The West Block – Episode 30, Season 12 – National | 24CA News
THE WEST BLOCK
Episode 30, Season 12
Sunday, April 16, 2023
Host: Mercedes Stephenson
Guests:
Dick Fadden, Former National Security Advisor
James Moore, Former Conservative Cabinet Minister
Kurt Volker, Former U.S. Ambassador to NATO
Location:
Ottawa, ON
Mercedes Stephenson: Face-off on Parliament Hill: opposition MPs tackle the Prime Minister’s chief of workers over issues about Chinese interference in our elections.
I’m Mercedes Stephenson. Welcome to The West Block.
Katie Telford seems earlier than a Commons committee to reply questions on what she and Justin Trudeau knew about Beijing’s medaling and what they did about it. What impression will it have on requires a public inquiry? Our panel weighs in.
And bombshell intelligence leaks rock the Pentagon after top-secret paperwork are posted on-line. How unhealthy is the harm? We speak to a U.S. nationwide safety skilled.
She’s thought-about the Prime Minister’s closest and most trusted advisor. Katie Telford left backroom technique for committee room politics final week, testifying earlier than the Procedure and House Affairs Committee. Opposition MPs grilled the Prime Minister’s chief of workers for greater than two hours, urgent her repeatedly on what she and the Prime Minister knew about China’s medaling within the final two federal elections. There had been some pointed questions, however Telford mentioned she was restricted on what she may disclose, citing nationwide safety issues.
Katie Telford, Chief of Staff to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau: “But on the specifics of what—of what you were referencing there, I can’t get into, unfortunately, in this public setting what was or wasn’t briefed on in the level of specificity you’d like.”
Mercedes Stephenson: So, what did we be taught from Katie Telford’s testimony and what questions are nonetheless unanswered? Joining me now to debate this are former CSIS Director and National Security and Intelligence Advisor to the Prime Minister, Dick Fadden; and former Conservative Cabinet Minister James Moore.
Thank you each a lot for becoming a member of us. We did attain out to the Liberals, if of us are questioning there’s not a Liberal on the panel. There was not any individual obtainable to hitch us. They clearly have been very busy in getting ready for this committee.
Dick, I wish to begin with you. You’re the nationwide safety skilled. We heard plenty of variations on I can’t verify or deny. I can’t say. Did we be taught something from this testimony? Are we any additional forward for having heard it?
Dick Fadden, Former National Security Advisor: No, I don’t assume we’ve discovered something substantive. I feel it’s established past debate, the Prime Minister knew about this. To my mind-set, the actual challenge now could be what did he do about it, beside from the 2 or three issues that Ms. Telford continuously repeated as having been accomplished. They had been accomplished, you recognize, the NS-COP and the brand new company for nationwide safety businesses, however they weren’t accomplished particularly for international intelligence. They had been accomplished for broader functions. So they get credit score for them, however I feel saying they had been accomplished solely for international intell—international interference is a bit gilding the liddy—lily. I feel one factor we did be taught is that Ms. Telford’s an excellent witness.
Mercedes Stephenson: And I used to be going to ask that query to you. As the politico on the panel, James, how do you assume Katie Telford carried out?
James Moore, Former Conservative Cabinet Minister: Well I’ve been earlier than just a few dozen parliamentary committees over my time. I assumed she carried out properly throughout the context by which she will carry out and converse to issues. However, I feel to the purpose of this dialog, I feel extra questions are left unanswered than answered. But that’s a part of the dynamic, as a result of she’s not likely there to kind of converse overtly about this as a result of the framework by which she has to speak. And I feel the general public is left, you recognize, actually kind of unhappy with the questions which can be raised. And the elemental questions are these, is, you recognize, the primary is, with regard to election interference, both nothing occurred and the federal government is happy by that, by which case, it is best to—they need to share to the general public what they’re—why it’s that they’re happy.
