up as a battle between the people or the only people that they include in masses of people who want Brexit to happen and Parliament and the courts. And that's the platform on which Boris Johnson hopes to fight an early election. But we're not going to let him down.

LL: Okay. But you are staunchly in the Remain camp. You want to remain in the EU. The majority of the British people did vote to leave the European Union more than three years ago. Doesn't that oblige parliamentarians at some point to follow through?

BEN BRADSHAW: Yes and we've tried, Laura. The problem is in the 2016 referendum was that people weren't asked what method of leaving the European Union they wanted. And as we know the Leave campaign itself and those who advocate Brexit have never had a clear idea of whether they want a close relationship with the European Union. A distant relationship. A no deal Brexit. And that's what parliament has failed to agree on. And the referendum in 2016 was very much on the principle of Brexit. It was a fantasy Brexit as I call it. And we get Boris Johnson was famously quoted back then that we'd be able to have our cake and eat it. Well now it's quite clear three and a half years on. There's no such thing as having our cake and eating it. Then the British people are entitled, in my view, to give their verdict on the reality of Brexit as we see it now before us rather than the fantasy they were sold in 2016. And in the end that's going to be the only way out of this quite quagmire for the United Kingdom.

LL: You want another referendum Prime Minister Johnson wants an election. If he doesn't have a mandate to negotiate or not negotiate, why isn't an election the answer?

BEN BRADSHAW: Well he can try to negotiate. He said he had he would bring a new deal back to Parliament in the next two weeks. So let's see him do it. He hasn't spent very much time in Brussels negotiating in the last few weeks. He's been traipsing around the United Kingdom, having photo opportunities and abroad having photo opportunities if he were serious about getting a deal he'd be negotiating with our European partners. The problem with the general election in terms of resolving this is, a, you're not necessarily going to change the makeup of parliament. You could end up with another hung parliament and we'd be no further forward. But also general elections are about far more than a single issue like Brexit. They're about how you want the health service, the economy, the education system, the environment to be run and so forth. So resolving this in a general election is a very very unsatisfactory way of doing it. I would argue far better to ask people in the binary vote now you know what Brexit really looks like. Is this what you want? Make it legally binding if you like as we did with the Good Friday Agreement referendum in Northern Ireland. So at least people have the certainty that the next referendum will be implemented. But for heavens sake, a general election as a solution to Brexit? I don't think so.

LL: But this is a splintered Parliament. I mean even your party has been divided on what the right response is. Does Court Judge Jeremy Corbyn, the Labour leader, support the idea of a referendum?

BEN BRADSHAW: Yes we're now absolutely clear thankfully and our policy has moved significantly in a better direction in my view. We are now supportive of a referendum in all circumstances if one happens before a general election, or if one happens after a general election then the vast bulk of the Labour Party will campaign for remaining in that referendum. And I think now given the fact the Boris Johnson has managed to engineer the departure of a significant number of his own MPs for defying him to support the law to prevent a no deal Brexit that we can now assemble a majority in the House of Commons for a referendum. He could bring a deal back from Brussels. He could even put Theresa May's deal to parliament again, conditional on a referendum, and it would get through. That's the easiest and quickest way out of this crisis.

LL: Ben Bradshaw, thank you for your time.

BEN BRADSHAW: Many thanks Laura.

LL: Ben Bradshaw is the Labour MP for Exeter. He was in London England. Well next Tuesday is The Current's town hall co-hosted with CBC's Q at Glenn Gould Studio in Toronto. We're going to be speaking with voters, artists and thinkers about why it's important to engage in the election. And we also want to hear from you, our listeners. Are you voting in this election and why? Or are you choosing not to vote? We also want to know why. E-mail us your story to thecurrent@cbc.ca. and be sure to reserve your seat while you're there. CBC News is next. Then in this federal election campaign in Canada it's been millennials this, millennials that boomers are getting fed up.

SOUNDCLIP

The Boom the Vote is a nationwide initiative to get boomers out to Boom. The. Vote.

LL: Our friends behind this is that we'll look at a group that's just trying to make their voices heard in this election campaign. I'm Laura Lynch and you're listening to The Current.

Back To Top »

Jody Wilson-Raybould wants a minority government and is willing 'to work with whomever' is in power

Guest: Jody Wilson-Raybould

LL: Hello I'm Laura Lynch and you're listening to The Current.

[Music: Theme]

LL:Still to come. Beverley McLachlin spent years writing judgments from the bench of the Supreme Court of Canada. In retirement she's still writing first a novel now a memoir of first for a Supreme Court justice. She'll be my guest in half an hour to talk about the path that led her to the top court in Canada. But first another prominent voice in the Canadian justice system.

[Music: Theme]

LL: She might not have been a household name when Canadians went to the polls in 2015 but she sure is now. Jody Wilson-Raybould is running as an independent candidate in the B.C. riding of Vancouver Granville. This after being ejected from the Liberal caucus in the wake of the SNC Lavalin affair. And she lays out her thoughts on issues from climate change to reconciliation in her new book from where I stand. Rebuilding indigenous nations for a stronger Canada. Jody Wilson-Raybould joins me from our Vancouver studio. Hello.

JODY WILSON-RAYBOULD: Hi. Thanks for having me.

