Watch: The full broadcast of The West Block with Tom Clark aired March 1.
Guest Interviews: Wayne Easter, Daniel Lang, Jerry Dias, Peter Coleman, Mark Kennedy, Jennifer Ditchburn
Location: Ottawa
On this Sunday, the Anti-Terror bill heads into hearings but only for nine days and where is the legislation to deal with radicalization? We check in with both the House and the Senate.
Then, third party political attack ads, they’re coming but should there be limits on how much can spent before an election campaign?
Plus, we’ll unpack the politics of the week with our journalists Mark Kennedy and Jennifer Ditchburn.
It is Sunday, March the 1st and from the nation’s capital, I’m Tom Clark. And you are in The West Block.
Bill C-51, the government’s proposed new Anti-Terror bill, it continues to be at the centre of heated controversy. Why? Well here it is, your weekly West Block Primer:
The government says that the terrorist threat is so dire that it needs more powers, things like allowing CSIS to break the law to disrupt terrorists, holding suspicious people in detention for up to seven days and stopping potential criminals from getting on airplanes. It thinks this is such a no-brainer that it’s forcing Parliament to pass it in mere days. Critics on the other hand are raising a red flag. They say the bill is so badly written that it could apply to protesting against pipelines without a permit, staging a wildcat strike, looking at the wrong things on the internet, among many more. Those critics include former Supreme Court judges and former prime ministers.
Joining me now from Charlottetown, P.E.I. is Wayne Easter, the Public Safety critic for the Liberal party and himself a former Solicitor General. Mr. Easter thanks for being here. The committee has decided that there is now going to be nine days of hearing witnesses about Bill C-51, is that enough to write good legislation?
Wayne Easter:
Well I don’t think it’s enough in terms of the demand for people that want to be heard. As you know, the NDP had a motion asking for 25 hearings and we had a motion on the books saying it should be equivalent to the hearings in 2001, which were 19 hearings and 80 witnesses. So no, the government is, for whatever reason, limiting the witnesses to come forward.
Tom Clark:
Okay, if it’s not long enough then to ensure a good bill comes out of the process, why are you going to vote for it?
Wayne Easter:
Well quite simply, there is no question, I’ve been in government. I’ve seen terrorist threats in my past as a minister and I don’t think there’s any question today that the terrorist threat to Canada is indeed higher. You’re seeing it in the social media and you’re seeing it the general media those that want to basically do harm to Canadians. And so we have said, national security is paramount. We know that because we’ve been there and you can actually fix bad legislation. The police authorities and others are telling us they need lower thresholds in terms of preventive arrest. We’re willing to give them that for a limited period of time and we’re asking the government to allow amendments to improve the legislation so you balance that against civil liberties. If they don’t…
Tom Clark:
But if you get none of that, you’re going to vote for it anyway. But let’s go right to the heart of this bill and maybe you can clear some things up. I mean first of all, we’re talking about the increased terrorist threat but in reality in Canada, more people are killed by moose than they are killed by terrorists. But nevertheless, what is it… what is the central part of this bill that is so essential that does not already exist in Canadian law?
Wayne Easter:
Well lowering the threshold for preventive arrest is a key point. The no-fly lists is also a key point in the bill and there are some other authorities in terms of giving prosecutors a greater ability of which to prosecute, those that may be involved in the promotion of terrorism or leaving the country to be involved with terrorist entities abroad. So there are some additional authorities in the bill.
Tom Clark:
But in fairness Mr. Easter, that already exists. I mean there are Canadian laws that prevent that but more specifically though because you’re supporting this legislation, can you give us an example of a… whether it’s the six teenagers in Quebec who went to Syria allegedly or the shooting here on Parliament Hill, would this new legislation have stopped or prevented any of that?
