The West Block, Episode 7, Season 8

THE WEST BLOCK

Episode 7, Season 8

Sunday, October 21, 2018

Host: Mercedes Stephenson

Guest Interviews: Minister Jim Carr, Dennis Horak, Lewis Kowski

Location: Ottawa

On this Sunday, Canada is set to host trade ministers from 12 countries this week, but the U.S. is not invited. How will this meeting on reforming the WTO, and Canada’s push to seek trade opportunities with China, affect our relations south of the border?

Then, a Saudi journalist murder in Turkey and 13 million Yemenis, who are facing starvation, both appear to lead to the Saudi regime. As the outrage grows, why is the West still doing business with Saudi Arabia?

And nearly six years ago, cannabis was legalized in Colorado. We’ll talk to that state’s former marijuana enforcement officer about unexpected surprises after legalization.

It’s Sunday, October 21^st. I’m Mercedes Stephenson, and this is The West Block

Later this week, 13 trade ministers from around the world will meet in Ottawa to discuss reforming the World Trade Organization and modernizing trade rules for the 21^st century. But one nation who will not be represented at the meeting is the United States. This comes after a new trilateral deal between Canada, Mexico and the U.S. was reached last month: a deal that includes a China trade clause.

Joining me now from Parliament Hill, to discuss this meeting and future trade discussion, is the minister for International Trade Diversification Jim Carr. Minister Carr, you’re hosting a big international trade meeting here in Canada in this coming week, but you haven’t invited the United States of America. Why not?

Minister Jim Carr: We’ve invited 12 countries who are like-minded, middle powers, who represent every continent, and we thought that we would start achieving consensus with like-minded countries and we’re doing that. They think that this is a reasonable way to start a consensus building process. So we’ve sent some ideas around to stimulate conversation. We’re very happy with the response. Many ministers were coming from around the world and we all know that the WTO needs reform. Canada is a convening power and when we invite people to come, usually they say yes. We’ve invited, I think, a very good sample of world opinion and our objective is to begin to create a momentum for reform.

Mercedes Stephenson: But if our biggest trade partner isn’t there or invited and you were saying this is like-minded countries, do that maybe create an irritant with the United States?

Minister Jim Carr: No. I mean I don’t have any evidence that the United States is irritated by what we’re doing. As a matter of fact, we have evidence that they are supportive of what we’re doing, and when the consensus to build out after this first step, then other nations, of course, will be invited to join. To get consensus among 164 nations is obviously a major task, but where do you start? You start by inviting people to a meeting in a place where they feel comfortable to talk to a government that has shown its commitment to a rules-based order. Since the Second World War, we have benefitted from it but it needs reforms.

Mercedes Stephenson: Minister Carr, I want to ask you about an upcoming trip you and the finance minister have to China. Are you going there to negotiate a free trade deal?

Minister Jim Carr: No, we’re not going there to negotiate a free trade deal. We’re going there to co-chair a conversation, a dialogue which we do every year. And there’s lots to talk about. We’re very excited about an announcement that was made just two weeks ago that Shell’s going to invest $40 billion dollars in Canada to move LNG from Northern B.C. and then to Asia to displace coal. Cleaner Canadian resources displacing Asian coal, that’s a subject that is not only of interest to Canada and all of the jobs it’s going to create for our people, but also markets and customers who think that that resource is in their interest. And by the way, we think it’s in the planet’s interest, too.

Mercedes Stephenson: What are you going to say to the Chinese about that section in USMCA that says Canada can’t sign a trade deal with them now without consulting the United States first?

Minister Jim Carr: It doesn’t say that we can’t sign a trade deal with them. It says that if we enter into formal free trade negotiations, we have to inform our partners. And by the way, if the United States or Mexico wants to enter into similar discussions with so-called non-market economies, they have to tell us. And it’s very hard to predict from one year to the next what the interests of any of these nations might be. Meanwhile, we are diversifying our trading relationships around the world.

Mercedes Stephenson: I have to ask. Do you talk to them about the fentanyl that they’re dumping into the Canadian market or the allegations they been involved in money laundering in B.C. casinos because you’re going there to talk to them about a financial relationship. Is a country that is doing that and has the kind of human rights history and ongoing human rights problems that China does, the kind of country the Liberal government wants to sign a trade agreement with?’

Minister Jim Carr: We talk about human rights wherever we go around the world. Canadian values are at the very front of these conversations. We say so privately, sometimes publicly.

Mercedes Stephenson: Now Stephen Harper, former prime minister just wrote a book saying that trade agreements with China don’t do that, that they undermine jobs in North America that they drive down wages. Is that a concern you share?

