The West Block Transcript: Season 5 Episode 37

THE WEST BLOCK
Episode 37, Season 5
Sunday, June 5, 2016

Host: Tom Clark

Guests: Jim Munson, Colin Robertson, Jean-Pierre Kingsley, Jeffrey Simpson

Location: Ottawa

Tom Clark: On this Sunday, China’s foreign minister lashes out at a Canadian journalist for asking about human rights. Well, we’ve got a few more questions.

The Liberals backed down. The Opposition parties will have more clout on electoral reform. But former chief electoral officer Jean-Pierre Kingsley points out that as things stand, a referendum would not be legal.

And, we reflect on an epic career covering Canadian politics. Globe and Mail columnist, Jeffrey Simpson, joins me before he retires at the end of this month.

It is Sunday, June the 5th. And from the Nation’s capital, I’m Tom Clark. And you are in The West Block.

***

Tom Clark: Well, in Ottawa last week, China’s foreign minister lashed out at a Canadian journalist for having the temerity to ask about human rights in China. And it happened right in front of Canada’s Foreign Minister Stéphane Dion who remained silent throughout. Take a listen to what happened:

Tom Clark: Well joining me now is senator and former journalist Jim Munson and former diplomat Colin Robertson. Welcome to you both. You know what’s ironic about this in some sense is this whole thing comes on the 27th anniversary of the slaughter in Tiananmen Square. You were there Jim, I was there. The Chinese then didn’t apologize, haven’t apologized since, and it seems to me that they’re not about to apologize now for what they’ve said in Canada. What’s your take on that it Jim?

Jim Munson: Tom, look Tiananmen never happened as far as the Chinese government is concerned, as far as this foreign minister is concerned. Talk about timing with Mr. Wang Yi in what he said earlier this week. It was very upsetting. He couldn’t have picked a worse time, and particularly for me because I’m quite emotional about this issue, having seen children and adults killed in Tiananmen. There was a massacre in Tiananmen. And to say this is on our territory and to say this about a journalist, my goodness, it hit home again to me what is wrong in China. And it hasn’t gotten any better, I think, in terms of censorship. In terms of an iron-fisted rule of government, it’s gotten even worse.

Tom Clark: Well I can back you up on what happened in Tiananmen Square, both you and I were there. But Colin, from a diplomatic point of view, does this even enter into a sphere of a diplomatic faux pas or is this just something that we have to put up with when it comes to China?

Colin Robertson: Oh, I think a faux pas. Because it’s going to make it more difficult for the government which is anxious to have some kind of a free trade arrangement with China and we do want to sell more to China to be able to frame this in a way that we don’t look as a supplicant. That’s one of the challenges is that we don’t want to look like we’re trying to give up more. And so that’s why the Chinese, from their perspective, this was what I call in baseball terms, an unforced error. This was unnecessary because they too want to have a good relationship with the new Trudeau government. They’ve made a big deal about Mr. Trudeau and they’ve linked it back to when his father was there with Zhou Enlai. They would like to have this go along seamlessly, so this was unforced error. But I do think that in terms of their attitude towards western media, this was entirely reflective, not just of foreign minister, but at the same time that he was in town we had vice-chair from the (inaudible) in and he said similar kinds of things about the media and irresponsible reporting and highly prejudiced.

Tom Clark: And that was behind closed doors that you heard that.

Jim Munson: And aren’t diplomats supposed to use diplomatic language? I mean I’ve been inside the room with a prime minister when these kinds of things go on in human rights in China with prime ministers and with the president and the prime minister of China. I thought he would at least use diplomatic language. You know he could have come into town, left. Nobody knew he was here and yes, laid the groundwork for an economic free trade agreement. But that did not happen.

Colin Robertson: That’s why I say, Jimmy, unforced because the question wasn’t even to him, so unnecessary to do so. And now they’ll have to deal with damage control. But I’m not sure that they care. There are a number of things that take place that they feel they’re getting a bad press from the western media both on human rights and on cyber. I think there’s certainly much more on cyber which they have to be accountable for that we have to hold them accountable.