LL: I want to get to your thoughts on reconciliation but first I need to ask you about the SNC Lavalin affair. I'm wondering what impact you think it's having on the Liberal campaign.

JODY WILSON-RAYBOULD: Well I'm not sure what the impact that it's having on the Liberal campaign. I mean I know and can reflect on some of what I've heard on the doors when I'm out and about. You know people don't necessarily bring up SNC specifically but one of the lessons that I've learned and I think is being reflected in what people are saying to me on the doors and in letters is a discussion about the nature of our democracy, about the rule of law and the independence of our institutions and and having politicians that will stand up for what is right.

LL: Now after the Federal Ethics Commissioner Mario Dion released his report in August and concluding that the Prime Minister did violate the conflict of interest act, you said you hoped that the Prime Minister would apologize to Canadians. Is that still your hope?

JODY WILSON-RAYBOULD: Well I mean I think it would have been- I don't think- we didn't have to get to the place that we are at right now. I wished that, yes, I guess I still wish that the Prime Minister would have acknowledged that something went seriously wrong and took action to ensure that it never happens again.

LL: You're running as an independent and you don't have the same kind of resources and support you'd have if you were running for a party, and you could have joined another party. Elizabeth May said the Greens would happily welcome you. Why did you decide to go it alone?

JODY WILSON-RAYBOULD: I actually don't consider it going alone or going out it alone. I never expected again to be in the position that I'm in. But I feel a significant level of contentment in running as an independent. Elizabeth May is a friend of mine and I value majority of what she stands for. We are close and we continue to work together. I didn't see myself, or trying to fit myself into another political party. I think that we're at a place in time and a really important election as they all are - but where we need to move beyond partisanship - as much as we can to tackle the big issues that are confronting us as a country. Issues like climate change, indigenous reconciliation, health care.

LL: So do you ever see yourself returning to the Liberal Party at all? Somehow I doubt it.

JODY WILSON-RAYBOULD: Well I mean I have to say that I am the exact same person that I was when I decided to run prior to the 2015 election. I am a progressive. I believe fundamentally in equality and inclusion and tackling social justice issues. I tend not to think or like to think in hypotheticals but I feel I'm in the place that I am meant to be.

LL: Now we did speak to some voters in your writing. Some are expressing doubts about just how much an independent MP can accomplish. Just listen to this.

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE 1: I don't honestly know how much sort of poll or how much influence an independent would have, if they did get in but if they had even a little bit I'd like hers in there.

VOICE 2: I don't think she'll have as much power as if she were in a party. But right now I don't know that you know- I don't know that that's important right now. I think what we need is a democracy and I think having a variety of people there in different degrees of access to power is important.

VOICE 3: I like her style but I don't know if running as an independent is a strong move, long term.

LL: Jody Wilson rebels what do you say to those voters who are expressing some concerns about how much you actually can accomplish as an independent.

JODY WILSON-RAYBOULD: I appreciate the views that were expressed by those clips and running as an independent is not something that's done all the time but running as an independent means that you your only bosses are the constituents, of Vancouver Granville in this case. I believe that the party system has gone to the place where members of parliament are answerable to their leader or to the Prime Minister or and in that case two unelected people that exist within the Prime Minister's office versus the other way around. I believe the Prime Minister and leader should be answerable to members of parliament who are in turn answerable to constituents. The reality of being in a majority government, a lot of the vast majority of backbench employees, including ones in the governing party do not have a lot of power. There is opportunity certainly in a majority government for an independent voice to speak directly to issues unencumbered by the dictates of the party or the leader. And that's powerful in a minority government situation which for me and I'll say it. I'm hopeful that we enter into a minority government situation. I think the best public policy and laws are created through a minority situation because people, parties, members of parliament have to cooperate in order to pass laws. As an Independent, I could be and would be a part of that. Building bridges across party lines, potentially holding the balance of power and the balance of power meeting being held by constituents by the voices of people versus parties.

LL: I'm interested in what you just said. Would you be willing to help prop up a Liberal minority government or a Conservative minority government?

JODY WILSON-RAYBOULD: I would be willing to work with whomever forms government. I mean certainly I ran for the Liberal Party again and I am a progressive. I haven't changed who I am but there are some issues that that I would take and have taken a different view of.

LL: That sounds like a qualified yes to the Liberals. What about the conservative?

JODY WILSON-RAYBOULD: You know I would support progressive pieces of of legislation where they present themselves, but I am a strong advocate of having to have a bold climate action plan and that is not confined to the conservatives or to the Liberals or any political party.

LL: Because of what's been happening in the campaign, I want to ask you some more questions about Justin Trudeau. In 2016, you describe the first time you met there's a quote "a guy named Justin Trudeau". A guy who eventually asked if you'd consider running for office as part of his team. What did you think you could achieve in government when you said yes?

JODY WILSON-RAYBOULD: You know I had the great honour of being a regional chief in British Columbia for over six years and was confronted with challenges in terms of advancing solutions that indigenous peoples have come up with over many many years around self-determination and self-government that our voices weren't being heard by the previous government. And when I had the opportunity to meet Justin Trudeau, I had a level of frustration that led me to side to run as a member of parliament and why I did. There's a lot of reasons but in particular to Indigenous issues was to create the space for indigenous peoples in this country to be self-determination including self-government which has to be a relationship with other governments based on the recognition of rights. To understand that Section 35 which recognises and affirms Aboriginal and treaty rights in our Constitution is real and it's a full box of rights. And indigenous rights are human rights and we need to as a country for the betterment of the country and certainly Indigenous communities are included within that to embrace the reality of rights recognition.

