WATCH: The full broadcast of The West Block on October 12. Hosted by Tom Clark.
Episode 5, Season 4
Sunday, October 12, 2014
Host: Tom Clark
Guest Interviews: George Petrolekas, Michael Zekulin, Julie Gelfand, Mark Kennedy
Location: Ottawa
***please check against delivery
On this Sunday, airstrikes continue against the Islamic State, but have not prevented that group from gaining ground. We talk to a former Canadian colonel about the flaws that he sees in the coalition’s approach.
Then, a new tough talking government watchdog. This country’s environment commissioner on her first report, which slammed the government on environmental targets.
Plus, changing laws for purely political purposes. A move the Conservative party is making that you should hear about.
It is Sunday, October the 12th, and from the nation’s capital, I’m Tom Clark. And you are in The West Block.
Well reconnaissanceteams are still on the ground, but it’s going to be a few more weeks yet before Canadian fighter jets join our allies in the skies over Iraq. Canada joins the US, Britain, France, the Netherlands and Australia among others, in launching air strikes against the Islamic State. Nine aircraft with more than 600 support staff, as well as 69 Special Forces in an advisory role will be joining in the fight, but is it the right direction?
Well joining me now to analyze what’s going on is retired colonel, George Petrolekas. He was an advisor to Canadians generals Rick Hillier and Walter Natynczyk, and he joins me from Montreal. George thanks very much for being here.
You know for all the bombing campaigns that have already taken place, we nevertheless have the images of this town of Kobani, the one that is sitting on the Turkish Syrian border. We’ve all seen it, and it seems that the allies have been unable to make any dent on Kobani. If we can’t win Kobani, can we win this campaign?
Colonel George Petrolekas:
You know it’s a great question Tom and let me just talk a little bit about Kobani and the difficult metaphor that I think that represents for the coalition as a whole. There are airstrikes that are happening to try and prevent ISIS from getting a lodgement, but by my count, yesterday, there were nine airstrikes in a period of 24 hours, which just represents to me how under resourced the campaign is compared to previous interventions.
Secondly, it’s the last Syrian Kurd outpost in an area surrounded by ISIS. And because it’s in Syria, half the coalition can’t go there, only the Americans can. And I don’t see how helping Kurds would necessarily be helping Assad.
And the third part of that metaphor, which should be disturbing to all of us is, if we don’t stop ISIS there, we create the conditions where another 120,000 refugees will be streaming into the Turkish border or running around in Syria without protection.
Tom Clark:
Okay, so if Kobani is the wrong way to do it because it invites all these contradictions, in your view, what is the right way to do it?
Colonel George Petrolekas:
Well I think President Obama articulated that when he spoke to the American people announcing this campaign. The first part of the airstrike was only a first phase. It was the first phase in the plan to destroy ISIS in Iraq, but it degraded in Syria, which I found a little problematic. But the second part is, he eluded to the necessity for a ground force and I see nothing in the wind right now, whether it be the Iraqi Army, the pesmerga, a coalition ground force that eventually will have to sweep through areas that ISIS controls to physically destroy them.
Tom Clark:
And you see that as being then an allied ground force, perhaps including Canada?
Colonel George Petrolekas:
I think there is no public inclination in Canada to do that. I’m only pointing out from a military standpoint, as the president said, as the US commanders have said that a ground force is necessary. It may in time come to that.
Tom Clark:
Yeah and you know that the parliamentary resolution here was for six months. From a military point of view, how realistic is that?
Colonel George Petrolekas:
Right now, we’ll have to see, as the coalition air campaign builds up, there’s an awful lot of forces that aren’t even in theatre yet. We haven’t arrived. The Australians only started participating yesterday. I’m not sure about the Dutch and the Belgians. So we’ll have to take a measure of the pulse in that in about a month or so, two months. And particularly the signpost for me Tom, would be are there going to be other Kobanis’ as well?
Tom Clark:
Yeah, you know, talk to me about the cost a little bit because we’ve been cutting the defence budget here for the last year or two and yet now we’re on a new mission, so far unbudgeted as far as the public is concerned, and an open-ended commitment. Have you got any sort of ballpark figure as to how much this is going to cost Canada?
Colonel George Petrolekas:
I don’t have specifics with respect to this mission because much of it will depend on the tempo that the Canadian Forces are involved in. So are they flying every day, every three days? But just to give your viewers an idea, the Libyan mission cost overall in incremental funding $104 million, but that included the ships. So the Libyan air campaign was probably in the vicinity of $60-70 million dollars and for a roughly equal amount of time. So I think that would be a good benchmark to plan from.