Tom Clark: I just want to jump in here for a second just to bolster your credentials. Of course Colin, you served time in China in Hong Kong representing Canada.

Colin Robertson: Yes, I was there through Tiananmen Square in Hong Kong and people coming out.

Tom Clark: Listen, part of the story now becomes how did the Canadian government react to this? I mean here we had somebody who, in my analogy, walked into our living room and defecated on our carpet. And we saw that Stéphane Dion, the Canadian foreign minister, stood their stone-faced, didn’t reply, didn’t say anything at all. But I want you to take a listen. On Friday, Stéphane Dion had a conference call and somebody asked him about this incident. And just listen for a second as to what he said:

Stéphane Dion: “I consider Madam Connolly as a professional with a thick skin and she does not need me to go to her rescue.”

Tom Clark: Need me to go to her rescue. It seems to me that he completely missed the point. This was not about defending a journalist. Surely this is a question of defending some basic values. He was a guest in this country and yet the government has remained almost mum on it. Is that acceptable, Jim?

Jim Munson: Not acceptable. I thought that Mr. Dion from the get-go could have stepped into that at a moment, maybe used some humour at that time and just talked about this is Canada, Mr. Foreign Minister. I’ll answer the question for you. We’ll have lots of time to talk about these things. And foreign ministers do have a responsibility to protect the press. Very briefly, after Tiananmen, I was thrown in the Forbidden City jail covering the anniversary of Tiananmen and still living in Beijing. Well there was a former minister, Barbara McDougall who worked in the Mulroney government, who was given a call to get me out of that jail. I mean Canadians are Canadians are Canadians. This happened on our soil. I mean we can be outraged and upset, but I think that Mr. Dion could have used humour, better language to get out of that situation.

Tom Clark: Colin, let me turn this around a little bit, do we have the capacity when you look at the power imbalance between Canada and China. Do we actually have the power or the capacity to say no to China?

Colin Robertson: Well to say no to what?

Tom Clark: Well say no in the sense of if the Chinese say this is what I’m going to do. I’m going to come in, I’m going to say these things, I’m going to demand that I meet with your prime minister and you’re going to step up to the plate on trade deals. Do we have to take it in other words?

Colin Robertson: I think that we want a positive relationship with China. It will serve our long-term interest for us to have a much improved relationship than what we had. I think the prime minister gets that entirely, so he is reaching to the Chinese leadership that as Senator Munson says that it was a missed opportunity by our foreign minister at that point. But with that done, he moved forward. I think the prime minister has responded and said look we stand up for journalistic freedom. This is an opportunity for him but it does make it harder for the government now to move forward because you’ve seen the Opposition criticism that where the Conservative Party’s coming from in particular and with the relationship with China which was always a bit schizophrenic. But this was an opportunity to stand up on both consular immunity of Canadians, Mr. Garratt, as well as human rights and journalist freedoms. So I think that’s something that you’ve seen echoed now by Mr. Trudeau and Mr. Dion in their subsequent comments. And certainly the first public speech that we make over there would probably have to touch on all those three themes for this very reason because you do not want to look like you’re going in to deal with the Chinese on the back foot or from a period of weakness.

Tom Clark: In the minute we’ve got left, that’s a really interesting point. Do we, when Justin Trudeau goes to China in the fall, does he have to say something on Chinese soil that addresses this whole question of a free press?

Jim Munson: He better do that. He must do that. Mr. Trudeau has an opportunity to be straightforward and talk directly to the Chinese people. We’ve had that about 10 years ago when Mitchell Sharp, our former foreign minister, went to speak at a university in Shanghai to students. Under a previous regime, it’s not that long ago, they didn’t seem to be that fearful of Canada’s voice. You know it’s not a big voice in China but it’s an important voice in China. So absolutely, Mr. Trudeau has to speak in a strong language. What are the Chinese leaderships scared of? Because I mean everything that is said in China is censored anyway, but at least it would give our country a good feeling that our prime minister can speak out, not just for journalists, but for free speech.

