THE WEST BLOCK
Episode 24, Season 6
Sunday, February 19, 2017
Host: Vassy Kapelos
Guest Interviews: Iqra Khalid, Scott Reid, John McKay, Garnett Genuis, Robert Fife
Location: Ottawa
On this Sunday, the politics of Islamophobia: A debate in the House of Commons has the government accusing the Opposition of being part of the problem. Opponents of the motion say it will limit free speech. We’ll hear from both sides.
Then, calls for NATO members, including Canada to increase defence spending or risk the U.S. pulling back on its support. Will Canada step up and pay its share?
Plus, President Donald Trump says he’ll be ‘tweaking’ the NAFTA deal with Canada. We’ll unpack the politics of tweaking trade between our two countries.
It’s Sunday, February 19th. I’m Vassy Kapelos, and this is The West Block.
Islamophobia: that word is causing a bit of angst for some parliamentarians as they debate a motion to condemn Islamophobia and all forms of systemic racism. The Opposition is asking for a definition of the term as part of the motion. The government says critics of the motion are stoking fears and are part of the problem.
Joining me now is Iqra Khalid, the author of Motion 103, and Scott Reid who has raised concerns about that motion.
Ms. Khalid let me start with you. There was a motion condemning Islamophobia that was raised and then voted in favour of back in October. How is your motion any different and why the need for it?
Iqra Khalid: Well my motion, M-103 is based on an e-petition which received about 70,000 signatures from Canadians at large calling on the government to act on issues like Islamophobia. So my motion is broader than the condemning of Islamophobia of October of last year. It calls on the government to begin a study on tackling all forms of systemic racism and religious discrimination, including Islamophobia here in Canada. So it calls on the government of this committee to start contextualizing hate crime data and to develop a whole of government approach as to how we can tackle issues like systemic racism and religious discrimination, including Islamophobia in Canada.
Vassy Kapelos: So it goes a step further than the one in October.
Iqra Khalid: It does.
Vassy Kapelos: And what are your concerns with Ms. Khalid’s motion?
Scott Reid: The concerns I have are the same ones that were expressed by a number of governments, including the Canadian and American governments for years over a parallel motion that was introduced by the Pakistani government and the United National Human Rights Council and that is that it focusses on the rights of religions as opposed to the rights of those who practice religions. And I think the important thing for us to do is to condemn any kind of discrimination, racism, certainly absolutely violence or incitement of violence against practitioners of any faith. That’s what we should be focusing on. Dealing with the protection of religions themselves leads to concerns about this expanding out so that we separate the protection of freedom of religion from the protection of freedom of speech when the two should actually be united.
Vassy Kapelos: But didn’t your party support that motion in October that did specify Islamophobia?
Scott Reid: That’s right.
Iqra Khalid: Unanimous consent.
Scott Reid: Well there were very few people in the House but I was there and the motion in October essentially was to accept the e-petition. So we can’t change the e-petition. It was not worded exactly the way I would have liked although it had some very good features in it. The e-petition dealt with pointing out that the vast majority of Muslims do not support terrorism and the obviously very legitimate frustration that Muslims have with some people treating them as if they count and then sort of tolerate, let alone support terrorism. So that was a good feature in it. What we did at the time was we sought out a second motion and it was adopted virtually at the same time, which dealt with discrimination and hatred against members of all religions. And that’s something that’s absent from this motion which has been included in the Conservative alternative motion which as you know is almost identical in other respects to this one.
Iqra Khalid: I think it’s something that’s very frustrating to all Canadians, and especially myself trying to highlight an issue that about a million Canadians face here in Canada is that when we as a private member can bring light on an issue such as Islamophobia but in the whole context of all systemic racism and religious discrimination, we try to highlight one issue. And a watered down version really takes away from the issue that Canadians are facing. You know it’s a reality, six Canadians died in a religious place of worship here in Canada. That is unprecedented and we need to understand that Islamophobia is real and is something that we have to tackle in a whole of government approach.
Vassy Kapelos: So why is it important though, to say Islamophobia and not just agree to for example, the amendment that Erin O’Toole proposed which was just to say hatred against Muslims?
Iqra Khalid: That’s not the amendment that Erin O’Toole proposed to me. Quite honestly, when we spoke on the phone, he asked me to remove all reference to the e-petition. I spoke to many members on the Conservative caucus trying to get them to support the Muslim community in this and all racial minorities here in Canada.
Vassy Kapelos: Are you then accusing them though because it is there is a motion of not supporting those communities?
