Note: Transcripts may contain errors. If you wish to re-use all, or part of, a transcript, please contact CBC for permission. Please check the corresponding audio before quoting in print. Copyright © CBC 2018

The Current Transcript for May 23, 2018

Host: Anna Maria Tremonti

STORIES FROM THIS EPISODE

Listen to the full episode

Prologue

[Music: Theme]

SOUNDCLIP

Almost every Monday I get to go to a graduation and as my colleagues know every Monday I start my speech with 'Wow! What a great day'. And I can't think of anything better to say than right now is 'Wow! What a great day'.

ANNA MARIA TREMONTI: It Was a great day for Brenda Lucki. And a landmark day for women in law enforcement. When she became the first woman to permanently take over as commissioner of the RCMP last month. But her mandate goes far beyond traditional law enforcement to the very culture of an institution roiled on the inside with a class action lawsuit and multiple allegations of sexual misconduct. Add to that returning ISIS recruits and a force dwindling in numbers and Commissioner Lucki is faced with many busy days. In a moment we're asking about her priorities. Also today the RCMP wants the journalistic Research that led to this:

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE 1: So Who are your biggest enemies right now? Who are you fighting right now?

VOICE 2: The world.

VOICE 1: Right.

VOICE 2: Everyone in that coalition that is trying to fight Islam and Muslims.

AMT: But that's a VICE interview with a man you may remember, a Canadian in an ISIS propaganda video burning his Canadian passport. That man is dead now but the fight to force a VICE reporter to hand over his notes goes to the Supreme Court today. And an hour, we're at the uneasy intersection of journalistic freedom and national security. And they are divided in Ireland. .

SOUNDCLIP

My Son's godmother and I actually had a huge fight that we haven’t spoke in a year because she's a nurse and she's vote 'yes' and I vote 'no'. It has actually divided us we are not speaking at all.

AMT: Days before a referendum on whether to keep Ireland's strict abortion laws, there was another issue playing out involving campaign ads outside meddling and actions by both Facebook and Google to step away from it all. And far from Ireland, many nations including Canada are wondering what this experience will teach the rest of us about big data and electoral choice. We've got that story in half an hour. I'm Anna Maria Tremonti. This is The Current.

Back To Top »

'We have to eradicate this behaviour': RCMP Commissioner tasked to reform workplace harassment

Guest: Brenda Lucki

SOUNDCLIP

And I have to say Commissioner Lucki demonstrated every step of the way, absolutely exceptional talents, insights, understanding and abilities. And I'm very very excited about being able to appoint the absolute best person for the job to be commissioner of the RCMP which just happens to be a woman.

AMT: It was an historic first two months ago when Prime Minister Justin Trudeau appointed Brenda Lucki as commissioner of the RCMP. She is the first woman to lead the 145 year old institution which led to this question from a Commons committee earlier this month. .

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE 1: How will a lady will tell the guys how to behave?

VOICE 2: We do it all the time. [Laughter] It's part of our makeup. Ask my husband. .

AMT: Brenda Lucki fielded that question with ease. But the challenges she faces coming into the job are formidable. For decades the force has faced allegations of harassment, bullying and racial bias. In the governance mandate letter to the commissioner Public Safety Minister Ralph Goodale tasks Commissioner Lucki with diversifying the workforce, improving relations with indigenous people and addressing a problematic workplace culture. RCMP commissioner Brenda Lucki is with us from her office in Ottawa. Hello. .

BRENDA LUCKI: Good Morning Anna Maria.

AMT: Congratulations.

BRENDA LUCKI: Well thank you so much.

AMT: It's a sweeping mandate, are you sure you want the job?

BRENDA LUCKI: Of course it's such a great opportunity. Honestly when I became the commanding officer of the training academy I thought I was given a gift but now I realized I'd been given an even better gift. .

AMT: You had a quip to respond to the question about being a woman in charge. You jumped two ranks with this promotion. Were you expecting some blowback to this appointment?

BRENDA LUCKI: Not Specifically no. I think you know what the Prime Minister said he picked the best person for the job and that I was selected so I'm going to do my best to make sure that I live up to all those expectations.

AMT: What do you see as your priority as you begin your term as commissioner?

BRENDA LUCKI: I Narrow my priorities down to two major focuses are people within the organization and our communities. And my goal is to modernize our organization, making sure we have enough resources to do the job, making sure the resources are doing the right type of work, making sure employees are happy and healthy both physically and psychologically and of course building relationships with Indigenous people and our communities and making sure that our communities are safe. .

AMT: Well I'll take you through some of those if I may then. Numerous independent reviews of the RCMP revealed significant problems of harassment, bullying even sexual violence. Why do you think there is such a problem in the RCMP?

BRENDA LUCKI: I think we're a diverse organization. We cover coast to coast to coast. I think the important thing is that you know the women that came forward in the Marlo and Davidson lawsuit, they showed a lot of courage showing that there were some issues. And I think it's a good wakeup call for our organization - any organization really - and we need to learn from it and take that and move forward and ensure our policies and our training is in line so that it doesn't happen again and ensure that we're providing our employees with a safe respectful workplace, free from that harassment. .

AMT: You Mentioned Merlo. Janet Merlo is of course the lead plaintiff in sexual harassment class action lawsuit against the forces. Hundreds, in fact thousands, of women have come forward to join that suit. We asked Janet Marlowe how big of a challenge you're facing on this front. Listen to what she said. .

SOUNDCLIP

I Would call it monumental. There is no doubt that she has inherited a huge hornet's nest that needs a lot of fixing and a lot of revamping. But I think if the right person is in the job and they take a good firm solid stand straight from the beginning I think they might be able to turn it around. Because there's still so many good police officers out there and their workplace is really not a good place to be right now. So if she turned that around she'll make life better for a lot of police officers across Canada male and female.

AMT: Brenda Lucki on this issue what message do you have for current, former, and maybe even future Mounties?

BRENDA LUCKI: Well first and foremost I think it's important for people to be accountable for themselves. And I think that's the easier part I think the more difficult part of that equation is that people have to have the courage of conviction to hold others to account to say that that is not acceptable and owning the RCMP. It's our organization and we need to own it together. .

AMT: And Janet Merlo says she and others have begged for an outside independent oversight body to investigate complaints.

BRENDA LUCKI: Absolutely we have to look at all the different options to ensure that we have good transparency when we do have incidents of harassment, bullying or intimidation. Victims need to trust the system that we put in place and we have to have complete transparency. So we have to look at various models and ensure that we find a model that works for the RCMP. Again we're such a big organization we have to make sure it's a consistent standard model from coast to coast to coast. .

AMT: Well I have a clip I want to play of her regarding that. Here it is. .

SOUNDCLIP

I have a lady that's in contact with me now and her harasser is constantly on her case and in a sexual harassment. And the only person she has to go to is his supervisor who is his wife. That's career suicide for her to go and lodge a complaint. So she puts up and shuts up. So until something is formed outside of the force where people feel confident in the complaint process then I don't think she's going to get too far. So the creation of that entity I think is first and foremost.

AMT: Will you implement a civilian board for management for the force?