Colin Robertson: And consistent with how other prime ministers have done so and foreign leaders. So yes, I think Mr. Trudeau will have to and will do so.

Tom Clark: I want to thank you both for this insight from two people who really know China extremely well. Collin Robertson and Senator Munson, thank you very much for being here. I appreciate it.

Coming up next, former chief electoral officer, Jean-Pierre Kinsley on why a referendum on electoral reform can’t happen legally.

Justin Trudeau: “We heard the Opposition’s concerns that we were perhaps behaving in a way that resembling more the previous government than the kind of approach and tone that we promised throughout the electoral campaign.”

Tom Clark: Welcome back. Well that was the prime minister last week making major concessions on their plan for electoral reform. They gave up their majority on a committee that will recommend changes to how Canadians vote in future elections. So, how will this change the process? How soon can it happen and what about that referendum that the Conservatives so desperately want?

Well joining me now is somebody who knows Canada’s electoral system perhaps better than anybody else, the former chief electoral officer of Canada Jean-Pierre Kingsley. Mr. Kingsley good to have you back on the show.

Jean-Pierre Kingsley: Always a pleasure, sir.

Tom Clark: Let me start with this, do we need electoral reform?

Jean-Pierre Kingsley: Well, it all depends on how you feel about the present system. A goodly number of Canadians have said 39.5 per cent of the votes gives you 54 per cent of the seats. And when it’s your party that gets that, you say OK well I can live with that. Just like before it was 39.6 that got the Conservatives a majority government. But a lot of people are starting to feel this is not jelling. There’s something happening that is not OK.

Tom Clark: What do you think?

Jean-Pierre Kingsley: Well we’ve obviously, through the advancement of time, have come to favour what I would call governability. That is to say we wind up with a majority government which makes life easier for the governing party, even though it’s a minority that votes for them. But the representation of people, which is supposed to be the other adjunct to a representative democracy, the representation is not there. We’re only 39.5—

Tom Clark: And that’s a problem from what you think?

Jean-Pierre Kingsley: A representative to democracy is based on compromises. When Parliament functions, it functions on compromises. What are the compromises that we’re willing to accept? Are we willing to accept that 39.5 or 40 per cent gets you 60? Is this the way we want to see things happen in the future? We’re at the cusp. We have the opportunity to really reflect upon this and say as Canadians is this way we want to see ourselves go forward?

Tom Clark: I don’t want to get too deep into the weeds on the various options out there, but as we know, there is a ranked ballot system option. There’s a proportional representation option. Have you got a preferred option yourself? What do you think would be best?

Jean-Pierre Kingsley: Frankly, I’m waiting to hear what Canadians have to say. I think that Canadians have to be educated, have to take the time to be educated, what are the different systems and what will they get us? And at the same time, to come back to my original thought, what are the compromises that I’m making by accepting this system versus that other system? Now, the ranked system has its merits.

Tom Clark: And I should just point out quickly to everybody that that means you make a first choice, a second choice, and a third choice. Or—

Jean-Pierre Kingsley: You make as many choices are there are candidates on the ballot.

Tom Clark: As there are candidates—

Jean-Pierre Kingsley: If it’s seven candidates, you list them from one to seven.

Tom Clark: One to seven.

Jean-Pierre Kingsley: And you knock off the lowest one until someone at the top—

Tom Clark: Somebody gets over 50 per cent.

Tom Clark: And that’s basically the system whereby you take the entire national vote that a party gets and you portion some seats on the basis of that. As you say, there are many different versions of it. But that’s essentially it.

Jean-Pierre Kingsley: Yeah. And as you say, let’s not get into the weeds.

Tom Clark: Yeah.