LL: So those were and still are your hopes your stand your what you believe should be happening. But what I'm wondering now and I know hindsight is 2020, do you think you were being naive?

JODY WILSON-RAYBOULD: No I don't and I know that many people perhaps would put that or label me as being naive but I am incredibly passionate and driven by so many issues, but in particular with respect to indigenous reconciliation. I'm proud to be an Indigenous person.

LL: I'm not talking about that so much so as naïve to the process of politics and what it would require of you?

JODY WILSON-RAYBOULD: Well I mean if if being naïve to the process of politics means that I have to confine myself to hyper partisan lines and not see a different way of doing things simply because politics is done one way in this point in time does not mean it can't be done better. And I come from an indigenous background where we value collaboration and consensus based decision making. I don't believe that things are going to change overnight nor do I think that the politics in Ottawa, federal politics, discussions in the House of Commons are going to function on that basis. But I think that there can be lessons learned from my culture and its governing systems that have survived for millennia.

LL: When you join Justin Trudeau's team, what type of leader did you think you were dealing with?

JODY WILSON-RAYBOULD: I had a long conversation with the then leader when he came up and met me prior to the 2015 campaign. We talked about our vision for the country. We talked about our fathers, both of whom obviously his more well-known than mine that had been in--.

LL: I remember your father.

JODY WILSON-RAYBOULD: And I ultimately agreed to run as a Member of Parliament because I saw that we had shared the same vision for the country and valued the same principles of equality and inclusion and advancing social justice issues. That's why I agreed to join.

LL: But what type of leader did you think you were going to be dealing with?

JODY WILSON-RAYBOULD: Well, somebody that shared the same vision that that I had. I'm not one to talk about my personal relationship with the leader of the Liberal Party. I think that is a story that I will tell on another day.

LL: Why. You can tell it now. [Laughs]

JODY WILSON-RAYBOULD: Because I think that's something that will come in in due time.

LL: Many people are now questioning who the real Justin Trudeau is in the wake of these brown face, blackface, photos that have been coming out. Who is the Justin Trudeau you know?

JODY WILSON-RAYBOULD: I think that you know that Justin Trudeau is the only one that can answer who he is.

LL: You can say what you think he is. You know, you worked with him. You've stood side by side with him.

JODY WILSON-RAYBOULD: Yes I mean I think the governments and then certainly he was the head of the government, has done some really important work and there's no taking away from the important work that has been accomplished. There's a lot more to do. You know for me, like other people right across the country, seeing photographs or video of the leader of the Liberal Party in blackface and brownface was extremely disappointing.

LL: Is that the Justin Trudeau that you knew? I mean I know a lot of his colleagues in the caucus have come out and said yes it was wrong but we don't think he has a racist bone in his body.

JODY WILSON-RAYBOULD: Well again I. I'm not going to speak about my views particularly with respect to Justin Trudeau I think that he will, I hope, have some self-reflection when he looks in the mirror, but somebody that is entrusted with public trust and in positions of power and authority should be very considerate in terms of the actions that one takes and not just with respect to him but all people that are given that public trust.

LL: Okay. You have been touching on reconciliation and let's get into it a little more deeply. Whichever party forms the next government, what steps would you like to see that government take as soon as possible?

JODY WILSON-RAYBOULD: I believe fundamentally that we need to put in place and legislatively of course the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous peoples. And we need to work to have a rights recognition and implementation framework in this country to enable Indigenous peoples who are, for the vast majority of them, still under a colonial piece of legislation called the Indian Act, to be able to remove themselves from that to exercise their inherent rights of self-determination including self-government.

LL: How optimistic are you that that will happen with within the life of the next government?

JODY WILSON-RAYBOULD: Well I wanted that to happen in the life of the last government and it is and will take leadership. It will take political will. But I know fundamentally that it will be transformative. And again going back to our earlier discussion this conversation around rights recognition and indigenous nation rebuilding has to be a non-partisan issue.

LL: Now I remember in the last election there was a really healthy turnout among indigenous voters. And your treatment in the SNC Lavalin affair has been seen by several indigenous leaders as a blow to reconciliation efforts. I'm wondering how concerned you are that indigenous voters who turned out in record numbers in 2015 might stay home on Election Day.

JODY WILSON-RAYBOULD: Well I mean it's a concern. I mean I'm hopeful that not only indigenous people but everyone that can vote gets out to vote. That's how we change democracy. So we have diversity of voices. I hope that indigenous peoples across the country get out and vote in the same numbers, if not more, than what they did last time. But for me even personally I'm more empowered than ever to continue to work on so many of these important issues. And I have the utmost confidence in indigenous peoples across the country who have shown incredible resilience through many different adversities that they have been confronted with over the last many decades.

LL: Jody Wilson-Raybould thank you.

JODY WILSON-RAYBOULD: Thank you so much for the conversation.

