Transcript: Episode 30 April 7, 2013

THE WEST BLOCK
Episode 31, Season 2
Sunday, April 7, 2013

Host: Tom Clark
Guests: Justin Trudeau, Susan Delacourt, Tasha Kheiriddin, Colin Robertson
Location: Ottawa

Tom Clark:
Welcome to The West Block from the nation’s capital, on this Sunday, April the 7th.I’m Tom Clark.

Coming up on today’s show, Liberals gathered in Toronto this weekend for a final look at the leadership candidates and all eyes are on Justin Trudeau. A feature interview with the man who would be leader, but can he survive two years of scrutiny and attacks before the next election? Our panellists weight in.

And finally, a madman has his finger on the nuclear button in North Korea. Is it time for Canada to finally join the Ballistic Missile Defence Alliance?

But first, it seems that it’s all over except for the shouting. In one week from today, Justin Trudeau will likely be the next Liberal leader. And if the polls are to be believed, Canadians are ready to accept him as a viable alternative to Stephen Harper and Tom Mulcair. A few days ago I sat down with Trudeau in his Montreal office to talk about his past and his future.

Justin Trudeau Interview:
Tom Clark:
Justin Trudeau thanks very much for being here. Good to see you.

Justin Trudeau:
Pleasure to be here. Welcome to my office.

Tom Clark:
You’ve fought two really tough election campaigns here in Papineau. You’ve sat in the House of Commons for five years now, what would be the greatest accomplishments in the House in those five years, for you?

Justin Trudeau:
Basically the learning that I’ve managed to do, for me it’s really been about learning how to be a good constituency MP and be a strong voice for my riding in Ottawa at a time where individual MPs aren’t really given a lot of opportunities to speak out and represent their riding. It’s not something that is strong and therefore being more anchored in my riding, being very close to the community organizations, paying attention to that which has given me a lens through which to engage with the entire country as I have travelled to help colleagues in various campaigns and fundraisers over the course of the past five years. It has given me a framework within which to relearn the details of this country that I’ve been learning all my life.

Tom Clark:
Deal with the criticism if you could both from outside and inside your party that you lack substance. How do you react to that?

Justin Trudeau:
I don’t particularly worry about it. You know I’m not going to go around reciting Pi to the 19th decibel or you know wave my grades, or test scores to people. I’m going to simply do what it is that I have to do. And what I have to do is be a good representative for my community and a good contributor to the party and mostly someone who is serving the country with everything that I have. And every step of the way I will do what is necessary in service of my country. And in a leadership race that means yes, taking very strong positions on a number of big policy issues whether it’s foreign trade, whether it’s democratic reform, whether its micro issues like the legalization of marijuana. I’ve been very clear on all of those but my reticence to follow the same path that drove us into loss which is a Liberal party that was too top down, was dictating to Canadians what everything was going to be and hoping Canadians would come back to us instead of engaging with them and working with them, means that I’m not going to put out a fully detailed, costed platform two years before the next election cycle before having had a chance properly build that platform with Canadians. But on policies, I’ve taken a lot of very strong policies, as many as any of my other colleagues.

Tom Clark:
You’ve made the middle class central to your campaign. You talk about it all the time. Can you tell me one thing that you would do for the middle class that would change their circumstance dramatically?

Justin Trudeau:
Sure, understand that…no sorry, the thing I would do concretely? Set a target of 70 percent attainment of post-secondary education. What that means is right now we’re at 50 percent and we need to make sure that not just through university but through skills training, through trade schools, through apprenticeships we are preparing people to be able to actually contribute to society once they graduate from school but also, change jobs.

Tom Clark:
You’re running for the leadership of this party and it’s got some iconic leaders of its past. When you look back at the pantheon of Liberal leaders, whose style, do you admire the most?

Justin Trudeau:
Laurier.

Tom Clark:
I thought you might have said somebody else.