Wayne Easter:
You can’t determine whether it would have or not. The fact of the matter is, you have to do the best possible job to keep Canadians safe in Canada and that’s what we’re willing to do. But in terms of those additional powers, what we’re asking the government to do is what we did in 2001. We put sunset clauses in which would mean the laws would cease to exist after a certain period of time. We asked for a mandatory statutory review which we did previously in the 2001 legislation which looks at the good and the bad and the ugly, and changes what is necessary based on experience. And what we’ve been saying for a long time, in fact we introduced it in 2004, is parliamentary oversight of all the national security agencies, not just CSIS, as is done in our 5-Eye partners: Australia, New Zealand, the United States and United Kingdom.
Tom Clark:
Okay Mr. Easter we’re out of time. Thanks very much for your time, I appreciate it.
Well in addition to criticisms that Bill C-51 is being rushed through the House, there are also concerns that this bill does not address homegrown radicalization. That is an issue however, presently being studied by the Senate Security and Defence committee, and joining me now is the Chairman of that committee, Conservative Senator Daniel Lang. Senator awfully good to have you here.
Daniel Lang:
Good morning.
Tom Clark:
Let me ask you about the process of this because you’ve been in hearings on radicalization since last October. You’re hoping to produce a report by June of this year and then, give it to the House of Commons for half a year for them to decide if they want to make some comment on it and then back to the Senate. It doesn’t seem that you’re in a big hurry to get this done. I mean, we’re talking about a year and a half.
Daniel Lang:
First of all, I have to say this that we cannot underestimate the seriousness of the threat that Canada faces and for that matter, the western world faces. Every day we wake up, there’s a new revelation. Some place…
Tom Clark:
So why are you taking so long on this?
Daniel Lang:
Well I think first of all, it’s not as a simple issue to deal with. There are many aspects to the questions facing Canadians and the question of terrorism and where it actually happens and the radicalization of those young people, generally young people in respect to how they are radicalized and where. And it takes time having hearings. We meet once a week and we have the opportunity of hearing from Canadians across the country. One of the most important findings that we have found out so far is the fact that the radicalization does not just take place on the internet, which seems to be somewhat promoted by some media that this is where it occurs. It has been overwhelming brought before our committee that the radicalization begins from human interaction; person to person or organization.
Tom Clark:
And you’re right, there’s a lot of evidence to that effect out there but let me ask you this though because you did say this is a pressing problem and we are moving very quickly on Bill C-51, which is a pretty wide sweeping piece of legislation. But if we’re moving so quickly on C-51, why aren’t we moving just as quickly on the question of homegrown radicalization which presents perhaps a greater immediate threat to Canadians than what’s happening in Iraq.
Daniel Lang:
Well I would suggest to you that in a general sense we are moving relatively rapidly in respect to homegrown radicalization when you take a look at our law enforcement agencies, in some cases across Canada there are community meetings being held. There are discussions being held in respect to the various…
Tom Clark:
But Senator, I’m sorry to interrupt but to get to the point of your committee though, aren’t you trying to establish sort of a national response to radicalization? We don’t have that yet.
Daniel Lang:
No, but at the same time, and excuse me, we only have so much in respect to our committee to be able to deal with the various issues being presented to us. There are many facets to it. It’s just not one. If it was just a one-off, it would be very easy to report back to the Senate. That’s not the case, you have a situation like I talked about where we have overwhelmingly brought forward through our public hearings the fact that radicalization takes place around a kitchen table person to person or with an organization. It doesn’t begin on the internet necessarily. It may in one or two incidences but generally this is where it occurs. Along with that, along with that, and this is where the public conversation has to come and that’s the question of the religious indoctrination.
Tom Clark:
Okay I’m going to have to stop you there only because we’re out of time but we’re going to be keeping a close eye on this because I think a lot of people are looking forward to the report from your committee. Senator Lang thank you very much for being here, I appreciate your time.
Daniel Lang:
Thank you.
Tom Clark:
Coming up, third party attack ads, they’ve been effective in the past. Should there be more restrictions or would that limit free speech? A debate coming up next.
Break
Tom Clark:
Last year, organized labour in this country spent millions of dollars trying to influence the outcome of the Ontario election. Here’s just a little bit of what they did. Take a look:
“Their one million jobs plan called a clumsy attempt to manipulate voters with numbers based on voodoo math.”