BRENDA LUCKI: We are looking at that as we speak. Once again to ensure that we have a process. But honestly in regards to what the last clip was referring to, my message to employees is if they don't feel safe to go to their supervisor for unacceptable behavior then they have to go to the next level. Absolutely go to the next level and if they don't feel safe at that level go to the next level. We have to eradicate this behavior and that's the only way we can do that. .

AMT: Minister Goodale's mandate letter to use specifies bringing greater civilian oversight to the force. It was the central recommendation of a 2007 report looking into the matter. Do you have any choice but to commit to that?

BRENDA LUCKI: We will absolutely commit to reviewing that. Well we're going to look at the Brown report, the CRC report, the Sheila Fraser report, take all those reports and not just the reports themselves but the working papers that didn't make the paper themselves or the reviews, look at all the options and ensure that we pick the right fit for our organization. What that fit is? Five weeks into my job I'm not sure what that is yet. .

AMT: In Your decades on the force have you ever faced harassment or sexual misconduct?

BRENDA LUCKI: I've had both positive and negative relations in my job. Absolutely. I think I've been fortunate. In the way that I guess it happened in my history and having good supervisors that helped me along the way. But I think any type of workplace has its positives and negatives and that's to ensure that once that one bad thing happens that it doesn't repeat themselves, and that's why I find it so unfortunate that our organization had to wake up to a lawsuit for us to come to terms with that when we ought to have been a little bit more proactive in that area. .

AMT: When you joined the force in the mid-80s women had only been accepted into the RCMP for about 11 years. What was it like to be a woman in the forces at that time?

BRENDA LUCKI: Well Every day was a first. In some cases some detachments I was out. I was the first female but generally I think everybody comes to work wanting to do the right thing wanting to have a great work environment and wanting to treat people with respect. Sometimes that falls off the rails and it's not whether it falls off the rails. It's what we do with it. After falls off the rails and how we deal with it and what kind of accountability structures we have in place in order to deal with it so it doesn't repeat itself. And if we don't have those structures in place then shame on us we need to put them in place to ensure a respectful work environment. .

AMT: Why did you want to be mounty when you were 20 years old?

BRENDA LUCKI: Well it might sound a little bit antiquated maybe. I just wanted to make a difference and wanted to serve the public wanted to be that person that maybe somebody you know I'd make a difference in one person's life. And I do always say that every member must try to make a difference. And that was sort of my mantra joining the RCMP is trying to make that positive change.

AMT: And as you went through your career what are the things that really stand out? What are the highlights for you?

BRENDA LUCKI: Well Highlights; going overseas, doing two U.N. missions in the former Yugoslavia. I think that was the epitome of making change in people's day to day lives. Being the commanding officer of the RCMP training academy given the opportunity to change entire generations of the RCMP during what were some negative times, and trying to make that positive change so that we have people that are more adept or more conscious of the issues that we face and going out there and not letting it repeat itself. .

AMT: And did you ever imagine you would be leading the force one day?

BRENDA LUCKI: No honestly you know it's kind of a funny story if you spoke to my troop mates they would laugh because when I was a recruit in RCMP training academy I said that I was going to be the first female commissioner. So they are kind of scared now that I am. It's kind of a weird feeling. But honestly I didn't think that, probably more than half my career that I would be the RCMP commissioner at least. And just recently thinking about what needs to be done and believing that I have what it takes to get those things done. When I decided it was time for me to put my name forward.

AMT: It's Interesting though because you always believed it was possible that gender would not hold you back, when you were talking to your colleagues back in the day. It was something that was reachable. .

BRENDA LUCKI: Yes. Absolutely and I think anything is reachable if you put your mind to it. The fact that people ask me what it's like to be the first female commissioner tells me that we still have a bit more work to do because we don't do that for our male counterparts but that's a good thing that I, like I said, I've been given that great opportunity to make that change in my organisation and it doesn't get any better than that. .

AMT: What Can the RCMP do to contribute to reconciliation with Canada's indigenous peoples?

BRENDA LUCKI: You know we've done actually a lot of different things in that regard already. Of course we're working side by side with the Murdered and Missing Indigenous Women and Girls Inquiry. We have a senior adviser reconciliation position that was created and the mandate is to advance the already going work, and promote the principles of truth and reconciliation and to champion a practical and everyday way reconciliation. We've brought in the Kyros blanket exercise to the RCMP training academy whereby we teach cadets how to learn about the history of our first nations and indigenous people, and put themselves in their position and to create that empathy so that there's a greater understanding. We've also done brought in the Eagle Feather as an option in Nova Scotia for clients, victims, witnesses and police officers to swear legal oaths at RCMP detachments. So it's not just a single event or a speech and it's not something we can take in check off a list. It's a constant movement towards a future and a reflection of the past and ongoing dialogue into the future.

AMT: And you came from the training of recruits and new officers coming into the field. Is there a difference in the way maybe they are instructed today versus many years ago when it comes to Indigenous people?

BRENDA LUCKI: Oh Absolutely. Altogether the training is completely different than in my day we're a more inclusive environment. And I think there is more tolerance. Tolerances we're different when I joined the RCMP. And so the actions probably at some times were reflective of our tolerances in society. And as the tolerance changed so do we. Now the question is do we have to wait till the tolerances change or can we be more forward thinking and be the lead amongst police agencies?

AMT: I want to ask you about law enforcement when it comes to the handling of people who fought with ISIS and have returned to Canada. There's a 23 year old man who has admitted on tape to the New York Times to carrying out executions while working with ISIS in Syria. He is living in the Greater Toronto Area now. How is that possible?

BRENDA LUCKI: With Every person such as that or when we are receive information that indicates an individual is engaged in any type of criminal activity that would pose a threat to our national security, we will pursue a criminal investigation obviously for privacy and operational reasons we can't release that until it becomes a matter of public record. But it is a criminal code offence to engage in terrorist activities whether it occurs here in Canada or abroad or leaving Canada to participate in the activities of terrorist groups is also an offence. And the second that we get any such evidence we open up and engage in a criminal investigation.

AMT: I'm asking because when the news came out - he had spoken to CBC News and that interview had not indicated the same admission to executions. When he spoke to The New York Times, the RCMP made an appointment with him. It just seems odd that they would make an appointment as opposed to maybe make an arrest. But perhaps I'm mistaken in how the system works. .

BRENDA LUCKI: You Know again we have to do a criminal investigation and get the veracity of such comments and statements. And once the investigation leads to enough evidence to believe that a criminal offence has occurred and arrests will be made.

AMT: Have your investigators heard The New York Times full interviews with him?

BRENDA LUCKI: I Believe so. I'm not 100 percent sure to be honest with you but I know that we are involved in dealing with that particular person. .

AMT: This Man who goes by the name of Abu Huzaifa is not the only one. In 2015 the government said it was aware of about 180 individuals who had travelled overseas to join groups that are considered terrorist groups, men and women, and of another 60 who had returned to Canada. How do you deal with the returning foreign fighters?

BRENDA LUCKI: Every person that comes back to Canada and we receive information that indicates that that individual has or will be engaged in such criminal activity that poses a threat to national security. Those people are on our radars and we would pursue that criminal investigation at that time. .

AMT: Are you hamstrung by your own laws?