LL: Jody Wilson-Raybould is running as an independent candidate in the B.C. riding of Vancouver Granville. She's the author of From Where I Stand: Rebuilding Indigenous Nations for a Stronger Canada.

Back To Top »

Boom the Vote

[Music]

LL: Here at The Current we're always looking for new angles on our election coverage and that's why we've enlisted some special help this time around to bring us the stories that everyone else has missed.

SOUNDCLIP

PAT KELLY: I'm Pat Kelly.

PETER OLDRING: And I'm Peter Oldring.

PAT KELLY: With a special report for The Current; This is that decision 2019.

PETER OLDRING: Now before we get to today's story. Earlier this week we hit the streets to ask real Canadians how they're feeling about this year's election.

PAT KELLY: Here's what you had to say.

PETER OLDRING: Can I ask you what are your thoughts on the upcoming election?

VOICE 1: Well I think if the Democrats put Elizabeth Warren forward they have a good chance of beating them for sure.

PETER OLDRING: Oh no. I mean the Canadian.

VOICE 1: Huh?

PETER OLDRING: Can I get your thoughts on the upcoming election?

VOICE 2: Oh my gosh I love AOC.

VOICE 3: Trump needs to get out of there. He's a criminal.

VOICE 4: Anything we can do to get Trump out of that White House. You know I'm saying?

VOICE 5: Trump's got to go?

PETER OLDRING: Yeah. Just the Canadian election.

VOICE 6: Pardon me?

PETER OLDRING: You guys are Canadian?

VOICE 7: Yeah.

PETER OLDRING: Can I get your thoughts on the upcoming election?

VOICE 7: Country's just divided. Red states. Blue states. Nothing you can do about it. People have made up their mind.

VOICE 8: I've got three words for you. Feel the burn.

PETER OLDRING: No I'm talking about the Canadian election.

VOICE 9: When's that?

PAT KELLY: During this year's election millennials are predicted to make up as much as 37 percent of the electorate. With their power to determine the next prime minister, it's no wonder that Canadian political parties are trying their hardest to court millennial voters. But amidst all this millennial madness there's one demographic that feels underrepresented and underappreciated. I'm talking of course about baby boomers. Joining me on the line to discuss the boomer vote is Todd Carney Vice President of Boom the Vote, an organization that wants to get more baby boomers out to the ballot box. Hello Mr. Carney and thank you for joining us.

TODD CARNEY: Well thank you for having me on the program to talk about this issue that I believe is critical.

PAT KELLY: Tell us what the message is behind Boom the Vote?

TODD CARNEY: Well certainly. Boom the Vote is an initiative to get baby boomers engaged given Canada's political system. Because of course up until now we have not been we've always been a little bit on the sidelines never getting what we want and then it's almost as though this country wants to tell us that we don't exist. So Boom the Vote is a nationwide initiative to get boomers out to boom that vote.

PAT KELLY: So why would you say that a boomers have been so underrepresented in Canadian politics?

TODD CARNEY: Well you know I think that the fact of the matter is, is that other generations have been louder and prouder. And you cannot go anywhere in this country without hearing about millennials, and the Millennials want this, and the Millennials want that. And that over time has made us feel as though our voice is worthless. And I want you to think real hard here for a second what it means to the hundreds of thousands of baby boomers across this country who just want to be heard and have not. It's heartbreaking.

PAT KELLY: It certainly sounds as though it struck a chord.

TODD CARNEY: [Breaking down in tears] Boom the Vote. Boom the Vote.

PAT KELLY: OK. Well. I'll give you a moment here obviously you are. This is something that you're very passionate about. I wonder if you could touch on what we know what issues matter most to boomers in this election?

TODD CARNEY: Well you know I'm not on here to speak for all boomers. Of course boomers on the East Coast would have different needs than boomers in Saskatchewan or boomers on the West Coast or boomers in Alberta or boomers in Manitoba or boomers in Ontario.

PAT KELLY: I think we get the sense yes.

TODD CARNEY: So there's all different types of boomers.

PAT KELLY: I think that's what we're getting a sense of.

TODD CARNEY: But in our causes though we are unified. I mean the issues that are affecting boomers are the same all across the country. Of course we're concerned about taxes. We've been paying high levels of taxes for a long time now. Housing is a concern for most boomers. We're finding it very challenging to put a new renovation on our second homes. And as well, of course the big one, jobs. You know we have a country that is fixated on pushing us out of careers that we've held for 50 or 60 years. And so Boom the Vote is an opportunity to shine the light on these issues and say enough is enough.

PAT KELLY: I wonder if you could share with us some of how you plan on mobilizing boomers for this election. How were you getting the word out and encouraging boomers to hit those polls?

TODD CARNEY: Well we're going to be holding events all across the country and this is an opportunity for boomers to come together and let their voices be heard. We've got some of the biggest names in boomer culture. You know we're talking about the likes of Ann Murray. Arlene Dickinson from the Dragon's Den and of course the big dog Randy Bachman.

PAT KELLY: Well we certainly do appreciate you taking the time to share with us the initiative of your group, and we wish you the best of luck in mobilizing boomers and having their voice once and for all finally heard.

TODD CARNEY: Well I thank you so much for having me. And I want to just very quickly sneak this in here. If any boomers out there are interested in hearing what Boom the Vote is up to you can log on to your Facebook account and write us a post on the- Tag- You know the Boom the Vote account is a- it's not- it's like not a personal one. So it's not my name. You have to go on to Facebook.