Justin Trudeau:
Well you know what, obviously I have a tremendous amount of admiration and love and I’m drawn heavily from my father but that’s much more on a personal level rather than on a political level. I was thirteen when he retired from politics. I didn’t study his every action in politics. And for me, Wilfred Laurier with his approach towards a federalism that understood the importance of the regions and understood the different voices; understood the compromises involved in politics, and understood most importantly that compromise is not a sign of weakness but a sign of strength. A sign of being able to pull things together and create solutions that are based around our common interests, not our differing articulations of policy of programs; that approach to this country is something that I believe in deeply and that’s why I like to call myself someone who is deeply inspired by Laurier.

Tom Clark:
I just want to end with a series of questions that we’ve asked all the Liberal leadership candidates and it’s a rapid fire round if you want.

Justin Trudeau:
Okay.

Tom Clark:
One piece of legislation that you would overturn on day one as prime minister of Canada?

Justin Trudeau:
Navigable waters; I’m a canoeist and that for me…I’m sure there’s a lot of things that I’d like to overturn but the attack on such an important defining element of our shared identity on this land, for me that’s one that would be fairly easy to overturn.

Tom Clark:
Carbon tax, cap and trade or neither?

Justin Trudeau:
I don’t know. I know we need a price on carbon. I know if we had a price on carbon we would not be having the kind of pushback on Keystone that we have right now. But we have gotten so polarized in the debate around those issues that the mechanisms around which we do that, I think we need to go back to the drawing board and hear from some very smart people and figure it out.

Tom Clark:
Should British Columbia be compensated for having a pipeline run through its territory?

Justin Trudeau:
I think the question is moot because the Northern Gateway pipeline will never run through its territory.

Tom Clark:
It’ll never be built.

Justin Trudeau:
No, not the Northern Gateway. No, it doesn’t have the social capital. It doesn’t have approval of the First Nations peoples. It’s not scientifically sound. It goes through one of the most vulnerable ecosystems in the world. No, it’s not going to happen.

Tom Clark:
Justin Trudeau awfully good seeing you again thanks very much for being here.

Justin Trudeau:
Pleasure to see you Tom.

Tom Clark:
Thanks.

Well coming up next, is Trudeau 2.0 the real deal or a passing fad? Our panelists weigh in. Stay tuned.

Break

Tom Clark:
Welcome back. April 6th, 1968, a certain Pierre Elliot Trudeau won the Liberal leadership and set the stage for nearly two decades of Liberal power. Now, almost exactly 45 years later, another Trudeau is hoping to do the same. Yesterday, we went to Toronto for the final rally of the Liberal leadership race, and here’s just a brief sample of the sights and sounds.

Sights and sounds of Liberal Leadership

Justin Trudeau: “You see the biggest problem with Mr. Harper’s government is not that they’re mean spirited, it’s that they’re unambitious.”

Well joining me now, two astute observers of the Canadian political scene: Tasha Kheiriddin, a political columnist for the National Post and for iPolitics, and Susan Delacourt, senior political reporter for the Toronto Star and the author of an e-book about Justin Trudeau’s campaign. So Susan, let me start with you. I think we can say that Justin Trudeau is now launched on the national stage, but he got here without much of a fight. Is that going to hurt him? He hasn’t been tested.

Susan Delacourt:
I think it’s good that he got two years. What I can say is I went out with him last June or so and he didn’t do very well. In fact, I wrote that he wasn’t ready for prime time. His speeches were rambly and stuff but the difference between Justin of about a year ago and Justin now is interesting. And I think the difference between Justin of today and two years from now is probably going to be something that people should be thinking about.

Tom Clark:
Tasha, I asked this because Justin Trudeau is now going to be moving into a much tougher neighbourhood than he’s been in. He’s going to be going up against Stephen Harper and Tom Mulcair and they’re going to be really going after him. The fact that he hasn’t been through a bruising race, what do you think? What’s your advice?

