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 2019

The Current Transcript for October 8, 2019

Host: Laura Lynch

STORIES FROM THIS EPISODE

Prologue

[Music: Theme]

SOUNDCLIP

[Sounds from federal leaders debate]

LAURA LYNCH: Voters looking for answers from Canada's political leaders could be forgiven if they came away from last night's debate confused. The six candidates spent much of their time arguing loudly with each other. First up we'll parse the political parley with strategists and with undecided voters. After that.

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE: This impulsive decision by the president has undone all the gains we've made from the region into further chaos and if I'm an ISIS fighter I've got a second lease on life.

LL: Even U.S. President Donald Trump's most loyal supporters such as Senator Lindsey Graham are firing back at his sudden move to pull U.S. troops back from northern Syria. There's talk of betrayal and the potential for ISIS prisoners to escape. That's what we'll talk about an hour from now. I'm Laura Lynch and this is The Current.

Panel of political strategists discuss last night’s federal leadership debate

Guests: Omar Khan, Melissa Lantsman, Sally Housser

SOUNDCLIP

[Music]

VOICE 1: Mr. Scheer has promised that the first thing he would do is rip up the only real plan to fight climate change that Canada has ever had.

VOICE 2: I have nothing to learn from Mr. Trudeau who fired the first Indigenous attorney general for doing her job.

VOICE 3: You do not need to choose between Mr. Delay and Mr. Deny. There is another option.

VOICE 4: What you are doing Mr. Scheer is playing this old card. The idea that Quebec is corrupt. Those 3400 people have done nothing wrong.

VOICE 5: It is the equivalent like the population of Nova Scotia every three years here in Canada and that's why we must have fewer immigrants.

VOICE 6: We need the kind of leadership that lifts people up. That doesn't make people feel as if politics is rather disgusting and they'd rather not look at it.

LL: Just some of the highlights last night as six party leaders went head to head in the federal election campaign's main English language debate. For voters it was a chance to get a close look at the leaders. For the leaders it was a chance to bring their message to millions of voters while also landing some shots aimed at their opponents. A panel of political strategists joins me to find out who won, who lost and what it might mean at the polls. Omar Khan is a Liberal strategist and Melissa Lantsman has worked with the Conservatives. They're both with the firm Hill and Knowlton and they're with me in our Toronto studio. And Sally Housser is an NDP strategist and president of Level Up Consulting. She is in our Regina's studio. Hello to all of you.

SALLY HOUSSER: Good morning.

OMAR KHAN: Good morning.

MELISSA LANTSMAN: Good morning.

LL: Let's do a quick once around. Omar what stood out for you last night?

OMAR KHAN: Oh my God. I think the what stood out for me is the fact that future debate ratings are likely to plummet in this country. It was it was quite painful to watch. You know I think other than that the one job of a prime minister in these things is to survive. The prime minister survived. And I think Jagmeet Singh had a pretty good night, but I don't think it'll move his top line numbers very much.

LL: Okay Melissa what stood out for you?

MELISSA LANTSMAN: Yeah. Look I think the polls have been static and if I was if I was on Sally's team, I would have been cheering. I think Jagmeet Singh had a very very good night last night. A stand out night. His third stand out debate. I think Mr. Scheer certainly brought his A game and if you're looking at clips the next day and coverage the next day I think he landed sort of the most viral Internet clips and I think the Prime Minister had a pretty terrible night. I don't think he won a single exchange.

LL: Okay. That doesn't surprise me that you said. Sally what about you?

SALLY HOUSSER: Well you know I think we all on the panel here have probably at one point in our life written that my guy won the debate press release, but every now and then it gets to be true. And I'd have to I do indeed feel pretty good about how Jagmeet Singh did last night. It was you know a bit chaotic on stage with six people, but I think he was able to to punch through and it really seem like the adult in the room for a lot of the exchanges.

LL: Alright. Omar let's get your assessment of Justin Trudeau.

OMAR KHAN: Look like I said the number one job of a prime minister in these things is to survive. It's never easy being on stage with five people throwing darts at you. And I think he held his own. I think he made it clear and compelling case for how he is the only prime minister, oh sorry the only leader with a chance to actually win this thing with a compelling plan to fight climate change. I think the biggest strategic error of the night and I suspect my colleague and friend Melissa will disagree with me was the how aggressive Mr. Scheer was off the top, particularly on the issue of blackface. Everyone in this country and I suspect a lot of people across the globe have seen those images. For him to come out as aggressively on those as he did, I don't think will play very well, particularly with undecideds. It made him look angry and it made him look opportunistic.