BRENDA LUCKI: I don’t think so. I think you know we have the laws in regards to terrorist activity and those laws are theirs to deal with exactly that. Obviously investigations don't happen overnight and with any type of law under the Criminal Code we always have to have reasonable and probable grounds to make the arrest.

AMT: I'm hopping around a bit on issues we're just scratching the surface of the big challenges that face the RCMP. At the same time many RCMP officers are expected to retire in the coming years and the forces have not been attracting enough recruits to fill those positions. How will you address what the former mounty now Senator Vern White describes as an H.R. crisis?

BRENDA LUCKI: We have various strategies to address the critical vacancies such as increasing. We recently increased our reservists program to respond to short term. We're looking at alternate sources of recruits for our training academy and most recently in the last year, we increased the number of applicants that could go to the academy in a year so to offset some of the vacancies.

AMT: So as you look forward as commissioner what vision do you have for the future of the RCMP?

BRENDA LUCKI: Well I definitely want our organisation to be the best organization that we have. And I want to make sure that our organization is more agile, more capable, more inclusive, more respectful, more tolerant, more trusted. I absolutely want the trust of the Canadians in our police organization. And so there's a lot of different things that we need to innovate on and improve. But I think there's so many good things that we do in our organization and we need to capitalize on that. I want people to say that I'm leading by example, absolutely, so I'm going to focus on myself keep myself healthy both physically and psychologically for that great opportunity ahead of me. .

AMT: And when you get downtime what's your guilty pleasure?

BRENDA LUCKI: Golf and woodworking. My husband and I make really good sawdust in the workshop really good side us.

AMT: What kind of woodworking do you do?

BRENDA LUCKI: We do furniture we've done a cedar strip canoe and a cedar strip kayak but mostly I like building the furniture. .

AMT: Okay Well Commissioner Lucki, thank you for speaking with me today.

BRENDA LUCKI: Well thanks for asking me. You have a super day.

AMT: Brenda Lucki. Commissioner of the RCMP joined us from Ottawa. Stay with us. The news is next and then an historic vote in Ireland goes to the heart of society there. But there's more at stake than the ballot question on abortion. It's also a referendum on the integrity of voting in the era of big data. We'll tell you more when we're back. I'm Anna Maria Tremonti. This is The Current.

[Music: Theme]

Back To Top »

What can Ireland's abortion referendum teach us about election meddling in the internet age?

Guests: Fenwick McKelvey, Liz Carolan, Ellen Coyne

AMT: Hello I'm Anna Maria Tremonti and you're listening to The Current.

[Music: Theme]

AMT: Still to come I'll be joined by the VICE Media reporter who is having his day in court today. Ben Makuch's case is being heard by the Supreme Court of Canada. As a journalist he was in contact with a Canadian man who joined the fight for ISIS and the RCMP wants his source materials. His case is being watched and contested by news organizations. Ben Makuch joins me in about half an hour. But first a ballad with much in the balance.

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE 1: I'm So excited because this is something I'm so passionate about. Hi there. Can I give you a kiss? Have a good day. The baby room may be a baby girl. That's where true feminist starts.

VOICE 2: This Is 30 years in the making. This has been like who hasn't been raring to go to get the opportunity to [unintelligible] for this, and I think with the #MeToo and all that kind of momentum behind it, I think that this actually is the right time for Ireland to turn around and say yes actually this is what we want for our people.

AMT: Voices On either side of a hugely contentious issue in Ireland that is finally coming to a vote. Ireland goes to the polls Friday for a referendum on the country's eighth amendment which in effect bans abortion including in the case of rape, incest and fetal abnormality. For years it has meant Irish women seeking an abortion have had to leave the country. As for Friday's vote the country is split and the outcome is far too close to call. You can hear the division in the voices of these two women each of whom has carried a fetus with a fatal condition.

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE 1: I thought in a case where it was this severe where there really wasn't a brain, where our baby was missing most of its brain, where the amniotic fluid would be wearing the brain down until she died. I really thought that they could help more.

VOICE 2: We have to look at what the choice entails, what are they saying we have the choice to do. We're to have the choice to end human life. I don't think that choice is a reasonable choice.

AMT: With was one of the strictest abortion laws among western, democracies Ireland's referendum has generated interest from around the world including from anti-abortion and pro-choice groups from the US and Europe. And in the wake of the Cambridge analytical scandal it's also being seen as a test case for election integrity. We'll hear more about that concern in a few moments but first Ellem Coyne is a journalist at The Irish Ireland edition of the U.K. paper The Times. She's covering the story. She's in Dublin. Hello.

ELLEN COYNE: Hi. Good morning.

AMT: Tell us a bit more about what is at stake here. What does the 8th amendment to this current law say?

ELLEN COYNE: So you did get a sense that there from some of the interviews that you played before. The vote that we'll have on Friday is probably the most significant one in our social history. Since 1983 we've had a constitutional ban on abortion, the Eighth Amendment, which eliminates access to the procedure in almost all circumstances except where the woman's life is at risk by equating the life of the woman with a life of the fetus in the Constitution. In the 36 years that the Eighth Amendment has existed it has basically been dogged by controversy. From a 1992 case where a 14 year old rape victim was almost stopped from travelling to the UK to access a termination by the state, right up to 2012 where a 31 year old woman called Savita Halappanavar passed away in Galway University Hospital after she was denied a termination which led to her passing away from sepsis. The argument that the government is making at the moment isn't really a pro-choice feminist one. It's actually from a sense of pragmatism rather than feminism. The argument is that there are three women a day who take illegal abortion pills at the order online and there is at least another 9 who travel to the UK to access terminations. So the argument against the status quo is that the Eighth Amendment has first vote failed in its core point which was to stop abortions. It hasn't managed to do that. And the second argument against it is that the unintended consequences of the Eighth Amendment, the restrictions that it puts on doctors to be able to intervene when a woman's life is at risk from continuing the pregnancy, actually mean gosh it's caused more harm than good.

AMT: And Doctors face fines and jail sentences do they not? If they make decisions? And the women, if a woman travels out of the country she's liable, she can be charged?

ELLEN COYNE: No since 1992. This is actually the hypocrisy of the Eighth Amendment. Well we have the Eighth Amendment in the Constitution the 13th Amendment of the Constitution gives every woman in Ireland a constitutional right to travel specifically for a termination of pregnancy. So what the Irish Constitution says is that you can't access an abortion just as long as it's not in Ireland. For the women who ordered the illegal abortion pills online and take them in their own home. These would be drugs that would induce a miscarriage up to the first 10 weeks of pregnancy, being costs administering an abortion yourself carries a 14 year prison sentence since our 2013 Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act. That 14 year prison sentence would also apply to any doctor who illegally performs a termination. At the moments as I said you can only access an abortion in Ireland if your life is that real and substantial risk. That means that if a woman is dying, if she is infected with sepsis, doctors have to wait until it gets to a point where she will almost certainly die before they can intervene. When her health is at risk, it isn't enough. So doctors are afraid to intervene sooner and terminate a pregnancy if they're not sure that that woman is that relevant substantial risk, which lot of medical experts say can only be determined retrospectively.

AMT: And of course it was a death from sepsis, the woman you mentioned who died?