Tasha Kheiriddin:
Well bruising races sometimes end up bruising you a bit too much. You think of Mitt Romney in the United States who had such a bruising nomination race and I think ultimately it hurt him when he went up against Barack Obama. And in Justin’s case, I would agree with Susan’s assessment, his improvement you can see even from the time he announced that he was going to be running, that speech, I felt, the one he gave in Montreal was very weak, especially compared to the one he gave today. So I think that…

Tom Clark:
What you said behind the scenes, you went, ‘wow that was actually pretty good.’

Tasha Kheiriddin:
I did. Actually I was impressed. If I was a Liberal in this room, I would be very energized. He gave what can only be called an inspirational speech and it didn’t come across as forced. It didn’t come across as insincere. He tried to conflate the Liberal party with its “Canadianness,” being the “natural governing party of Canada,” and he hit those buttons, and he hit them in a way that actually made sense. And I think that had he had a bruising race, yet perhaps he would have developed some more sparing points, but I don’t think that’s what he needs right now. He needs to bring the party together. That’s what the speech did.

Tom Clark:
Let’s go to one of the main points of criticism about him and no doubt one we’re going to hear from both the Conservatives and perhaps even from the NDP in that Justin Trudeau is policy light. That he is sort of an empty vessel floating along with not too many ideas, yet the polls would seem to indicate that Canadians don’t care about that. Is that your read?

Susan Delacourt:
Yeah, this was the most intriguing thing about his campaign and actually if you think about it though, somewhat more realistic. You don’t see a lot of policy in leadership campaigns when it comes right down to it. Stephen Harper was elected, yes, on policy but I think it was in this very room we watched him being elected, and it was for winability and his strategic sense. Justin Trudeau’s whole thing is values and reconnecting the Liberal party to the values of Canadians – where they think they’ve lost their way. And that’s why I agree with Tasha that today’s speech, it was for the family. It wasn’t to talk to Conservatives or future NDP voters. This is for the Liberal family that wanted to hear about their old values.

Tasha Kheiriddin:
And he hit the word values six times in this speech. It was the most used word of any word. He also talked about positivity, optimism and hard work. Clearly trying to promote a sunnier, happier vision of politics than he says either Mr. Harper or Mr. Mulcair will sell.

Tom Clark:
I’m taking it from what both of you were saying is that he is the real deal in terms of being a viable contender for high political office in this country. But let me ask you this, let’s now take a look at those two years that lie in front of him where he’s going to be taking incoming from both the right and the left. As we know, the main thing in politics is survival and managing expectations. He starts off with terrifically good poll numbers. Right now he’s even with Stephen Harper on the values questions. In the latest Ipsos poll, you know who do you trust, who do you think is most competent and so on, Trudeau wins over Harper on every single one except for the economy. How do you go into the next two years manage the expectations, keep those numbers solid, is it possible for him to do that?
Tasha Kheiriddin:
Well I think it’s possible depending on what the ballot question is going to be and you know he also has managed expectations on policy. And I think you pointed this out in the Toronto Star editorial board meeting, he said that they did not unveil policy deliberately because the easiest way to attack him is to say you have no policy and the easiest way to rebut that for him is say, here’s my policy. So I think over the next two years he won’t focus as much on policy until they get to closer to the election. He will consult with the party and do that whole “rassambleur” act. I think that will serve him better than coming up with positions two years out from an election.

Susan Delacourt:
I think there was an interesting poll this week which I wrote about, which dealt with whether people believe that Justin Trudeau is ready to govern. Forty-eight percent said yes. Fifty-two percent said no. The no is the interesting thing and the thing he’s got to worry about because if that view solidifies, as you say, and the Conservatives have been very good at making doubts about people stick. I think that would probably be after Justin Trudeau leaves the room next Sunday. I think that should be his first job is starting to work on the idea that he’s too young for office.