Jean-Pierre Kingsley: But in terms of my preference, I made a suggestion and the suggestion really takes into account the fact that Canada is a country with 150 years of democratic experience. We can come out with something that fits Canada itself. The other example is I will hate the moment we spend talking about Israel, talking about Venezuela and all the other countries that have done different things, Brazil. And I’ll want to focus what is it that we think really sticks to our skin? What is it that really fits us? And the suggestion was let’s see what we can do to preserve what’s rural and urban: first-past-the-post. And let’s see what we can do for the urban whereby we could aggregate them in three, four, or five seats. Present seats and make them one riding where people are electing three, four, or five candidates to be MPs. It’s a variation on a theme. I’m not going to risk my reputation on this. But the point is it’s an idea. It’s based on certain values that are out there. And maybe other people have excellent ideas that are not reflected in what we’ve seen so far.

Tom Clark: I’ve only got a few seconds left, but whatever the new system is, and you understand the mechanics of our electoral system better than anybody else. Is it possible to have anyone of those operations—options rather, operational in time for the next election in 2019?

Jean-Pierre Kingsley: Well, my successor, a very fine man, Marc Mayrand, has said give me 24 months, if it includes redistribution and I’ll deliver. And I’ll stick with my successor on that. Now if there’s no need for redistribution—

Tom Clark: But they need two years to do this.

Jean-Pierre Kingsley: Twenty-four months, two years.

Tom Clark: So having a referendum thrown in on top of all of that would probably not meet that schedule.

Jean-Pierre Kingsley: Well you know the referendum idea is something that some people favour. Apparently the public, the polls say that a lot of people favour. But on the other hand, legislation will have to be significantly changed. And the number one consideration, you can only hold a federal referendum in Canada on a constitutional matter. And changing the electoral system is not a constitutional matter.

Tom Clark: Hmm, that hasn’t been on the table before. Jean-Pierre Kingsley, it’s why it’s always great talking to you. I’m sorry we’re out of time. But we’ll talk to you again as this rolls along.

Jean-Pierre Kingsley: More than happy to.

Tom Clark: Thank you.

Jean-Pierre Kingsley: Thank you.

Tom Clark: Well coming up next, he’s had a front row seat to Canadian history for more than 30 years. Well speak with Globe and Mail columnist, Jeffrey Simpson, next.

Tom Clark: Welcome back. Well it would be hard to find a Canadian political observer who hasn’t read at some point the words of Globe and Mail columnist, Jeffrey Simpson. With four columns a week for most of his career, he is one of Ottawa’s most prolific and influential columnists. And he retires at the end of this month.

Jeffrey Simpson: I never did.

Jeffrey Simpson: But that doesn’t mean I have an original idea.

Tom Clark: How do you do it though, a lot of people would say was there really that much to talk about in Canadian politics?

Jeffrey Simpson: Listen, when I was offered the job, I phoned the great George Bain who was the inventor of the Globe and Mail column way back when. And I asked him for advice. He was living in Mahone Bay. He gave me a lot of advice. And then at the end he said “look, you’ve just been given two tickets on the front row to the best show in town. There’s always something interesting happening in our country or in the world.” He also gave me another piece of advice; he says anybody with marginal talent, that might include you, can write something when things are happening. But when you really earn your money is when not much is happening. But that’s not very often that things aren’t happening.

Tom Clark: Has politics changed or is it simply the political players and their personalities that have changed?

Jeffrey Simpson: The media has changed more than politics. The way in which we relate, the way in which we report, the pressure’s on us, the 24-hour news cycle, social media. When I came into this business, we had typewriters. Remember those things? They’re in the museum over there, I think, right? I don’t Twitter or tweet. I don’t know what that world is all about. It’s like the stars in the sky to me. I can’t identify them and they’re far away. But when I sent a little note to my colleagues saying that I was leaving on June 30, thinking I wanted to go very quietly. Within an hour, I’m getting these e-mails from people in Nanaimo, from friends in Montreal. I said how they hell do they know? I only told 12 people. Well it’s because one or two people put the tweet news out.

