West Block Transcript: Season 6 Episode 3

THE WEST BLOCK
Episode 3, Season 6
Sunday, September 25, 2016

Host: Tom Clark

Guest Interviews: John Zogby, Pamela Goldsmith-Jones, Peter Kent
Plane Talk: Charlie Angus

Location: Ottawa

Tom Clark: On this Sunday, the battle lines are drawn. Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton prepare to faceoff in the first presidential debate tomorrow night. One of America’s top opinion pollsters is here on what’s at stake in the race for the White House.

Then, Canada is getting cozier with China but is it worth the risks? Two MPs tackle that question.

And NDP MP Charlie Angus joins us for some Plane Talk about his ambitions for the leadership of his party.

It is Sunday, September 25th and from the nation’s capital, I’m Tom Clark. And you are in The West Block.

Tom Clark: Well the race for the U.S. presidency is getting very tight. The next big test for both candidates is the presidential debate tomorrow night.

The most recent poll averages show a lead for Hillary Clinton of about 2 per cent nationally. Some show it much closer than that, but the trend is not in her favour. Tomorrow night’s debate will be watched by tens of millions around the world and the key question could Donald Trump actually win?

Well joining me now is John Zogby. He’s the founder of the Zogby Poll. He is one of America’s preeminent pollsters. Mr. Zogby, thanks for being here today.

John Zogby: Thank you, Tom.

Tom Clark: You know, I can’t think of a political debate on either side of the border that has so much riding on it. Now this is the first of three tomorrow, but could this debate, tomorrow, make or break the candidacy of either Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton?

John Zogby: Well of course it can. It’s a very close race and you have essentially two candidates where solid majorities of Americans don’t like them or trust them. And so for starters, any big mistake by either candidate could actually prove to be fatal. But so can a few little mistakes or even a wrong expression on your face. Al Gore in 2000, the frontrunner got exasperated with George W. Bush. And that revealed, to many pundits and to the American people some arrogance they thought, and it hurt Al Gore.

Tom Clark: I guess this brings up the question though of who the candidates are trying to reach tomorrow night. There is an interesting study out of the University of Michigan late last week that suggested that the number of floating voters in America is at an all-time low of about 5 per cent. So is that the target market that both candidates are going after?

John Zogby: Well for starters, I’ll go after the premise and say there are a lot more floating votes than just the 5 per cent. But the concept is right, it’s the undecided voters. And undecided means something very different this year. Americans are watching this. They’re very engaged. They’re talking about it everywhere and they’re telling us, look I will end up voting for the lesser of two evils. I just haven’t made up my mind which one of those candidates is the lesser of two evils. And so essentially, that candidate that can allay fears the best, that candidate that on Hillary Clinton’s side can reveal a side to her that’s kind of likeable. Maybe I’d like to have a beer with this lady at some point, or a Donald Trump who can modulate himself and his tone and his rhetoric and show that he belongs in the Oval Office. But these are both pretty tall orders to fill.

Tom Clark: Okay, give me a bit of a guide for tomorrow night. Let’s take a look at both candidates. What is the one bit of kryptonite that could hurt Hillary Clinton? What’s the kryptonite that could hurt Donald Trump?

John Zogby: Well I think in Hillary’s Clinton’s phase it’s probably being too smart by half. Maybe doing an Al Gore and getting exasperated with Donald Trump. Or going after Donald Trump in such a way that it brings out the defensiveness in Trump and then it gets dirty and she gets blamed for it. And Donald Trump’s, very interesting, we’ve seen him break all the rules and it actually works for him. But one of the things he’s going to have to remember is even though there are 10 reasons to love or hate Hillary Clinton before you even get to woman. He’s debating a woman and he’s got to be very, very careful that he doesn’t go too far.

Tom Clark: You know, a lot of people look at the popular vote, the one that you say has been tightening. But as we know, it really comes down to the Electoral College vote. It comes to reaching the 270 Electoral College votes that gives you the presidency. So I guess the key question is from what you’ve been able to see on the trends on the eve of the debate, is there a path to 270 electoral votes for Donald Trump?

John Zogby: There is. I mean right now, it’s about 283 for Clinton. Those are the states where she’s leading and 242 for Trump, the states where he’s leading. That means one big state, or two medium size states, or three small states, all of which are very close tipping one way or another. So there is a path. And you know, two weeks ago, I would say not a likely task. But as we speak right now, momentum is actually in his favour and so yeah, there is a path for him.

Tom Clark: So if you had to choose one state at this point to keep an eye on, which state would that be?

