The West Block – Episode 34, Season 12 – National | 24CA News
THE WEST BLOCK
Episode 34, Season 12
Sunday, May 14, 2023
Host: Mercedes Stephenson
Guests:
Vincent Rigby, Former National Security Advisor
Ward Elcock, Former CSIS Director
Panel:
Naheed Nenshi, Former Calgary Mayor
Monte Solberg, Former Conservative Cabinet Minister
Janet Brown, Janet Brown Opinion Research
Location:
Ottawa, ON
Mercedes Stephenson: With international interference revelations swirling round Ottawa, is it time to rethink our strategy to nationwide safety?
I’m Mercedes Stephenson. Welcome to The West Block.
A Chinese diplomat is expelled, however opposition MPs proceed to push the prime minister for solutions as to why his authorities didn’t act sooner.
Where are issues coming off the rails and why? Two former prime nationwide safety officers weigh in.
And with wildfires raging in Alberta, is it hurting or serving to Danielle Smith and Rachel Notley within the race to develop into premier?
With urgent world safety threats coming from Russia and China, many say it seems like we’re coming into a brand new chilly struggle. Experts are sounding the alarm over how ready Canada is to take care of these modern-day threats, saying the federal authorities’s reactive response to current international interference allegations, and the confusion over who knew what, when, factors to the pressing have to replace Canada’s nationwide safety technique.
The stakes escalated final week when the Liberal authorities expelled Chinese diplomat Zhao Wei, who allegedly labored with Beijing to focus on Conservative MP Michael Chong and his family members in Hong Kong. China retaliated by expelling a Canadian diplomat from Shanghai.
Joining me now to speak about Canada’s state of nationwide safety and intelligence is former CSIS director Ward Elcock and former nationwide safety advisor Vincent Rigby. Thank you each a lot for becoming a member of us.
Vincent Rigby, Former National Security Advisor: A pleasure.
Ward Elcock, Former CSIS Director: A pleasure.
Mercedes Stephenson: Vincent, you had been the nationwide safety advisor. You noticed all of those threats. You’re conscious of them. Who are the international actors who’re in Canada? What form of an intelligence image are we dealing with, to color to our viewers of what we should be involved about and our capability to not solely shield ourselves but additionally spy on individuals who we would wish to spy on?
Vincent Rigby, Former National Security Advisor: Well I believe it’s crucial to know that it’s not simply in regards to the Chinese risk. It’s a broader risk of hostile state actors. So China, I definitely would say, is the primary hostile state actor proper now when it comes to home threats, however you even have to bear in mind Russia, Iran, North Korea, quite a lot of states, and it’s not simply international interference. I believe that’s additionally necessary to recollect it’s traditional espionage. It is the theft of mental property. It’s cyber-attacks. It’s throughout a complete vary of various actions. So the risk could be very actual. It’s very obvious. China, I believe, is main the way in which however it’s not the one risk actor.
Mercedes Stephenson: Are we able to coping with the threats with our present nationwide safety technique and sources, Ward?
West Elcock, Former CSIS Director: I believe we’re when it comes to the establishments we’ve to take care of these threats. I believe the issue comes, to some extent, across the sources which might be made obtainable for these businesses. I believe that that’s in all probability a little bit skinny at this cut-off date. I believe the opposite actuality is that maybe our legislators—and I wouldn’t distinguish between both occasion, any of the events—our legislators are actually not very skilled in coping with nationwide safety points and admittedly, would usually want to not take care of them, I believe. They’re extra used to coping with the issues that voters in Canada are enthusiastic about, and nationwide safety normally charges fairly low on the schema when it comes to what Canadian voters are enthusiastic about.
Vincent Rigby, Former National Security Advisor: And simply to again that up, if I may, if you stated, Mercedes, with our present nationwide safety technique. We don’t actually have a present nationwide safety technique and I believe that’s a part of the issue. We haven’t had a nationwide safety coverage since 2004.