Minister Jim Carr: Well, you’ll have to ask former prime minister Harper about why he comes to the conclusions that he does. The Government of Canada believes that having serious conversations with our trading partners to create wealth and jobs is good for us, so why wouldn’t we do it? You always try to align the interests of your trading partners and you saw that we were able to do that in the conversations with the United States and Mexico, and will continue to do that. And by the way, trade diversification doesn’t only mean expanding our export markets. It also means including people involved in creating that wealth who haven’t been fully at the table before.

Mercedes Stephenson: But there’s been no evidence so far, Minister Carr that the Chinese have reformed anything in the wake of previous trade agreements.

Minister Jim Carr: The Chinese have an interest in accessing Canadian resources. We have an interest in talking to the Chinese about our technologies, including our renewable resource technologies, including advanced manufacturing. We have an awful lot of brain power in this country that is of interest to the rest of the world, including China. That’s the nature of these discussions and it’s a good thing for not only China and for Canada, but for all nations who believe that we can create wealth in a sustainable and responsible way. We need the rules-based order. So to talk about both of the subjects of this interview, that’s why we reformed the WTO. That’s why we continue having this very important conversation with our trading partners.

Mercedes Stephenson: Are you concerned at all that having this conversation with China could enflame the relationship with Donald Trump. He is putting tariffs against China. There’s a trade war that’s developing between those two countries. You’ve just signed USMCA. Are you at all concerned about the message that sends the Americans?

Minister Jim Carr: Well, we act in Canada’s interests. We’ve just agreed to a very important trading relationship with Mexico and the United States. I have no idea how other countries may respond to the conversations we have with countries around the world. They’re free to express opinions, but Canada is a sovereign nation and it’s our right as a sovereign nation to enter into these discussions when we think it’s in the interests of our people. And in this case, we certainly do.

Mercedes Stephenson: Minister Carr, thank you so much for your time today.

Minister Jim Carr: It’s always a pleasure.

Mercedes Stephenson: Still to come, we’ll talk to Colorado’s former marijuana enforcement officer about what happened in that state when marijuana was legalized nearly six years ago.

But first, when it comes to Saudi Arabia, what is more important, business or human rights?

Mercedes Stephenson: Welcome back. The U.S. announced last week it would give Saudi Arabia some time to investigate the death of Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi, who was killed inside the Saudi consulate in Turkey earlier this month. A tepid international response to his murder has many human rights groups challenging the West over its business and defence ties with the kingdom.

In August, our own ambassador was kicked out of that country after the Canadian embassy sent a tweet in Arabic, calling for the immediate release of jailed civil rights activists. And since then, officials have been trying to repair the damage. So when it comes to Saudi Arabia, is business more important than human rights?

Joining me now from Toronto is our former ambassador to Saudi Arabia Dennis Horak. Mr. Horak, why do you think western countries have been so reserved and tepid in their response to what are allegations of a horrific crime?

Dennis Horak: The crime as you said, it is horrific, it’s outrageous, but there’s not a lot of good options available to countries in how to respond to this. It’s very, very difficult to isolate a country like Saudi Arabia. And statements of condemnation may make us feel better in terms of being able to stand up and say right, you know, you can’t do this. But I’m not sure that’s the most effective way. I think the way the governments, the U.S. and others have been dealing with this, Canada is talking to the Saudis and getting the message directly to the leadership that look, this is not on. This is not acceptable is the best way to be more effective, is the best way to try and curb Saudi behaviour.

Mercedes Stephenson: Would it be more effective if there were economic consequences, for example, if Canada were to cancel the $15 billion dollar LAV deal or if sanctions were to be put in place against Saudi Arabia?

Dennis Horak: Sanctioning Saudi Arabia is very difficult. They are such an important part of the oil market that people will continue to business with Saudi Arabia because they have to. Certainly there are other sanctions that could be put on, and you mentioned the LAV deal, for example. I’m not sure what impact that would have apart from losing Canadian jobs and damaging Canada’s reputation as a reliable supplier, for a gesture that’s really going to have no impact on Saudi behaviour.

Where there are possibilities, and we’ve seen this happening, there’s a large investment conference going on in Saudi Arabia, I believe next week. A number of companies have pulled out of that. The U.S. treasury secretary has just pulled out of that. Those are important messages in an area that Saudi really cares about. They’re looking to try and enhance foreign investment. It’s a key plank of their reform efforts. And the message that these companies and the U.S. and other countries who are likely also not going, is that look, this is not the kind of behaviour we want in a country that we want to invest in. And then that will hit home more than statements of condemnation. So talking to the Saudis, talking to the leadership, sending that message directly to them so that they don’t feel required to respond themselves and to get their backs up, it has a better chance of being effective even if it’s not as emotionally satisfying as other measures might be.