Tom Clark:
And finally, in the few seconds we’ve got left, this piecemeal approach that we’ve been taking that you’ve been describing and the contradictions that Kobani put in front of us, at the end of the day, would it be better if the allies just put it all on the table right now, did a massive intervention and took care of this?
Colonel George Petrolekas:
Well that’s certainly one school of thought, and it’s been articulated by many people, myself musing about it. At the outset, I would wish that at least the air campaign was better resourced that what it is right now. We’re certainly able to provide some coverage but we’re not able to provide 24 hours persistent coverage.
Tom Clark:
Okay, George Petrolekas, a retired colonel from the Canadian Forces. I appreciate your insight into this. Thanks very much.
Colonel George Petrolekas:
Yeah good to be with you Tom.
Tom Clark:
Now of course, part of the reason given by government to join this fight, is to prevent the war from hitting here at home. Last week, there were reports out of the US of imminent attacks in Canada. An attack on a shopping mall and knife fights in the street. Now, it was eventually pulled back by the media organization because of a bad source, but up here, the government actually gave it some credibility. Just listen to public safety minister, Stephen Blaney at a committee hearing last Wednesday, suggesting the threat of an attack in a mall is very real.
Stephen Blaney:
It happened in Nairobi, Kenya. It also could happen here.
Tom Clark:
Well joining me now to talk about the reality of the problem is Michael Zekulin, a professor at the University of Calgary and an expert in terrorism. Michael, you’ve just heard Stephen Blaney talk about that attack on the Westgate Mall in Nigeria, it could happen here. Could it?
Michael Zekulin:
Well again, I think we need to keep things in perspective. The concern really is, is that as incidents become less sophisticated, they become a lot more difficult for law enforcement and intelligence agencies to detect. Previously, individuals would seek out resources such as explosives. Large groups would require a tremendous amount of coordination. This offered opportunities for law enforcement and intelligence agencies to disrupt them. Problem is now, smaller groups and ideas of attacks, such as using knives at malls, it becomes a lot more difficult for them to detect. Again, the threat is a real one. It doesn’t necessarily mean that we should be alarmist about it.
Tom Clark:
Yeah, and that I mean brings up the whole question about how do you be vigilant without being alarmist. I mean that’s a really tough line to walk, especially when there are horrendous things happening. You see videos of beheadings and so on. How do you achieve that balance?
Michael Zekulin:
Well again, you really have to put yourselves, if you can, into the shoes of the government and the agencies involved, and it’s very, very difficult. It’s almost a lose-lose scenario. If you call attention to real concerns too much, then you’re alarmist and also you’re accused of crying wolf. At the same, if you say nothing and do nothing and an incident occurs, then that also doesn’t look well. So it’s very difficult to find that fine balance of keeping people informed and vigilant without alarming people and having it impact their day-to-day lives.
Tom Clark:
Let me ask you because you among others have brought up the point that we don’t have a real national program to help, to stop the radicalization of young people who might want to go over to Syria and Iraq and join ISIS, but do we have any evidence that that sort of program actually works because you know, the de-radicalization programs are in effect in Australia, and yet, they had a beheading on the street there. And it’s been in effect in Britain and they’ve head problems. Is it really that big an issue for us here that we don’t have that?
Michael Zekulin:
Well, I mean the fact that we have yet to reveal our national counter radicalization strategy separates us from most of our peers. The question about whether or not they’re effective, it’s very difficult to measure this, and to put in some perspective for you, I would sort of offer you a glass is half full or glass is half empty sort of analysis.
Look, we are aware that in Britain, for example, there are some 500-600 individuals they believe have gone abroad. They have had a counter national radicalization strategy for several years. So the glass half full would be the fact that yes, there are 500 or 600 but it might have been a whole bunch more if we hadn’t done this. At the same time, looking at it from the other perspective, the reality could be that it has been very ineffective as you still have 500 to 600 individuals who have gone.
Tom Clark:
Yeah, I want to go back to just briefly, something else you were talking about, and that is the resources that we need to track, to keep an eye on the people, not only who might go over there but who are there and coming back. And when you said at the beginning of this interview that what we really have to fear are the small attacks, not the big ones, will we ever have, is there enough money in Canada to resource properly to protect us from all of that?
Michael Zekulin:
Well again, that’s an unknown and a very difficult question to answer. Again, the reality is, the resources that are available as with anything in sort of government, you’re going to have to make difficult choices if you’re talking about trying to observe and surveil upwards of 60 or 80 individuals 24/7. Who are they coming into contact with? What does that mean? Do you have to spin off and follow them? It becomes very, very expensive, very, very quickly. And from that perspective, it’s going to require some effort and some resources if we’re going to do this seriously.
