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 2016

The Current Transcript for February 16, 2017

Host: Laura Lynch

STORIES FROM THIS EPISODE

Listen to the full episode

Prologue

[Music: Theme]

SOUNDCLIP

RICHARD HAASS: What's missing from the story so far is the President of United States. When did he know and when did he know it?

LAURA LYNCH: Those questions may sound familiar to anyone who remembers the Watergate scandal that eventually brought down U.S. President Richard Nixon, but now former presidential adviser David Gergen and others are resurrecting them this time aiming them at President Donald Trump. There is talk of chaos in the White House with resignations and your daily stories about Trump's ties to Russian officials to sift through that and all the global implications. We have a feature interview with Richard Haass who warns that the world is in disarray.

LL: Then we dive deeper into the real story behind “fake news”.

SOUNDCLIP

DONALD TRUMP: Michael Flynn, General Flynn is a wonderful man. I think he's been treated very very unfairly by the media as I call it the “fake media” in many cases.

LL: Donald Trump defending his former National Security Adviser and attacking the media in the process. Journalists say they're just doing their jobs. But now, one newspaper in Colorado is taking things a step further suing to defend its reputation and its work as another a politician cries fake news.

LL: And then:

SOUNDCLIP

KELLY LEITCH: Here in Canada, whether it be the elites or the insiders or some of the left wing media. They're really out of touch with the average Canadian.

LL: Conservative MP and leadership candidate Kelly Leitch has based much of her campaign on what she says is her ability to understand what Canadians truly want, unlike other politicians. Well a new survey suggests she may be right. That most Canadians now don't trust government, the media and business because they just don't get it. It's been a remarkable change in attitude in the year or so since Prime Minister Justin Trudeau took office. We'll talk about what's behind it. I'm Laura Lynch, sitting in for Anna Maria Tremonti and this is The Current.

Part 1: Trump-Russian scandal has ‘shades of Watergate,’ says former diplomat Richard Haass

Guest: Richard Hass

SOUNDCLIP

JOHN MCCAIN: I think there is significant dysfunction in the national security apparatus of the Trump administration. When you see that you don't know who's in charge, this Flynn situation. The whole environment is one of dysfunction in the Trump administration as far as national security is concerned.

LL: That is us Republican Senator John McCain on Tuesday, reacting to the resignation of National Security Adviser Michael Flynn. The retired general resigned after it was disclosed he'd spoken to the Russian ambassador about sanctions against Russia before U.S. President Donald Trump's inauguration. And then, had misled the Vice-president and others in the White House about the nature of his conversations. It is a dramatic twisting story with ramifications not just for the United States, but for the world. Chaos and Order play a big part in Richard Haass’s new book “A world in Disarray: American Foreign Policy and the Crisis of the Old Order”. He was the Senior Middle East Adviser under U.S. President George, Herbert Walker, Bush and was the director of Policy Planning Staff in the State Department under Colin Powell. He is currently the president of the Council on Foreign Relations. I spoke with Richard Haas yesterday in Toronto.

LL: General Michael Flynn was the top National Security Adviser to President Trump. How can the kind of chaos that we're seeing in the White House right now play out in terms of global security?

RICHARD HAASS: This new President inherited a world or an inbox that's daunting. You know it is a world of disarray. Just look at the Middle East or Europe or North Korea what have you. And the United States plays a central role in pushing back against it. But that assumes the United States itself has the ability and the will to play that role. And the combination of a world in disarray and a United States that is politically in disarray is toxic. And that's what that's what worries me right now. It's this combination which Senator McCain was getting at. It's not just the political dysfunctionality we've seen over the last few years between Congress and the Executive which plagued the Obama presidency. But now we have a degree of… boy, disarray doesn't even capture it. Chaos in the White House that really needs to be fixed and fix fast or a real crisis will come along not the sort that's been self-generated, but a good old fashioned one.

LL: Yeah, we can see whispers of that sort of thing happening. But right now there are investigations going on into the role of Russia and hacking into the Democratic National Committee and Democratic campaign chair John Podesta’s e-mails using those e-mails to help Donald Trump supposedly win the election. Why would President Putin take that kind of gamble meddling in the U.S. election?

RICHARD HAASS: Well just to be clear, we don't know what if any impact the hacking or manipulation had. We just know that it was done and the Russians did it and nothing in Russia is freelanced, so we assume Mr. Putin was four square behind it.

LL: OK, assuming that's true then why would he take that risk?

RICHARD HASS: Well, I don't think it was from Mr. Putin's point of view it probably wasn't a great risk. You know hackers can do things. Governments have what we used to call in the business plausible deniability; he's never going to confess. This is not one of those TV shows where in the last two minutes the killer stands up and says I did it I did it I regret it. And for him clearly seeing that Hillary Clinton lost was important she represented probably Barack Obama plus in terms of muscularity against Russia. And Mr. Trump from the get go has had what I would call either a benign or sanguine view of Russia. Also I happen to think it's an incorrect view, but from Vladimir Putin's point it wasn't even a close call.

LL: Well that's interesting because we're now seeing some disturbing reporting in The New York Times that that high level members of the Trump election campaign were in frequent contact with Russian intelligence in the lead up to the election. What will it mean to the presidency if it comes out that this kind of collusion did in fact go on?

RICHARD HAASS: If it is found through investigations, intelligence, law enforcement that there actually was some kind of collusion. Questions of fundamental political legitimacy will rise and it could basically be a threat to the Trump presidency itself. So I would not underestimate this. This is shades of Watergate and this is shades of Iran-Contra. And those are the two greatest American political scandals in the last few decades. This is not simply about not informing the Vice-president. This is not simply about colleagues not showing trust or respect for one another. This goes way way way beyond that and it's really at this nexus of national security relations with this great power called Russia and the behavior first of a campaign, then of a transition and now of an administration.

LL: And we are hearing Donald Trump tweet on this as we often do. This is his way of reacting to events thing. This is a tweet, “Information is being illegally given to the failing New York Times and Washington Post by the intelligence community (NSA and FBI) just like Russia.” Why is he insulting the very agencies that are currently investigating his campaign?

RICHARD HAASS: Well again, an awful lot of Mr. Trump's efforts both before and then the White House have been to go against MSM mainstream media. If you look at his base that's a theme that plays extraordinarily well. The fact that he uses Twitter as much as he does is no accident it’s his way of pole vaulting. Of going over the traditional media, but ironically enough he has been the best thing for traditional media since I don't know since Marconi or somebody. The New York Times and The Washington Post are reviving tremendously. We're seeing good old fashioned investigative journalism. They are rising to the occasion after a lot of people would say they were relatively supine almost like the way the Republican candidates couldn't figure out how to tackle Donald Trump. Also the mainstream media couldn't figure out how to tackle them. They figured it out now and they're doing a pretty good job and there’s talk about the leaks from the intelligence community that's clearly happening. You're seeing that what I think he's paying the price for having taken them on and alienated them. You're seeing leaks from career officials across the board. If you don't if you don't treat people loyally they're not going to show loyalty back. But I do think all this talk about leaks is a diversion. Yes it's a problem. I agree, people have to accept their obligations not to leak classified material. But that's a reflection of the crisis.