Iqra Khalid: You know, it’s not just the fact that that they didn’t support the motion. It’s the fact that there was a “freedom rally” speaking out freedom of speech on this motion and it’s disappointing because these are members of parliament that understand parliamentary procedure. They understand that this is a motion, not legislation. This is merely calling on a study. This is trying to bring all Canadians to a platform so that we can talk about important issues like systemic racism and religious discrimination, including Islamophobia in Canada. Calling experts to the table and trying to come up with viable solutions as to how we can tackle this problem. So, I’m actually very disappointed in the party opposite in the way that they’ve handled this issue.
Vassy Kapelos: What’s your response, sir?
Scott Reid: Well my response would be that far from watering down the motion, we actually make a direct reference, which Ms. Khalid’s motion does not, to the tragic and senseless events in Quebec City, the mosque shooting. So that’s specifically in there. And then we also mentioned by name other groups that can face discrimination: Jews, Hindus, etc., and try to make sure that we’re dealing with this on a broad basis. So the other thing I should mention is that there have been a number of suggestions for amendments. Irwin Cotler, the former Liberal justice minister suggested that the wording be changed to say ‘hatred against Muslims’.
Iqra Khalid: I spoke to Irwin Cotler though and he said that he has no problems with the term Islamophobia. That he said that if I sought consensus from the whole House, a term that the party opposite may be compatible with is a watered down version of what Islamophobia actually is.
Vassy Kapelos: So how is saying hatred against Muslims watered down?
Scott Reid: Irwin Cotler did say, ‘I think if the term Anti-Muslim bigotry would be used’—and I’m quoting him—‘it would have the effect of making this more widely acceptable.’ So that’s actually his publicly stated position.
Iqra Khalid: And he has indicated to me yesterday that he has been widely misquoted in the context of that statement.
Vassy Kapelos: Can I ask you though, about the wider issue here, right? And you both have brought it up. We saw the tragedy that happened in Quebec City. This issue, after this week has become very political on both sides. All of a sudden Melanie Joly is fronting this and the PMO is involved and leadership candidates are sending out e-mails, sometimes associated with fundraising Conservative leadership candidates about it. What do you guys think about how much of a political hot potato it is and isn’t it incumbent on yourselves to try and dilute that in every way you can, whether that involves compromise or not?
Iqra Khalid: So when I had initially started drafting the wording of M-103 back in October-November of last year, we went to other parliamentarians from all across party lines. We went to grassroots organizations. We went to civil society, Canadians at large, and they were 100 per cent in support of the wording of the motion as it stands. And to water down that version would be very unjust to all those people that supported it. Not even in my wildest imagination would I have even thought that Quebec would happen. I had tabled this motion in December. And so I agree, this is a very timely discussion on Islamophobia. It is very real and my speech in the House of yesterday, and all the hate that I have been receiving against Muslims and myself being targeted, it is real. It’s something that we need to call it by its name and I really appreciate the prime minister and Melanie Joly for standing up and doing the right thing. I think this is not just for the Muslim community here in Canada. This is for all Canadians. And if it was any other community that was being targeted like this in Canada, we would as a Liberal government; we’d be standing up and doing the exact same thing.
Vassy Kapelos: We’ve got just about 10 seconds but the last word to you, Mr. Reid.
Scott Reid: I think what’s needed here is the definition of the term Islamophobia. If I might suggest, anti-Semitism is being described as any remark, insult or act to the purpose or effect which is to humiliate a Jewish person’s dignity or create—
Vassy Kapelos: Well we’ll be watching the debate as it continues this week. Thanks very much both of you for joining me.
Iqra Khalid: Thank you.
Scott Reid: Thank you.
Vassy Kapelos: I appreciate it.
Still to come, we’ll unpack the politics of tweaking the North American free trade deal. But first, will Canada up its defence spending and pay its fair share for NATO?
NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg: ‘What Secretary Mattis clearly stated was that the United States expects Europe and Canada to invest more in defence and if that doesn’t happen then we will have a challenge.’
Vassy Kapelos: Welcome back. That was the NATO secretary general calling on member countries to share the burden for NATO defence spending. Last week, the U.S defence secretary went further saying his country will moderate its commitment to NATO unless countries like Canada pay up.
Joining me now from Toronto is John McKay, former parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Defence, and in Edmonton, Conservative Garnett Genuis. Thank you so much for being with us, great to have you both on the show.
Mr. McKay, why don’t I start with you? The last time we came close to hitting that 2 per cent of GDP marked for defence spending as part of our NATO commitment was nearly 30 years ago. Is there a plan for your government to increase our defence spending and eventually come near that target again?