Or the second factor is one thing occurred nevertheless it’s not that massive a deal as a result of it’s sort of politics as typical, and folks shouldn’t fear about it and they need to inform the general public why they’re not apprehensive about it and what it’s that they know.
Or the third factor is one thing critical and vital occurred, however they’re not ready to inform the general public as a result of the origins of that intelligence is one thing that they’re not able to telling the general public for broader and, you recognize, unintended intelligence and safety issues that’ll erupt as a consequence of sharing that info, by which case now we have an actual significant issue. The solely avenue out of this jungle is a public inquiry that’s, I feel, clear about this. But I feel what’s additionally clear is that if there have been to be a public inquiry, I feel you’d get plenty of the solutions that Ms. Telford gave, which is plenty of hedging and a lot of shadows and plenty of evasiveness, as a result of the elemental query about what did the federal government know? When did they realize it? And what did they do about it? Those are the three elementary questions that stay in entrance of us, unanswered and I don’t know if a public inquiry will get to it, nevertheless it may present us with somewhat bit extra assurance that we are able to get to a extra substantive and reassuring place than we’re immediately.
Mercedes Stephenson: Dick, there have been some specifics that had been offered on account of the National Security Intelligence Advisor Jody Thomas giving that record of conferences. We discovered, for instance, there was a briefing in January of 2022. We don’t know what the briefing was about, however Global News had reported on a briefing. There was a briefing to the Liberal Party of Canada in the course of the federal election. Again, we had been reporting on a briefing to the Liberal Party of Canada. We weren’t capable of get at any of the particular particulars. The closest we got here was Ms. Telford saying it was fairly attainable that Prime Minister Trudeau was briefed on election interference in January of 2022. How a lot of this actually is a nationwide safety challenge for Katie Telford or the federal government to confess sure, we had been warned, or no we weren’t, that is fully unfaithful? And how a lot of that is taking part in politics and sort of shielding behind nationwide safety?
Dick Fadden, Former National Security Advisor: I actually assume it’s a little bit of each. I imply, there’s some actual nationwide safety issues within the sense that a few of the info, the intelligence gathered could have been gathered by means of methodology that we don’t wish to make public. We don’t wish to establish sources. We don’t wish to contact ongoing investigations, which is de facto essential. But I’ve at all times believed, and I attempted to do once I was a witness earlier than parliamentary committees, is should you can take some primary intelligence, should you combination it up a degree or two, you’ll be able to usually say greater than Ms. Telford or Ms. Thomas determined to say. So that’s why I feel—I feel it’s a mixture of nationwide safety and politics. Clearly, the federal government, for the explanations that worries James Moore, don’t wish to say an amazing deal about it. So I feel it’s a mixture of the 2. I feel in the event that they wished to say a bit extra, they might combination up. They may generalize and I feel fulfill a few of our issues. But I don’t perceive why they’re not ready to do it in any occasion.
Mercedes Stephenson: James, there’s plenty of questions on what the Prime Minister did or didn’t know, what Katie Telford did or didn’t know and at factors, she appeared to say she was unaware, for instance, of what had occurred throughout that briefing to the Liberal occasion in the course of the election. She wouldn’t say whether or not or not she had heard about it since, so, you recognize, should you heard these sorts of allegations, I’d assume that should you’re Prime Minister’s Office, you’d begin to ask questions. Who knew? Who was briefed? What occurred? What was mentioned? Do you discover it odd that there’s kind of nonetheless this lack of information about what was mentioned in conferences that Katie Telford wasn’t in? Is that deliberate, do you assume? Do you discover that plausible?
James Moore, Former Conservative Cabinet Minister: Look in any respect the hypotheticals in your query, Mercedes, which speaks to the place we’re at, proper? We’ve been speaking about this now for weeks. Weeks and we nonetheless don’t know even a few of the primary fundamentals about the place we’re at. And we’re turning the nook now into the again 9 of this time period of this Liberal authorities, heading in the direction of the subsequent election marketing campaign.