Tom Clark:
Some political observers said that those commercials in fact had a significant effect on the outcome of the Ontario election. Joining me to talk about what’s going to happen on the federal scene, I’m joined by Jerry Dias. He is the President of Unifor, the largest private sector union in Canada. And joining me from Toronto is Peter Coleman, the President and CEO of the National Citizens Coalition, a Conservative activist group. Welcome to you both.
Mr. Dias, let me start with you, how much is Unifor and the labour coalition willing to spend to bring down Stephen Harper in this election?
Jerry Dias:
Well we haven’t even had a good discussion about numbers. Are we going to participate, the answer is yes but the numbers that are being thrown around is completely outrageous. It’s quite comical actually.
Tom Clark:
You know how much you spent in Ontario during the Ontario election, how much did you spend?
Jerry Dias:
We spent hundreds of thousands.
Tom Clark:
Not millions?
Jerry Dias:
No.
Tom Clark:
Hundreds of thousands?
Jerry Dias:
Yes.
Tom Clark:
So at least that much here.
Peter Coleman, let me ask you is the National Citizens Coalition going to be spending any money to affect the outcome of the election campaign in October?
Peter Coleman:
Yeah, we’ll be spending money, but the issue is you’re only allowed to spend about $180,000 at a federal level and about $4,000 a riding. You really don’t have the ability to have much impact when the political parties spend $30 plus million each so that’s why when we fought this case at the Supreme Court of Canada in 2004, we said there shouldn’t be spending limits on parties, on third-parties because…
Tom Clark:
Yeah, sorry, let me just divide that up so everybody understands this because there are two periods. There is a period after the writ is dropped when the election is called where the spending limits are very different and then there’s the pre-election period, now where it’s pretty free and open. I presumed Mr. Dias that your campaign is going to start before the writ is dropped, would that be right?
Jerry Dias:
That’s fair.
Tom Clark:
And there are no restrictions at that point.
Jerry Dias:
No, but the arguments that someone in the labour movement’s going to spend $40 – $50 million, that’s just sheer nonsense. I mean ultimately are we going to participate? The answer is yes. It’ll be limited to what our members frankly would expect us to.
Tom Clark:
Peter let me go back to you because you brought up the case and actually it’s interesting because at that time, the National Citizens Coalition was headed up by one Stephen Harper who says that restrictions on third party advertising was unconstitutional because it infringed on the freedom of speech. But, are you planning to spend money in the unrestricted time zone before a writ is dropped for an election?
Peter Coleman:
No, Tom, we’ll be spending our money during the writ period because that’s we think is most effective when the election campaign’s on because to be honest, most people don’t pay attention to public campaigns until within a couple of weeks of the vote being had, so I think a lot of the times money spent before is wasted money. So we think it will be more effective in the writ period.
Tom Clark:
What about restrictions? Should there before restrictions before the writ is dropped? Should there be restrictions throughout the entire year on how much third party organizations such as yours can spend?
Jerry Dias:
Well I think there has to be restrictions. Take a look at the United States. Money should not determine the politics. Hillary Clinton they’re expecting is going to spend about $14 billion to seek the presidency. That is absolutely ridiculous. But here’s what my biggest concern is, is the fact that the Conservative government today is using taxpayer money for their ads. They spent $14.8 million on the Canadian Economic Action Plan – free advertising, taxpayers’ expense. They just spent $2.5 million on a job grant commercial when there is no job grant. So if you want to talk about where we need some restrictions, it has to be about the government of the day using taxpayers’ money shamelessly promoting themselves. That’s a problem.
Tom Clark:
Peter, what about that?
Peter Coleman:
I think the issue there is all parties when they’re in power spend money for their own benefit sometimes that people may see as partisan issues but I think it’s disingenuous to think that unions they spend millions of dollars in Ontario to get Kathleen Wynne re-elected and it wasn’t just Unifor, it was the whole Working Families coalition thing. So there’s no question the pre-writ money and some of the writ money from the unions is having effect at the provincial level. There’s no doubt about that at all.