PAT KELLY: Are you simply on the boat are you simply trying to say people can find your group on Facebook?

TODD CARNEY: Yeah but that's not my personal name. You have to find-

PAT KELLY: Yes understood. It's like the business. Well we certainly do wish you the best of luck in booming that vote.

TODD CARNEY: On Facebook.com.

PAT KELLY: Okay.

TODD CARNEY: Boom that Vote.

[Music]

LL: You got to feel for the poor boomers. Thanks to our friends at Kelly and Kelly for that special election report. We'll be hearing more from them right through the federal election campaign. But coming up in our next half hour a feature interview with the first female chief justice of the Supreme Court of Canada. We'll cover a lot of ground from her rise to the top job in the judiciary to naming her pets.

SOUNDCLIP

And I did get the new dog. We wondered what we should call it. And I, in a moment of levity, said I think I'll call it Harper so I can say Harper sit. Harper lie down. Bad Boy Harper.

LL: My interview with Beverley McLachlin in a couple of minutes. I'm Laura Lynch and you're listening to The Current.

Back To Top »

How a dying wish from Beverley McLachlin's husband helped her make a life-altering decision

Guest: Beverley McLachin

LL: I'm Laura Lynch and you're listening to The Current. A country girl of no consequence who rose to the Summit of the Canadian judiciary. When Beverley McLachlin thinks back on our life, this is what she sees. She grew up sweeping floors of her family's log house and was told by her Grade 8 teacher that she had no employable skills. Turns out she did, and became the first female chief justice of the Supreme Court of Canada. Truth be told, my journey through life and the law is Beverley McLachlin's account of how that happened. And she's with me in our Toronto studio. Hello.

BEVERLEY MCLACHLIN: Hi.

LL: You are the first justice of the Supreme Court to write an autobiography if I'm not mistaken.

BEVERLEY MCLACHLIN: So I'm told. Yes.

LL: And a colleague advised you not to do this. Why did you decide to go ahead and write it?

BEVERLEY MCLACHLIN: Well it wasn't really a colleague, but when I got Supreme Court account I heard this apocryphal story of somebody I can't remember the name. One of the judges who'd been asked to do his autobiography and he said, 'let me think about it over the weekend'. He came back on Monday having thought about it and he said, 'the answer's no. Living it once was enough'. And I always thought that showed a certain wisdom but people I respected, people who care about women's place in the world and about diversity and about just encouraging young people said you know your story could help young people, and people who might otherwise not venture something that they would love to do or or people who might otherwise give up at a hard time. And you should write it. And so that was why I did it.

LL: When you were appointed chief justice some people were hailing it as an advance for women's rights. But you were less convinced. Why?

BEVERLEY MCLACHLIN: I always hoped that when I received a promotion it would be one that I would have the ability to fill. And so it was about being a good judge and having the capability or the potential to really make something of the Office of Chief Justice. The fact that I was woman of course was important. And you know I didn't realize at the time how important because it was only in later years after I'd been a chief justice for a few years that I realized the role model aspect of this job was one of the most important things about it. It encouraged so many people come up with their little girls and their little boys and say, 'this is our chief justice'. And it wasn't about me or who I was as an individual it was about the fact that our country had a very important court, its highest court headed, by a woman. And that example that a woman could be there in that position was so inspiring to people. And I realized it wasn't about me personally it was about the fact that for many people that I was- that there was a woman in that position.

LL: Okay let's go way back to 1968 when you were coming out of law school. Talk about what Canada was like for women seeking to practice law in the late 1960s.

BEVERLEY MCLACHLIN: Well I always felt like an imposter. Let me put it that way. It was, the law was, very much a man's domain where women were tolerated if they could do good work. They didn't have any sense of ownership or entitlement. And it was a very different time. It was a time when sexual innuendos and off colour jokes in the presence of the women in our class was totally okay or thought to be okay. And the same kind of culture prevailed in some law firms. But later on when I started practicing I was lucky to go to a great firm and they had had other two other women there before and there was one there when I was there and they had respect.

LL: Except you still had to share an office with the other woman.

BEVERLEY MCLACHLIN: Yes yes. We had to work our way through these things. All the girls - the girls as they were called - could share an office but everybody else got their own office. And of course in the book I tell a story how Nina simply took her - when I was a lawyer to lawyers. She put up with it while I was a student. But when I became a lawyer she just piled all her books and she went into the- she left.

LL: She went over the women's bathroom, didn't she?

BEVERLEY MCLACHLIN: There was this frantic scrambling to 'Where's Nina. Where is Nina?' Because of course everyone liked her, respected her. She did terrific work. And I said you might find her in the washroom where she was blowing smoke rings. We finally persuaded her to come back and we each got her own office. But you know you had to do things like that sometimes to make sure you actually held your ground and maybe gained a little.

LL: So it was really in the 1970s that law started to change for women in the country and you were at UBC by then. And you're right that those were heady days to be teaching. You were teaching the law of evidence. And I'm wondering if there's one case in particular that illustrated that for you.