And the viewers for this isn’t Katie Telford. It’s not the Liberal occasion. It’s not Parliament. It’s not even parliamentarians. It’s most of the people and their confidence within the subsequent election marketing campaign. So the elemental sequence of questions must be: Were the 2019 and 2021 elections interfered with? The reply appears to be very clearly: sure. Was it state sponsored? Is it systemic? Does it hurt the system by which we select our flesh pressers? Yes or No. Are any of our flesh pressers corrupted? And basically third, is, are there actors who’re manipulating our electoral system in methods both by means of social media or digital interference which can be manipulating the general public’s entry to info to have a transparent selection within the election marketing campaign. These are all massive questions that require solutions, and the federal government has chosen to primarily rag the puck right here and sure there are actual nationwide safety implications, however by not answering simply elementary questions in regards to the dangers and the—and the clear proof of some election interference that’s occurred on the market, they’re elevating increasingly more questions which drives us to the last word conclusion is that we are going to have a public inquiry. We should have a public inquiry so the general public can really feel assured that their election campaigns should not being interfered with to the extent that the outcomes should not reflective of the general public’s needs.
Dick Fadden, Former National Security Advisor: Can I add a thought? You requested James whether or not or not—you recognize, why the federal government hadn’t been asking for increasingly more info? I don’t know what they requested for and I don’t know what was given, but when I used to be the NSA, I’d not want anyone in PMO to inform me that I had a delicate topic and to proceed reporting. So I discover it nearly inconceivable that the assorted safety businesses didn’t present the data. I don’t know what they offered or once they offered it, however for most people I do know on this world, they might have intuitively perceive this was very delicate and essential, and they might have discovered a method to report. For the explanations we talked about a couple of minutes in the past, I feel Ms. Telford doesn’t wish to reply that—these particular questions. But to even depart the inference that my former colleagues, and that’s what they’re now for this a part of the query, didn’t notice this was vital and wanted to be kicked upstairs. I don’t assume it’s sensible.
Mercedes Stephenson: And if that had been kicked upstairs, in your expertise if you had been the nationwide safety advisor, would which have usually been briefed that kind of info to the PM’s chief of workers and the Prime Minister?
Dick Fadden, Former National Security Advisor: Anything touching the electoral course of, completely.
Mercedes Stephenson: Last query to you, James. There was an attention-grabbing allegation that was raised in the course of this by the Conservatives, by Michael Cooper. He mentioned that Bob Saroya, a Conservative MP obtained a textual content message from the Consul-General for China in Toronto mainly saying you’re going to lose the election. And that was the primary time we’ve heard that. We haven’t seen that textual content. We haven’t been capable of confirm that textual content. I do know the Conservatives for a while have been alleging that they consider that Chinese interference performed a task in a few of the ridings that they misplaced. What have you ever heard out of your colleagues about that? Was that allegation acquainted to you in any respect, or the extra normal portray round it?
James Moore, Former Conservative Cabinet Minister: Former colleagues. I imply, I haven’t been a member of Parliament for just a few years.
Mercedes Stephenson: Former, yeah.
James Moore, Former Conservative Cabinet Minister: But no, I, you recognize—look, that’ll be explored over the subsequent few days for positive as a result of it’s a reasonably—it’s a reasonably damning allegation and Michael Cooper wouldn’t say that except he had clear proof about that. And Bob Saroya’s a really honourable man. But look, you recognize, it speaks to, clearly, one other anecdote of proof of vanity from the Chinese communist authorities with regard to their encroachment about what is suitable engagement with Canada and Canadians and elected officers within the extraordinary vanity of claiming to a sitting incumbent member of Parliament that they’re not going to be elected for very lengthy. That’s a reasonably gross rhetorical engagement with a sitting member of Parliament in a approach that I feel deserves an evidence. Let’s not overlook that the present Chinese communist authorities in energy, the Parliament of Canada has deemed them to have engaged in genocide towards the Uighur minority. The Parliament of Canada has a consensus view about a few of the belligerent behaviour that the Chinese authorities is concerned in, together with the kidnapping of two Canadians and holding them hostage as a quid professional quo for the—for the arrest of Meng Wanzhou. So the Chinese authorities has been condemned by Parliament in a number of methods, and this sort of behaviour not checked and never known as out, results in plenty of very, I feel, you recognize, difficult facets of Canada’s political system going ahead if this sort of interference and vanity about it goes unchecked and uncalled by both the international minister or the Prime Minister immediately.
