Edmonton-St. Albert member of Parliament Brent Rathgeber caused a national media story almost two weeks ago by resigning from the Conservative caucus. He has said it was the gutting of his bill to require the disclosure of civil service salaries greater than $188,000 that led to his departure. This edited transcript is part two of a two-part interview with Rathgeber.
Q: So what’s next for you from this point going forward?
A: My bill is still in the Parliamentary process. It will come back to the House in the fall for something called report stage and third reading so there will be two hours of debate at each one of those stages. It is possible to introduce amendments at report stage, so it’s theoretically possible I could un-amend the damage that was done to it last Wednesday.
I won’t go through that process just for the sake of going through it. If there’s a free vote, which there should be on a private member’s bill, and if the opposition is firmly supportive of the $188,000 number as they were in committee and if it’s a free vote, I might be able to get enough support from the Conservative back bench to put that number at something more reasonable than $444,000. So that’s the next step to gauge the support or lack thereof to my bill when it comes back to the house in October, possibly late September but I suspect October.
One of my other bills that I introduced in the last Parliament got reintroduced, Briggs Bill, the bus driver bill. It got introduced in slightly amended form from what I introduced three years ago to provide greater protection to bus drivers. That’s another bill that has great support among the Conservative back bench but no support from the justice minister.
Being a private member’s bill, depending on how the government decides to deal with it, if they decide to deal with it in the tight-fisted manner, if they are going to whip their members to vote against it, then it’s a non-starter, but if they decide to allow a free vote on a private member’s bill, which the Conservative constitution says they are supposed to do, then the bill might have some legs. That’s what’s next and generally I will speak in public and in private and in the House on the themes that have got me where I am today and that’s transparency and open government and respect for taxpayers.
Q: What about your political future? Will you run again?
A: It’s really hard to predict the future. I have no intention of joining another political party. I have no intention of starting a political party, but the prospect of having some involvement in a political movement intrigues me. What I mean by that is if I’m asked to give lectures or asked to give speeches on my impression of what’s broken in Ottawa, I’d be happy to do that. I’d be happy to speak at a convention or conference and encourage people to critically examine how Ottawa operates, and I mean the problems in Ottawa I suspect are not only applicable to Ottawa.
Electorally, I mean I think I’ve been candid about this. You don’t make a decision like this without seriously considering what the ramifications are for your own political future. This office stays open. There’s no effect on my budget or staffing levels and we will continue to help constituents if they are having trouble with employment, immigration or the Canada Revenue Agency navigate the maze that is the Government of Canada. I have been overwhelmed and humbled by the outpouring of support primarily but not exclusively from these communities – Edmonton and St. Albert. Primarily St. Albert, to be frank with you. Just in the last couple of days I’ve received some offers of financial support for my re-election to the Parliament of Canada. I will consider that very carefully in 2015. I can’t make a decision regarding 2015 in 2013. There’s too many variables in play.
The Conservative brand, in my view, is suffering some damage but is still very strong in Alberta. Although I think if you walked down the street and asked people if they were familiar with the story, they might indicate some support for what I’ve done, I can’t expect that momentum to carry through the summer, much less the fall of 2015. If the support is there both financially and electorally, I’ll take a run at it. It won’t be easy. It won’t be a sure thing but I won’t be able to make that assessment until 2015. If the Conservatives turn their ship around, and I hope they do for the sake of the country because they’re the government for another 30 months minimum, then I think a run as an independent in this riding is probably doomed. But if the Conservative Party continues to stumble and fumble then possibly if I have the support in the community, I would take a run at it.
My biggest fear is I could run a very strong campaign and the result of that would be to split the Conservative vote. Mr. (Justin) Trudeau seems to have some cachet that is resonating, particularly with younger voters, and this community has elected Liberal MLAs. But two-and-a-half years is a long time, so who knows?
Q: Are you happy with your decision?
A: I’m very happy. I’m, a little tired. I’m a little overwhelmed by the national attention this story has garnered. I won’t say I’m pleasantly or unpleasantly surprised. It is what it is. I’m intrigued and honoured there was so much interest, not so much in my personal story but in the attention I’ve brought to the deficits in the Canadian parliamentary system. I’m glad there has been that much interest in the story but now it’s a week old and I hope you people all just find something else to write about.