LL: Melissa surely that was a calculated move on his part?

MELISSA LANTSMAN: Absolutely off the top, in terms of aggressive, I think that Andrew Scheer needed to galvanize his own base. I think there are a lot of Conservatives that had some questions about whether we would get the same conservative party as as they had with Mr. Harper and I think last night he did that. I think there was also a strategic advantage that ended up playing in his favour by having Mr. Bernier on the stage. I think lots of folks thought that he would be chomping at the bit Mr. Bernier at least to Mr. Scheer on pushing him to the right. I think he stood there. He told Mr. Bernier what he was saying on stage was absolute nonsense and he really positioned himself as a moderate to Canadian voters.

LL: We'll talk about Mr. Bernier a little more a little later on, but Sally I'm wondering what you think of Justin Trudeau's performance.

SALLY HOUSSER: You know as the leader it's true that you know everybody kind of goes after you and I agree with Omar that you have to survive. You know I don't think he took a lot of damage, but it's unfortunately when this is your second go around, the 2015 debate, the kind of expectations where as long as Justin Trudeau showed up with his pants on he was going to do alright. You know whereas last night the expectations were a lot higher. And I don't know if we're kind of looking for the clips and the lines the next day. You know I watched the whole thing last night as everybody did and I'm still struggling to kind of think about moments that really punched through for him that you know Canadian viewers are going to remember or that you know journalists covering it the next day are going to remember.

OMAR KHAN: I think the moment for me at least that punched through is when he directly challenged Mr. Scheer to apologize for his 2005 comments against LGBTQ Canadians and Mr. Scheer pointedly refused. For me that's the standout moment last night for Mr. Trudeau.

LL: OK well let's turn to Jameet Singh then for a moment because I think all of you agree that he had a good night and this is not the first time he's had a good night in a debate, but will it move the numbers for the NDP? Sally?

SALLY HOUSSER: You know it's tough to say this is the point in the campaign where people are really starting to pay attention. We've seen the NDP and Jagmeet Singh have you know momentum really in the past couple of weeks. And I think last night he did what he needed to do. He was funny authentic, very authentic, which is something you know we hear repeatedly that people crave these days in politics and that really came across. So for a lot of people in Canada last night was you know perhaps the first time that they were getting a real good look at Jagmeet Singh and I think we're going to see that kind of trend for his own personal popularity continue. And I think now we'll probably start to see some numbers move a little bit.

LL: Do you think there's much chance of that Melissa?

MELISSA LANTSMAN: I think the story about Jagmeet Singh in this election is it sort of goes like this: He's better than we thought. But it really hasn't translated into support because what's happening is that Jagmeet Singh is polling far above his party, his personal popularity ratings and the NDP and going for the NDP is not at that level yet. So you know it's the end of the, we're nearing the end of the campaign and I think if I was Jagmeet Singh, I would wish this campaign had another five weeks. Yesterday I think he did what I didn't think the NDP would have done and I think that's go after Mr. Trudeau. I think that was a good strategy. I think usually the NDP can't help themselves and they go after the Conservatives, but yesterday I think he certainly shaved some vote off of Mr. Trudeau.

LL: And that would help the Conservatives, wouldn't it?

OMAR KHAN: Exactly. Which is why. Which is why progressive voters need to take a serious look at their choices on October 21st. And there's really only one progressive choice, it can be the prime minister and that's Prime Minister Trudeau and that's the message he has to keep driving home after this. Look I agree, Jagmeet had a good night. I think the challenge for him is because the format of the debate was so horrendous, most people probably weren't watching past the first 15 minutes.

LL: Okay well let's just talk about some of what we heard. The climate crisis was a popular topic. Each of the leaders touting their own platforms and knocking the Liberals and Harper Conservatives. Let's just have a quick listen to this.

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE 1: The science is clear. Your target is a commitment to failure. That's why it's so doable and achievable because it doesn't do what the IPCC says we must do. We must go off fossil fuels as quickly as possible. And you bought a pipeline. You can't be a climate leader and spent $10 to $13 billion more on a project that by itself blows through our carbon budget.

VOICE 2: A slogan is not a plan.

VOICE 1: We have a plan.