Mercedes Stephenson: Well, definitely raises heaps extra questions. I’m positive we’ll be discussing them. Thank you each a lot for taking the time to sit down down with us on this Sunday morning, check out that testimony and the place we’re going to go subsequent
Dick Fadden, Former National Security Advisor: Good to be with you.
Mercedes Stephenson: Up subsequent, former U.S. Ambassador to NATO Kurt Volker breaks down the large leak of U.S. intelligence paperwork and what it may imply for the warfare in Ukraine.
Kurt Volker, Former U.S. Ambassador to NATO: “What it can do is clue the Russians and others into thinking what their vulnerabilities are and how do they do a better job at closing?”
[Break]
Mercedes Stephenson: U.S. Defence Secretary Lloyd Austin has directed a overview of intelligence entry following a revealing leak of extremely categorized Pentagon paperwork.
A 21-year-old working as a low-ranking IT specialist with the National Air Guard in Massachusetts was arrested and charged late final week beneath the Espionage Act. The paperwork contained extremely delicate and detailed details about the state of the warfare in Ukraine, and top-secret intelligence about Washington’s allies and adversaries are doing.
To speak in regards to the fallout from these leaks, I’m joined by former U.S. ambassador to NATO Kurt Volker. He additionally served as U.S. particular consultant for Ukraine negotiations.
Welcome again to the present. So good to see you once more.
Kurt Volker, Former U.S. Ambassador to NATO: Thanks Mercedes, nice to be with you.
Mercedes Stephenson: This is kind of the treasure trove of paperwork that everybody’s been digging by means of, only a large, large leak. You are somebody who had a really excessive safety clearance, so that you’re ready to take a look at these with some context. What do you assume the importance of this leak is and the way unhealthy is it?
Kurt Volker, Former U.S. Ambassador to NATO: Well, a number of issues. First off, the content material of what’s been launched to date is de facto not all that revealing and largely tells us issues we already knew. The Russian army’s in a shambles. Yeah, we knew that. The Ukrainian army is brief on ammunition. Yeah, we knew that. The U.S. is in truth, spying on a few of its allies. No one’s shocked by that. So these items should not all that revealing.
A pair factors which were made. One of them is on sources and strategies. It’s not a lot that this may essentially expose a supply, however what it will possibly do is clue the Russians and others into considering what their vulnerabilities are and the way do they do a greater job at closing them.
Another factor that comes out of that is what I name the evaluation hole. We do an amazing job of gathering intelligence, however if you have a look at the standard, the evaluation it’s usually arising quick. And I’m reminded that, as an illustration, the start of the warfare final yr in Ukraine when Russian accelerated its invasion, we had been predicting that Ukraine would fold, Russia would roll over Ukraine in a matter of three days. Zelenskyy would flee the nation and this was wildly mistaken. Even although we had the info proper that Russia would invade, we didn’t have the context proper. That’s one thing that I feel individuals should be involved about as a result of it’s taking part in out in these paperwork once more. The Ukrainians are going to go on a counter offensive. We are low balling what they’re capable of obtain. I feel we’re going to be discovered mistaken on that.
Mercedes Stephenson: Why do you assume there’s that shortfall between the large means of the U.S. to assemble clearly intelligence by means of wire faucets, human sources, cyber interventions, however then this incapability to interpret it precisely? Are they getting mistaken intelligence or are they only not capable of put into context?