LL: it’s a symptom in a way.

RICHARD HAASS Exactly, that’s a symptom, that's not a cause.

LL; You obviously have history you've sat at tables when national security is being discussed. Have you ever seen a relationship like this between a sitting president and national security agencies?

RICHARD HAASS: The short answer is No. I mean I've seen a lot of dysfunctionality in my day. I've worked for four presidents. I've worked for Jimmy Carter Ronald Reagan both Presidents Bush and I've seen times where say Secretaries of Defense and Secretaries of State were literally not on talking you know would not talk with one another directly. I've seen total breakdowns and process where you that you know nothing leaks like the ship of state. But this is a degree of not just in again we're used to that this is a breakdown of the basic fabric of government. And I think for Donald Trump, the question is not simply who does he choose to be the new National Security Advisor and various names are being bandied about, all of whom are former military. There's a more fundamental question which is what is the relationship within the White House among all these people? Because right now I would say there's too many people in the kitchen. And then there is the relationship between the center, between the White House and the various agencies and departments. There's the President's own attitude towards them too. There's the tweeting. There's the unwillingness to approve choices. Here we are sitting here having this conversation. Neither the Secretary of State nor the Secretary of Defense has a deputy, much less else who's been appointed and working for him and we're now what three and a half four weeks into the administration. God forbid there's a real crisis. We've been acting National Security Adviser. We have two principals without deputies we don't yet have a Trump administration. When it comes to matters of national security and that to me is alarming.

LL: You've mentioned again this idea that God forbid we have a real crisis and we have seen actions by the Russians in the last few days. We have seen them get into a position that is clearly against the agreement on arms reduction we have seen a ship going up and down the coast of East because the United States has surveillance equipment we have seen military planes Russian military planes buzzing U.S. warships. How close are we getting to that crisis you're talking about?

RICHARD HAASS: The answer is I don't know and nobody does. And the reason is simple. If Vladimir Putin wants there to be a crisis there will be one. He has essentially removed any check and balance within the Russian political system on what he wants to do. He has de-institutionalized his country. He has greater freedom of action than say Nikita Khrushchev during the Cuban missile crisis. So if tomorrow Vladimir Putin wants to do in a NATO country what he did in Ukraine, I literally see nothing stopping him. I'm not saying he will, but if he wants to be mischievous or reckless or responsible. No one's going Vladimir, you can't do that. He really is unchecked. So what we're seeing here is him I think pushing back what Putin wants desperately is not so much to make Russia great again, that would require reform. What he wants Russia to be respected again is a great power. This is his way of saying take me seriously. LL: In that vein then are you surprised by reports that Russian intelligence is also interfering in France and Germany in the elections coming there?

RICHARD HAASS: I would be surprised if they weren’t doing that. The stakes are great if you're Russia what do you want to do you want to push back against NATO. You want to re-establish a Russian sphere of influence and you would love to push back against what he sees, Putin sees, as one of the great setbacks of modern time which is NATO enlargement NATO itself. So my guess is we're going to see heavy Russian interference certainly in the French and German elections. You know Brexit was already a gift for Putin. He would love to see the political military parallel to Brexit. And that's called weakening NATO.

LL: You raise NATO and I want to ask you about that. President Trump called NATO obsolete. What did you think when you heard him say that?

RICHARD HAASS: Not a whole lot in the sense that I disagree profoundly. NATO has found you know various post-Cold War roles. Ironically enough it's now come back to its Cold War role which is containing or at least deterring Russian aggression of the sort we saw in Ukraine, obviously not a NATO member. But more broadly, the United States benefits from its alliances. One area I've disagreed with Mr. Trump privately in our conversations and publicly is when I have said that his assessment of the costs and benefits of our support for allies I believe is flawed. I think he exaggerates the costs of these relationships and I think he dramatically underestimates the benefits. We have essentially kept peace in Europe for what the last 70 plus years. Well that compares favorably to the first half of the 20th century when you had two horrendous world wars. So the costs of NATO pale in comparison to the costs of serious instability in Europe. I'd make the same case for our relationship with countries like Japan or South Korea in Asia. So there's this going after allies which he certainly did during the campaign and transition. I think he's pulled back on it now. We see him being “more traditional” quote unquote, but putting allies on edge is a dangerous thing because stability in the world and in some ways American influence depends on allies feeling comfortable with their dependence on us and that they perceive us as being reliable and predictable.

LL: When it comes to NATO and Russia though beginning in 1999, the countries that were formerly in the Soviets sphere of influence began joining NATO and you could understand how Russia might get a little bit nervous about its old allies — more than allies parts of its old country — moving away and joining NATO.

RICHARD HAASS: I would expect in 25 years or 50 years, not that I'll be around to prove my point. But I would think that historians will be having something of a field day when they look at this entire process of NATO enlargement and more broadly how the West handled its victory in the Cold War. You know Churchill's famous dictum in victory magnanimity. And there will be those who say to some extent the West Erred and a it humiliated Russia in certain ways unnecessarily which gave rise to Putinism. And there'll be those who say no, this was inevitable given Russian political culture and history and geography and it's good that NATO did these things. And I would expect or predict this will be a debate that will not be settled but it will be waged.

LL: Well I do have a chance to ask you about something you did say some years ago.

[Sound: Laughter]

LL: When you when you were head of the Policy Planning Staff and the State Department under George W. Bush, you proposed asking Russia to join NATO.

RICHARD HAASS: Right. I was concerned about the growing you felt in Russia the alienation. And when I looked at NATO, I basically said NATO is now a collection of two dozen plus countries. We don't do anything in unanimity. Essentially a crisis comes along, usually outside of Europe now. And those who are willing able to get involved do it say in Afghanistan and those who for whatever reason are not willing or able to get involved don't. I said if that's what NATO's become then why not let Russia in if that takes a lot of the sting out of having lost the Cold War and NATO enlargement. Why not? I didn't see a big downside, but like many of my proposals at the time, it didn't get very far.

LL: And I am going to ask you about another one of those…

RICHARD HAASS: [Sound: Laughing] we could use up the entire interview with all my failures.

LL: Don't worry I won’t check you on all of them. President Trump has said that he wants to work with Russia to destroy ISIS. Does that make good strategic sense for the United States?

RICHARD HAASS: if Russia will willing to play a responsible and sustained role against ISIS. I'd like to see it. But look at what's happened in Syria, despite what Russia said they weren't going after ISIS. They were going after the Sunni groups that were taking on the Assad government. But look, I think we ought to talk with Russia whether it's about stability in Europe or stability in the Middle East or how to deal with North Korea. My goal is not to isolate them or alienate them. Russia can be a spoiler. We've got to talk to them fine. But we've also got to push back. And I would say among other things, we've got to continue to reintroduce military forces into NATO Europe. I would do more to help Ukraine defend itself. I would be prepared to do on occasion more in the Middle-East; we can't rely on Mr. Putin’s sense of self-restraint. If we do where we are going to be sore sorely disappointed.

LL: Let's get a little more into ISIS then. ISIS arose out of the chaos of the 2003 U.S. led invasion of Iraq. And here's your chance. What was your position on going into Iraq at that time?