BEVERLEY MCLACHLIN: Oh I can't think of a case at that time in the 70s. But this was a time when I think second wave feminism was gaining ground and we had all these books by Germaine Greer and all sorts of other people. And people started talking about the law and sexual assault and how biased it was against complainants and the women who were complaining that they had been assaulted. And there were all sorts of archaic rules on the book like you if a woman hadn't given what the archaic English language called the hue and cry, immediately after the assault then her evidence would be devalued or not heard, or if she didn't have corroboration. And there was the law of evidence allowed cross-examination on any kind of sexual encounter that the woman might have had. And there was an assumption that if she had had any kind of sexual encounter with anybody before that she could not be believed. And so that is a law was just riven with these myths that I guess had built up over the centuries to protect people, men, who had who done these things.

LL: I'm trying not to get ahead of ourselves. But you do end up having to revisit that when you do so in the supreme court.

BEVERLEY MCLACHLIN: Yes. Exactly. Exactly.

LL: Before we get there though the girl from Pincher Creek with no employable skills you begin this, what I would see is this rocket like up through the judiciary in 1985. You're appointed to the highest court in B.C. The Court of Appeals and you say that this is when you really began to feel the weight that comes with being a first. What did you mean?

BEVERLEY MCLACHLIN: No I don't want to overblow this. The colleagues my Chief Justice Nathan the Mets, they were very very welcoming but I did feel very lonely. I felt that as the first woman there was an extra- just an extra burden because everybody's looking to see how are you going to do. Now that had been there before too. But it's amplified when you're the first person in a position.

LL: And only three years later than Prime Minister Brian Mulroney called and asked you to be the next chief justice of the Supreme Court of B.C. which is the trial court and you turned him down. Why?

BEVERLEY MCLACHLIN: Well I did at first but in the end I didn't. It was a very difficult time for me because my husband was dying. I had a young child. I was quite happy on the Court of Appeal and being chief justice of trial court in a busy province is a very big job and it requires very long hours in addition to sitting. The thing I loved about judging most was listening to cases and I always said even if I got to be chief whatever I would want to continue to hear the cases. So then I thought about all the administrative overload. I thought about the fact that my husband would be passing. I thought about the fact that I had an 11 year old son who needed some care, that there'd been huge changes in our lives, and it just didn't seem the right time for me. And so at first I said no but Brian Mulroney was extremely persuasive. He kept calling.

LL: He called hold every day.

BEVERLEY MCLACHLIN: Every day for a while. He was amazing. I hear his plummy voice on the other end of the line and 'how is your husband today' and we discuss that. And finally my husband was very ill and sometimes he wasn't too aware because of the medications he was on. But I went into his room and he said 'who's been calling?' And he I told him that was the prime minister, and he must have been at some level very surprised. 'So what does he want?' And I said well he wants me to be chief justice of the trial division of the Supreme Court. And Rory said 'you should do it'. So then I changed my mind I thought this is a man who loves me who knows me better than anybody else and who has always been right about my career decisions and helped me make them. And at that point I thought I cannot go against him now.

LL: He got you.

BEVERLEY MCLACHLIN: He got me. He probably got most things he wanted.

BEVERLEY MCLACHLIN: But then it was only seven months into your appointment to the Supreme Court when he called again. And he was asking you what this time?

BEVERLEY MCLACHLIN: Well he wanted me to go on the Supreme Court of Canada. And and that was even bigger. Now my husband Roy ironically had, and I always thought that this was madness, but he had always said you're going to end up on the Supreme Court of Canada. And he had all these plans about how we'd moved to Ottawa and the life we would have there. And I would laugh and just say that's not possible. It's incredibly- it's not right. It just won't happen. And then there I was seven months after- seven-eight months after his death. And I was being asked to do the very thing that he had predicted. So I really, again, for the same reasons I described earlier, couldn't say no but I was ready to in that case because I felt that we'd had too many changes in our lives, Angus and me, it would just be another change and I was concerned for him. So we were in Australia at the time having a bit of a vacation and he got up in the morning and he said to my surprise he said you should do it.

LL: And how old was he.

BEVERLEY MCLACHLIN: He was 12.

LL: Then you moved out a while and you were when you were sworn, Justice Bertha Wilson who was the first woman to be named to the Supreme Court of Canada, she said something to you.

BEVERLEY MCLACHLIN: Yes. We were on the bench and I'd just taken my oath and and I moved on and she leaned over she wasn't sitting beside me. And she stage whispered 'three down. Six to go'.

[Laughter]

BEVERLEY MCLACHLIN: She was such a such a wonderful woman. Of course I told that story humorously I thought at a speech a few weeks later and it provoked a letter to the editor saying what does this new judge on the Supreme Court think she's doing. She she's suggesting we should have nine women on the court. And of course in the tradition of justices on the court you don't reply to that. You don't respond to that kind of thing. But I really itched to respond in that case because I would have said well the court survived over 100 years with nine men. I think I might also survive with nine women but I never did that.

LL: So I want to talk to you about some of the cases you heard in your time on the Supreme Court. And I have to start with Rodriguez. Sue Rodriguez is a woman from Vancouver Island living with ALS seeking and assisted suicide which was illegal at that time. You were wrestling with something personal when it came time to sit on that case.