Mercedes Stephenson: Wow.
Vincent Rigby, Former National Security Advisor: So 20 years and it’s the one nationwide safety coverage that we’ve ever had. Now I’m not saying {that a} new coverage would resolve all the issues, however I believe it could focus the federal government’s consideration if we had been to do a evaluation—do a international coverage evaluation on the identical time have a look at the instruments that we’ve. I’d agree with Ward that typically talking that we’ve acquired a whole lot of the mechanisms in place, however I believe a number of of them may in all probability be fine-tuned and I’d counsel that there are one or two mechanisms we wish to take into consideration that may focus the eye of the federal government a little bit bit higher as nicely.
Mercedes Stephenson: So what ought to we be taking a look at when it comes to instruments and sources? I imply that’s form of scary that we haven’t thought strategically about intelligence and nationwide safety since 2004, I imply three years into the Afghanistan marketing campaign. Things have modified drastically. What do we have to replace and to get into 2023?
Ward Elcock, Former CSIS Director: I’m not totally in the identical ballpark as Vincent when it comes to needing a method. Another technique that really no person is way enthusiastic about doesn’t actually get us wherever. It could be good to see extra of a dedication on the a part of politicians and a few management from politicians, however it could even be good to see Canadians pay extra consideration to nationwide safety after which we would truly begin to transfer within the course of truly doing issues. But there are issues that we may do. For instance, we’ve extra evaluation of intelligence businesses on this nation than another nation on this planet, and I believe that, frankly, from what I do know and from what I’ve heard, I believe that’s resulting in a form of unwillingness to truly do issues which might be a part of being competent intelligence organizations. Once you begin to develop into uncertain of your capability—your willingness to do stuff, you don’t essentially do all of the heavy lifting you must do.
Mercedes Stephenson: You’re afraid to do issues that you simply suppose may look unhealthy on a billboard, however they’re regular in intelligence typically, maybe.
Ward Elcock, Former CSIS Director: They’re regular in intelligence, but when politicians are uncomfortable with you doing them, and the courts, significantly the federal court docket, are overly restricted when it comes to what they’ll allow and the evaluation businesses—the evaluation company demand has all the time been excessive however it has been truly doubled within the final whereas and I’m undecided to what function.
Vincent Rigby, Former National Security Advisor: I believe with respect, Ward and I usually disagree on this, however respect to a nationwide safety technique or coverage, for me, our allies do it on a reasonably common foundation, Five Eyes allies particularly. I don’t suppose we ought to be doing these yearly. I don’t need them to only develop into paper workouts, paperwork that collect mud. But it’s been 20 years and when it comes to informing Canadians and having a public debate, perhaps that’s the way in which to do it and have a evaluation and have an knowledgeable dialogue.
Mercedes Stephenson: And you had been the advisor, and to Ward’s level, there are 1,000 opinions. We get the releases, they are saying nothing. We don’t know what truly occurred in these opinions, however is there transparency not solely with the Canadian public however with Canadian politicians? Do they know what’s happening?
Vincent Rigby, Former National Security Advisor: Well I believe there may very well be larger transparency. I believe that the safety intelligence neighborhood inside Canada, it’s come a good distance during the last variety of years, however I’ve stated on quite a lot of events and Ward and I labored on a report collectively not too long ago, saying we want even larger transparency. So you discuss in regards to the risk surroundings and Canadians understanding simply how critical the risk is, we don’t do public risk assessments in Canada. We used to do them for terrorism a number of years in the past, however a whole lot of different international locations, the U.S., the director of nationwide intelligence yearly comes out with that is the risk, a public assertion. I believe that will assist inform the controversy to a substantial extent.