ELLEN COYNE: Absolutely it was. I mean that case has been contested by the anti-abortion sites which say that technically the cause of death for Savita Halappanavar was sepsis. But a lot of medical experts including the obstetrician that wrote the report into her death said that the reason the that this was able to accelerate so much and get to a point where it was fatal was because the doctors were constantly checking to make sure that the fetal heartbeat was still present. While there is still a fetal heartbeat the life of the fetus is equal under law to the life of the woman and the pregnancy can be terminated.

AMT: It was her case that forced this referendum was it not?

ELLEN COYNE: It Certainly led to her case directly led to the 2013 law which caused the Irish government to legislate to allow access to abortion in cases where a woman's life is at risk, including a risk of suicide. It took the Irish government over 20 years to do that. After the people voted in 1992 to allow, around Savita's case there is lots of other cases it is cases where women who were rape victims were entitled to access terminations in this country. Over the past few years the discovery among the public and recognition a political level that women are using these illegal abortion pills which are being delivered by the Irish Postal Service shows that there is actually abortion happening in Ireland. And there is a concern among doctors. Women are showing up to hospitals with having a uterus ruptured because something has gone wrong when they've taken the pills and they're delaying seeking medical attention because they do fear that they could be arrested and could face 14 years in prison. In Northern Ireland where the law is similar there actually have been cases where women who have taken these abortion pills have been prosecuted. Some of them were discovered by doctors and there was one case where a woman was reported by her friend. So if it's happened in the north the fear among the government is that it could happen down here too.

AMT: So the no vote would keep the law as is. What would a Yes vote actually mean?

ELLEN COYNE: The government has said that if the country votes ‘Yes’ and remove the Eighth Amendment it will legislate to allow access to abortion in specific circumstances. The law that the government has put forward is free access to abortion for all women with no restriction up to reason up to 12 weeks of pregnancy which is about half the gestational limit in the UK which is the law as you said many Irish women are using at the moment because they travel beyond 12 weeks. The only cases where access to abortion would be legal in Ireland is cases where the pregnancy has been diagnosed with a fatal fetal abnormality where it has no chance of surviving pregnancy or shortly after pregnancy. And also cases where there is a risk to the life and health of the woman and in the law there would be no distinction between a risk to a woman's physical health and a risk to her mental health. Abortions on grounds of a non-fatal fetal abnormality would still be banned. And late term abortions would be banned.

AMT: Well We've heard how polarized the politics is right now. How does that compare to the lead up to the referendum on same sex marriage three years ago?

ELLEN COYNE: A Lot of people are drawing comparisons between the two. I suppose because both were massive moments of attempts to change Ireland socially. I suppose the difference with this and what makes it so extraordinary is just a year ago there was very little open support for changing the state's abortion laws among the main parties Fianna Fáil and Finnick. I have literally just come from the Irish parliament before speaking to you. Now it's just coming up to lunchtime in Ireland and we have got the leaders of every single main political party in the country saying that they would support a change to the law. That is an extraordinary change in Irish politics but it also feeds into the new site which has been using mass to say that actually voting no would be more of an anti-establishment vote. And they've almost been adopting some of the tactics that you would have seen in the Brexit referendum saying the politicians don't understand, you can't trust the political system that a real vote for the people who would be voting against repealing the 8th Amendments. .

AMT: Well that’s a very interesting. We're going to talk to our next guest about some of connecting the dots to Brexit and other elections elsewhere about. Ellen Coyne thank you for your time today.

ELLEN COYNE: No problem at all. .

ELLEN COYNE: Ellen Coyne is a journalist with the Ireland edition of the U.K. paper The Times. And we reached her in Dublin. My next guest says the future of Ireland's abortion law is not the only thing at stake in this vote. In the wake of revelations over anonymous adds and foreign interference in the 2016 US presidential election as well as the Brexit referendum. Liz Karolin was concerned the pattern could be repeated in Ireland. She began a project to compile a public crowd sourced database of all political ads targeting Irish Facebook users ahead of Friday's historic referendum. It's known as the transparent referendum initiative and she's not the only one concerned Facebook and Google both facing pressure to do more to ensure election integrity around the globe announced they were blocking ads related to the referendum campaign. Liz Carolan joins us from Dublin. Hello.

LIZ CAROLAN: Good morning. Hi.

AMT: Tell us more about the database. How does it work?

LIZ CAROLAN: Yes so we're working with them. Kind of a group of volunteers about 600 people have volunteered to share with us data information on all of the ads that they are being shown on Facebook. And so from all of those IDE's what we're doing is we're identifying the ones that relate to the referendum and we're putting them out into the public in real time. So, as people are seeing them, they're available to everybody to see so that they can be open to scrutiny so they can be looked at by journalists and so that everybody knows exactly what kind of information is being shared and so far we've gathered. I think I checked this morning about 1300 different Facebook ads which have been placed targeting Irish people and from about 280 different groups. .

AMT: 280 Groups. And to what extent are they evenly split among the yes and no campaigns?

LIZ CAROLAN: So we have seen a pattern over time of a roughly even split between those advocating for a Yes vote and those advocating for a no vote. There have been some differences between the two. So we've noticed that those on the on the 'Yes' side seem to be much more focused on kind of organizing, on getting people to come to rallies or to events or to engage in fundraising or canvassing. Whereas on the 'No' side what we've seen from the very beginning is a focus on advocacy, on changing minds and the use of kind of highly produced videos and other content produced both here at home and abroad in order to try and influence voter behavior. .

AMT: Tell me more about the messages you're seeing then?

LIZ CAROLAN: Yes So on the 'Yes' side we've seen a lot of and language sort of you know similar to the government's line that that Ellen was just describing, talking about the need for change so that we can have sort of care and compassion treatment of women at home. It has been very much along those lines. With some groups, some kind of smaller groups, taking a more I guess sort of you know a kind of feminist stance or talking about bodily autonomy or are women's right to choose. On the 'No' side you've seen a broad range of messages and kind of some indications of the micro targeting of people that we've seen for example in the Brexit referendum. So there are some groups who are you know advocating for a No vote with kind of nationalistic and messaging, so sort of saying this is what the Founding Fathers of Ireland would have wanted. Or are you know even things which are sort of you know vaguely sort of racist even. We've seen some which take more of a religious approach and are kind of are using scripture or other kind of iconography in order to try and get their message across. And then we've seen quite a few which are and you know just kind of emphasizing the point which I think a lot of people empathize with that abortion is quite an uncomfortable topic anything that a lot of people you know sort of don't agree with or wish didn't happen. .

AMT: And have you learned about where they're coming from the individual ads?

LIZ CAROLAN: So we have actually seen examples. We've picked them up of ads coming from the U.S., from the U.K., from France and a couple of other countries. And actually when we were able to highlight those working with journalists, Facebook actually reacted to that and for the first time sort of decided they were going to introduce a new measure in Ireland to block groups registered outside of Ireland from advertising targeting Irish people. That was about two weeks ago. We have seen actually since then a couple of other groups who've managed to get through this block. I mean the problem that we have, and it's not just in Ireland it's around the world, is that the rules and regulations that we have for our elections don't apply or don't seem to work in the context of digital advertising. So while for example those groups that we identified were targeting Irish voters would not be able to donate to a campaign that would be illegal. They have actually been able to do this direct expense they've been able to buy ads directly targeting Irish people. And we've spoken to every single one of the agencies in Ireland to have might have some responsibility for this, and each one systematically has come back and said that it's not in their remit. So you know that we have had a commitment in the last couple of weeks from both opposition members of parliament and from the government to bring about reform, but unfortunately that reform isn't going to come in time for the vote on Friday. .