BEVERLEY MCLACHLIN: Yes well I had just been through the illness and final times of my husband Rory and he was suffering very badly toward the end. And at one point he told me he wanted to take his life, but he wanted me to help him. And I had been unable to do that. I had always thought about that and fortunately he passed very soon thereafter in any event. But I saw the suffering at the end and I saw the desire to die with dignity when you still had a measure of control over your capacities and your life. But I was wondering in my own mind whether I was a bit close to it and I talked to my chief Tony Lemaire about it and he said no. And he's he was right. I mean I've always known and always believed that, judges, we want a diverse bench. We want people with different experiences so that they can relate to the problems of the people before them. And I felt yes I can sit on this case. I won't be biased. I can listen to the evidence. I can look at this objectively. And so I did sit on the case and I was the main dissenting judgment on it as the majority five to four, it was close. It upheld the ban on assisting suicide.

LL: very narrowly.

BEVERLEY MCLACHLIN: Yes. And at that time it was Kevorkian days. It was days when people were very worried about slippery slope and I was worried about that too. But I felt that there could be conditions put in place to make sure that the choice to seek assistance was an honest objective one that it was firmly made and rationally thought through and that it was not a whim. And with all those kind of conditions I thought the objections and the fears that this would be a slippery slope to people quietly euthanizing troublesome parents or grandparents. I felt that those things could be managed through the law.

BEVERLEY MCLACHLIN: And as we know Sue Rodriguez later did die with the assistance of a doctor who is to this day unnamed two decades later. The court took it up again and ruled that criminalizing assisted suicide violated the charter. Tell me about that moment for you.

BEVERLEY MCLACHLIN: Yes well that was near the end of my time on the court and it was the Carter case and of course there was a lot more evidence by then that it could be dealt with in a in a moral and accountable way. The question of always is in law can you overrule previous precedent and when can that happen? The answer is rarely. But we said in the Carter case that there can be times when it is demonstrable that the social context, that the conditions, that the concerns that animated a previous decision are no longer the same. And in that case the court can look again at the question which was what happened in the Carter case.

LL: And you also heard cases we were talking before that challenge sexual assault law and you wrote decisions especially one that were pilloried by women. And I'm wondering if you could tell me about making those difficult decisions, the ones that you knew as you say would bring the wrath.

BEVERLEY MCLACHLIN: Well it is very difficult. A lot of people feel that judges simply vote their personal values or their ideology and that is certainly not the way in Canada. We were dealing with newly enacted and very praiseworthy provisions enacted by Parliament.

LL: And complainants sexual history.

BEVERLEY MCLACHLIN: The complainants could be cross-examined on their sexual history. So the law had said no cross-examination on previous sexual events. The issue was whether in some cases it might be important to be able to cross-examine on a particular previous sexual encounter. So on the one hand you have the charter value of a full and fair defence. And the argument being by the defendant in this case I can't tell the whole story because I can't ask the complainant about anything to do with a previous sexual encounter. The argument on the other is that women should never have to face any interrogation on prior sexual encounters even with the same person or in any circumstances. And the court decided that the way the law was drafted it was too absolute and that there could occasionally be a situation where it was necessary to allow a full and fair defence and that was what [unintelligible] case decided. But it absolutely brought down the wrath of the feminist community and many of my friends and so on. But the decision has stood the test of time.

LL: How was that for you though?

BEVERLEY MCLACHLIN: It was very difficult but you know I always as a judge said I'm going to go to the conclusion that I think is the right one and I will not worry about whether people personally criticised me or not. And that's your job. And that's why judges have independence.

LL: So you took the heat and you let the judgements speak for it.

BEVERLEY MCLACHLIN: Exactly. You never respond or at least I never did.

LL: But there is another time when you did respond. It wasn't a judgment. There is a picture in the book of you with two former prime ministers Jean Chretien and Brian Mulroney and Justin Trudeau who was prime minister when you retired from the court, but you were also the chief justice through the Stephen Harper years. And you had kind of a public dustup with Stephen Harper in 2013. What did he accuse you of?

BEVERLEY MCLACHLIN: Well I woke up to see a headline saying the Prime Minister says something to the accuser's Chief Justice of impropriety. The story was that I had inappropriately tried to prevent a certain justice. Justice [unintelligible] from being appointed to the Supreme Court which was totally false. So this is very very troubling.

LL: Your reputation is online.

BEVERLEY MCLACHLIN: And perhaps my future I mean if I'd done something improper, how could I continue as chief justice. So I thought about it. I said we're going to answer back in this case because the public is entitled to the facts. So I gave a very brief press release and the first line said I have done nothing wrong. And the second line said these are the facts and I set them out. I had had a conversation with the justice minister on a related issue, but not mentioning this person's name at all.

LL: He wasn't even in the mix at that point, was he?

BEVERLEY MCLACHLIN: No. At a certain date, I knew what date was. I knew the substance of the conversation. I'd kept records. And I set out the facts and the chronology. And that was it. If other people if the Prime Minister has other facts let him bring them forward. He never did. And I would never presume to say what brought it on. But some people have suggested in newspapers and other places that there was some smarting at a series of decisions that had gone against the Prime Minister or Senate reform among them things like that. So there may have been something I got but I have no idea. So as I say in the book it's all speculation. I don't think it was personal in any way.