RICHARD HAASS: I was against going into Iraq, ironically enough it was one of those rare opportunities right a chance to replace something in my life. I had been President Bush the father's principal Middle East Advisor at the White House during the Gulf War after Saddam invaded Kuwait and after Kuwait was liberated I was one of those who argued do not go on to Baghdad. It will be a mess for lots of reasons. Well in some ways the 2003 Iraq war was just the opposite. It wasn't designed to go to Baghdad in part because of the fear they might have weapons of mass destruction. Even more I thought is that a lot of people around President Bush, the son, thought that this would be an easy win and it would create an Iraqi democracy that would then set a positive example that no one else in the region would be able to resist. I profoundly disagreed with that. I needless to say, did not carry the day in the arguments. And I think some, but not all to be fair. Some of the disarray we're seeing in the Middle East can be traced to the 2003 Iraq war. Just to be fair, there will be those who say even if that war wasn't a mistake even if you're right Richard, then the United States in many ways did succeed at least in large part in restabilising Iraq with the so-called surge “the Arab Awakening” during Mr. Bush's presidency. And that one of Barack Obama's cardinal mistakes was to pull all U.S. troops out of out of Iraq in some ways to re-destabilize the country is in a funny sort of way even he recognized years later. Now here we are having this conversation and there’s more than 5,000 American soldiers back in Iraq.

LL: And you say it had a large part to do with, I think those were your words of the disarray of it, but do you really think everything that we've seen happen in the Middle East since then would have happened anyway without the invasion of Iraq?

RICHARD HAASS: Oh, I think lots of things would have happened. First of all, the Iranian revolution happened decades before. I think that the Middle East was ready to blow. Something was going to set it off. Now, what we may have seen differently it was an Arab Spring-like event in Iraq. Just like we saw in Syria, just like we saw in Libya and just like we saw in Egypt. And it might have played out differently if someone like Saddam were still in power. My hunch is he would have reacted much as Bashar al-Assad. So it would it would have been harsh, but yes I think the Arab Spring would have happened would have happened regardless.

LL: Another potential hot spot in the Middle East the relationship between Israel and the Palestinians. President Trump met with Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu. The longstanding American support of a policy of a two state solution doesn't seem to be the priority for Washington now. What do you think of that?

RICHARD HAASS: I’d say two things. One is even if there were peace between Israelis and Palestinians and there were two states and both sides were happy with them. It would not affect anything else for the most part in the Middle East. We still have the mess in Syria, Libya, Yemen, Lebanon, you name it. So this idea that the Israeli-Palestinian equation holds the key to the region is simply not right. Now, it’s obviously tremendously important for the Israelis and Palestinians. And I do think a two state solution whatever the questions about it. It's the least bad approach I can think of. It's potentially a good approach. I think the real risk for Israel is if it doesn't agree to this you will gradually have a one state reality. And that raises all sorts of questions about whether Israel will continue to be a secure, prosperous, Jewish democratic state. So I believe it's in Israel's own self-interest not as a favor to the Palestinians, but as a favor to itself and its own DNA to try to bring about some kind of a two state solution. But I don't see it happening. I once wrote a book years and years ago about ripeness and one of the things I said is that you have to have political leadership that's willing and able to make real compromises. Well when I look at the Palestinians, in no way is that divided leadership between Gaza and the West Bank willing and able to make a deal. I look at this Israeli government, in no way is this Israeli government willing and able to make a deal. So my guess is no matter how many calories this or any American administration puts into the quote unquote “peace process” they are going to have very little to show for it.

LL: Now we're going to pause there. My guest is Richard Haass, his new book is “A World in Disarray: American Foreign Policy and the Crisis of the Old Order. The CBC News is coming up. We're going to pick up this conversation with Richard Haass. So stay tuned to hear what he has to say about the nuclear threat. He warns that if countries in the Middle East get nuclear weapons the situation will get worse. Quote “on steroids”. I'm Laura Lynch and you were listening to The Current.

[Music: Theme]

Part 2: Richard HAASS discussion continued

Guest: Richard Haass

LL: Hello, I'm Laura Lynch and you're listening to The Current.

[Music: Theme]

LL: Still to come how populist anger may be reshaping politics in Canada. But first, Canada's important new role in a world turned upside down.

[Music: Theme]

LL: Before the news I was speaking with Richard Haass. He is the president of the Council on Foreign Relations and he was an adviser to four U.S. presidents. His new book is “A World in Disarray: American Foreign Policy and the Crisis of the Old Order. If you're just tuning in here's what he had to say about the revelations of ties between Donald Trump associates and Russian intelligence officials in the year leading up to the U.S. presidential election.

SOUNDCLIP

RICHARD HAASS: If it is found through investigations, intelligence, law enforcement whether it's congressional investigations or the Justice Department that there actually was some kind of collusion. Questions of fundamental political legitimacy will rise and it could raise it could basically be a threat to the Trump presidency itself. So I would not underestimate this. This is shades of Watergate and this is shades of Iran-Contra.

LL: Now you can listen to that first part of our conversation on our website: www.cbc.ca/thecurrent or on our podcast or with the CBC Radio app. And I spoke with Richard Haas yesterday in our Toronto studio. We pick up our conversation now talking about the nuclear threat.

LL: during the campaign Donald Trump said Japan and other countries depend on U.S. protection and should arm themselves with nuclear weapons. What did you think when you heard then candidate Donald Trump arguing for nuclear proliferation?

RICHARD HASS: Again it was alarming indeed. You asked me before about alliances. One of the real benefits of alliances is you reassure countries so they don't have to take matters into their own hands. And among other things they don't have to then proliferate weapons of mass destruction. We don't want to see a half dozen other countries in the Middle East go down that path. We don't want to see the Japanese, the South Koreans or others go down that path. We have to therefore again stand by countries. But a world of many more nuclear weapons with many more fingers on nuclear buttons. No good can come of that. Just because nuclear weapons help stabilize the peace between the United States and the Soviet Union during the Cold War. No one should think for a minute that that is easily replicable if you have 10 or 20 countries with nuclear weapons and you have nuclear forces that are not robust enough to introduce elements of stability. So I just think the idea of allowing proliferation to happen and assuming it would be stabilizing or desirable is about as wrong as any idea out there.

LL: Well he seems to have pulled back from that a bit at least in his in his rather muted response to the North Korean missile test over the weekend. He came out said he did 100 per cent behind Japan.

RICHARD HAASS: Right.

LL: Did that ease your mind?

RICHARD HAASS: Well, I think he's come around a little bit on the importance of alliances. What remains to be seen though is how the United States does deal with North Korea? Again another positive development was he put to rest this question of the one versus two China policy. So it reopens the possibility of U.S. Chinese cooperation against North Korea. I think the big question is whether China will use the leverage it denies it has, but we know it does have over North Korea to try to put pressure on the North Koreans. History would say be skeptical. So if the Chinese are not willing to help. I don't believe we can successfully negotiate with the North Koreans well that then leaves two options. Either we leave the North Koreans to go have nuclear weapons on ballistic missiles that by the way can reach the United States and Canada, which is not a reassuring prospect and that's probably only a couple of years away. Or we would have to use military force in one way or another to pre-empt or prevent that. That's not a very reassuring option given what could follow.