John Zogby: Pennsylvania. Yeah, I correctly picked Florida in 2000. It was Ohio in 2004, Virginia, 2008. It’s all about Pennsylvania this year. Good chance that Trump wins Ohio and Florida that beefs up his column, get him close to the presidency. But if he wins in a state like Pennsylvania, 20 electoral votes, a lot of white working class voters, then good chance that he’s in a good position in places like Michigan as well.

Tom Clark: I note with some interest that you started your polling career with the first Clinton. That’s back in 1992. Bill Clinton was running for the White House. In terms of the debate tomorrow night, what do you think we will all be talking about on Tuesday morning? What does your gut tell you?

John Zogby: Boy that’s a very, very good question. You know the media’s going to like to pick up on the stakes. They’re going to like to pick up on the hard tête-à-tête where they really got engaged with each other. But I think on Tuesday you’re probably going to hear that Hillary Clinton was very, very smart and very well prepared. You’re also going to hear that Donald Trump probably stayed on script and like he was when he was standing next to the president of Mexico a few weeks ago, tried to look presidential and stayed on message. And so probably advantage no one.

Tom Clark: And in the end, it’s all about expectations and either meeting it or missing it.

John Zogby: Right and the expectations are far lower for Donald Trump, just as they were for George W. Bush in 2000 against Al Gore. If he’s standing at the end of those two hours, he wins.

Tom Clark: John Zogby of the Zogby Poll, great talking to you. Thanks very much for your time today.

John Zogby: Thank you very much. Have a good day.

Tom Clark: And still to come, some Plane Talk with an MP who dropped out of high school to join a band. But first, how much should Canada give up for a strong relationship with China? That’s next.

Tom Clark: Welcome back. Well in Canada-China relations, it’s always the same old dilemma: Human rights on the one hand, money on the other. Last week, the Liberal government revealed that it is negotiating an extradition treaty with China. That came at approximately the same time that a Canadian was released from a Chinese prison and China extended a deal for Canadian canola. Hardly a coincidence and it’s something that has enraged human rights advocates across the country.

Well joining me now here in Ottawa is Pamela Goldsmith-Jones. She’s the parliamentary secretary to the minister of foreign affairs, and from Toronto, foreign affairs critic for the Conservative Party, Peter Kent. Welcome to you both.

Pamela Goldsmith-Jones: Thank you.

Peter Kent: Thanks, Tom.

Tom Clark: Let me start with you. The U.S., Britain, New Zealand, all have refused to sign extradition treaties with China because of their dreadful human rights record. Australia passed an extradition treaty but has not ratified it since 2007 so why should we do it?

Pamela Goldsmith-Jones: Just to go back a bit. Human rights, is of course central to Canadian foreign policy and so as is engagement. To be clear, what we have done is enter into a framework called National Security and Rule of Law. It’s a way to have conversations about counter-terrorism, about security, about rule of law, about consular affairs which is also very important.

Tom Clark: Wait a second. Are you saying we’re not negotiating an extradition treaty with China?

Pamela Goldsmith-Jones: Within the rule-of-law conversation, we have had one discussion about extradition. It’s a far cry from saying this is a negotiation around extradition but we are absolutely committed to being able to have conversations with China on a range of things as you mentioned at the beginning.

Tom Clark: I want to go to Mr. Kent, but just before I do, I just want to make this absolutely clear because your leader seemed to suggest that there were discussions going on. You said it’s only been mentioned once that—

Pamela Goldsmith-Jones: There are discussions, but that’s the word—

Tom Clark: So there are negotiations underway on an extradition treaty?

Pamela Goldsmith-Jones: Very early days of a discussion together with other issues such as counter-terrorism, security and whole range of things that come under national security and rule of law.

Tom Clark: Okay, I still don’t quite understand why we’re doing that when other countries are saying no. But I want to go to Mr. Kent on this. Mr. Kent, you have been critical of even starting the conversation with China on extradition. Why?

Peter Kent: Well we have a whole range of questions. First, we want to know what prompted the sudden flip flop between August when the immigration minister said Canada would never consider an extradition treaty with China. And then we learned that during the prime minister’s visit to China, this high level dialogue was discussed and agreed to but never announced during the visit. We learned of it through Bob Fife’s digging on the prime minister’s website, very deep into the website where there are two announcements that discuss the high level dialogue and at the top of the list of topics to be discussed and considered and negotiated is an extradition treaty, a transfer of offenders treaty and a discussion on cyber security and cyber-crime.

Tom Clark: So let me just jump in here, Peter. Let’s go with Ms. Jones. Why are you being so timid about talking about this? I mean it was buried. It wasn’t transparent. The prime minister didn’t announce it when he went to China. Are you afraid of this?