Mercedes Stephenson: I think it’s a fascinating conversation to have with you because of course, you were rather unceremoniously kicked out of the country in behaviour that’s often reserved for when people are found to be spies, because the Saudis were upset with a Tweet that was sent out by Global Affairs Canada, calling for the release of human rights activists. What about that Tweet set them off?

Dennis Horak: There were a couple of things going on with that. First of all, the fact that it was translated into Arabic, I think, upset them. As Minister Al Jaber said, they believed that that was targeting their population with that criticism. So I think that was part of it. It’s also reflective, and in some ways is similar to this whole—although obviously, on an extremely much less important and much less severe plane, but it’s similar to the kinds of attitudes that led to this horrible event in Turkey. The sense that—this hypersensitivity to any sort of criticism and that it will be deal with severely and the kind of message that they were trying to send through us to other countries is look, this is the price of criticising Saudi Arabia publicly. This is the price of embarrassing us, which I assume is correct—if the Saudis did kill Jamal Khashoggi, the message to Saudis both inside the country and outside is look, political criticism is not on. There’s a price to be paid for that.

We had seen over the course of the past several months in Saudi Arabia a shrinking of political space. We had arrests of the women’s rights activists, for example, in the springtime. And previously there were other arrests and this is a shrinking political space, and we’ve now seen the darkest side of that in Turkey.

Mercedes Stephenson: Do you think they have become embolden? Because it’s exactly what you’re saying, countries feel there’s not really much they can do. They have to do business with the Saudis. They need their oil. They, in many cases, need their defence ties when we’re talking about things like terrorism or regional stability. What affect has that had on their behaviour?

Dennis Horak: I suppose they have been embolden somewhat, but the Saudis have always felt an ability to act as in when they saw fit, act as they wished. What’s different this time around is that they’ve taken us to a much darker side than they have previously. You’re absolutely right, they are a valuable partner. They’re a very important player in the region, and so we need to maintain—the West needs to maintain that relationship with them. And if the Saudis feel because of that, that that gives them a wider plane to operate, then that’s true. But on the other hand, as I said, they are looking at this reform program to move their country forward, this economic diversification and social change. And it’s important for them. It’s important for the crown prince, it’s important for their future stability. So—

Mercedes Stephenson: Do you think that we’ve been maybe somewhat duped by the crown prince, though? Because he’s letting women drive. You can go to movies. But on the other hand, there is this massive human rights crackdown.

Dennis Horak: Yeah, but because there’s two different out—it’s two different points, really, because the reform program is about economic diversification. It’s about social change. It’s not about political freedom. It never was. That’s never been a part of the program. So on the one hand, the reforms that they’re putting in are legitimate and they’re important. For example, one of the key elements of this and something that will have an imprint on Saudi Arabia going forward in a way that we think is very positive, is the changing of the education system: k through 12 and developing a more effective education system to make Saudis better workers, more qualified to take on jobs when they graduate, and to make them more responsible citizens.

Mercedes Stephenson: We have to wrap it up there, Mr. Horak. I’m sorry, I would love to keep talking to you about this, but we’re out of time.

Dennis Horak: No problem.

Mercedes Stephenson: But we hope to have you on the program again soon. Thanks so much.

Dennis Horak: Okay. Thank you.

Mercedes Stephenson: Up next: What to expect now that cannabis is legalized. We’ll talk to Colorado’s former marijuana enforcement officer.

Mercedes Stephenson: Welcome back. A new study released by the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board found that states that have legalized pot are seeing increases in car crashes. Nearly six years ago, Colorado became the first state to legalize cannabis and Lewis Koski was the sates marijuana enforcement director. Now that cannabis is legal here, what are some of the lessons learned from the Colorado experience?

Joining me now from Sacramento, California is Mr. Koski himself, who advises governments around the world on implementing cannabis policy.

Mr. Koski, were you surprised at all by the study that showed the increase in car accidents after cannabis legalization?

Lewis Koski: Well I’m not surprised at all to hear that the data is suggesting that there might be more car crashes. What we don’t know is exactly what’s causing that. It’s not probably prudent to just assume right off the bat just because a state’s legalized cannabis and there’s an increase in car accidents that it’s because of cannabis.