AMT: Have you seen any Canadian ads?

LIZ CAROLAN: There was one there was one Canadian group that was targeting Irish people with an add yes.

AMT: And What were they doing? Do you know who they are?

LIZ CAROLAN: Yeah I think the name was choice for two and they had an ad. There was a sort of advocating a pro pro-life position. And actually some of the overseas groups who've gotten in touch with us, and whose ads we have identified, also told us that you know they don't consider what they're doing to be intervening in the referendum. They just sort of see it as their as their role and as people who hold a position quite strongly to advocate for the opposition. At home but also abroad.

AMT: I think Choice for Two says that, right. We did contact that group. They say they don't target Irish Facebook users that they run in Canada, the U.S. and the U.K. across the board. .

LIZ CAROLAN: Yes, We did find them targeting and we have that we have the data to show that. But I think this is sort of the thing that we need to get right in terms of balance. Like you know I'm all in favor of communities of interest being able to use Facebook and use the Internet in order to organize and to share ideas and to build those kind of communities. But I just think there's a line that needs to be drawn between that activity and activity which is you know potentially going to influence the outcome of a referendum. So the results that we got this weekend is going to be constitutionally binding. So this kind of there's no coming back from this vote in this decision. And you know it's enshrined in other parts of our electoral law that only people who have to live with the consequences of electoral decisions should have a say in what happens in that election a referendum. That's why we ban overseas organizations from donating to campaigns. I think you know this is a challenge not just for Ireland but around the world. How do we ensure that we can make use of the platforms that exist for communities to organize and to share ideas and interests, but make sure that we draw a distinct line between that and between where the integrity and kind of sovereignty of our election democratic processes is at stake.

AMT: Which is why you have the transparent referendum initiative. So that you're basically saying Whatever's out there you want it to be transparent. People have to know where it's coming from so they can decide for themselves?

LIZ CAROLAN: That's Right. So what we're doing is where we're building this public database that anybody can see and then allowing everybody to look at that and to figure out how they feel about these different groups and organisations targeting Irish people and how they feel about the messages that are out there. But you know the bigger focus on this has to be how do we make sure that it's not left to a group of a few volunteers to try and make sure that our election processes are open and fair? What does the what does the legislative process or system look like that that becomes a part of the way that we conduct our elections in Ireland and around the world.

AMT: Okay. Liz Carolan thank you for your insights today.

LIZ CAROLAN: Thank You.

AMT: Liz Carolan is the co-founder of the transparent referendum initiative created in the lead up to Ireland's referendum on the country's abortion law. The vote will be held Friday. She joined us from Dublin. Well let's come to Canada now. Fenwick McKelvey has a keen interest in the connection between digital media and political campaigns. He's an assistant professor of communication studies at Concordia University in Montreal. That's where we have reached him. Hello. .

FENWICK MCKELVEY: Hi Anna Maria.

AMT: To What extent do you see the Irish referendum as a test case for how to guard against so-called dark ads and political campaigns?

FENWICK MCKELVEY: Well In Canada, both in our current election act in the proposed elections modernization act, there's been calls for a ban on foreign advertising and for foreign entities to be able to be spending in our campaign. And I think we have a lot of evidence that this activity is prohibited and we would like to stop it. The question is how effective are the reporting mechanisms and the actual markets themselves in stopping this activity. And that I think is there is one of the real test cases this Irish referendum.

AMT: So specifically what you watch for on that Friday vote?

FENWICK MCKELVEY: Well I think that one of the key issues here is this is a cross partisan issue. And what we're looking for is making sure that both sides feel as though there's some confidence in the process, and that foreign monies weren't unduly used to Astroturf or fake support or you know influence the outcome in ways that are as your foremost panelist, Liz, suggested it could undermine trust and confidence. So I think we see evidence that there has been a lot of foreign money coming in despite a ban both by Facebook and Google, two different effects, trying to stop this type of advertising then clearly we see that there is a gap in our enforcement mechanisms. .

AMT: Okay what we've heard there is a push for some in Ireland for tougher laws around online political advertising. We've seen a similar discussion in Canada. What has Ottawa done to try to get out ahead of this issue before Canadians go to the polls federally?

FENWICK MCKELVEY: Well particularly in Ottawa there's been a new budget, new money for Elections Canada. And there's also been a reformed the elections Modernization Act which is calling for bans on pre writs or before election spending as well as more clear guidelines on what counts as online advertising and who is able to advertise online. And that I think is a small step towards more transparency broadly in advertising market. .

AMT: Are You at all watching what's going on provincially and municipally in Canada as well?

FENWICK MCKELVEY: Yes. Canada is really interesting that you can think there's initiatives happening both on the part of social media platforms and on journalist organizations like the CBC the Globe and Mail to bring more accountability to online and markets. This has been a longstanding issue, this idea that not only will you be able to kind of circumvent national election spending laws or you'll be able to spend third parties are able to be able to spend in ways that are less accountable, but also that you'd be able to target negative advertising, advertising that would like transgress public norms to people who don't get to see it. So in Canada you've seen Facebook launch its ad archive where it's allowing anybody to look at what ads are being run by political parties and so using great reporting from the Globe and Mail talking through what are the ads being used. And simultaneously the Global Mail and the CBC are using a tool by Pro Publica which is allowing people to monitor and report on the types of election advertising receipts. So you know to date we've seen coverage of this. We haven't seen the same type of dark advertising that's been being talked about or discussed. It's A concern at least in Ireland. .

AMT: And what has your research told you about how concerned Canadians are about online advertising in campaigns?

FENWICK MCKELVEY: Well it's interesting because in one sense through Access to Information request we know that Canadians are confused but online advertising and so Canadians wonder why they are seeing ads on Election Day. Canadians sometimes feel that the ads they see online their entire misinformation or are not necessarily correct and they're trying to largely confuse them. We also know that Canadians are largely concerned about this. I think that what is really interesting to me is as a wake up call is that you know we hear time and time again that online advertising is something people. Like people like this revels in advertising. But all of a sudden when it comes up sensitive issue people take a step back and say this is a concern. And so I think this is a real reminder that we've seen really rapid innovation in the ability of online advertising to target people with more sophisticated data and we haven't seen a subsequent increase in this kind of oversight accountability. And I think that that elections are kind of I think the critical test case for I think a wider reconsideration of how we manage online advertising.

AMT: And how realistic is it to expect we can enforce what happens online?

FENWICK MCKELVEY: I think that's a real challenge. I think the moment we're at right now is how much easier is it to fake or Astroturf or buy support online. And what we see is that there's a lot of goodwill to try to stop this activity in in the outcome of the 2016 American election we see the Kremlin that foreign interference having a negative side effect and we're trying to now think about what are the tools. And I think what's really interesting to me is seeing how many of these platforms advertising platform the Google and Facebook which are the two largest decide to kind of exit the market entirely. It's saying that they can't actually manage this. So that what they're going to do is stop selling ads in the first place. And I think that that's a real you know challenge because these companies have been able to scale and really deliver ads in new ways. Yet, we are now seeing that there's a limit to how they're able to kind of manage and make sure that their ads aren't in violation of the law.