VOICE 2: A slogan is not a plan. It is an unrealizable plan. We have done more over the past four years than any government in the history.

VOICE 1: No, that's true.

VOICE 2: And there is much more to do.

VOICE 1: Paul Martin did more. But that's alright. Noone remembers Paul Martin's plan in 2005. It was better.

LL: Okay Melissa let's go to you. Paul Martin probably liked that exchange. But how good should Green Party Leader Elizabeth May feel about her overall performance because much of it was focused on climate changed.

MELISSA LANTSMAN: Yeah, much of it was focused and it usually is. And frankly that's the strategy. Did she come off as somebody who's ready to be prime minister on a whole variety of issues yesterday?

LL: Do you think she's trying to come off that way?

MELISSA LANTSMAN: No.

LL: Do you think that was her mission?

MELISSA LANTSMAN: You know what I think at the beginning a campaign with 10 percent of the popular vote, you know they had a real opportunity here to hold the balance of power and I think the overextension on you know on her platform without giving Canadians assurance that she can do anything else I think is a strategic miss for the Green Party.

LL: Omar?

OMAR KHAN: Look her strategic objective is to avoid what always happens to the Green Party which is that they poll very, you know relatively well in the middle of a campaign and that generally dissipates towards the end as people actually have to choose. I think what the Prime Minister demonstrated in that exchange is a very I'm going to say it's a very realistic and pragmatic assessment of of the situation in Canada around climate change. So of course he he leads a government that's led the way in putting a price on pollution but he also leads a government that understands that you know we're not going to flip a switch tomorrow and and go completely carbon neutral it's impossible. So while the world has a demand for fossil fuels and they're going to purchase they're going to they're going to be they're going to be purchasing our natural resources. So do we want to get it to them in a dangerous and dirtier way which is what we are currently doing by train or rail traffic or do we want to actually make a strategic national investment to build a pipeline that will create jobs, a lot of blue collar jobs in Western Canada, get our product more safely to market, but also do it in a way that allows us to yield a greater profit from that.

LL: Omar, you seem to be more of a chance than your prime minister than your leader did last night to actually make your statements here.

OMAR KHAN: But you see that profit can then be reinvested into green technologies.

LL: Sally, let's go to you.

SALLY HOUSSER: You know that was probably the clip you played there was probably Elizabeth May's strongest point of the night. But other than that it was it was a little incoherent. You know as a New Democrat every election I've ever worked I've been told that you know this is the time the Green Party is really going to rise and break through and I'm going to eat the NDP is lunch. And you know I haven't really seen it materialize as of yet. What I found interesting was her really going after Justin Trudeau last night because often you do see that kind of bickering between the Greens and the NDP. You know I think often people kind of say that oh you know all kind of Green votes are going to come from the NDP, but what people don't realize is that particularly in B.C. with those crucial seats, I think the Greens take as much if not more from the Liberals than they do from the NDP and I think that those kind of exchanges between Ms. May and Trudeau last night were indicative of that kind of battle ground around the islands in the Lower Mainland.

LL: Now we've already touched on on the debate format itself and bickering was sort of the rule of the day. I was watching Twitter last night. A lot of people were frustrated with it. The five moderators trying to manage six leaders led to a lot of exchanges like this.

SOUNDCLIP

[Sounds from Federal leaders debate]

LL: So that exchange went on like that and Mr. Trudeau and Mr. Scheer weren't unique. Everyone on that stage was talking over each other at some point. Omar what could have been done to cut down on the leaders talking over each other and and getting answers to voters who wanted them?

OMAR KHAN: Well look this is a tough one right. Because what you want to ensure is that the process of deciding a debate format is removed from those who have a vested interest in the format. So the politicians and parties themselves. That being said what the commission came up with last night clearly did not work. There were too many moderators. You know some of them honour moderators have a lot of respect for but they don't necessarily come from a broadcast background. And clearly it's clear that Mr. Bernier has no place on a national stage of that sort. He used his platform to spew divisiveness. He doesn't have a seat in parliament. He probably won't have one after this election. Let's hope this is the last time we see of him on that stage.

LL: Melissa?

MELISSA LANTSMAN: You know I think Canadians lost in last night in terms of winners and losers in this debate and they didn't get a chance to have leaders sort of opine on really big questions of the night. You know the leaders counting down the clock on each other. That's something we've never seen in a federal leaders debate and I hope that's something that we never see again.

LL: You mean that small clock that counts 30 seconds, 40 seconds.