LL: But you have to tell me about the new dog. And how that ties into all of this.

BEVERLEY MCLACHLIN: Oh yes. So I was feeling rather down. I'd always had dogs to comfort me. Labrador. Retrievers. But my last one had died. And then I found myself in the middle of all this unprecedented situation where I was being accused of wrongdoing by the by the prime minister. And so it wasn't the happiest time of my life. I was downstairs working on the next day's case and I got a call from Warren Winkler who- he was the former chief justice of Ontario and he raised black labs. He was calling me to say he had a good one, but he said of course you're much too busy for this. And I said yes I am my husband and I've decided we really can't take on another dog right now. And I went upstairs and Frank looked at me and he said 'tell him we'll take it'. And then we joked about. We laughed. We wondered what we should call it. And I, in a moment of levity said I think I'll call it Harper so I can say 'Harper sit. Harper lie down. Bad Boy Harper'. But that was just a joke and common sense prevailed and the dog is named Darcy. Mr. Darcy it from Jane Austen's wonderful novel and I jokingly say he's dark, handsome and the folly of my old age.

LL: Perfect. I just want to touch on an issue that I know is near and dear to your heart which is access to justice. This week the Supreme Court's hearing cases outside of Ottawa for the first time. I'm wondering what access to justice means to you.

BEVERLEY MCLACHLIN: Well I think it's a many faceted thing but that may be part of it. During my time as chief justice we didn't have hearings outside Ottawa but we did travel to every province just so that people wouldn't feel Ottawa was so remote that the Supreme Court was some remote institution, we made a point of meeting with lawyers and judges in those different jurisdictions. And so there's value in that. And in a sense that at least, at very least, perceptibly makes the court seem a more accessible institution. My main concern in access to justice has been to allow people who are not wealthy, people who are at the bottom end of the social scale, women who get turfed out of their homes sometimes with children, people who are facing serious charges and sometimes not so serious but in danger of getting on that treadmill of the criminal law system, young people, that they should get proper legal representation. And we're not there. But we have made considerable progress. First of all this was hardly spoken of as an issue a couple of decades ago. Now there are literally hundreds of organizations, not profit organizations across the country, lawyers and other concerned individuals helping individuals individual women, men, children use the justice system and that is very important. We may not see a lot of figures but we know that those people who would otherwise not have been helped, who would never have gone through their legal morass and been able to resume their lives in a proper way, a productive way, that they are getting help. And so it's a chipping away sort of thing but we are providing a lot of help through various ways that was not there before.

LL: You left the court two years ago. I'm wondering what would that little girl going stir crazy in Pincher Creek make of this journey that you have had.

BEVERLEY MCLACHLIN: Well it's pretty incredible and I hadn't realized how incredible it was until I sat down to actually write the book. And I'm really glad in retrospect that I did because it made me reflect on that journey which too often one just shunts all those things in the past aside particularly to the things that were hard, and you don't want to think about the things that were hard. But I said if I'm going to do this book I'm going to face the things that were hard for me to and I'll try to do it as honestly as I can as I remember it, or as I felt it at the time. And so it was very cathartic and reaffirming and amazing to me to look at the arc of my story and my career which was incredible. And it also made me realize along the way the people who had pushed me to another level when I would have given up and I've been very very fortunate in my life, whether it be people my people in my family, mentors, people who've said when I was doubting, 'we believe in you and you can do it'. And so for that I'm very very grateful. That was my takeaway, having written it.

LL: Incredible life indeed and a very good book and I thank you for coming in to talk about it.

BEVERLEY MCLACHLIN: Thank you. It's been a pleasure.

LL: Beverley McLachlin is a former chief justice of the Supreme Court of Canada. Her memoir Truth be Told: My Journey through Life and the Law is out now. She was in our Toronto studio. That's our program for today. Stay tuned to Radio One for Q. Thom Yorke, singer songwriter and frontman for the band Radiohead drops by to talk about his album, career and activism. Well the people of Britain might be looking for a little moment of Zen right about now as the raucous parliamentary debates over Brexit start up again. So let's take it down a notch with some Brexit yoga. Courtesy of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. I'm Laura Lynch. Thanks for listening to The Current.

SOUNDCLIP

Let's warm up first by uniting our kingdom. And when you're ready to face the world we're going to move up into our European Union. Arms nice and high. Feel those tariffs falling away. Enjoy your freedom of movement. Summers in the south of France. And holding this position for several decades before moving up into our rising nationalism, also known as I don't like paying great debt. And from here will head slowly down into our referendum. Remember to breathe. Now some of you might want to remain in this position. Some of you might want to leave. Just listen to your body. Feel it being pulled ever so slightly to the right and liberties. This of course leads us straight into our instant regret. So just feel your trading power diminish as the price of Camembert increases heading into our downward facing economy. It'll hurt a little bit but stick with it. And from here of course we head into our Scottish independence. And finally the, Oh God, where's my passport. Also known as the pack your bags kids we're holidaying in Birmingham. Good flyer. After that work out I think you've earned yourself a nice warm gloss of English wine. Enjoy.

Back To Top »

Provide Transcript Feedback

CBC would like to acknowledge the support of the Broadcasting Accessibility Fund.

Wednesday 25 September, 2019 Full Transcript

More Stories Like This