FENWICK MCKELVEY: Okay, we'll have to leave it there but lots more to think about as this goes forward Fenwick Mckelvey, thank you.

AMT: Thank you. Fenwick Mackell the assistant professor of communication studies at Concordia University in Montreal. Stay with us in our next half hour. VICE Media Journalist Ben Mokuch and his case to the Supreme Court of Canada today we'll talk about that. This is The Current.

Back To Top »

Vice reporter says RCMP's demands for his notes puts journalism at risk

Guests: Ben Makuch, Kim Bolan, Phil Gursky

AMT: Hello I'm Anna Maria Tremonti. This is The Current.

SOUNDCLIP

This Is the message to Canada it off and all of the American [Arabic speech], we are coming and we will destroy you [Arabic Speech]. After Sham, after Iraq, after Jazeera, we are going for you Barack Obama.

AMT: Well after that ISIS propaganda video emerged online in 2014, every journalist in the country wanted to speak to the man at the center of it because Abu Usamah as-Somali, as the ISIS fighter called himself, was Canadian. It was a VICE Media reporter, Ben Makuch, who made contact with him. Their conversations became the basis of a series of stories for VICE which generated a lot of attention including from the RCMP. The RCMP demanded that Mr Maku turn over all of his research. He refused. He's still refusing. That legal fight is now before the Supreme Court of Canada and we will get into the broader implications of the case in a few moments. But first Ben Makuch joins us from our Ottawa studio hello.

BEN MAKUCH: Hello. Thanks for having me.

AMT: Well what's at stake in your mind in this case?

BEN MAKUCH: You Know not to be hyperbolic but I think what's at stake is essentially how I do my job and how journalists around the country do their job. When you are asking journalists to become your investigative body of an intelligence agency or a law enforcement agency you are asking them to essentially corrupt what they do. And I think that's what's being asked of me right now. And clearly I've refused to a few different courts now and now I'm at the Supreme Court.

AMT: Right. You've already been through two courts and keep fighting. So tell me about the ISIS member at the center of this. Who were you communicating with?

BEN MAKUCH: I was communicating with an individual who called himself Abu Usama that was known to a lot of ISIS individuals. When they went over and joined the group they actually were given [unintelligible]. And his real name is Farah Mohamed Shirdon. He's from Calgary. And you know it was a really interesting thing for me because this is an individual who is a young man, much like myself, who is engaging on social media in much the same way that I did. But instead of you know posting pictures of dinner or weird things like that what he was doing is he was posting pictures of himself fighting for one of the most infamous terrorist organizations in the world.

AMT: And you were able to contact him and speak to him. What were you able to learn about ISIS from him that you reported?

BEN MAKUCH: At the time. It was almost like a cult the Wild West or the cowboy days of ISIS and. He was talking exactly about what he does and he was at the time a spokesperson for the Islamic State, and he told me about how they use social media to inspire attacks but also to recruit to gain favor in the West. And he also told me about the command structure of ISIS and how this was a very sophisticated organization that wasn't just you know willy nilly grabbing people from the West and inserting them into some terrorist organization. This is a group that was selectively grabbing people. For example if you were an engineer they would put you to work on bridges, if you were somebody who was good with a camera they'd put you to work with a camera.

AMT: And these were thing we didn't know in the early days of ISIS we know this now but we didn't know it then. And because he was the guy who famously burned the passport.

BEN MAKUCH: Yes. Absolutely absolutely. And this is 2014. I started talking to these individuals in 2013. And at the time some of them I had, I had al-Qaeda individuals who are speaking with me and then I also had something called the Islamic State which at the time was completely new. Nobody knew what it was. Including myself, admittedly I was I was talking with a lot of individuals who were telling me their groups etc. You didn't really know what they were. And when I heard Islamic State I kind of- I rolled with it, I was like 'Okay Islamic State'. .

AMT: So According to the U.S. military he was killed in Mosul three years ago. So why does the RCMP still want your information and why are you still fighting it?

BEN MAKUCH: Essentially they- it's almost a better question for the RCMP as to why they continue to pursue this. But I think a big part of this is it was a fishing expedition on my information and what I had. And they wanted to be able to prove charges against an individual. But more importantly I think they were trying to establish themselves or establish a precedent in this new information environment where journalists are communicating with terrorists online or using social media apps. And I think part of it is them wanting to make sure that they can continue to do this with other journalists.

AMT: And to be clear, they essentially want your notes, your tapes because they know who he is. They're not looking for the name of your source they're looking for everything you wrote down and recorded. .

BEN MAKUCH: And That's just exactly it. And that's what's so troubling about this is that what they're asking me to do and I'm not the only journalist in Canada or in the world who communicates with people who do illegal things and why I communicate with an interview like this was I wanted to be able to inform the public about what an individual like him is doing. And I think when you start to ask for all the things that I do to do my job and other journalists, you are essentially co-opting us into this space where we become investigators for intelligence agencies and for law enforcement. And I think that that is a very troubling thing, and I should add that you know the reason that I was so upset about this to begin with was not just because I was a journalist but as a citizen that your corrupting a very very powerful very important institution which is the press.

AMT: You have said that you've paid a toll already that you're not the same person through this fight. What do you mean?

BEN MAKUCH: You know that's a complicated answer but I can tell you that I'm not the same person I was before in the sense that I've kind of seen how the sausage made for all intents and purposes. I I've been put under a tremendous amount of stress. This has been a difficult thing for me to engage with since the very beginning because on the one hand this is an interesting thing. This is a fight. And a lot of journalists say, you made your career blah blah, but at the same time the stress that's gone into it it's definitely worth the price of admission. .

AMT: The State is going after you. .

BEN MAKUCH: The States going after me and I think you know when I first heard these stories I was 26 and you know now and I'm 30 and you you're forced in this very very real way to engage with your society that you didn't really expect to happen. And when it happens like that it's you know you don't even realize the effects and then you know you try to run away from it. You try to you try to forget about it. You try to just deal with it as best you can. And you know sometimes it wasn't always an easy thing to do. .

AMT: Ben I know you have to get going to the court but before you go, we now have a new shield law for journalists - the journalistic sources Protection Act - how much difference do you think that will make in cases such as yours?

BEN MAKUCH: I mean any protection is great because we had none. So I applaud that. But at the same time you also have to realize that this particular law is actually providing for confidential sources only. So that means any time a journalist says I can't reveal my source or the source must be anonymous, that's the only time you're protected which I think you know your organization. CBC's also arguing that the Supreme Court today and their argument is that a source a source a source. And I completely agree that's exactly the way I feel about it that when you have a source and they're communicating with you and giving you information it's up to you to figure out what is newsworthy about it and then to inform the public. But when you are forced to give up everything at any time this is you know this is almost totalitarian in my mind and I think that this is deeply troubling and I'm in a place right now where I'm fighting it and hopefully this ends up on the right side of it. .