MELISSA LANTSMAN: The small clock on the screen.

OMAR KHAN: It's like a game show.

MELISSA LANTSMAN: And truthfully if there's a party that comes out today and says I'm going to cancel the debate commission who had one job to have a debate, I'm going to vote for that party.

LL: Sally this was the only English language debate featuring all the party leaders. Do you think Canadians were well served?

SALLY HOUSSER: You know maybe I'm crazy here, but maybe my expectations were so low I actually thought it went better than I had anticipated with that many people on the stage. You know I was I was thinking it was going to be chaotic and then I have to flip through CNN yesterday evening and was reminded by an ad that with the democratic contest out, they were going to have 12 people on the stage. So at least you know spare a thought for our friends to the south of us.

LL: But consider the fact that they've had several debates. This was one.

SALLY HOUSSER: Yeah you know, it is. It's difficult when you hear people talking over each other and there was you know a limited time of kind of one on one and for kind of great broad policy statements you know. But I think frankly people were still able to get the measure of the people you know get an idea window into the politicians. Is it all about policy? No and you know as much as people always like to say you know I wish people you know made their decisions more on you know the great kind of themes and policies of the day, but they don't really. And I think what they last night was really a window into the personalities, you know and people's able ability to kind of behave in that kind of environment. And again I think you know Jagmeet Singh seemed like the adult in the room and was able to get kind of his hits in without kind of feeling like he had that same level of bickering that perhaps some of the other people on the stage did.

LL: One thing I wonder about, it isn't the first time social media has been around and when there's been a debate, but there's more social media activity happening than ever before and I'm wondering how you, what effect that has on the debate itself and how it plays out in the days to follow.

OMAR KHAN: Well you know the effect it has on the debate is everyone's looking for that one you know tweetable video like clip line and we saw all of leaders you know try and land those last night. The other effect is how it's reported you know in the immediate hours and days and days after the debate. So for example last night Mr. Mulcair, the former leader of the NDP, came out saying that Mr. Singh finished third in the debate and that Trudeau won it. Right. So my Twitter feed was bombarded with that message you know for hours last night. So you know it does have an effect and we'll see how much of an effect in the coming days.

LL: Melissa does it have the effect perhaps of making the day after much more important are the days after than the debate itself.

MELISSA LANTSMAN: Well I think it's always the days after and the you know the 24 to 48 hours after are always the crucial moments. And it depends on what social media you're talking about. If you're talking about the Twitter sphere, frankly it's partisans and journalists talking about you know things that that happened on debate night and you'll see you know you'll see this this time around promoted tweets. That means campaigns putting money behind the moments that they thought were good for. For their leader. And that you know that litters your Twitter feed with you know with things that are not necessarily organic or that people aren't necessarily talking about you know when it comes to the next day I think other mediums like Facebook you know have a big impact it's what you know it's what those you love and trust are sharing it's how they saw the debate. And frankly it's how the debate is written up in the newspapers following because I think in 120 minutes about 117 of them don't matter newspapers you know in terms of in terms of the actual debate time you're getting like a real sort of three minute view into into the debate because I don't know if there's a lot of Canadians that tuned in to a full two hours with that forum.

OMAR KHAN: And some of that social media coverage drives the coverage in the print and broadcast media.

LL: We have about 90 seconds left. I'm sure the parties are madly polling right now. Sally Housser what impact do you think the debate will have on the election results? Oh I think we may have lost Sally. Omar we'll go back to you on that.

OMAR KHAN: Yeah. So I don't think the top line numbers will move very much. If you were undecided going into the debate last night, you're undecided coming out. I think Mr. Singh's personal numbers may edge up a little bit, but again I think most Canadians have have solidified their position that the NDP under his leadership is not ready for prime time. You know I think right now we're probably headed towards a strong Liberal minority government. And the challenge for the Liberals over the next few days will be to convince those undecided voters at least those of whom who fall into the progressive camp that they're the only choice for them.

LL: Melissa last word to you because we have appeared to have lost Sally.

MELISSA LANTSMAN: Well look it depends on how many people watched this debate. We've seen very very static polls throughout the election. It's sort of this blob in time that moves, but no numbers in terms of vote intention have actually you know have actually moved. Does the debate do that? I'm not sure, but pollsters have been polling the entire elections. Parties have been calling into their supporters. Those phone lines are jammed, so we will wait and see.