Kurt Volker, Former U.S. Ambassador to NATO: It’s an amazing query, and I feel it’s one thing our intelligence leaders ought to actually be inspecting. There is a few sort of inherent bias. Is it in the direction of warning? Is it in the direction of that issues don’t ever change? Is it an assumption that Russia is stronger than it’s? There are some inherent biases there. It may additionally should do with the expertise—the extent of expertise of the people who find themselves doing the evaluation within the discipline. Have they been out? Have they seen individuals? Have they talked to individuals? Have they accomplished issues themselves or are they too cloistered? So these are issues that I feel intelligence leaders should be asking themselves how can we be sure that our individuals doing intelligence evaluation are as savvy and skilled as we are able to get?
Mercedes Stephenson: One of the issues that the paperwork revealed is that the U.S. spies on allies. Allies are at all times considerably offended by this, however if you speak to individuals in nationwide safety they’re like look, everyone spies on everyone. But it revealed some actually attention-grabbing issues about these issues and relationships with alliances. Of course, Canada was named in there, issues about our important infrastructure and pipelines. And one of many issues that was talked about was the presence of particular forces in Ukraine, and it’s been speculated and reported on that American and different allied particular forces are working in Ukraine. We’ve reported right here at Global News that Canadian particular operations forces are working in Ukraine, however I’ve at all times been informed there’s a sensitivity round worrying that you would be declared a combatant in the event that they’re even there. Even although plenty of what I’m listening to is it’s sort of advisory roles at occasions. Do you assume that there’s a hazard to these particular forces there now? Or is that this one thing the Russians would have identified all alongside?
Kurt Volker, Former U.S. Ambassador to NATO: So a number of feedback on that. It’s an amazing query. First off, I’m positive the Russians already knew. So this isn’t revealing to them. Certainly the Ukrainians knew as a result of we’re working with them. So that’s not an enormous reveal.
Secondly, I’m tremendously reassured to know with certainty now that we do have some particular forces groups working within the embassy, as a result of we want these eyes and ears on the bottom. We want to trace the tools and what we’re doing. We should be speaking to the Ukrainians and to do it solely remotely wouldn’t be the precise name. So I’m glad to see that we’re there.
And lastly, the sensitivity, it’s not likely a sensitivity in regards to the Russians. It’s a sensitivity about home politics within the U.S., the place the administration needs to clarify that there isn’t any threat of United States immediately getting concerned on this warfare, American troopers preventing in Ukraine. They actually wish to draw a vibrant line there. So revealing that there are American particular forces there could also be utilized by those that oppose our help to Ukraine, to then concern monger about oh, we’d become involved within the warfare now.
Mercedes Stephenson: There are plenty of questions on how the younger man who had entry to those paperwork? He’s a 21-year-old reservist. He’s an IT specialist, so he’s speculated to be administering the community nevertheless it appears it seems that should you administer the community you too can see what’s on the community and never simply work across the community. The Pentagon’s introduced a overview. Were you shocked that any individual this junior would be capable to entry this quantity and this sensitivity of paperwork and data?
Kurt Volker, Former U.S. Ambassador to NATO: Honestly, no. I’ve seen that folks at, you recognize, very junior ranges in every single place do get entry to categorized materials. And in some methods, I feel it displays one thing good about our system. It reveals that we belief individuals, however much more importantly, it reveals that we all know intelligence is simply precious should you’re sharing it with the individuals who want it to do their jobs. The downside is that we don’t have sufficient optimistic management over the intelligence itself. Who sees precisely what? Is it recorded? Are they capable of obtain it? Are they capable of print it or {photograph} it? There aren’t sufficient optimistic controls in place. It’d be nice if we had methods just like the personal sector does, who’re defending safety of business info, the place you’ll be able to see a doc on-line however you’ll be able to’t hold it.