Mercedes Stephenson: What did you see in Colorado in terms of impaired driving after legalization? Was there a significant spike initially?

Lewis Koski: So, the best data that we have on that is data that’s referred to as FARS data and it’s basically the Fatal Accident Reporting data that we get every time a car accident occurs and someone is killed in those car accidents. They’re tested for a number of different things. Not the least of which is for the presence of cannabis. And so the most recent data in Colorado would suggest that there’s an increase in cannabis after those tests. What we don’t know for sure, though, is whether or not those people that tested positive for cannabis were impaired because that test simply doesn’t exist and we don’t know therefore whether or not it was the causation for those particular crashes. Certainly an area that we’re concerned about and it’s certainly in the area that government needs to be really sensitive to and continue to work through public education campaigns, improving regulations and those types of things to make sure that those problems, if they exist, are being addressed.

Mercedes Stephenson: How do law enforcement officers deal with that because they have a breathalyzer for alcohol? We have a machine that tests in Canada called the Drager 5000 but it’s producing false positives below 4 degrees Celsius, which is in a lot of Canada for a lot of the year. So how do police officers know if somebody is impaired?

Lewis Koski: Well, so I’m a law enforcement officer by trade and so I’m familiar with this. You know, long before there was legalization, there were still cases that law enforcement brought forward with respect to impaired driving and the use of cannabis or multi-drug use. And certainly officers are trained on how to spot impairment and most impairment cases involve first and foremost bad driving, so running a red light, speeding, swerving: those types of things which cause the stop in the first place. And then officers are trained to be able to assess people who are driving for impairment and different types of impairment. So they’re still able to bring those types of cases forward and put those together and keep the roads safer, even though there’s not a test for impairment.

Mercedes Stephenson: What were the changes that you saw from a law enforcement perspective in the days and weeks and months after cannabis was initially legalized?

Lewis Koski: Well, I think, you know, and we’re seeing this play out across the country here in the U.S. and in Canada, there’s a lot of work and effort that goes in to the process of legalizing marijuana in any jurisdiction, and a lot of that work happens well in advance of the first day of legal sales. And then there’s always a lot of work that has to be done afterwards as well. Some of the things that we were working on right after legalization were to continue to kind of complete the policy. So we had to work on regulations that address some of the concerns that we had about concentrate production in edibles, all of which have an impact on both public health and safety. We also were working really hard to be able to implement comprehensive testing regimes for the product itself. So our focus was really on the regulated community, how we can continue to evolve those regulations and really drive public health and safety, while still also recognizing that this is a new industry that doesn’t necessarily need to be crushed under the weight of really restrictive regulations.

Mercedes Stephenson: How long did it take in Colorado before you started to see the legal industry actually starting to disrupt the black market?

Lewis Koski: Well, we think that there were some impacts relatively quickly with respect to the criminal market that was operating in Colorado. What we found initially was that the regulated market once it really starts to come online and onramp into the framework and you start to see inventory coming into an inventory tracking system and you see that they’re complying with a number of the regulations, they tend to shine a really bright light on those participants who are not coming forward and becoming part of the regulated industry. And so where there’s this transition period, where there’s some grey area in terms of what’s legal, what’s not legal. Once those regulated businesses really start coming online becomes very apparent who is not operating in compliance with the law which allows then law enforcement and state regulators and in your case, federal regulators to really be able to identify who are the most risky actors and then dedicate resources towards those that are most likely to be creating the biggest public health and safety threats.

Mercedes Stephenson: What advice would you give to Canada now, and I know this is what you do for a living, as we are in this post-legal era, what do we need to be thinking about up here?

Lewis Koski: Well, I have to say that it’s going to be fascinating to watch how things develop up in Canada, and I think to a large extent, as I mentioned earlier there’s a lot of work that has to happen before statutes and regulations are fully enacted and everything that we’ve seen so far up here or up in Canada would suggest that the country is really on the right track. You get a lot of support from elected and federal officials to make sure that you’re getting this right. The country has done a really good job seeking the council of a lot of stakeholders, a very diverse group with differing opinions on how the regulations should be formulated. And so in a lot of ways, the things that have made Canada successful up until this point is going to continue to make them successful as they start to endeavour into regulating other products like concentrates and edibles.

Mercedes Stephenson: Well we have to wrap it up there, but Mr. Koski, thank you so much for your time and sharing your experience in Colorado with us.

Lewis Koski: It was my pleasure to be here. Have a nice weekend.

Mercedes Stephenson: That is our show for today. Thanks for joining us. I’m Mercedes Stephenson for The West Block, and we’ll see you next week.