LL: But you called for that in 1994.

RICHARD HAASS: I did.

LL: That was a different time I suppose?

RICHARD HAASS: And I might call for it again if we have to. I mean I think we're getting close to the point where North Korea is on the cusp of capabilities I don't want to live under. 1994 we had the advantage of stopping this process essentially nipping it in the bud. Now it's developed significantly in terms of nuclear warheads and ballistic missile capabilities, far more complicated now. We'd also need to get the South Koreans and the Japanese on board and those are big question marks. Again that's why I'd like to head this off diplomatically. If we if we can, but that requires China being willing and able to use all of its muscle and I have not seen evidence that they're prepared to.

LL: And now, just most recently when we’re talking about nuclear weapons we have President Trump saying they're in no way will he ever allow Iran to develop a nuclear weapon.

RICHARD HAASS: Well I find that reassuring. I think that's the right position because if Iran does that two things. Iran would become even more aggressive around the region. And second of all, Saudi Arabia Egypt, Turkey, possibly others would want to have nuclear weapons of their own. And that would be a nightmare. As bad as the Middle East is now, just when you thought it couldn't get worse that would be worse on steroids. So that means we need to make sure the current nuclear agreement with Iran whatever its flaws stays in place. More important or just as important it means we will need a follow on agreement. We are going to need to have an agreement that for example maintains certain ceilings or limits on centrifuges or enriched uranium. These all expire under some as soon as just over eight years from now. So one of the things the United States and others are going to have to think about is how do we keep these constraints on Iran permanent? Because we can't trust the idea that Iran will put constraints on itself. We certainly can't bet on the idea that Iran is going to evolve and it's going to look like Switzerland in a couple of years. That to me is a pipe dream not a not a strategy.

LL: I want to bring this back around to the President and the disarray in government right now. You argue in your book that one of the things that we need going forward is a stable, reliable United States.

RICHARD HAASS: Absolutely. The world is not a self-organizing place. For anyone listening to this if they remember their high school or college economics to the Adam Smith idea that the marketplace sorts itself out. There's the invisible hand. That may or may not be true in markets; it's certainly not true in the world. And without the United States I think we're seeing elements of it in the Middle East. When we pull back bad things happen. And the danger is not that China or Russia or someone like that is going to take over the world. This is not an equivalent of the ‘30s or ‘40s where you had something like Germany and Japan with global aspirations and capabilities or even like the Soviet Union. What likelihood is not just disarray, but we would have chaos with non-state actors like ISIS and al Qaeda. North Koreas, Irans with nuclear weapons. This would be a nightmare.

LL: OK. But I think you probably wrote those words before Donald Trump was elected?

RICHARD HAASS: No, it's one of the reasons that I've pushed back against things like America First which the others hear that and they say well if it's America First does that mean we're second? And if others feel that they're second they may feel they have to take matters into their own hands.

LL: So what hope do you have that that you will see this stable loyal reliable United States?

RICHARD HAASS: Well that's the debate we're having and I'm worried. And I'm worried about the disarray within the administration. I'm worried about some of the elements of the inaugural speech. I'm worried about the rejection of what has been now nearly a century of U.S. trade policy. So you know again the reason I wrote this book before I knew who was going to be elected was I saw the inbox coming. I didn't know if I was going to be Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump or somebody else. But now you know that was the baseline. That degree of disarray in that inbox and now we've added to it. We've added to it by our campaign, by the transition and by the first three four weeks of this administration. Nothing is totally baked into the cake. Very little about history's inevitable, but if you're not worried if you're not even a little bit alarmed than I would say you're in a state of denial.

LL: And finally a little bit of parochialism. Canada is a founding member of NATO, America's biggest trading partner. What advice would you give to Ottawa and its relationship with the Trump administration?

RICHARD HAASS: Well I thought your Prime Minister handled his trip to Washington really well this week. He stood by his principles and I think Canada can show by example for example on the immigration issue on refugees that you can be human humanitarian and be secure. I think Canada ought to speak truth to power and develop a good close relationship where the Prime Minister and other officials you were Foreign Minister Chrystia Freeland can speak to their counterparts and push back and say we disagree. And also Canada may have to become slightly more active in the world. I think if we are for the next four years at least living in a world where the United States is going to be less willing or less willing to play its traditional role. Then countries like Canada may have to step up and be prepared to do more in ways that they're comfortable with around the world for the same reason we should. Nothing stays local anywhere for long. Whatever happens anywhere gets on this conveyor belt called globalization and it could come back to bite us all. So if Canada sees the United States doing things it doesn't like or not doing things that it should be doing. If you I'd say first try to influence us because we have so many resources. If that fails then I think Canada is going to need to have a in some ways a more independent foreign policy and find other like-minded countries that perhaps it can work with around the world.

LL: Richard Haass, thank you for your timely book and thank you for coming to talk to me about it.

RICHARD HASS: Thanks for having me.

LL: Richard Haass is the president of the Council on Foreign Relations and the author of the new book” A World in Disarray: American Foreign Policy and the Crisis of the Old Order. He was in our Toronto studio.

[Music: Folk]

Part 3: Colorado newspaper to sue Senator over ‘fake news’ allegation

Guest: Jay Seaton

LL: I'm Laura Lynch and you're listening to The Current.

SOUNDCLIP

JIM ACOSTA: Mr. President-elect, Mr. President-elect,

DONALD TRUMP: Go ahead

JIM ACOSTA: Since you are attacking our news organization.

DONALD TRUMP: No, not you.

JIM ACOSTA: Can you give us a chance here you are attacking our news organization.

DONALD TRUMP: You are “fake news”

JIM ACOSTA: Can you give us a chance to ask a question sir? Sir can you stay can. Mr. President-elect can you state categorically.. Mr. President-elect, can you give us a quote.

DONALD TRUMP: Don’t be rude

JIM ACOSTA: Can you give us a question?

DONALD TRUMP: No, I'm not going to give you a question. I am not going to give you a question. You are fake news.

LL: A testy exchange between then President-elect Donald Trump and CNN reporter Jim Acosta back in January. Since then, the President along with some other Republicans have taken to calling certain news organizations and their reporting quote “fake news’. The Washington Post, CNN and The New York Times have all been accused of peddling in untruth. But it isn't just in Washington that Republicans are hurling the charge of “fake news” at media outlets. Last week Colorado State Republican Senator Ray Scott accused the Grand Junction Daily Sentinel, a local newspaper of being “fake news”. He was angry at an editorial in the newspaper calling out the senator for canceling a hearing on a state bill. The senator responded to the editorial by tweeting that the newspaper publishes “fake news”. That accusation is not sitting well with the publisher of The Grand Junction Daily Sentinel Jay Seaton. He intends to sue the Senator and we have reached Jay Seaton in Denver, Colorado. Hello.

JAY SEATON: Good morning.

LL: Take us back why exactly did Senator Scott accuse your newspaper of being fake?