Tom Clark:
Michael Zekulin of the University of Calgary thanks very much for joining this conversation. I appreciate your time.
Michael Zekulin:
My pleasure.
Tom Clark:
Well, still to come, when the news becomes advertising and we aren’t talking about selling out; a coming change to Canada’s copyright laws that benefits politicians and politicians only.
But first, a scathing report from Canada’s environment commissioner and why she says there’s little we can do to reach our targets.
Break
Tom Clark:
Welcome back to The West Block. Well five years ago, Canada pledged that we would reduce our greenhouse gas emissions by 17 per cent of what they were in 2005 and that we would do all of this by the year 2020. Well, Canada’s environment commissioner says, we’re not even close.
Her first report says, “The government is not working with the provinces to reach its targets”. It says, “The plan to monitor the oilsands beyond 2015 is still very unclear”.
And finally, those oil and gas regulations for greenhouse gas emissions that we’ve been waiting for, well apparently, those proposals have been around for more than a year.
And joining me now is Canada’s environment commissioner, Julie Gelfand. Commissioner thanks very much for being here.
You said last week, when you brought out your report that a lot of what you saw shocked you. What was the most shocking thing you came across?
Julie Gelfand:
My biggest preoccupation about the various subjects that we audited this year was the issue around meeting our greenhouse gas emission reduction target. So Canada, the Canadian government made a commitment that we were going to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions by 17 per cent from the 2005 levels and with our own data, it doesn’t look like we’re going to make it. By the year 2020, we’ll be almost back to where we were in 2005, according to Environment Canada’s data.
Tom Clark:
Okay well let’s stick with that for a second. Is there anything that we can do now to achieve that goal of 17 per cent below the 2005 emissions or is it a lost cause?
Julie Gelfand:
I am a hopeful person and I never want to say never. So, I believe there still is, there is always an opportunity to do something to achieve the objectives. Right now, the data doesn’t look like it’s going to get us there. The sector by sector approach of regulating each sector of the economy, if we continue down that path, I’m concerned that we won’t meet it just because of the time lag of how long it takes to develop regulations. Then once you regulate something, you usually give industry a year or two or three to catch up and we only have six years left. So, based on the current approach, I’m concerned that we won’t meet the target. But if we change the approach, it’s possible. It’s always possible and I’m always hopeful.
Tom Clark:
But presumably the cost increases the longer you wait because then you’ve got to take severe corrective reaction as opposed to building up to it, right?
Julie Gelfand:
That’s possible. We didn’t look into that issue. What we looked at was whether the government’s approach was going to get us there and our conclusion based on their data, is that we aren’t going to get there.
Tom Clark:
That you’re not going to get there. One thing you did find out as well was that the greenhouse gas regulations for the oil and gas sector, that’s the big elephant in the room. We haven’t seen them but you found out that they’ve been around for about a year.
Julie Gelfand:
Well there have been draft proposals. So draft bits of…it’s not like there is a full fleshed out regulation that we’ve seen. We’ve seen bits and pieces of regulations, proposals. And what we know, what we found in our audit, was that some of these proposals have been discussed but very narrowly and very privately. So only a few stakeholders have been involved. Environment Canada has said it wants to be a world class regulator. And if you want to be a world class regulator, you give people lots of time ahead of time that a regulation is coming down the path. You give them lots of information. You consult widely and broadly and then you regulate. And this has not been the case with these draft proposals.
Tom Clark:
Have you seen any of the draft proposals yourself? Do you have a sense of what these suggested regulations are?
Julie Gelfand:
So the office has seen these draft proposals, yes.
Tom Clark:
And are they sufficient if they were brought into force to help us get to that goal or no?
Julie Gelfand:
So they range in terms of the different…there are different options which could bring down greenhouse gas emissions by a variety of different levels at different numbers. So it would depend of course, given that these are proposals, it would depend on which one was chosen. But yeah, things would happen if the government decided to regulate. When they regulate it, things will decrease – greenhouse gases.
Tom Clark:
Okay, but let’s be very clear about this, from what you’ve seen, at least in terms of those draft regulations, if they were imposed or you know done right away, would we arrive at our goal of 17 per cent less by 2020?
Julie Gelfand:
That’s highly unlikely. So it’s not…
Tom Clark:
So even with the regulations it wouldn’t….
Julie Gelfand:
Highly unlikely.
Tom Clark:
What does this tell you about what the government is doing then? I mean we agreed to this. We said as a country, 17 per cent below 2005 levels by 2020. You’re saying, even if we impose the regulations that they’re talking about, we’re not getting there. It seems to me that we’ve completely reneged on this deal.