Pamela Goldsmith-Jones: No, in fact, we’re very proud of our government’s approach to foreign policy which has everything to do with engagement. That’s how we have difficult conversations. The previous government’s policy of retreat and isolationism did not allow to have difficult conversations with countries with whom we may not agree. And so we feel we’re opening up conversations on the range of things I discussed, and certainly, opening up conversations and opportunities with regard to prosperity for people in Canada and people in China.

Tom Clark: Right because the two are connected: Human rights on one hand and money on the other hand. I get that. That’s always been the case with China relations. But at the same time, if you were saying our system says we oppose torture, we oppose incarceration without charge, we oppose the death penalty. Well you know China practices all of those things. That would seem to be a deal stopper right then and there. Why even continue the conversation?

Peter Kent: Exactly.

Pamela Goldsmith-Jones: Well, this is Canada so within that conversation we stress continually the very high standard Canada has. Clemency has an interesting pursuit. For instance, in our case, we insist on absolutely no death penalty, period.

Tom Clark: Well then that’s the end of the conversation isn’t it because China’s not going to cave because you say that?

Pamela Goldsmith-Jones: And yet the former government was selective about that.

Tom Clark: Yeah but China’s not going to get rid of the death penalty because Canada says do it. You know that. I know that. Why are we talking?

Pamela Goldsmith-Jones: One of our key reasons for developing our relationship with China is so that we may pursue a higher standard, that’s clear. That’s part of Canada’s role in the world and it’s why we feel engagement is so important.

Tom Clark: Mr. Kent, let me come back to you on this and let’s just take a look at the other side of the coin. Look, we did get an extension of the canola deal worth billions of dollars to canola farmers in western Canada. Cattlemen in Alberta, in particular, are happy about the fact that there’s millions of dollars on the table now because China has extended the beef deal. Some might say look, if you stand on your principles, you’re going to go broke.

Peter Kent: And SNC-Lavalin has advanced the sale of Canadian nuclear technology to China to help them with some of their environmental issues. There’s no question, we in the official opposition believe in dialogue. There was dialogue with our previous government. I personally remember fondly dialogue on development and the environment and trade with Premier Li and with other Chinese ministers. We never went down the road of pandering to Chinese demands for an extradition treaty or playing them, which is possibly what the Liberal government is doing now, pretending to go through the motions to negotiate these issues. When it comes to the cyber security talks, this is like welcoming the fox into the henhouse given the number of times that Canadian government departments have been penetrated by hacks and various cyber intrusions, invasions from China.

Tom Clark: Mr. Kent, just let me interject for a second because your government, as all governments, had a record of dealing with dreadful governments.

Peter Kent: Yes.

Tom Clark: You dealt with Saudi Arabia which is on the same level if not more of a champion of abusing human rights than China is. So the idea of dealing with dreadful people is nothing new, but I guess I’m trying to get to where is the line?

Peter Kent: I never said—

Pamela Goldsmith-Jones: I would say that their previous government—

Tom Clark: Just sec. Very quickly, Mr. Kent.

Tom Clark: Okay, I’ve got to give the last word to Pam. Go ahead.

Pamela Goldsmith-Jones: I would say that the foreign policy towards China of the previous government was capricious. It was on and off. It was hot and cold. We’re trying to be consistent. We’re engaged. Human rights, is central to that engagement. And just to talk for a moment about what’s been achieved.

Tom Clark: Just one second, that’s what we’ve got.

Pamela Goldsmith-Jones: Canadian manufacturers have access to 400 million middle-class Chinese consumers.

Tom Clark: Okay, Pamela Goldsmith-Jones here in Ottawa and Peter Kent in Toronto. We’ve just started the conversation but a good one. Thank you both very much for being here, I appreciate it.

Well coming up next, will Charlie Angus run for the NDP’s top job? Well that’s coming up on Plane Talk right after this.

Tom Clark: We’re back. Charlie Angus, the Member of Parliament for Timmins James Bay, a vast northern riding in Ontario. And he’s one of the more colourful members of the NDP caucus. His name is being mentioned a lot as the next leader of that party. So will he? Won’t he? What does he say at 3,000 feet in some Plane Talk? Take a listen:

Charlie Angus, welcome to Plane Talk. Good to have you here.

Charlie Angus: Hey, this is a great way to travel. Could you pick me up on Sunday? I’ve got a six-hour drive. I’d much rather come this way.

Tom Clark: But you’re from northern Ontario, you must be used to this.