LL: Alright. Thanks very much to you. Omar Khan is a Liberal strategist. Melissa Lantsman is a Conservative strategist. They're both with Hill and Knowlton. They've been with me here in our Toronto studio. Sally Housser is an NDP strategist and president of Level Up Consulting. She joined us from our studio in Regina. Well the CBC News is next. Then a panel of undecided voters on whether the debate helped them make up their minds. And if they need a little help determining if politicians are telling the truth, our friends at This Is That have an app for that.

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE: And you hold your device up to the speaker or where it can clearly pick up on the audio and then you just sit back and let a facto's proprietary software determine whether the politician is telling the truth or if they are not.

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

[Music: Theme]

3 undecided voters on why the federal leaders' debate disappointed

Guests: Bryan Stewart, Jarret Leaman, Allie Campbell-Macdonald

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

[Music: Theme]

LL: Still to come, a surprise change of course from the White House in northern Syria is leaving the Kurdish militia exposed to an attack from Turkey. More in half an hour. But first decisions, decisions.

[Music]

LL: Debates can be a key turning point in elections helping voters solidify their choice or even change their minds. We've heard from the strategists. Now let's hear from some voters. I'm joined by three people who were undecided before the debate. Did the leaders change their minds? Let's find out. Bryan Stewart is a carpenter and project consultant for an engineering company. We've reached him in South Surrey, B.C. Jarret Leaman is from Magnetawan First Nation and he is the founder of the Centre for Indigenous Innovation and Technology and he's on the board of the Ontario Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce. He's with me in our Toronto studio. Allie Campbell-Macdonald is a student at Cape Breton University where she's pursuing an education degree. She's in our studio in Sydney, Nova Scotia. Welcome to all of you.

BRYAN STEWART: Good morning.

ALLIE CAMPBELL-MACDONALD: Hi, good morning.

JARRET LEAMAN: Good morning.

LL: Brian Stewart let's start with you. Was there a moment in the debate last night that helped you make your choice about who to vote for?

BRYAN STEWART: Not exactly, no. I actually, the debate was on at 4 o'clock Pacific time, so I recorded it and watched it when I got home from work and I have to say I watched it in small quantities in my PVR.

LL: And it didn't help you make up your mind at all?

BRYAN STEWART: No, I guess a little bit. I found you know the constant interruptions and talking over each other was a bit unsettling. But I know I get that there's six people in the debate and everyone only has a small brief period of time in which to get their viewpoint across. I guess just it didn't leave a lot of time for specifics, but there was a bit more information I guess than I had before.

LL: Allie what about you?

ALLIE CAMPBELL-MACDONALD: You know, no, I'm still pretty undecided. I don't feel like I feel any more confident with who I'm going to vote for either. I felt all the talking over each other too kind of turned me off from the whole debate.

LL: And Jarret, how about you?

JARRET LEAMAN: I think there was some good points made during the debate. One of the things that I was looking for forward to hearing was what the thoughts were on the Indigenous issues in Canada. And it has been fairly silent to date. And I felt that during this debate. On the section of Indigenous issues there wasn't much there and it kind of got skewed over into other topics while that section was happening.

LL: Okay. So let's talk about before the debate. Allie Campbell-Macdonald before last night, which parties were you considering?

ALLIE CAMPBELL-MACDONALD: I was mostly considering Liberal and NDP.

LL: And has that changed at all? Even though you're undecided, are you still looking that way?

ALLIE CAMPBELL-MACDONALD: Yes I am.

LL: Okay. And Bryan?

BRYAN STEWART: Typically I guess the last couple elections I voted either Liberal or Conservative. I thought that Jagmeet Singh and Elizabeth May both had some good points. Last evening I just for me I guess I'm very hesitant to lean that way because of the cost implications for some of the election promises that I see them putting forward. To me it's easy to promise the world to Canadians during an election, but you know in January when we have to start paying for some of these promises, we're already at a large deficit in the country and I don't really want to go down that road further.

LL: Okay Jarret were you leaning toward any particular party?

JARRET LEAMAN: Yeah so I was looking to see what the Liberal Party was going to say and also really interested in what Jagmeet Singh was going to present. And I do feel that Prime Minister Trudeau did come out with some good points in the election and or sorry in the debate and I'm still not sure yet. But I think that there is some movement more towards the Liberal party.