Jerry Dias:
We are speaking out for working class people and they expect a voice. Reality is, corporations, business community, Canadian Federation of Independent Business, all of these groups spend significant amount of monies getting their message out, and this really is about democracy. We want more democracy. One of the good things about the last provincial election is that voter’s turnout was four per cent higher. So this really is about engaging people and talking about the issues and it’s certainly encouraging people to get out to vote. So it really is about democracy.
Tom Clark:
Does that make sense to you Peter?
Peter Coleman:
You know, I think that’s a fair comment. We’ve argued there shouldn’t be any spending limits but it’s pretty tough for people to compete with unions with their big pockets of dues money, at a provincial election level anyway. And we understand… I think the reality, Tom, is people only want spending limits when their party’s in power because they don’t want other parties going at them taking runs at them. So it’s a bit hypocritical on both sides whether you’re a Liberal or Conservative to say that they want limits. They want limits when it benefits them. They don’t want limits when it doesn’t. But we say there should be no limits at all. The whole issue as far as union money being spent, it just doesn’t impact at the provincial level, that’s a different conversation for another day but they do have impact at the provincial level for sure.
Jerry Dias:
Well I’m proud that the people believe that the unions played a major role in the last provincial election. Facts are Tim Hudak lost the election because of Tim Hudak. He promised to create a million jobs by first starting to eliminate a hundred thousand jobs. People saw his platform as foolish. That’s why he lost. Everybody is pointing at the elephant in the room but nobody’s looking at the straight facts of what happened.
Peter Coleman:
Jerry, you’re right there, Tim Hudak ran a dreadful campaign, deserved to lose but there’s no question, some of the money that third party spent to get him out helped. Tim Hudak greased their wheels by himself with his terrible campaign, you’re a 100 per cent right there, but some of the union money helped the Liberal party; there is no doubt about that. And that’s the way that things work. I mean you’re spending your money, betting your money on who you want to win as a union leader.
Tom Clark:
Okay, amazing agreement between the two sides at least on the question of restrictions. Jerry Dias of Unifor and Peter Coleman of the National Citizens Coalition, I appreciate you starting this conversation, one that we’ll continue for the weeks and months ahead. Thanks very much.
Jerry Dias:
Looking forward to it, thank you.
Peter Coleman:
Thanks.
Tom Clark:
Well coming up next, could Stephen Harper drop the writ early to limit the damage by these third party campaigns? We’ll unpack the politics of that and more right after this.
Break
Tom Clark:
Welcome back. Well let’s unpack the politics of the last few days. I’m joined by Jennifer Ditchburn of The Canadian Press and by Mark Kennedy, the Parliamentary Bureau Chief for the Ottawa Citizen. Welcome to you both.
Okay so, one of our colleagues last week, I guess got bored. It was cold in Ottawa and he decided to have some fun and floated this idea that we were going to have a snap election. That didn’t happen. But what I am hearing is that there may be the writ dropped early. In other words, the official calling of the campaign, for one major reason and that is, we were just talking to the President of Unifor. They know that organized labour has got a war chest to hit Stephen Harper. Once you drop the writ, even though it’s months before the election, the rules change and all of a sudden, they can’t advertise or produce attack ads. Any of that make sense to you?
Jennifer Ditchburn:
Well they can advertise but there’s a limit which ironically the Prime Minister fought against when he was the head of the National Citizens Coalition. He didn’t want any limit on third party advertising.
Tom Clark:
But now he does, just to… for the record.
Jennifer Ditchburn:
Oh, now he does, but what the writ also does is put a limit on your own advertising. So whenever I hear rumours about an early spring election, I always think well how come we haven’t seen a flood of Conservative advertising. They also have a huge war chest and they can spend most of it before the election is called. So if you do that early election that you were suggesting, dropping the writ early, you’re also tying the hands of the Conservatives to flood the airwaves with attack ads against Justin Trudeau and so on.