Charlie Angus: I’ve gotten over my fear of flying in little planes if you’re going to serve some of the communities I serve, definitely.

Tom Clark: What got you involved in politics? What was it about this profession that attracted you?

Charlie Angus: Well to tell you the truth, not a lot about the profession ever attracted me. I never thought of myself as a politician. I know it sounds crazy and dramatic, but I was standing on a blockade with farmers and First Nation people in northern Ontario on the Adams Mine Dump Road because it was a project that I think could have enormous environmental risk, and that the people should have been there to protect the interests of the environment, of due process of the region failed us. I decided that I would go and try and be a voice on issues that mattered to people in my region.

Tom Clark: Before you got interested in politics, you had another passion and that was music.

Charlie Angus: Yeah, I left school when I was 17 with Andrew Cash. We went on the road for a number of years with the band, L’Étranger and then I formed another band, the Grievous Angels which is more of a country folk band. As you get older, you can’t really play punk rock. Well that’s my feeling, it’s you don’t cut it as well. So, I loved the Angels. And again, it’s storytelling, it’s travelling. I love seeing Canada.

Tom Clark: Of all the songs that you have ever played, what’s your favourite?

Charlie Angus: My favourite song is actually a very obscure Scottish song by Ewan MacColl, he wrote Dirty Old Town. He wrote a song called The Shoals of Herring and there’s something about it. It’s about a Scottish fisherman and to me it’s—

Tom Clark: Can you give me a bar or two of it?

Tom Clark: And what speaks to you about that song?

Charlie Angus: There’s something about capturing the stories of the fishermen, about working people and somehow it ties us to a bigger story. And I’ve never been quite able to explain that thing that music does but music speaks to a truth in all of us. And I always find politicians talk, sometimes words are devalued but music, a really true song, you know it in your heart, it’s true.

Tom Clark: But the NDP right now is going through a process of finding a new leader and therefore a new direction. Your name comes up over and over again. Are you going to run for the leadership of the party?

Charlie Angus: Well, we have a very, very, very long leadership race and I don’t think you’re going to see anybody stepping forward probably till December, January so there’s going to be a lot of time for those decisions.

Tom Clark: Have you thought about it though?

Charlie Angus: Well, people are calling me a lot, yeah. It’s a heck of a job to take on but I really want to make sure that we get focused this September so I’m going to stay on as caucus chair for now and then do that. But this is going to be a big undertaking the rebuilding of the party and getting out and talking to our base. They’ve been looking for us. They’re saying where are you guys? Come on, it’s time to get back to work. So it’s going to be a big undertaking. So, stay tuned. It’s going to be an interesting race.

Tom Clark: But if nominated, you would serve?

Tom Clark: That’s a question.

Charlie Angus: That’s the question. I haven’t got that far.

Tom Clark: Alright. But let me ask you about politics in general because you say you got in as an activist and you still consider yourself to be one. What is the single most redeeming factor about politics because this is a really tough life for politicians? It’s long hours. It’s time spent away from home. What’s that one single thing that makes it worthwhile?

Charlie Angus: There’s a lot of the work that you do in Ottawa that is important, the committee work, being in the House of Commons. But for me, it’s making those phone calls to help somebody who is being denied the most basic needs.

Tom Clark: I don’t want to bring up the leadership again, but that’s Herrington Lake and you can see the prime minister’s summer residence in that green lawn. So anybody who becomes the leader of a party and then wins an election gets to hang out there. I just want to bring that up to your attention again.

Charlie Angus: Well, if I become prime minister, I’m going to invite everybody I know from northern Ontario and we’re going to have a bash there and it’ll be something—where’s the cops? It’s going to go on all weekend if I become prime minister, I’ll tell you. But I haven’t decided to run yet, but I’m glad to know there’s a nice cottage down there. I’ve got some friends up north with pretty nice cottages but we’ll have to do a comparison.

Charlie Angus: Thanks man. So like, how the hell do I get out of this thing?

Tom Clark: Well, we’ll fly over the Parliament buildings. I’ll just open the door and—

Charlie Angus: Okay and you just—Okay, perfect. Okay.

Tom Clark: Just a quick drop off.

Charlie Angus: Because I’m late for a committee meeting, so I think just over there will be cool.

Charlie Angus: Okay, Uber of the air, yeah.

Tom Clark: Well that’s our show for today. Thanks very much for being with us. We like to hear what you have to say about what you see on the show, what you’d like to see on the show. Here’s a few ways to get in touch with us. We look forward to reading your comments. That’s it for this week. I’m Tom Clark. Have a great week ahead and we’ll see you back here next Sunday.

-30-