JAY SEATON: Well, I can't guess at the exact motives of that accusation. But we wrote an editorial that called on the Senator who chairs a subcommittee that was hearing a bill for further open records in the state of Colorado. We called on the Senator to pass that bill onto the full Senate for a vote after he canceled a hearing on that bill without any kind of explanation. We wrote a what I would consider gentle editorial urging him to pass that bill on. And what we got in response was an accusation that we are “fake news”.

LL: I believe and this was in a tweet. He also suggested that you should have contacted him before publishing the editorial.

JAY SEATON: That's right. And we're not in the habit of running our editorial positions by the sources of or the subjects of our editorials. That's not something we ever do.

LL: Right. That would be something more and journalistic practice that you would do if you had to get a reaction or a response in a news story.

JAY SEATON: Right. Right. But I'm not even concerned about that allegation or that claim that we didn't reach out to him. Rather it was the blanket statement in an attempt to diminish us as a news source — as a credible news source. The simple claim that we’re deceivers of our readers — we’re fake or false. And I'm I come from a legal background. And in any other industry, if there was a claim on those lines about another company that that company is a sham, a fraud. I don't think that company would stand for it and it would consider it defamation and take action.

LL: If it is considered defamation then there has to be damage. What kind of damage does the label do to your brand?

JAY SEATON: Well you know the greatest asset of any newspaper or any news source is its credibility. So an attack on our credibility and a claim that we are the likes of the folks that made up the story about Hillary Clinton running a child prostitution ring from a pizza parlor. To cast us in that same light and claim that we are actually that. That certainly damages our credibility. Moreover, I know that we've lost subscribers in response to that tweet. Now since then, the response to the push pushed back on that tweet has been quite positive. But the tweet itself did I know cause us real damage.

LL: What kind of relationship has the newspaper had with Senator Scott in the past?

JAY SEATON: You know it's been an arm's length ordinary relationship between a local state Senator and a community newspaper. Interestingly we endorsed Ray Scott in the last election cycle and he was more than happy to tweet that to all of his followers. But when he is called out on something and didn't like what we had to say about him or what he was what he was doing in the Senate. His response was not to criticize us or say hey I disagree with this editorial or this was sloppy reporting that I can live with. Rather it was its “fake news” the Grand Junction Daily Sentinel is “fake news” they’re deceivers of their readers.

LL: Did him saying that and using that label did that take you by surprise?

JAY SEATON: It really did. You know and I know this has become somewhat of a national discussion in our country. But you know in the confines of western Colorado, I simply looked at it as this is again not an opinion this is just a false statement of fact characterizing the Daily Sentinel as false. I was quite thrown by it, but it also clearly damaged our brand and damaged our business. And attacks again our one real asset: our credibility. And under those circumstances, you know I have some experience resolving business damage in the judicial system. So I'm going to come at it that direction.

LL: I wonder though, I understand you do have that legal background you're also a journalist. Whether you had any hesitation given that I gather part of this case is about defending freedom of the press, but you're also running it up against his freedom of speech?

JAY SEATON: Well you know, there's an old line that you know my right to swing my fist runs somewhere around your face. And you know there are limits on the protections of the First Amendment and those limits include defamation. You do not have the right to defame another person or company with a false and knowingly false statement. So I understand that argument. And I also understand that newspapers have traditionally been on the on the defense of libel and defamation claims. And so it's perhaps awkward for a newspaper to be on the plaintiff's side of things. But you know when our credibility is at stake those are quite high stakes.

LL: Now President Trump and members of his team have called many news organizations “fake news”. What do you think is happening here?

JAY SEATON: I think that it's quite dangerous. You know newspapers and the press have a special place. They're actually written into the First Amendment of the United States Constitution as a check on government. And so when a government or elected official attacks a credible news source as fake or a deceiver or you can't believe what is coming out of this news source. What's going on there is an attempt to diminish the speaker. To marginalize the news source and to call into question or cloud the issue. And so you know it's hard to know where what is truth anymore? What is real and what is Alice in Wonderland?

LL: And to that point as you already mentioned, there is actual “fake news” out there. You talked about one story earlier. How concerned are you about that?

JAY SEATON: Well it's very concerning as credible news sources become tarnished or diminished or clouded as deliverers of real information. Again that's our that's our charge under the First Amendment. When we can be cast in the same lot as folks who are deliberately manufacturing information that's knowingly false for the purpose of what could be a political purpose or just for clicks.

LL: Now, going forward you've decided to take this to court. But as we know there is there were larger issues there are larger organizations that are also being hit with this. How would you counsel newspapers and news organizations and responding to these kinds of attacks?

JAY SEATON: Well, you know there is an argument and I think the best argument against what we're proposing is that the term “fake news” has taken on a different meaning under the you know in general vernacular that it's just some sort of general pejorative and it's I don't like things, I don't like something, so it's “fake news”. And I think that’s quite dangerous to just sit back in and not respond in some way to those allegations. Again It’s intended to diminish the credibility of the news source.

LL: But wouldn't the right response just to be keep doing your job? Keep reporting?

JAY SEATON: I think that is that is a response and that is the traditional response of this industry. Again I'm taking a different response. I think we need to keep reporting on it, but I also think there is a remedy in the judicial branch which is not tainted by politics.

LL: Have you heard anything from Senator Scott tweets or otherwise since you announced your intention to sue?

JAY SEATON: There was a tweet in response to my column which appeared on Sunday that simply said Bring it on Jay. Something along those lines and then we have received notice that he's spoken to other news sources and then he has proposed a column that will I think likely run in the in the Daily Sentinel this weekend.

LL: Interesting. So ultimately what would you like to see come from this lawsuit?

JAY SEAATON: What I'd like to see is a court determination that the statements that the Grand Junction Daily Sentinel is “false news” that that statement was false itself it was made knowingly false and it was made for the intention of diminishing us as a check on the senator's authority. That it was intended to diminish our credibility with our readers.

LL: Well, we will we'll be following the case. Thank you very much.

JAY SEATON: Thank you. It’s a real pleasure.

LL: Jay Seaton is the publisher of The Grand Junction Daily Sentinel and he was in Denver, Colorado. Now I got a moment to tell you about a story coming up tomorrow as the battle for Mosul, Iraq continues. The Nineveh Province police swat team has been on the frontlines. These men are all natives of the city and they're out for revenge for what ISIS has done to them and their families. Photojournalist Victor Blue spent six weeks with the swat team and he tells stories from the thick of the action. A warning here he does give a graphic descriptions of what he saw.