LL: Okay. That was my next question for all of you. I mean even given the limitations and the frustrations of the debate, Jarret I think you're telling me that Justin Trudeau impressed you the most as a leader last night?

JARRET LEAMAN: Yes I would say so. Yes.

LL: Okay. And Bryan which leader you think did the best?

BRYAN STEWART: I would actually, I was leaning towards Andrew Scheer, but I still need you to do a bit more homework on my own in terms of party policies. One of the things I'll say is that there's an all candidates meeting in my local riding on on Friday evening, unfortunately I was unable to attend and the question was put to all the candidates questions. Question around foreign ownership of real estate in particular in British Columbia and not one of the candidates seemed to have much information or knowledge about the issue which to me is a little bit unsettling. So when I make my final decision I'll probably weigh you know 30 or 40 percent of my decision you know with a national leader and probably 50 or 60 percent with actually my local candidate.

LL: This is interesting for you Bryan because you actually, you had a chance to question Andrew Scheer on The National in the recent face to face segments with Rosemary Barton moderating. How do you think he did then?

BRYAN STEWART: He was getting approachable, you know and obviously he didn't have much knowledge of what the question was going to ask. So he's you know kind of put on the spot and only had a certain amount of time to answer. But you know his answer is to spend $20 million to look to set up a task force to investigate money laundering and I think the Liberals sort of lean that same way is you know to me a little bit too little too late. We already know that there's a problem with some of these transactions and nobody really even talked about it last night. You know you're talking about taxation and Jagmeet Singh's talking about you know raising money or taxes on the rich. There's an incredible amount of money coming into the country that nobody's talking about and that we're losing out on. And I think that if isome of that money was stemmed, it would actually improve affordability for people that already live here.

LL: But I'm curious to know based on your experience, face to face with Andrew Scheer, what did you make of his performance last night?

BRYAN STEWART: I thought he did well. I thought he kind of went on the especially early from I remember, he kind of went on the offensive. I think he sort of feels like it's a two horse race between him and Justin Trudeau. He went on the offensive in terms of attacking Justin Trudeau about SNC-Lavalin and some of these things. And you know I think Canadians can already evaluate Justin Trudeau's record. He's been in office for four years. I don't think you need to go on a personal attack for me to know what Justin Trudeau did or didn't do. I can evaluate that on my own. I want to hear specifically you know how the Conservatives would do the government differently and I didn't hear a lot of specifics or new policies from Andrew Scheer. I know he's talking about the child fitness tax credit and some of these things that are sort of reboots of previous Conservative governments and so that to me is a little bit unsettling. I think some of my friends feel the same way in terms of when it comes down to Election Day, sometimes you know we vote for the person that's already in office because it's sort of the evil that we know of. You only see that, you know versus somebody that's unknown.

LL: Allie Campbell-Macdonald which leader stood out for you in the debate?

ALLIE CAMPBELL-MACDONALD: Jagmeet Singh really stood out for me. I loved how he kept his composure the whole time. He answered questions, he didn't take personal attacks on the other candidates. And I really liked that. I also felt like Elizabeth May did a wonderful job. I felt like when Canadians were asking her questions, she was able to make a personal connection with each person that asked a question and I really enjoyed that. So they both stood out for me.

LL: The Liberals though are targeting voters like you. They're arguing their party is the only realistic choice for government, for progressive voters. Did Justin Trudeau do anything to persuade you last night?

ALLIE CAMPBELL-MACDONALD: I agree with that point. I feel like they are kind of our only option, but no, not really. I feel like they're going for the young vote, but they aren't really resonating with us. I don't think, they're kind of, yeah they're not really resonating with me anyway in my group of friends, for sure.

LL: I appreciate the things that you guys all pulled out of the debate last night because there's been criticism about the format and that it actually allowed party leaders to talk over each other sometimes incomprehensibly. And I want to play you a clip of the leaders trying to talk about abortion. Here listen to this.

SOUNDCLIP

[Sounds from Federal leaders debate]

LL: Jarret what did you make of this exchange?

JARRET LEAMAN: Well I mean it's hard to listen to and really get what the response was from the individual that was asked to respond and I think that I agree with others that have you know talked before on this in the show that we really wanted to hear what the party's platform was not, not a personal attack or not talking over each other. And so I think that it was difficult to watch and I think that you know hopefully the next one is a little bit more cordial.

LL: Well the next one, that's the last one in English. You've got one more in French. Do you intend to watch that as well to see?

JARRET LEAMAN: I do. Yes.