Ward Elcock, Former CSIS Director: I believe when it comes to different mechanisms, I believe we have to have a look at the CSIS Act. I believe that must be up to date. And I’m a giant fan when it comes to what occurs inside authorities of making a nationwide safety cupboard committee of some type, the place you possibly can have a whole lot of the discussions you must have in regards to the intelligence and what to do in regards to the intelligence about broader nationwide safety technique. Right now, I believe a part of the issue we’re having with international interference is that you simply’re getting all this intel however it’s going up the chain in a really disparate manner and so some goes to PM, some goes to this minister, some goes to that minister, however the PM’s not sitting down along with his ministers regularly, discussing the intelligence, discussing broader nationwide safety and tendencies over the horizon. And you stated—you used the phrase responsive in the beginning. It’s manner too responsive and that’s why I believe we want a physique like that a minimum of give it some thought.
Mercedes Stephenson: Well it looks like it solely turns into a problem when it turns into a political concern and it’s within the news, after which there’s questions on why weren’t issues executed. We had been chatting earlier than the present and I used to be shocked if you had been telling me that, , one briefing goes to the general public security minister from the pinnacle of CSIS, one other one to the PM from the one who’s in your earlier job. These are two non-experts now discussing briefings neither of them heard from one another and I believe this actually got here to mild with folks questioning is it CSIS that’s falling aside in analyzing the data or passing it on in a well timed method, or is it simply form of vanishing into the paperwork and into politicians fingers? We can’t appear to get a solution over who knew what, when within the Chong case and quite a lot of others. What are your ideas, Ward?
Ward Elcock, Former CSIS Director: Well I believe on this case it’s in all probability not the service. I believe on this case it’s far more the absence of a nationwide safety tradition inside authorities, inside each politicians and the paperwork. That’s been true for years, the paperwork round, if you’ll, intelligence and nationwide safety points, is tiny and the quantity of people that have expertise past the intelligence businesses themselves is definitely fairly small. So you actually—it’s actually not a shock when issues fall between the stones, when folks aren’t truly between stones, when folks truly aren’t skilled sufficient to know what the issue is.
Vincent Rigby, Former National Security Advisor: I’d undoubtedly agree with Ward on this one when it comes to the tradition. There’s not a really mature safety intelligence tradition inside…
Ward Elcock, Former CSIS Director: Yeah, that’s a good manner of placing it.
Vincent Rigby, Former National Security Advisor: Exactly. But I’d say the issue begins on the political degree and I believe that on the political degree, it’s not taken as severely because it in all probability ought to, ‘til there’s a significant, main, main disaster. But when it comes to who’s responsible with respect to Mr. Chong and what’s occurring right here, I imply I do know that for politicians there’s a pure inclination to attempt to maintain one particular person to 1 establishment accountable and for my part that when one thing like this occurs, it’s a collective failure. So I don’t know the small print of the specifics of this report, however it could not have been flagged to PCO, however it could not have been flagged by CSIS both for PCO to have a look at it, how it’s briefed. I imply, I don’t know however sure, somebody’s going to be held accountable sooner or later and this particular person ought to have handed it up the chain. But there are many different individuals who in all probability ought to have been flagging it up the chain earlier than it acquired to nationwide safety advisor, earlier than it acquired to the director of CSIS, earlier than it acquired to the minister. So, I believe you must have a look at it holistically and cease making an attempt to politicize it and go we wish to maintain this particular person accountable. It’s not that simple.
Ward Elcock, Former CSIS Director: Although, I’d add there, the difficulty with the Chong case in some respects is that it’s truly not a very critical case. It has develop into politically a really critical case, however to have any person ask to gather info on a Canadian or their relative elsewhere shouldn’t be actually a shock.
Mercedes Stephenson: And that they wouldn’t learn of that didn’t shock you both?
Ward Elcock, Former CSIS Director: Not significantly as a result of the fact is, in lots of instances, that info could also be too delicate to supply to any person. So probably the most that you are able to do, as CSIS did on this case, is to attempt to present info to—I believe they supplied info to Mr. Chong, to be able to attempt to shield himself from those that could be making an attempt to focus on him. But the fact is, it’s not—this isn’t an assassination try. This isn’t private harm to Mr. Chong and his direct household. This is the potential for an issue along with his family members in China and finally, the Chinese will accumulate that info wherever they need. If they will’t get it right here, they’ll get it in Hong Kong. They do in any case management Hong Kong.