SOUNDCLIP

VICTOR BLUE: One of their worst days when we were with them was a day that they were hit by two suicide car bombs in one day. One of which killed two of their soldiers Sufian and Jawad. Sufian was dead when he arrived at the aid station and Jawad died on the table. They were trying to save his life and it was it was kind of overwhelming for all the guys there and Mosen one of the swat guys. He was one of the least injured in the blast, but he was still you know covered in dirt from it. His Humvee was covered in debris and he had a cotton swab kind of stuffed in his ear that morning because the blast had probably ruptured an ear drum or something he’d bleeding a little bit out of his ear. You know he was exhausted, he was trying to care for the guys who were still alive and so I kind of watched him sit with one of the body bags and then jump when some of the Iraqi medics started to carry him into the trucks to take him away. I jumped up to help carry them and then when they got Jawad’s body the guys kind of lifted up put it into the back of the truck and it wouldn't fit all the way in. It's a difficult situation. What do you do with this? You know it's a lifeless body at that point. And they were kind of trying to push it and it wasn't going and he just kind of huffed sighed and hiked his pants up and jumped up on the tailgate and lifted Jawad’s body from between his legs and kind of placed you know into the truck. And for me it was after he'd been through so much that day. It's kind of like ability to suck it up and do that last thing that needed to be done for his friend. It was one of the saddest things that I saw that day for sure.

LL: Join us tomorrow for the full interview with photojournalist Victor Blue about revenge and the battle for Mosul. Coming up in our next half hour, a look at the new research that links our genes and our addictions. I'm Laura Lynch. You were listening to The Current

[Music: Theme]

Part 4: New UBC research suggests stronger connection between addiction and genetics

Guest: Shernaz Bamji

LL: Hello I'm Laura Lynch and this is The Current last week on the show we talked about the Crosstown Clinic in Vancouver. It is quietly giving out prescription heroin to 150 addicts in Vancouver's Downtown Eastside. Liane Gladue is one of the clients.

SOUNDCLIP

LIANE Gladue: the mania that when you go from being a suburban mom to all of a sudden you’re a junky downtown. My self-respect and dignity was further in the gutter than anybody could put me. Because I knew what I was doing to myself, right. And I also didn't have to deal with the fentanyl or the carfentanil that wasn't an issue for me down here. I know that if it was enough I didn't have this program. I would more than likely be dead.

LL: Now, some advocates are suggesting expanding the program could help save lives right now as people continue to die from illicit fentanyl laced drugs. While experts discuss the best way to treat addicts, scientists are trying to figure out why some people may be more susceptible to addictions at a genetic level. New research out of the University of British Columbia may provide some more clues. Shernaz Bamji is a professor in the department of Cellular and Physiological Sciences at the University of British Columbia. She is in our Vancouver studio. Hello.

SHERNAZ BAMJI: Hello.

LL: What got you interested in looking at the genetic roots of addiction?

SHERNAZ BAMJI: Well, we are you know just basically interested in understanding a bit more about the addicted brain. And there have been a number of researchers who have taken patients or people who have drug abuse issues and compared their genes to people who do not have drug abuse issues and they have identified a number of mutations in many genes that actually help the brain communicate or cells within the brain communicate with one another. So that was really interesting because we know that addiction is just learning gone haywire in a particular part of the brain.

LL: That’s interesting, so how did you set out to do your research?

SHERNAZ BAMJI: Well, my lab is interested in learning and more about the cellular molecular mechanisms underlying learning. And as I mentioned since addiction is just learning gone haywire in a particular part of the brain we decided to see what would happen or how exactly learning happens in this part of this brain.

LL: So what did you do to try to find that out?

SHERNAZ BAMJI: Well, we took some of those proteins the genes that I mentioned earlier that had been shown to have a lot of mutations in it in patients who had drug abuse issues. And we increased the amount of this particular protein in the particular part of the brain that's involved in drug addiction.

LL: Why did you why did you increase the protein?

SHERNAZ BAMJI: Basic research just builds on one another. And so looking at the body of evidence we thought that since addiction is learning and learning involves the strengthening of synapses — the synoptic connections. And as the strengthening of synaptic connections involves increasing the glue between these connections and this particular glue that I'm talking about is a protein called cadherin. And we thought hey if we increase could here and in the brain — in this particular part of the brain — we would strengthen the synapses, we would increase the learning in this area of the brain and we would increase the potential of having a more addicted animal. And that was really interesting to us.

LL: OK so we're talking clue here in effect and the animals we're talking about are mice?

SHERNAZ BAMJI: Yes they are. They are genetically modified animals — genetically modified mice. That are modified to increase the amount of this molecular glue. So it's a protein basically, but it acts as glue between nerve cells in the brain to allow the communication to happen.

LL: And what did you do with the mice?

SHERNAZ BAMJI: So this was the cool experiment what we had is that we took these animals — our normal animals and our genetically modified animals. And we put them into a cage with three really distinct chambers in it. We take our animals and we give it cocaine, give it an injection of cocaine and we let it associates that cocaine high with him one of the three chambers. And these three chambers are really distinct, so the animals really can recognize that chamber. And on the other day we give it saline and we let it kind of associate the saline with the other chamber and we go back and forth like this for a number of days. So the animal is really trained and it really remembers where that where it received the cocaine.

LL: OK, so it associates one of these chambers with cocaine and one of them with not much of anything at all?

SHERNAZ BAMJI: Exactly. And then on the test day what we do is we allow the animals to walk around freely. And normal mice would kind of gravitate towards the chamber where they received the drug which might indicate that it's looking for that high. But the animals — the mice — which had too much glue at these particular synapses or too much cadherin at the synapses they didn't behave this way. They just wandered around the cage happily not really gravitating towards that chamber where they received the cocaine. Which sort of indicated to us is that they were not really seeking out that cocaine high anymore.

LL: And what was your reaction when you saw that?

SHERNAZ BAMJI: Well, it was you know completely counter-intuitive to what we thought it was going to happen. We thought more glue, more learning, more addiction and so that's what we had you know set out to do. And so when my students came back and they showed me this result I thought well a lot of let's do it again and try it again and we did. We tried it again and we tried it one more time and all three times with all three cohorts of mice we saw the exact same thing and so then the question was what exactly is happening? Why is it happening? And that I think is the most interesting part of the study for us is that we've learned so much about memory and learning in different parts of the brain and now this particular study shows us that learning can be different in different parts of the brain. And the molecular mechanisms underlying it can be different in different parts of the brain.

LL: So what you learn then about the mice in this experiment. What does that help you understand about addiction in humans?

SHERNAZ BAMJI: Well first, the study adds to a growing body of work that suggests that addictions first of all is not just a matter of being weak willed. But really as a matter of genetics and biology and certainly about circumstances. But even bad circumstances can impact the genes in a way that's called epigenetics. So the first thing is that you know we are all biological creatures. And addiction is also a matter of biology. That's number one. The most other thing that I think is really important. This particular study does is that it explains to us differences in how we learn and different parts of the brain. And this has got impact down the line — well down the line — for humans because that might point to avenues of therapy. Again well down the line once we really fully establish exactly how learning and synaptic plasticity in the area of the brain that's involved in addiction is different from learning in other areas of the brain. So if we really try and just target learning in general we would maybe help people with addiction problems, but then they might not be able to learn something else and that's not really good trade-off.

LL: Just tell me a little bit more about what you mean like that? If you give them the learning that prevents the addiction how does that affect the other learning?