LL: I'm wondering though for you because you've already said also that there wasn't much attention paid to the Indigenous issues that you want addressed. So aside from the French language debate, where does that leave you as a voter? Is it do you have to do your own work?

JARRET LEAMAN: Yeah I mean and this is the thing that you know in this election these issues have been relatively silent. And we saw sort of last Saturday, we saw NDP leader Jagmeet Singh bringing the issue forward and then we saw some some responses come from that and commitments and it's interesting because it was such a big topic in the last election and it's now silent. And I think that when we're talking about what my perspective on this is that we do have a commitment to reconciliation with the Liberal government and we've had four years and understandably Indigenous people are some of us are upset or not happy with the current direction that the Liberal government has taken. But I think that when we look at other parties platforms there's almost nothing in it in the Conservatives on Indigenous issues. And I think that I want to go with someone that has a demonstrated experience in this space because it is about a longer term relationship building. And I think that we're going to see some movement going forward on that. And I would really say that I think that we really need to have reconciliation with indigenous institutions in this country.

LL: Okay lAlie Campbell-Macdonald how much do you think you were able to learn about the issues and the leaders and party stance on issues last night?

ALLIE CAMPBELL-MACDONALD: Not much. I feel like before the debate I educated myself a little bit. I read through all the party platforms and I felt like the whole thing was very scripted. I felt like the leaders took the questions and used them as opportunities to just reiterate their party platforms and things that we have already heard. So no I don't really feel like I learned a lot at all really.

LL: Bryan you've already said what things that frustrated you about last night. I'm wondering of the issues.

BRYAN STEWART: I would completely agree with the last statement. I think that in particular Andrew Scheer and Justin Trudeau and I guess to some extent Jagmeet Singh just you know when they were given a chance, it was like a sound bite. They reiterated something that was off their campaign literature. We have done this. We're going to do this. There was very little in the way of specifics and further the point about you know reconciliation, is they have a policy where we're going to reconcile or we're going to continue along this path, I think Canadians overall like we want specifics. We want to know you know I guess action items you know.

LL: Well especially for you, you're talking about affordability issues. You want specifics on that?

BRYAN STEWART: Yeah you know Andrew Scheer, even when I was on last week's face to face he's talking about investigating money laundering for instance you know we're going to have a commission spend $20 million. OK but are you goning accept the commission's recommendations? We have plenty of inquiries and commissions in this country every year and we get results from something and then people tend to sit on their hands, whether it's with the truth and reconciliation with First Nations or other investigations. The action on some of these things is very slow. And I just want more specifics in terms of you know when are things actually going to be taking place.

LL: So I'm wondering Allie, do you think, would you like to see another English language debate?

ALLIE CAMPBELL-MACDONALD: Yes I would and I'd also love to see them not all talk over each other the whole time as well.

LL: And Bryan what about you? Would you like to see another debate?

BRYAN STEWART: I think so. I think some of the moderators did better than others. I think Rosemary and Donna Friesen seem to sort of interject more and keep people more on topic, I guess. Jagmeet Singh and Elizabeth May are both great debaters and I thought you know out of whole debate they actually kept their composure more than some of the others. I think Justin Trudeau tried to sort of say less and sort of hold back a little bit. But yeah I would definitely watch another debate, but my mind's not made up yet.

LL: Okay let's go around the table. We've already sort of asked this question, but let's try one more time. Jarret have you decided who you're going to vote for?

JARRET LEAMAN: No I haven't yet. I think I'm going to wait until the second French debate and really wait to see what comes out. Like I said before, platforms have been fairly silent on the issues that I'm looking to hear about and I want more content in there.

LL: Allie?

ALLIE CAMPBELL-MACDONALD: No. I'm not sure yet. I'm torn a little bit between my local candidates here and my candidates at the federal level, so I have to do a little more thinking about my local candidates before I decide my vote.

LL: Bryan last word to you.

BRYAN STEWART: I think I'm going to attend my local all candidates meeting and probably weigh my vote heavier on my local candidate. And I will tune in to the next debate and probably make a decision in the next week.

LL: Alright we will check back with you again I hope and see what you eventually end up deciding. Thanks to all of you.

BRYAN STEWART: Ok. Thank you.

ALLIE CAMPBELL-MACDONALD: Thank you very much.

JARRET LEAMAN: Thank you.