Mercedes Stephenson: Well I believe there may be a whole lot of questions on what else might have fallen between the cracks in relation to questions now about our nationwide safety and what’s been flagged up that each one this has raised, maybe a second to debate this and I’m positive that we are going to have each of you again, quickly. Thank you a lot for becoming a member of us right this moment.
Ward Elcock, Former CSIS Director: A pleasure.
Vincent Rigby, Former National Security Advisor: Thank you for having me.
Mercedes Stephenson: Up subsequent, the wildfires burning in Alberta. What’s the affect on the marketing campaign path with principally two weeks to go till Election Day?
[Break]
Mercedes Stephenson: The Alberta election marketing campaign has hit the halfway level throughout a difficult time for the province. Alberta is below a state of emergency as dozens of wildfires have compelled 1000’s of individuals from their houses and their communities. It has led to modifications on the marketing campaign path for NDP Leader Rachel Notley and UCP Leader Danielle Smith, who has been juggling the emergency whereas additionally campaigning. This week, the main focus shifts to the leaders’ debate, a vital alternative in a good race for every chief to attempt to acquire momentum.
To speak about all of the ins and outs of the marketing campaign and the place we’re at, I’m joined by former Calgary Mayor Naheed Nenshi; pollster Janet Brown from Janet Brown Opinion Research; and former Conservative cupboard minister and CEO of New West Public Affairs Monte Solberg.
Thank you all for becoming a member of us. A panel from my dwelling province, I’m right here in Ottawa. We’re going to be out in Alberta in a few weeks, however we wished to speak in regards to the state of this marketing campaign.
Naheed, let’s begin with you. What impact do you suppose the wildfires have had on the marketing campaign thus far, if any?
Naheed Nenshi Former Calgary Mayor: Surprisingly, if any, I’m undecided they’ve had a lot, but when any, I believe it’s truly been detrimental for the premier which is stunning. I’d have thought right here’s an opportunity for the premier to appear like a frontrunner, to appear like a premier and that this might look good on her. I imply, clearly, we’re speaking in regards to the politics of it, however the largest concern right here is maintaining folks secure, defending infrastructure and maintaining property secure. But the premier form of stumbled off the blocks on this one. It took her a number of days to make a press release. It took her a pair days extra to contact the prime minister and ask for federal assist.
In her first press convention, I used to be watching it and I used to be pondering okay, she’s doing alright. And then on the finish, she simply stated off hand, I’ve acquired another locations I’ve to be after which I’ll get again to the wildfire, which was form of a—I finished and went nicely that’s a really unusual factor to say. And positive sufficient, the images got here out when she was at a fundraiser with ice sculptures and fruit and prime rib buffet, and it simply wasn’t a superb search for her. So, if she’s going to get a bounce from this, she’s acquired to vary channels shortly. And sadly, a whole lot of what I’m listening to from the affected areas is that persons are truly very pissed off with the federal government response, which stunned me. So if any affect, I don’t suppose it’s a superb affect on the premier proper now.
Mercedes Stephenson: Monte, do you agree with that evaluation?
Monte Solberg, Former Conservative Cabinet Minister: No, I don’t suppose so. You know, I believe the truth that the premier reached out to the prime minister demonstrated that she will be able to work with the federal authorities when required and has produced the products for the folks of Alberta: 2 hundred troopers arrived to battle fires. So yeah, she’s executed nicely on that file. But I’ve to say since then, , later developments have in all probability erased a whole lot of the great that she did herself from her response to the fireplace. And in reality, I assume, additionally that she met with Rachel Notley and sat down, I believe seemed good on each of them, frankly.
Mercedes Stephenson: Janet, what are you seeing in your polling when it comes to how that is enjoying out? Has it created any unanticipated modifications?