AMT: Okay Well thanks for speaking with me. We will all be watching. .

BEN MAKUCH: Thank you very much. .

AMT: Ben Markuch national security reporter with VICE in our Ottawa studio. Just before he goes to the Supreme Court of Canada today. This case is a very big deal for media organizations and civil liberties groups who have been fighting hard against what they worry could be a dangerous precedent. Among those intervening in the case is the CBC. The concern is that if police can subpoena any research journalists will be seen as being coopted as you heard and sources will no longer come forward. My next guest argues there are instances where national security should take precedence over a journalist's right to freedom and protection of sources and source material. He is calling for a more collaborative relationship between security services and the media especially where national security is involved. Phil Gurski is a former strategic analyst at the Canadian Security Intelligence Service CSIS. He is now president and CEO of Borealis threat and risk consultants Phil Gurski is in Ottawa hello.

PHIL GURSKY: Good Morning Anna Maria. .

AMT: So As someone who has worked for CSIS what do you make of Ben Mack whose case for not handing his information over to the RCMP?

BEN MAKUCH: Well From one angle I understand it completely because people like you and people like me or people like I used to be working for CSIS are in the same business. We are in the business of finding out information trying to corroborate how good the information is and protect our sources. And you know for media people sort protection is paramount if sources don't think you're going to be able to protect who they are they'll stop talking to you. If we and security intelligence don't protect our sources they could end up dead. So I certainly understand this. What Ben's points are about being very careful, about not disclosing information to identify sources. But I think in this case it goes beyond source protection and it sort of relates more to helping the RCMP in an ongoing investigation on an individual who may or may not be dead by the way. The fact that he's claimed dead I don't know there's any proof that he's dead and we don't know who he is. What they do. And I think what the RCMP. I can't speak for the RCMP. I never worked the at RCMP. .

AMT: You're not allowed to speak for the RCMP>.

BEN MAKUCH: I am not allowed to speak for CSIS either by the way you, just for the record. And I think that obviously the RCMP believes that there's information that Ben has in the course of his interviews with Mr Shorten over a number of years that can help its case. And I think maybe the criticism might Labora to the RCMP if I'm allowed to do so is maybe they're not explain themselves well enough as to what they want and why they want it.

AMT: But generally speaking when do you think journalists have an obligation to share information with a security agency or a law enforcement agency?

BEN MAKUCH: Well I think journalists very are like any other Canadian. If any Canadian has information that relates to an ongoing threat to national security or public safety and we can't - no one would say that terrorism is not an ongoing concern it's not an existential threat. I've been saying that since I retired but it is there is a real threat. I'm not making this stuff up. So I think that anybody journalists included who have access to information that relates to this threat. I think you have an obligation to provide that to the agencies that are tasked with our protection. That's the RCMP or CSIS. I don't see why this is actually a question where we're even asking at this point.

AMT: Well shouldn't organizations such as CSIS than the RCMP be over to do their own work. And for journalists to found this guy what was stopping the RCMP what was stopping CSIS.

PHIL GURSKY: Oh nothing, nothing at all. And you know I'm not going to slam down my former employer or they do a very good job. But CSIS is a relatively small organization. The RCMP is significantly larger but you know counter-terrorism is only one small aspect of the RCMP mandate. And so in a country like Canada we don't have the resources in national security to do all investigations and to funnel information. So we rely on the public for all kinds of things and I think that includes journalists a.

AMT: But how do you define national security? How do you define the danger?

PHIL GURSKY: Yeah that's a really good question, Anna Maria. Look I worked in terrorism for more than three decades so that's sort of where I come from this issue. And I think from my perspective we know that groups like Islamic State and al Qaeda have directly threatened Canada and Canadians. They've killed Canadians abroad. This is not going away as a threat. I think that it'd be pretty hard to make the case this was not a real issue that we need to deal with. So I would say, and I'll be really careful here because I think there is some leeway that anything that relates to a threat like terrorism to a country like Canada constitutes a national security issue.

AMT: And yet you know there's another case of a Canadian man who's back who has given an interview in great detail to the New York Times which the RCMP comes into online and he walks free. So help us understand the argument.

PHIL GURSKY: It's a great question and I have the same questions you do, Anna Maria.

AMT: And we don't know everything right now. We don't know why. But there's a question right. Like you look at these two cases; one guy is believed to be killed another guy is free and all the information you want to hear about what he did is there.

PHIL GURSKY: You Know I agree with you and I've argued very very vehemently in public that Abu Huzaifa, who's the man you're talking about, that the podcast with Rukmini Callimachi of The New York Times should in fact be arrested and charged for joining a terrorist group because that's an offense on of the Criminal Code. Whether or not he'd killed anybody seems to change his story as often as he changes his underwear as far as I'm concerned. I don't know about that but he left the country to join ISIS. That's enough. So why hasn't been arrested? I don’t know. Maybe there are other things going on in the background in terms of evidence gathering by the RCMP. I don't know. But to me, and I think for Canadians, this is a no brainer. Here's a guy who has boasted about leaving the country to join Islamic State and then he is out, killed or not killed, he changed his mind regularly. But to me the fact that he left the country to join a listed terrorist entity and Public Safety Canada has a list of groups of which ISIS is one of them that is fundamentally an offence under the Criminal Code, and that alone should warrant his arrest.

AMT: So you actually think that there should be a more collaborative relationship between the media and security services. How would that work in practical terms?

PHIL GURSKY: Very Carefully. I worked in national security for more than three decades and I understand that the secrecy and the protection of sources and methods. But I think this is 2018 I don't think organizations like CSIS and the RCMP have the luxury of saying you know what we can't tell you. I think that if they want the public to cooperate, and they want people like yourselves in journalism to give information that could help their investigations, they have to give it a little bit. Obviously they've done very very carefully. But I think that the more people that are brought into the tent so to speak and provided some information as to why this information is so crucial. First of all it will increase the understanding of Canadians, which is a really good thing because these organizations operate in the shadows and I worked with the CSE as well and that's even more in the shadows than CSIS. But I think that there are ways to have that conversation and I think that once people understand why the information is required and what and what good it could do, they may in fact be more willing to give it up, maybe journalists included.

AMT: But At times that could put journalists at risk. Already journalists working in war zones, journalists working around drug lords or terrorists are you know are or are suspected of being agents. They've been killed for that.

PHIL GURSKY: You're Absolutely right. And I think this is a really important issue and I don't make light of it. So this is why I think that these things have to be judged on a case by case basis that if the RCMP were to say look it you know here's what we're worried about. Is there anything in your files that can help us with this. I think that the journalists would understand. But I'm not advocating for journalists to routinely give up their source information, to routinely give up other information they might have because you're absolutely right. They are subject to threats and possible physical harm if they're reporting abroad so I don't I don't dismiss this at all. I think this is a really complicated issue. Let's have a dialogue about it. We'll see what the Supreme Court says today will be interesting to see. But regardless of the decision today what I'm advocating is let's just sit down as journalists as Canadians as security intelligence law enforcement agencies, and have an adult to adult conversation about public safety, about national security and why it matters.

AMT: Okay Phil Gursky thanks for your time.

PHIL GURSKY: My Pleasure. Have a great day.