SHERNAZ BAMJI: OK, so the particular molecule that I was talking about cadherin. It is involved in learning in all parts of the brain. So the part of the brain where you learn someone's name or the way you drive around the streets etc. that particular protein is involved in learning those kinds of things events, names, countries, dates, etc. As addiction and so you wouldn't want to create a pill to prevent or to decrease the amount or increase the amount of cadherin in the brain because then you might mess up all kinds of learning. So now we have perhaps some more tools and to say OK, well there is some differences going on. And so let's target the different part of it. You can't target something that is involved in both aspects of learning. But if you can isolate only a few molecules that might be involved only in learning that happens in addiction then maybe we can start playing around with those synapses specifically and then try to alleviate addictive behavior. That is the big hope. You know at least coming at it from the molecular cellular aspect of things this is how we as a scientists understanding it at this particular level could hope to help people who have addictions.

LL: But let's be clear here. This is years and years away I would think?

SHERNAZ BAMJI: This is years and years away absolutely. Science is a very incremental thing and certainly before we take anything into the human population we want to be very very sure about what we're doing. Especially with the brain and especially when it comes to something as sensitive as learning and memory. We certainly don't want to be messing around with that in humans.

LL: Can you give me a sense of some of the other research that's been done about the role of genetics in addiction?

SHERNAZ BAMJI: Well, genetics is still I mean even though we're in the age of genomics right now. It's still kind of at its infancy what people tend to do are the kinds of studies that I've talked to you about. they will take you know a number a battery of people hundreds of people who are heavy smokers or opioid users etc. and compare it to the control population. And see what the genetic differences are — any sort of mutations. But the next step always is the stuff that we do which is validating that. Again just showing that there is a mutation in a gene doesn't necessarily mean that that mutation is causing the outcome. In fact all of us have you know 60 to 100 potential new mutations and that doesn't necessarily mean that we have you know any sort of outcomes like addiction or any other problems. So you have to be very cautious when you're only interpreting genetic data. You have to go back and do the experiments that we were doing to validate that these particular genes are indeed involved in whatever disease that you're talking about.

LL: So I guess this means back to the lab for you?

SHERNAZ BAMJI: Back to the lab for many of us.

LL: Thank you very much for your time.

SHERNAZ BAMJI: Thank you Laura.

LL: Shernaz Bamji is a professor in the Department of Cellular and Physiological Sciences at the University of British Columbia and she was in our Vancouver studio.

[Music: Electronic]

Part 5: Majority of Canadians distrust government poll suggests

Guest: Susan Delacourt, Max Miller, Jenny Gerbasi

SOUNDCLIP

MERLE TERLESKY: You’ve been saying two different messages. Down east you've been telling people that you want to kill the single biggest employer in our province. You’re in Alberta right now sir, you’re not in Ottawa. Yet when you come to Calgary, You tell people you’re sorry. Well I’m sorry I'm a little confused. There is one of two things Mr. Prime Minister. You are either a liar or you are confused. And I’m begging to think it’s both.

LL: Prime Minister Justin Trudeau received that tongue lashing from Merle Terlesky, an Alberta man at a town hall in Calgary last month. And a new poll suggests that the frustration so evident in that man's voice isn't unique. The poll indicates a majority of Canadians don't trust government. 80 per cent feel the country's elites are out of touch. Those are just some of the more sobering findings in the so-called Trust Barometer survey conducted annually by public relations firm Edelman. It is the first time in 17 years that Canada has joined the ranks of so-called “distrusters” countries in which more than half of citizens say they distrust their civic institutions. Susan Delacourt says the Prime Minister should be concerned this apparent spike in distrust and cynicism is the same sentiment that propelled Donald Trump to the White House. Susan Delacourt is a journalist and author, long-time political commentator with The Toronto Star and iPolitics and we reached her in Ottawa. Hi Susan.

SUSAN DELACOURT: Hi Laura.

LL: The headline of your article is “the Centre cannot hold: Canada faces a populist eruption”. What do you see in this Edelmann survey that raises flags for you?

SUSAN DELACOURT: Well, I think we tend to be smug in Canada and think that we don't have the you know the problems we've been seeing in the United States and I call them problems. And I don't think we should be. I think that there's all kinds of ways in which you know we all hear it anecdotally that there is this feeling that there are two Canada’s. There's the one that lives inside the political bubble and there's the one that lives outside. And there are all kinds of indications we get this poll is one of them that those two sides are increasingly two different worlds.

LL: What were you most surprised by in looking at the poll?

SUSAN DELACOURT: I think I was I was surprised by the results about immigrants.

LL: Remind us of what that was again.

SUSAN DELACOURT: That was nearly half, basically one in two Canadians believe that newcomers to the country threaten our economy and our way of life.

LL: And why did that surprise you?

SUSAN DELACOURT: Well, we're a nation of immigrants. I think that you know this poll was taken right in the final days and around the U.S. election. So I think that's when my world anyway smugness in Canada was at a high. That we were seeing the anger or we thought we weren't seeing the anger, but this is a country of immigrants. And I was surprised that one in two people thought that way.

LL: How do you think these findings compare to a year ago after Prime Minister Trudeau was first elected?

SUSAN DELLACOURT: Well that's the other thing that really jumped out at me when I was looking through this survey is that there had been that the gap had and the numbers plummet in numbers had been so quick. It was only a year ago that 55 per cent of people were expressing faith in the media. There's been a 10 percentage point plummet in faith in government and the media.

LL: And why do you think is behind the decline?

SUSAN DELLACOURT: It's probably watching things in the United States. We saw a year in which the media and the people inside the political bubble had failed to anticipate Brexit, had failed to anticipate Trump and I think that people out there are noticing.

LL: How concerned should Justin Trudeau be?

SUSAN DELACOURT: I think he should be really concerned. In many ways I get a lot of grief for this when I wrote a column last September in which I suggested that he and Trump had similar disruptive styles to politics. Trudeau ran as an outsider. I don't know if you remember the first day of the 2015 election campaign. He was the leader who chose not to be in Ottawa. He portrayed Ottawa as a problem. He was very rarely in the House of Commons before he became Prime Minister. He hasn't shown a great deal of attachment to Ottawa either, but I think the longer your Prime Minister the you're seen as part of the government that the government gets attached to you. And Just like Stephen Harper tried to run as an outsider in power in Ottawa. I think Trudeau is probably going to have to be mindful of that too.

LL: But is it inevitable then or is there anything that he could do about it?

SUSAN DELACOURT: I think it will be interesting to see. One of his goals had been I sat through a lot of speeches by Justin Trudeau before he became Prime Minister. And one of the things he said was that he wanted to connect people back to politics. And I think and back to government I think that's the challenge not just of a Justin Trudeau but of politicians of this age. Is how do you make people believe or give them to believe that what is happening inside the halls of power actually affects them in more ways than just their wallets? And that's often been the quickest and easiest way to the voters heart is through their wallets. But there's got to be some kind of discussion of the values you hold are also similar to ones here. I don't think his is his vacations have helped. I don't think the so-called “cash for access controversy” has helped either.

LL: Well then as Kelly Leitch the Conservative leadership hopeful is she actually doing the right thing campaigning on the right issues? Because this has been her siren call that the elites are out of touch?