Janet Brown, Janet Brown Opinion Research: I believe it’s actually not enjoying as an election concern. It’s undoubtedly an necessary story. It’s a very powerful news story in Alberta right this moment. But in relation to coping with these fires, the premier is known as a figurehead and, , folks on the bottom need assistance from the administration, from the paperwork, so actually, the query is was our authorities able to deal with this concern? And the truth that they had been in the course of an election and the chief of the governing occasion needed to step again into her position as premier to take care of that, I believe the larger query for Albertans is was the federal government able to deal with this? So, yeah, no I’ve been speaking to Albertans doing focus teams all week and the fires arising as necessary, however I’m not listening to it arising as a political concern.
Mercedes Stephenson: Monte, one factor that did come up for the premier was this video that was taken throughout the pandemic, the place she made some feedback evaluating the vaccinated to Nazi followers. She stated she wasn’t carrying a poppy for Remembrance Day relating to public well being measures as a result of she was protesting it. She’s come below a whole lot of criticism from Jewish teams, from the Royal Canadian Legion. How is that enjoying contained in the UCP? Are these feedback an element for her?
Monte Solberg, Former Conservative Cabinet Minister: Oh, they’re undoubtedly an element. It’s not useful in any respect. You know, she has actually damage herself, acquired the message fully off-track for her and her candidates, and it simply contributes to the narrative on the market that, , on some points a minimum of, she’s simply too erratic. That stated, , she’s making an attempt to get it again on observe by speaking about her report during the last seven months since she’s been premier. The very mainstream report of investing in well being care, decreasing surgical procedure wait occasions, decreasing emergency response occasions, placing a refund into the pockets of normal Albertans, and , simply kind of the booming Alberta economic system and that’s actually the place she’s acquired to maintain it, each right this moment and going into that debate arising this week.
Mercedes Stephenson: Former mayor of Calgary, I imply Calgary is the battleground for lots of this. It’s someplace the place feedback like which might be actually being mentioned and enjoying throughout the entire nation, however as folks decide about which manner that metropolis goes to swing and the impact that it may have, what are you listening to in Calgary and the way do you see this enjoying out?
Naheed Nenshi, Former Calgary Mayor: So Monte’s use of the phrase erratic is, I believe, very beneficiant. This is a really massive drawback for the premier and a really massive drawback for individuals who have historically voted Conservative however simply aren’t positive they will belief this premier. The Hitler feedback are simply one in all so many. You know, she stated that the Coots blockade was a win for Canada, proper again to, she stated persons are accountable in the event that they get most cancers, for their very own well being, all of it. There’s a lot of it. And she actually has no defence. She’s gone from you possibly can’t speak about issues I stated earlier than as a result of I used to be simply doing it for clicks, to I used to be tremendous pressured throughout COVID and I stated some issues. Well she by no means stated I stated some issues I shouldn’t have stated. She simply stated I used to be tremendous pressured throughout COVID as a result of, , being a podcaster throughout the pandemic, ooh, that’s demanding. Do what’s extra demanding? Being the premier throughout the pandemic and throughout the wildfire season. So it’s not trying good on her. And her new argument this week is have a look at what I did, not what I stated. But the issue is you possibly can’t actually have a look at what she did when she was preparing for an election, over six month’s as premier. You have to have a look at what she’s going to do. And Albertans are actually shedding that belief. So the query, and Janet is aware of far more about this than I do, is are the individuals who all the time voted Conservative as a behavior going to truly park their votes and say like there are candidates on the door saying vote for me and we’ll do away with Danielle later, or will they not vote, or will they really say, what? The Conservatives want a timeout for my occasion to repair itself and I’m voting NDP. And Janet in all probability is aware of the reply to that.
Mercedes Stephenson: Yeah, that’s the query I’ve for you. What are you listening to particularly from these Conservative voters who must transfer to an NDP vote for an NDP victor to occur?