Tom Clark:
And just let me make it clear, when I talk about dropping the writ early, what I’ve been hearing from Conservatives is that the election is still October 19th but it’s just that the campaign period would be a whole lot longer.
Mark Kennedy:
I have no doubts that Stephen Harper and the Conservative party have real fears about what Unifor and the union movement could do to their chances of being re-elected, and they need a majority, let’s not forget that. The Tories, more than any other party in this campaign, needs to come back with a majority. I think they saw the Ontario election and I think they saw Kathleen Wynne come back. I mean she was written off by many. That party, many thought, should have been condemned to the dustbin of history. She won and the Conservatives think she won with the help of the union movement.
Tom Clark:
And collectively, organized labour in the Ontario campaign spent around anywhere from $5 to $10 million, so it ain’t nothing.
Mark Kennedy:
Yeah, so we’re already seeing fundraising pitches from the Conservative party in which they condemn the media elites in Ottawa but also the union elites. So they will be very, very hardline in going after the unions and that could be part of their strategy.
Jennifer Ditchburn:
And the Alberta unions were already gearing up to do… the teachers unions and so on, to do their own advertising around that election. Also Friends of Canadian Broadcasting have a very controversial ad right now attacking cuts to the national broadcaster, another type of third party advertising that’s going on now. So I think it’s just a new reality. It’s sort of American style campaigning that we’re seeing more and more of in this country.
Tom Clark:
That you can reign in if you drop the writ early. Okay, so we’ve started our own rumour today, hopefully our colleague will have to chase that one. Let me talk a little bit about going into the campaign, whenever that campaign officially begins, and it’s the politics of Bill C-51, the anti-terror legislation. Some people might say this, look, the Conservatives are planning to use terror or fear of terror as a major plank in their campaign but by ramping it up so fast now, in the month of February, how can they sustain that through until October? Is that a fundamental weakness do you think, Jen?
Jennifer Ditchburn:
I do… I mean it also depends on… all campaigns depend on what happens in life, right? What the circumstances are, if there’s some sort of major news event happens, it could have a positive or negative effect for the Conservatives. For example, God forbid but another attack here. But I also think we’re in a different paradigm than we were after 9-11 when people saw certain liberties constrained. There have been all the spying NSA stories out of the United States and a huge backlash there. And perhaps there’s more sense, I would say, probably much more sensitivity now than there was after 9-11 to the government’s encroaching on your privacy and on your civil liberties. So the longer that the debate goes on, I think the more that people will start to think about some of those issues.
Mark Kennedy:
As we all know, there’s been a battle in the House of Commons, just last week, over what kind of debate and how long it should last. That’s all because the parties are trying to manage and control public opinion. The Conservatives know they’re on a roll because Canadians haven’t had much time, if not any time, to study a very complex bill. The opposition parties are convinced that the more time you give this, in terms of analysis by people we should all trust, former Supreme Court Justices, support for the bill will diminish. And so that’s what’s going on. It’s a battle for public opinion. So can the Tories sustain that for the next few months, who knows? That’s a reason why when that rumour floated around Ottawa last week about a potential fast election call, in my own mind, I asked myself, is it true? Are they really going to try to get this under the gun even before potentially a budget that may never come in this Parliament?
Tom Clark:
… Because they want to capitalize on the popularity right now of the anti-terror bill. Well, coming full circle, of course if the writ is dropped or if there is an early election campaign, they haven’t peaked too early at all. They’re there. So anyway, we’ve started now how many rumours today? It’s good work. Anyway, Jen Ditchburn of the Canadian Press, Mark Kennedy of the Ottawa Citizen thanks very much for being here, I appreciate it as always.
Jennifer Ditchburn:
Thank you.
Mark Kennedy:
Thank you.
Tom Clark:
Well the MPs will be back in their ridings this week. Please send them back in one piece. That’s our show. We’ll see you next week on The West Block.
Comments