SUSAN DELACOURT: Depends on the difference between clever and right. It's probably effective, so far and candidates have limited effect. These numbers would suggest that she would have more of more luck now instituting a barbaric cultural practices hotline. I will state from the outset I don't like that kind of politics. I hope that that candidate doesn't go down the road of anti-immigration, anti-outsiders politics. But the numbers would suggest that Kellie Leitch is tapping into some vein in Canada with some appeal across the country.

LL: We will leave it there Susan, thank you.

SUSAN DELACOURT: Thanks Laura.

LL: Susan Delacourt is an author and a long-time political columnist who writes for The Toronto Star and the iPolitics website. We reached her in Ottawa. Now our next two guests have seen firsthand the impact eroding public trust has had in their communities. Max Miller is the publisher of the Kawartha Promoter an independent news magazine in Bobcaygeon, Ontario and we reached her in Lindsay, Ontario. Jenny Gerbasi is a long-time city councilor in Winnipeg and currently the city's deputy mayor. And we have reached her at a conference in Edmonton. Welcome to you both.

MAX MIILER: Good morning.

JENNY GERBASI: Hello.

LL: Max Miller, are you surprised to hear that more than half of Canadians don't trust their governments and other civic institutions?

MAX MILLER: No, not at all. I hear it every day. But we're more in this area we’re more provincial and municipal politics. Federal is quite alien to us that is more of a global thing. We're more insular here.

LL: but still that that is the gist of the conversation.

MAX MILLER: Oh, absolutely.

LL: Because the survey also suggests they don't trust media either.

MAX MILLER: That's true that the big media. It really doesn't affect me because we're a very small publication and because we're an independent. If they don't trust our paper they don't trust me and everybody pretty well knows me. But large media I kind of blame it on what I call the “Brownie Camera Effect”. Nowadays with social media you've got everybody available to news all over the world and it's not substantiated. So they’re looking at like the Conservative post online and they're comparing it to The Toronto Star, The Globe and Mail, The Washington Post, even though it's not run by credible journalists.

LL: Jenny Gerbasi, you are in a different position being a deputy mayor in civic politics. Very briefly what has eroded public trust in local politicians in Winnipeg?

JENNY GERBASI: Well, we've had from previous council we had a number of problems with conflict of interest and there was even an active ongoing RCMP investigation into some of the things that happened previously. And so we've been taking a huge number of measures to try to restore the public trust. In the last election half of council was voted out. So we have a very new council and measures such as creating an integrity commissioner. A lobby registry. We've just called for a public inquiry of some of the things that have happened in the past to try to show the public that we're doing everything possible to restore their trust. But it also involves you know to get people to trust the government they have to believe that we're doing things that are solving real problems. You know that we're meeting real needs and that we're connected to the people through good public consultation and things like that. And you certainly get a feeling that people are those that were perhaps already quite cynical about some of these processes. That seems to have escalated and there seems to be more of a feeling out there of lack of trust in in our processes. And that's what we're really working hard to restore and we have to work at that every day. Given some of the things that I don't think are that different from many other municipalities in Canada or many other governments.

LL: I'm curious to know you say half of the council now is new. What kinds of candidates were elected because we hear in this survey that there's this distrust of elites? What kind of people were elected the council?

JENNY GERBASI: Well, our new mayor certainly ran on a campaign of restoring the public trust. He was never in politics before and so on. You know that word “elite” I mean it certainly is a perception and it's used and tossed around and it seems to be effective. But I think you know my experience is most of the people I know that go into public life and politics are there to make the community better. They really are they're just people you know I'm a former nurse. You know we're just people. But when things go wrong you know and in some cases they do. That builds on the cynicism that already exists. And I think some of the larger things that you talked about earlier on the show like what's happened in the States is kind of building on that sense of distrust and fear mongering and other things like that that have happened that make it worse. You know just sort of the problems that always have existed in government. You know and the relationship with government and the public. And I think it has gotten worse. But you know a lot of steps need to be taken by those in government to restore that trust and to earn the trust because we need to have a civil society. I believe you know having local governments all levels of government make a difference.

LL: Max Miller, you cover local politics in the Kawarthas, do you find residents there believe in their elected officials trust them?

MAX MILLER: Not as much as they used to. There is this anti-intellectual ism or the anti-elite which means that you're basically throwing out the baby with the bathwater. You're replacing people that have background in education with people that people feel are going to make a difference.

LL: And who are who are those new people? I understand you've had a couple of new political parties pop up?

MAX MILLER: yes like for instance in locally there were three people running for a particular seat on municipality and the two people that didn't win so formed their own party. Now they call it the social media party which they say basically keeps the politicians accountable by informing the public constantly of what's going on. Some people look at it as well that's just sour grapes, but other people say they really respect them because they really care about what's going on. But it's so difficult nowadays to make a difference on so many levels because there is so much to do and there's so much repair that has to be done and people just don't respect intellectualism. Like you wouldn't hire a doctor that didn't have a degree. You wouldn't have a guy into your house with a hammer just because he said he was a contractor — well some people do and get into trouble. People have to have credentials.

LL: OK, I'm going to go back to Jenny now because we are quickly — too quickly — running out of time. Winnipeg, like all cities, doesn't exist in a bubble and people there are reading the same world news as the rest of us. I'm wondering in what ways national or global events play into how people feel about their local politicians?

JENNY GERBASI: Well I think it does play in. There's sort of a dialogue that's gone on that sort of you know is disrespecting the processes of our democracy in a sense. I mean you know as I say democracy is the worst form of government except for all the others. But it is what we have and people are having a dialogue of you know let's just throw everyone out. It doesn't matter who you put in. You know a little be better it'll be a change will send a message. But you have to look at what we're actually doing.

LL: I'm so sorry I wish we had more time, but we're going to have to leave it there. Thank you.

JENNY GERBASI: Thanks so much.

LL: Max Miller is the publisher of the Kawartha Promoter an independent news magazine in Bobcaygeon. We reached her in Lindsay. Jenny Gerbasi is a long-time city councilor in Winnipeg currently the city's deputy mayor. That is our program for today. Stay tuned to Radio One for ‘q’. This is a sad day here at the CBC. Yesterday, Canada lost one of its great voices. Stuart McLean was the long-time host of The Vinyl Cafe on CBC Radio. He was a master storyteller who chronicled the Canadian experience with wit and intelligence. So this morning ‘q’ will be devoting the first part of his show to remembering Stuart McLean and this afternoon, you can listen to “Canada's Storyteller” a tribute to Stuart McLean. That is at 1:00 p.m. and 1:30 PM in Newfoundland and parts of Labrador on CBC Radio One and here at The Current. We want to leave you with a memory of Stuart McLean. This is Stewart on The George Stroumboulopoulos Show speaking about what unites Canadians. I'm Laura Lynch. You've been listening to The Current.

SOUNDCLIP

STUART MCLEAN: Our sense of ourselves and how we pull together for the greater good. And you can see it in the way that we in the way that have solved the difficult problems of living together. How do we look after those who might harm themselves or who might harm us? How do we look after those of us who are sick? How do we look after those of us who are out of work or can't work? We come together and we together have come up with solutions that when you look at the solutions that other countries have around the world. That our stand up with the best of them.

Provide Transcript Feedback

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

Feb. 16, 2017 episode transcript

Social Sharing

More from this episode