Janet Brown, Janet Brown Opinion Research: Well these feedback that the premier’s been enjoying again and again, issues that the premier has stated previously, they’re completely enjoying horribly for her. But the issue is, is the NDP—it’s actually maintaining the NDP off message they usually’re partially responsible for that themselves. The NDP has been going very onerous on detrimental adverts, and so I believe voters are caught. I see it on a regular basis. People are very discouraged with Danielle Smith, however they’re solely listening to negativity out of the NDP as nicely, they usually’re searching for a extra optimistic, affirmative marketing campaign popping out of the NDP.
Now in 2012, when Danielle Smith was working as chief of the Wildrose Party and it seemed like she was going to develop into premier, issues fell aside for her on the final minute, as a result of voters simply determined they couldn’t belief her judgement they usually seemed for one more different. But the opposite different that existed for them was Alison Redford, a Progressive Conservative. So for voters proper now, a few of them are trying round for one more selection, however Rachel Notley is a giant leap for them they usually’re not seeing sufficient of an affirmative marketing campaign popping out of the NDP to be prepared to do this.
Mercedes Stephenson: Monte, leaders’ debate is arising this week. We all the time speak about them in politics. I do know, pollsters will inform you they don’t all the time have that have an effect on until somebody is an absolute catastrophe or an absolute rock star. What do Rachel Notley and Danielle Smith want to perform this week?
Montel Solberg, Former Conservative Cabinet Minister: Well Rachel Notley wants to determine that they’ve a plan for the economic system. The Alberta economic system is doing terribly nicely proper now. People are coming to Alberta in massive droves, and I don’t suppose they’ve truly managed to do this. I believe additionally they have failed on public security is one other concern that could be very near the bone in key ridings in Calgary, and with no robust message on that, they’re in bother, I believe, with a minimum of some voters.
For Danielle Smith, it’s she has to determine that she’s mainstream, reliable and can proceed on the trail she began on. She has a—you possibly can’t be a profitable chief in Canada until you might have a foot within the mainstream. You can lurch left or proper a little bit bit, however you must be there within the mainstream to some extent. She has began down that path within the seven months she’d been premier and he or she must reaffirm that within the debate so that folks see that she had a superb plan going ahead.
Mercedes Stephenson: Okay. Well, we’re out of time for this panel. There’s a lot extra I wish to speak about, so I hope we will have you ever again quickly. We’re heading out your manner in not too lengthy and we stay up for seeing you all. Thank you for becoming a member of us and your perception into Alberta politics, fascinating election cycle.
Naheed Nenshi, Former Calgary Mayor: Thank you.
Monte Solberg, Former Conservative Cabinet Minister: Thanks, Mercedes.
Mercedes Stephenson: It is a definite and uncommon pleasure to have you ever right here in Canada. So, Karim Khan, thanks for coming in to speak to us.
Mercedes Stephenson: Up subsequent, the prime minister heads to Japan for the G7 this week. With tensions with China on the rise, what’s at stake for Canada?
[Break]
Mercedes Stephenson: And now for one final thing…
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is off to South Korea and the G7 Summit in Hiroshima, Japan. The consideration of worldwide leaders gathering in Asia will very a lot be targeted on China’s growing navy may and sabre rattling within the area, to not point out North Korea and Russia’s threats about utilizing nuclear weapons.
Canada presents itself as a worldwide powerhouse in relation to ethical affect in worldwide safety, however allies are searching for greater than phrases and thus far, Canada, has not paid to play.
If the Trudeau authorities desires in on intelligence and navy offers that counterbalance China, it’s going to seemingly need to deliver one thing to the desk. We’ll see if that one thing is up the prime minister’s sleeve this week.
That’s our present for right this moment. Thanks a lot for hanging out with us and we’ll see you subsequent Sunday. And completely happy Mother’s Day to all of the moms on the market, particularly the mothers who work on our present: Bernadette and Diana.