Mercedes Stephenson: Do you assume that this overview goes to provide one thing substantial, as a result of some of us have mentioned, look the U.S. army is so large that to ensure that it to function they do should have junior individuals who can get entry, since you might need somebody who’s a sergeant on the bottom in a foreign country having to make actually important choices, in a short time. So to some extent, it’s laborious to restrict it, however however, you’re questioning the dimensions of the intelligence {that a} specialist would be capable to get their arms on it, looks like, you recognize, is it probably there can be vital modifications to how the U.S. handles info?
Kurt Volker, Former U.S. Ambassador to NATO: Yeah. So I don’t assume that there’s going to be wholesale change like that. I feel there shall be a really stiff prosecution of this man as a warning and sign to anybody else who may ponder stealing info. I feel they may most likely should be launched methods who’re attaching particular person entry to explicit paperwork. It’s not inconceivable with software program to try this now. So we all know precisely which model of what doc was seen by what particular person in order that we are able to very exactly prosecute anybody who violates that. And then most likely there should be extra firewalls or layering so that there’s a little bit extra of a have to know hooked up to what’s shared.
Mercedes Stephenson: Looking ahead as allies share intelligence and Canada is a web shopper of intelligence, particularly American intelligence. We depend on it extensively domestically for a few of our counter-terrorism operations and definitely abroad as properly. It’s very tough for Canada to function with out American assist. Where do you see the way forward for intelligence going as we function with more and more refined adversaries like China and Russia?
Kurt Volker, Former U.S. Ambassador to NATO: Right. Well now we have been by means of a number of waves of intelligence leaks. Remember Julian Assange? Do you bear in mind Bradley Manning and so forth? And it hasn’t modified the truth that we get nice intelligence that we share intelligence. We use it. It’s an vital a part of the nationwide safety course of that’s merely not going to vary. I feel a few of the issues which have occurred up to now, we noticed an more and more reliance on indicators and satellites on the expense of human intelligence. That’s began to be reversed somewhat bit. I feel that we proceed to reverse that somewhat bit. We want a steadiness of these. And I do assume what we simply talked about, doing a greater job of sustaining optimistic controls in intelligence info is vital for making our allies really feel snug with sharing intelligence, as a result of in the event that they’re apprehensive that the U.S. is a sieve, they’re going to be hesitant to share probably the most delicate knowledge with us and that’s merely not good for any of us.
Mercedes Stephenson: I do know there’s plenty of reduction in Canada that it wasn’t leaked from up right here, as they had been attempting to determine the place this got here from. Kurt Volker, thanks a lot for becoming a member of us.
Kurt Volker, Former U.S. Ambassador to NATO: Thank you a lot for having me.
Mercedes Stephenson: Up subsequent, is Canadian politics getting too poisonous?
[Break]
Mercedes Stephenson: Now for one final thing…
The House is again tomorrow and with it comes the debates, the heckling and the barbs. But it feels just like the tone has modified. From principled positions passionately debating massive concepts and in search of options, together with witty repartee, to a race to the underside. Personal assaults, juvenile insults and hardened partisan positions extra desirous about scoring factors than in considerate coverage debates.
Pierre Poilievre, Opposition Leader: “Well if the Prime Minister really was interested in protecting national security, he wouldn’t be hiding. He’d stand up right now and answer the question. Instead, he hides behind these two stooges who protect him.”
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau: “The snarkiness with which the leader of the Official Opposition is approaching these serious issues doesn’t do him any credit and it doesn’t do credit to the kind of serious discussions need to be had.”
Mercedes Stephenson: There was a time when politicians would reply questions as a substitute of repeating memorized speaking factors that always aren’t even associated to the unique query.
Most individuals who run for politics do it for the precise causes: a need to raised the nation. But in a time of snarky tweets, drive-by smears and a seeming race to the underside, it’s no surprise Canadians are tuning out.
That’s our present for immediately. Thanks for hanging out with us and we’ll see you subsequent Sunday.