John McKay: Well, you’ll recollect that the minister initiated a defence policy review last year. Essentially, it’s supposed to answer two questions, but what kind of military do we want and the second question of course is how much we’re willing to pay for it. Currently, the budget’s about $20 billion. It increases about $600 million on an annual basis but it is far short of the 2 per cent that’s the number. We do get into, if you will, the argument about whether it’s quality or quantity and there’s absolutely no doubt that the quality of our military is first and foremost among the best in the world and none of our allies would dispute that. On the quantum side of it, we are well below the 2 per cent, but then you get into this argument as to how you count the numbers. Some countries count things like disability pensions and health schemes and things of that nature and they add in their coast guard commitments and they add in police commitments, etc., etc. And so if for want of a better term, you counted it conservatively. We’re at 1 per cent, but if you wanted to count it a little bit more aggressively you could actually move it up closer to the 2 per cent mark. But nevertheless, there is a commitment in the DRP to move forward with our financing.
Vassy Kapelos: Even if you added in all that extra, it doesn’t get us that much closer to 2 per cent. Mr. Genuis, let me get your reaction to what you heard from Mr. McKay.
Garnett Genuis: Sure, well I think this is the point to some extent. I mean yes we have a very high quality military but you can’t keep expecting them to do more with less. There actually is a requirement for there to be investments when it comes to dollars and cents and having a strong military and ensuring our men and women in uniform are as equipped as they need to be. For global peace and security, having a strong NATO alliance is critical. So when we have the Americans communicating this message that basically they’re going to pull back on their commitments if other countries don’t step up to follow their commitments, we need to take that very seriously. Obviously we can’t get the 2 per cent over night, but I think it’s important that we have a long-term strategy for getting to 2 per cent. Unfortunately, the government initially signalled that they wanted to pull back in terms of investments in the military. The initial throne speech talked about having a leaner military. Hopefully they’ll adjust their approach both in response to what the Americans are saying but also in response to the realities of the world that we face. Canada needs to be at the table. The world needs more Canada. We certainly believe that and that means putting our money where our mouth is when it comes to the military.
Vassy Kapelos: Interestingly though, Mr. Genuis when your party was in government, you made those same promises. And since 2010, defence spending as a portion of GDP actually has decreased every year. Then Prime Minister Harper made often the same argument that we heard from Prime Minister Trudeau last week, which is it’s capabilities not necessarily quantity. So what makes you think that this government could do something differently than your government or could do what your government was unable to do?
Garnett Genuis: Well to be fair, there were significant increases in the lead up to 2010. And also, I think we were responsive to the circumstances that emerged. Yes, we talked about this issue of resources as well as capabilities but ultimately it’s both. Obviously we can’t maintain for the long-term certain kinds of capabilities if we don’t make the necessary investments when it comes to resources. And in light of what’s happening in the world and in light of the kinds of messages we’re getting out of the United States, Canada needs to do its part to make sure that we have a strong and stable NATO alliance. The security of that alliance and the willingness of all members to invest is critical for peace and stability in the world today.
Vassy Kapelos: Mr. McKay, can your government afford to increase defence spending given that the deficit is already so much bigger than promised?
John McKay: Well we obviously have fiscal challenges. As the Minister of Finance keeps saying, the economy is a bit flat lined and there’s not the growth there and your entire budget depends on GDP growth. So yeah, there will be challenges but I don’t disagree with Garnett that we do take our NATO commitments very seriously. In fact, you’ll recollect that we have agreed to stand a brigade in Latvia that’s well underway along with the Germans, the British and the Americans, just in response to the aggressiveness of Mr. Putin. So we do take that commitment very seriously. I agree as well that the world does need more of Canada and hence the serious contemplation of an investment, a military investment in Africa, so all of those will require money. They will require serious amounts of money. We do get some monies on supplements which kind of boost it up over the $20 billion, but nevertheless, I think the DPR, the Defence Policy Review will provide a path for the government and for the minister to pursue increased investments so that when we make an investment it’s a quality investment. When we make an investment it is the best use of taxpayer dollars.
Vassy Kapelos: So to be clear though, it sounds like you’re sort of setting the stage for some kind of increase. We’ve heard the same from Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan, but then the prime minister when he was in Germany indicated, and officials around him, indicated that they were comfortable with the current level of defence spending. So what is the government’s message on this? Can Canadians expect an increase, and I’m not telling you how much, but an increase in defence spending in this budget?
John McKay: Yeah, well they’re going to get one regardless. You know there’s a built in escalator clause in defence spending.
Vassy Kapelos: Beyond the escalator.
Vassy Kapelos: Well thank you so much both—sorry, you’ve got about 10 seconds, Garnett.