Tom Clark: And that impacts politics and our relationship with them.

Jeffrey Simpson: Minute by minute, hour by hour.

Tom Clark: And not for the better necessarily.

Jeffrey Simpson: Definitely not for the better in many respects. We used to have one deadline a day, right? Two maybe for the late edition; now, it’s endless.

Tom Clark: Let me ask you something because I know that one of your mantras throughout your career was don’t take it personally or don’t get personally involved.

Jeffrey Simpson: Never use the word ‘I’, that’s a badge of honour. I’ve written 7,000 plus columns and I’ve never used that word and I never will in the last three weeks.

Tom Clark: And I’ve noticed this say over the past decade or so, politics has become deeply personal and in the sense that columnists and journalists are dragged into it.

Jeffrey Simpson: No, no, no, no, no, no, no politicians have always talked about themselves. It’s the media that’s now talking about themselves.

Tom Clark: Well that too, but also what I’ve noticed is that there has been an increased level of volume of partisans up on the Hill, mainly Conservative partisans ascribing sort of secret roles to journalists as being nothing but mouthpieces for this party or that, but in a way that I didn’t notice that 20 years ago.

Jeffrey Simpson: Oh you know Tom, with great respect and you and I are old friends. When I came here, which was in the late 70s, for decades before that, the press gallery over there had lined up Liberals on one side, Conservatives on the other because the newspapers for which they wrote, and this was in the pre-television era, had been aligned with those political parties. And the senior correspondents for those newspapers were intimately involved in talking on a daily basis with the people in that party, way more than today.

Tom Clark: OK, but let me take it down to you because you’ve been accused at various times of being a mouthpiece for the Liberal Party.

Jeffrey Simpson: Everything. A card carrying Conservative. An out and out New Democrat. I don’t think anybody’s ever said I was a Marxist or a Social Credit, but there’s three weeks left.

Tom Clark: You’ve written books on everything from power to patronage to pollution and a lot more. I believe 13 books in total.

Tom Clark: Seven, seven, OK it only seems like 13.

Jeffrey Simpson: Yeah, I have unsold copies in the mall.

Tom Clark: What is the greatest unreported or underreported issue in Canada today?

Jeffrey Simpson: I don’t think it’s underreported. But I think it’s the most important issue and that’s the Aboriginal question, which quite frankly, despite all of the attention being given to it, I think we’re still struggling to get a handle on how we go forward. The ideas that are being advanced as to how we go forward strike me as being flawed, but I don’t have any genius ideas. The one thing I’ll say is this. The most important story of my lifetime in journalism was whether the country would stay together. That consumed us for three decades and I was writing about it and in different iterations all throughout that piece. We also had the question of western alienation, which gave birth to the Reform Party and the west wants in, etc. This country has come through both of those existential questions and is now quite comfortable in its own skin and quite sure that we’re going to go forward and be successful.

Tom Clark: Very quickly, is politics better today than it was when you started in terms of being effective and responsive or is it about the same?

Jeffrey Simpson: Well for all the weaknesses, and I’ve written books and I’ve made my living pointing out the weaknesses, right? But as I end, I have to say I think we’ve managed to get through a lot of major problems and we’ve adopted social policies that made some sense. And we have reasonable tax burdens. You can adjust all of these things. But if you put them all together, diversity and centralization, tax burden, social policy, education systems, health-care systems, they ain’t doing too bad.

Tom Clark: Jeff Simpson awfully good talking to you and I hope we’re not going to be without your voice as the year’s progress.

Jeffrey Simpson: Well many of my critics would hope it’s gone forever.

Jeffrey Simpson: Thanks.

Tom Clark: Well that is our show for today. We’re always eager to hear from you. And also if you want to send a note to Jeffrey Simpson, here’s one way you can do it: Online at http://www.thewestblock.ca or on Twitter and Facebook.

Well thanks very much for joining us today. I’m Tom Clark. Have a great week ahead. And we’ll see you next Sunday.