AMT: Former Cece's analyst Phil Gurski He's in Ottawa. Well journalist Kim Bolan has spent much of her career working with confidential sources and the information they provide. She's a reporter for The Vancouver Sun. For more than 30 years she's been covering crime terrorism gang wars in B.C. She joins us from our victorious studio to explain why maintaining those sources and control over her own research is so crucial to her work. Hi Kim.

KIM BOLAN: Hi. Thanks for having me.

AMT: So What do you think of the argument you just heard from Phil Gurski?

KIM BOLAN: I found it really quite frightening. Clearly there's a lack of understanding about how journalists do our jobs and why we have to do it the way we have to do it. You know he talked about the RCMP believing that there might be something that VICE has that will aid their investigation. That keyword, believing, you know is what we have to focus on. This is a fishing expedition. They don't know what the journalist has and in fact the best information that journalists get from sources we use in our stories, we publish it. We broadcast it and in fact we give it to the police in that public forum. We also give it to the rest of Canadians and people outside of Canada. So it's absolutely critical that we're allowed to develop sources, write these stories, broadcast these stories you know so that people can have a greater understanding about what's happening out there. You know CSIS doesn't give us reports with all kinds of details in them about you know how terrorists are recruiting in Canada how, you know I wrote about the Sinaloa Cartel setting up shop in British Columbia. I don't think I would get a public disclosure by the RCMP of that information. We're doing critical work and we need to maintain these important tools to do that work and we cannot become an arm of law enforcement.

AMT: How often have law enforcement officials tried to obtain information from you that comes from confidential sources?

KIM BOLAN: I would say several times over the last decade. You know of course for years I worked on the Air India investigation and had all kinds of sources that I was working with to do those stories for a very long period of time. I now cover gangs and organized crime. I have started a blog that's on the Vancouver Sun site ten years ago now and it became this kind of thing beyond my control where people involved in the criminal underworld would come in and comment and provide information and I would reach out and develop these sources that I don't think I would have had access to otherwise. And you know that blog has been mentioned in several gang court cases and people on the stand admit that they're on it or trying to manipulate it you know. But they have on occasion asked me to provide you know details of IPs for people that they would like to talk to. And it's something we have always resisted. I always talk to my police contacts about the importance of me being able to do my job without them interfering and you know try to build a good relationship with police too so they don't think automatically that they should come to a journalist and try to force us to give them the material that we have that isn't part of our stories.

AMT: Are There ever situations, Kim, where you willingly share information with police?

KIM BOLAN: Not information about what I'm working on. I mean obviously when we're doing investigative stories we end up going to police for comment. So we're talking to them about what we're writing and therefore they get information about that. I have on occasion when I've come across threats to someone's personal safety then I believe my citizen's hat you know goes on and over top of my journalist hat and I'm not you know wanting anyone to be harmed. So if I've heard that someone is in danger, there’s a threat to them and this is a policy that my newspaper also has I provide that information to the police. And likewise when I've had threats myself, some of them are delivered via social media, then we do file a police report if we think it's warranted or if the threat is serious enough.

AMT: You cover terrorism as well as crime; do you make a distinction between the two when it comes to whether you disclose information?

KIM BOLAN: It's Really a case by case basis it would be very very rare where I would disclose information and it would only be about someone being you know in imminent danger not just generally oh gee people involved in you know the Red Scorpions or are dangerous and you know they're continuing this gang war I mean what use is that to the police number one and number two why would I say that I'm talking about a you know if I have heard that you know this person is going to be targeted you know I want that person to get a warning from law enforcement. So that would be the only occasions, very very rare, and it's certainly not me giving them details of where I heard the information. You know what my notes say do I have a recording of that. It's none of that which seems to be what they're going after, from VICE and I really applaud them for taking this fight to the Supreme Court of Canada because without a doubt it is a fight for all of us doing this kind of work in the country. .

AMT: Well We now have new shield laws - a new shield law - for journalists the journalistic sources Protection Act. How can that change things for you and for others?

PHIL GURSKY: Well I'm hoping that by its very existence it provides you know a barrier that has to be overcome but it hasn't been tested yet. The Problem is that you know it makes that distinction as was already noted this morning that it has to be a confidential source only I mean it's not telling me as a journalist that I'm better to keep people confidential when you know someone is in fact willing to use their name for a news story. So it's still not perfect and the other thing is it has the subjective nature to it in that police have to demonstrate that they can't get the information any other way. Well am I going to get to look at all the steps that they've taken to try and get that information. Because arguably in this case they could have done what this enterprising young reporter did as you said and develop their own relationship with this person, and they could have gotten this information. We wouldn't be where we are today. You know likewise I don't want it to be the easy way out for police to go to journalists and say oh well we couldn't have gotten what they got. They have so many more tools than we have. They can pay confidential sources. They can employ agents they can go undercover and infiltrate organizations. You know we don't have wiretap we don't have all these tools that law enforcement already has to do their job. And yet you know they're telling us that in these instances we're doing it better than they are and they need our work product. I just don't accept that.

AMT: If your sources know you might share information with police what happens?

PHIL GURSKY: Well it puts you at risk. I mean you know you already mentioned it this morning like they think sometimes when we're trying to get information about stuff that they may feel is none of our business that we're trying to do it to give it to the police and I always reassure people know that is not my function. I will protect my sources. And I've never been in a situation where I have outed a source to the police. It's just not my role. I've been doing this for 34 years. And as far as I'm concerned I'm never going to do it.

AMT: I guess there's a reason why police go undercover when they try to get that information. .

KIM BOLAN: That's Right. That's right. And you know we respect that. You know when they put bans on the identity of undercover police officers when we're covering court cases because we understand that. And yet there doesn't seem to be sort of the reverse where they understand how we do our jobs. And I think that's one reason why this is going to the country's highest court because lower courts there's often a gap between you know the judge's ability to understand how journalists do their job when they're overseeing these types of cases.

AMT: Kim Bolan thanks for your thoughts today.

KIM BOLAN: Thanks very much for having me.

AMT: Kim Bolan, reporter with The Vancouver Sun she joined us from Victoria. That's our program for today stay with radio 1 for Q. After this discussion about protecting sources we're going to end things today with something from the late Ben Bradlee. He was the editor of The Washington Post when it's two reporters Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein helped take down the Nixon administration with the help of that legendary confidential informant Deep Throat. Here it is. I'm Anna-Maria Tremonti. Thank you for listening to The Current.

SOUNDCLIP

I didn’t know his name until after the case was over, after Nixon resigned. That surprises me now. I would not have done that in my current if I was still editor I would have demanded to know. And I am wondering why. I've often wondered. I think the thing that's most important to me rather than the identity of the source is whether he is right or not. And Deep Throat was right from beginning to end. And so and Woodward and Bernstein were not making mistakes. So the accuracy of their stories were never called into question. They really weren't. I mean they were smeared by certain people. And you know Richard Nixon in that famous statement saying that he couldn't talk about it because it involved, because Watergate involved matters of national security which was baloney just baloney.

[Music: Theme]

Back To Top »

Provide Transcript Feedback

CBC would like to acknowledge the support of the Broadcasting Accessibility Fund.

Wednesday May 23, 2018 Full Transcript

More Stories Like This