Tom Clark:
You know it was interesting I thought in the speech we kind of know what the attack lines are going to be against Justin Trudeau but I was interested to see what his attack lines are going to be against Stephen Harper in particular, and Thomas Mulcair. But about Stephen Harper, he said, “It’s not that he is mean-spirited, it is that he is unambitious.” And that’s an interesting line of attack. Basically he’s saying, hey look, I’m inspirational and he’s not. Is that enough?

Tasha Kheiriddin:
I don’t know if it’s enough. He’ll have to flesh out the bones of his platform at some point but the inspirational factor is a card that he is probably very well suited to play, if not the best suited to play of the three leaders. And Stephen Harper’s challenge is to rise to that and say inspiration is not enough. You know who would you trust with the future of your kids, the economic future of your family? Would you put it in the hands of someone as inexperienced as Justin Trudeau or would you put it in mine? The youth question that was tricky because we were talking about this earlier, that’s one of Justin Trudeau’s appealing qualities is that he is a new generation. So if the Tories attack him solely on that, I think they would lose.

Tom Clark:
It could backfire. Should Tom Mulcair be worried this week, Susan?

Susan Delacourt:
Yes, I think he should be. I’ve been telling people about this ever since I saw it. You can go to Google Trends and measure what people have been curious about. I encourage people, go put in Google Trends and search of the three leaders and you’ll find it measures how much people are interested in Tom Mulcair, how much interest people have in Justin Trudeau and there is, against Justin Trudeau, Tom Mulcair has a challenge getting through…punching through all this, whether you want to call it celebrity, whether you want to call it newness, a different generation, but it’s an interesting issue or an interesting dispute and going to get more interesting I think.

Tom Clark:
Susan Delacourt of the Toronto Star and of the e-book about Justin Trudeau’s campaign; you can get it on the Toronto Star site. Tasha Kheiriddin of the National Post and of iPolitics. Thanks both very much for being here, I appreciate your time.

Well coming up on The West Block, amid threats of a nuclear attack, Canada’s safety is getting a free ride. One former diplomat says it’s time we paid up.

Break
Tom Clark:
Welcome back. The world continues to watch in disbelief as a sociopathic madman with nuclear weapons threatens war, urging foreign embassies to evacuate by this Wednesday; a warming that so far most countries have ignored. Kim Jong-Un has mobilized his long range missiles while clearing his army to launch a nuclear attack on North America. Now while no one is absolutely convinced that he has the capability to carry out its threats, the United States has sent a land-based missile defence weapon to Guam. Now should North Korean missiles be launched, the American defence system would keep Canada safe, even though both Liberal and Conservative governments in the past have refused to endorse the protective umbrella.

And one of the people who is calling on Canada to join Ballistic Missile Defence is Colin Robertson, a former senior diplomat in Canada’s Foreign Service. Thanks very much for being here Colin.

Colin Robertson:
Good to be here Tom.

Tom Clark:
First of all, make the case why Canada should be involved? Why is that in our self-interest to be involved in ballistic missile defence?

Colin Robertson:
Governments have three general purposes: sound currency, keep law and order and our safety net at home, and external defence. This is external defence. We are potentially threatened now by recent developments in North Korea and Iran so that if they were to launch inter-ballistic missiles aimed at the United States, we can’t be sure that they wouldn’t land in Canada. And for that reason, we should protect Canadians.

Tom Clark:
When we talk about ballistic missile defence, are we talking about putting missiles on Canadian soil? What’s our involvement in that?

Colin Robertson:
That’s a good question. Less likely now they put interceptors in Canada although they could. More what they really want is to the use the technology that we already have, satellite technology, to track the missiles, particularly anything coming over the Poles; stuff coming across the Pacific, the Americans feel reasonably confident they can get from their various tracking stations: Hawaii, Guam, Alaska, California. But we could make a useful contribution from what we have in places like Goose Bay and across the country.

Tom Clark:
So this is like an extension of NORAD in a sense.