Julie Gelfand:
Well, we looked at whether the federal government was working well with the provinces and territories to develop a national plan for how we’re going to get there. What we found is that this is not happening. Meeting our greenhouse gas reduction targets is the job of everybody. It’s your job. It’s my job. It’s industries’ job. It’s the provinces’ job. It’s our cities’ job and it’s the federal government’s job. Environment Canada is the lead. The federal government is the lead and we looked to see whether they were working with the provinces to develop a national plan to get there and we have not seen evidence of that.
Tom Clark:
Julie Gelfand, I wish you were here with better news but thank you very much for taking a look into this. I appreciate your time.
Julie Gelfand:
Thank you very much.
Tom Clark:
Well coming up next, attack ads, how a new law could mean that you’ll be seeing a lot more of them and why you should care. That’s right after the break.
Break
Tom Clark:
Well we’ve all seen them. They’re in fact sort of the signature of this government. Attack ads, the kind that take a clip from something said on the news and then play it to the party’s advantage.
Last May, Canada’s broadcasters threatened not to air any political ad using news material without the networks permission. The government’s response to that? They’re just going to change the law so they don’t need the permission.
Joining me now, Parliamentary Bureau Chief for the Ottawa Citizen, Mark Kennedy. So Mark, actually right now, you could be auditioning for an attack ad. They’re looking at you right now saying, well I’m going to see what Kennedy has to say and maybe I’ll use him in an attack ad and you’ve got nothing to say about that.
Mark Kennedy:
As frightening and as intimidating that might be, that could be the truth but it’s not going to hold me back. Okay, this is what I have to say about that. I’ve maintained for a while now that this government is trying to get re-elected on four pillars. They want to convince voters that they are solid on the economy, on foreign affairs, on law and order and fourthly, they want to convince Canadians that Justin Trudeau is a dimwit who they do not want to have in the prime minister’s chair. So what this suggests frankly, is they have some archival video material that they want to have out there. Between now and next fall 2015 they’ll have a lot of money to spend. They’ll want to have political advertisements out there so I suspect their concern is, if they were to do that, and if they were to try and put it on air, your network, and others would say, uh ah, that’s not fair. It’s not good balanced journalism, which is what we always strive to do, so we won’t do it. Now with this law, such as it is, as we’re hearing, was ever to put into Parliament and to get through, you couldn’t do that. It would be the law of the land.
Tom Clark:
And to clarify it for everybody, what you’re talking about is a thing called fair dealing. That’s the legal expression for it where you can use news materials, you know selectively and from time to time, which is what political parties have done, but there are hoops to jump through and we can stop them and we can launch an injunction. Under this law, it’s we get to keep it all. And the interesting thing about this Mark is that it’s not Canadians who have the right to this material, not a lobby group, not a special interest group, not a union, but only politicians.
Mark Kennedy:
Yeah, so I mean I think the question it will raise will be, as we head into the next campaign season, will Canadians care? Should they care? There are journalists in this town who go out of their way to be fair and impartial. And if a politician on either side says something silly and dumb, they try and explain that in their piece or in their story. They try and put context in it. You can be sure that that dumb clip would only be in the ad in its five second entirety and not in the full context. So that’s where we’re going potentially and that’s what Canadians ought to be asking themselves.
Tom Clark:
And I get the sense too that maybe the Conservatives aren’t all that upset that they’re picking a fight with the media because they raise a lot of money off guys like you and me.
Mark Kennedy:
Yeah, which is unfortunate and I’ve always said you know I’m not the enemy of the Conservative party. We’re here to do a fair and balanced piece on all parties and just let’s keep that in mind.
Tom Clark:
Listen, something else that happened last week that flew under the radar a little bit, and that was the report of the environment commissioner who said that no how, no way are we getting to our obligation, our commitment to lower greenhouse gases by 2020 to a certain level. She said she’s seen the numbers. There’s no plan. We’re not going to get there. Is this going to have a significant impact?
Mark Kennedy:
Well it could. I mean you’ll recall with the Tories first took power they condemned the Liberal government at the time for making false promises. Promises they couldn’t keep and hadn’t kept in terms of greenhouse gas emissions. And while they will have been in power for almost a decade, and according to this independent person, we’re nowhere near getting close to it. Not only that, regulations that have been in the works have not been tabled and the question is why? The question is, does the oil and gas sector in this country have the ear of Stephen Harper and if so, why? Now it could hurt him. I don’t know but it’s an issue that people ought to be thinking about.
Tom Clark:
Mark Kennedy thanks very much. Well that is our show. Have a great Thanksgiving. We’ll see you back here next Sunday.
Comments