Garnett Genuis: Sure. I’ll just say that the current escalator is nowhere near a long-term plan to get us to meeting our commitments. So I think what we need to see is a long-term plan for getting to 2 per cent. We’re not going to get there overnight and nobody thinks we’re going to get there overnight but the plan of action needs to include getting what we’ve committed to doing.
John McKay: And that’s what the DPR will do.
Garnett Genuis: I hope so.
Vassy Kapelos: Thank you very much to both of you. I appreciate it.
John McKay: Thank you. Take care.
Garnett Genuis: Thank you.
Up next, we’ll unpack the politics of tweaking the trade relationship between Canada and the United States.
President Donald Trump: ‘We have a very outstanding trade relationship with Canada. We’ll be tweaking it. We’ll be doing certain things that are going to benefit both of our countries.’
Vassy Kapelos: Welcome back. Well that was President Donald Trump during a joint press conference last week with Prime Minister Trudeau talking about tweaks to the trade arrangement between Canada and the United States. Joining me now to unpack the politics of what all that means is Robert Fife, Ottawa Bureau Chief for The Globe and Mail. Thanks for being here.
Robert Fife: Happy to be here.
Vassy Kapelos: Nice to see you as always. Have you been able to figure out what tweaking means?
Robert Fife: Well nobody really knows what tweaking is because the Commerce Secretary or nominee, Wilbur Ross, has not yet been appointed and confirmed. He’s been appointed but not confirmed. He hasn’t got any undersecretaries yet. The U.S. trade representative, Robert Lighthizer, same situation, nominated but not confirmed. So it always comes down to what the details are going to be. But the Canadian government and the prime minister walked away as you know very, very happy from this because Canada’s main objective was not to be put in the same boat as Mexico. And the fact that he’s talking about tweaks indicates that we can do some bilateral deals with President Trump pre-clearance on cargo, infrastructure, allowing some of the TP stuff in terms of e-commerce and high tech people being able to go from both sides of the border. Those are the kinds of issues that Canada has hoped we’re going to get away with. But if we really open this thing up, that is going to be a problem. Country of origin rules how much product can be produced—
Vassy Kapelos: We didn’t hear about softwood lumber.
Robert Fife: We didn’t hear about softwood lumber. That’s kind of a different deal. But I think that government has a lot of reason to be optimistic about this but we still don’t know because we don’t know when the negotiations take place how much the Americans want to deal with this arrangement. Do they want to open up all of NAFTA? And if that’s the case, does the U.S. Congress get involved? And if the U.S. Congress gets involved, that means the American Congress start saying, well from this date I’m going to get Canada to give up on this and all of those kinds of trade-offs begin. So we’re a long ways from being too relieved, but I still think the government came away—the prime minister came away from that meeting looking pretty good.
Vassy Kapelos: He did. And I wanted to ask you though, about the sort of Trump factor though and the unpredictability. Sometimes he says one thing—I mean he’s saying it will be less severe than Mexico. He’s saying it will just be tweaking. How confident are you given everything else that’s going on that that actually will be the case and how much more work does the Canadian government have to do in order to ensure it is?
Robert Fife: Well, they have to continue working with them. I think the Prime Minister’s Office has developed really, really good relations with the White House team, with Jared Kushner, Mr. Trump’s son-in-law, with Stephen Bannon who is the chief strategist and with Vice President Pence. Brian Mulroney has been enormously helpful, Wilbur Ross and the treasury secretary. So they’re working these people so that there aren’t any mistakes. But you know we’re one tweet away from disaster. If he takes offence on something in Canada or against Mr. Trudeau, goodness knows where we’re going to end up with this. But I do think that the Canadian government has been very smart in the way they’ve handled the Trump administration. They’ve done their homework. They’ve focused all the energy of this government on trying to have a good relationship with the Trump administration and not have any economic harm done to Canada. But anything can happen because the president as we saw from his news conference on Thursday is unpredictable.
Vassy Kapelos: Very. And I don’t have too much time left. But being that he’s so unpredictable and even just given the power relationship, how much of what happens over the next few weeks and months, even years is within Canada’s power?
Robert Fife: Well, all we can do is try to have influence with the key players so that Canada is not harmed economically. If they take a direction then goodness knows where we’re going to end up. But I think the signs that we’re seeing is that we’re probably not going to be hurt very much and in fact we may get deals that are going to beneficial to Canada as well.
Vassy Kapelos: So far, so good.
Robert Fife: We hope.
Vassy Kapelos: Thanks so much for being here.
Robert Fife: Thank you.
Vassy Kapelos: I appreciate it. That’s it for our show today. Thanks for joining us. I’m Vassy Kapelos. See you back here next week.