Colin Robertson:
This takes us back to the DEW Line. This takes us back to Canada’s geography and our critical placement as kind of the back door or the screen towards America which was the whole purpose behind our earlier involvement in things like the DEW Line, that led to the creation of NORAD, which protects North America, because you can’t be sure whether something aimed at the United States isn’t going to strike Canada. So our interest is in protecting Canadians.

Tom Clark:
In an article you wrote recently, you revealed that last year, Defence Minister
Peter MacKay and Foreign Minister John Baird went to Stephen Harper and laid out the case for Canada joining Ballistic Missile Defence. He turned it down. What do you know about that?

Colin Robertson:
My understanding is that the prime minister judged the timing wasn’t right.

Tom Clark:
Meaning?

Colin Robertson:
Meaning, the timing was not right to participate…

Tom Clark:
Politically.

Colin Robertson:
I would think politically, yes, at the time. My view is that the circumstances have changed and it is probably time to reconsider that decision. The rest of the alliance is part of missile defence. We, as members of NATO, support what the alliance is doing to provide ballistic missile defence within NATO in Europe but we have a kind of exemption, a cone, if you will, around Canada. Frankly we should be part of that. The Australians, the Koreans, the Japanese all see value in ballistic missile defence.

Tom Clark:
And the Europeans as well.

Colin Robertson:
Of course.

Tom Clark:
We’re sort of the outlier in this case by not being part of it. But when you take a look at the decision of two Canadian governments – Liberal and Conservatives. In 2005, Pierre Pettigrew, then the foreign minister, said no to ballistic missile defence – basically Paul Martin saying no. Now we have Stephen Harper saying no. So what is the Canadian political case for not joining in? Because Liberals and Conservatives have both now said no?

Colin Robertson:
The Canadian case is essentially that we’re protected anyways and that we don’t really need to participate because the Americans will include us in their umbrella as it is. But my view on that is do we want the Americans always providing our defence? A fundamental principle of Canadian security is collective security. We were the architects of NORAD. We went into NATO for that very reason; protection of the collective and it also gives us leverage. Why wouldn’t we be part of this particularly because conditions have changed and now our homeland is threatened? That’s the argument. The argument is this is in the Canadian interest.

Tom Clark:
In the minute or so that we’ve got left, I want to ask you what you’re hearing from the Americans on this because while we, as you correctly say, feel that we’re protected anyway, we’re just not going to join the automobile club because we’re going to get a tow if we break down. But what are the Americans telling you?

Colin Robertson:
The invitation is there. They are not, however, pushing us. They understand the Canadian position. They do not want to be George Bush, and if you go back to Eisenhower and others, Kennedy … Don’t push Canada because you create such a reaction in Canada that that becomes the issue. That is, it becomes a Canada versus the United States, and that’s not where they want this to be. They have what they need. It would be useful if Canada would joined, but they’re not going to put any pressure on us to join.

Tom Clark:
And very quickly in 10 seconds, when we turned it down in 2005, George W. Bush was in the White House. Was that the real reason why he said no to ballistic missile defence do you think? We didn’t want to be seen to be siding with George Bush?

Colin Robertson:
I think that the political calculation of that relationship with the United States, it’s the old Goldilocks’ rule, don’t get too close but don’t get too far away. It’s trying to find that fine balance that every prime minister has to try and find.

Tom Clark:
Colin Robertson thanks very much for being here today. Good discussion.

Colin Robertson:
Thank you Tom.

Tom Clark:
Well that is our show for this week. We finish with some late breaking news; the prime minister has just called the by-election in Labrador for May the 13th. Former Minister, Peter Penashue recently resigned under a cloud of controversy. He was accused of taking illegal donations during the 2011 election campaign.

Well thanks for tuning in. Don’t forget, you can find all of our extended interviews and transcripts on our website: http://www.thewestblock.ca. And don’t forget, this Tuesday commemorates the Battle of Vimy Ridge, 1917. Have a great week ahead. I’m Tom Clark. We’ll see you back here next Sunday.