LL: Jarret Leaman is an Anishinaabe a member of the Magnetawan First Nation, on the board of the Ontario Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce. He was with me in our Toronto studio. Allie Campbell-Macdonald is studying education at Cape Breton University. She was in our studio in Sydney, Nova Scotia. Bryan Stewart is a carpenter and project consultant for an engineering company. We reached him in South Surrey, B.C.

[Music]

LL: I'm Laura Lynch and you're listening to The Current on CBC Radio One, on the CBC Listen app and on Sirius XM. Well CBC had a team of fact checkers working during last night's debate. Turns out there's a new technology that can help with that.

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE 1: I'm Pat Kelly.

VOICE 2: And I'm Peter Oldring.

VOICE 1: With a special report for The Current. This Is That Decision: 2019.

[Music]

VOICE 1: By now the 2019 election campaign is in full swing and party leaders are using media old and new to get their messages out to Canadian voters. But in the era of political disinformation. How can voters know for certain if candidates are telling the truth. Well as with so many problems in modern life, there's an app for that. It's called Facto and its creator says that it can quickly distinguish Honest Abe's from Political Pinocchio's. Joining us now to show us how the app works is Facto founder and CEO Jeremy Daniels. Jeremy thank you for being here.

VOICE 3: Thank you so much. It's an absolute pleasure to be with you.

VOICE 1: We're very intrigued by this new technology that you've invented.

VOICE 3: Yes of course.

VOICE 1: So tell us a little bit about how Facto works.

VOICE 3: It operates very similar to apps like Shazam. Oh I love that one. Yes or Sound Hound. Let's not forget them I love them too. Yeah. Which which are those apps that help you identify a song when you hear it. Yes. So facto it works in a very similar manner. You download Facto onto your phone or tablet or any device. And basically whenever you hear a politician on the radio or you see them on TV or maybe a live event Lucky you you fire up facto and you hold your device up to the speaker or where it can clearly pick up on the audio and then you just sit back and let affect those proprietary software determine whether the politician is telling the truth or if they are not amazing so. So in many ways it's ilike the advancement of the lie detector test. Oh yes it is it is but it's this is this is without the wires in it and it's and you can't fool it by having a Pepsi-Cola and an aspirin.

VOICE 1: I'd love to see facto in action I wonder if you could give us a bit of a demonstration to see what we're up against.

VOICE 3: Oh my goodness and this the part that I love the most.

VOICE 1: So do I need to give you a statement then to see if it's de facto OK. I want to try this out.

VOICE 3: Hang on now, Facto the bloodhound isn't ready to do any snooping. So give me a moment.

VOICE 1: Oh it takes a second there to download.

VOICE 3: It's booting up. I've downloaded it already.

VOICE 1: I should have told you to turn your phone on before you came on air.

VOICE 3: It's fine it's on vibrate.

VOICE 1: Oh lIke what was that?

VOICE 3: Oh there we go.

VOICE 1: Yeah we heard something there.

VOICE 3: Ok. I'm going to say a true factual statement to Facto and then you'll hear what Facto does with that. So Facto, the tallest building in Canada is the CN Tower. Aha you see. And so you hear that little tone, which means that is a truthful statement and we know that it is. And now let me feed Facto a false statement. So Facto Ottawa is in Texas. And we know that it's not, it's in Ottawa. It's on the Ottawa River. Well it's on the, it is on the Ottawa River. It's okay. Well this that may have been, it may have, I may have said Ottawa.

VOICE 1: I see so maybe saying Ottawa is in Ontario.

VOICE 3: Yes. Yes. Okay. Okay. Yes. Yes, but I had said Ottawa is on the Ottawa River. Okay. Well that may be because you know why this is I probably said Ottawa too many times.

VOICE 1: Maybe because it's following the line of thinking of his Ottawa in Texas.

VOICE 3: No that's not suppose. Well actually I should search that out there very likely is a Ottawa in Texas.

VOICE 1: I'm confused with that. Was that correct then?

VOICE 3: Well it's.

VOICE 1: That's the sound of it saying it's not a fact.

VOICE 3: It's saying it's not, but it's very possible there is an Ottawa in Texas. Is there? Okay, ah okay.

VOICE 1: Okay. Jeremy I just want to review again. So it continues.

VOICE 3: Hang on. Is There's actually several more sounds, but the other one for the purpose of our conversation is that there is a sound when a subject is neither true neither false, it lives in that grey area that requires more research on your part. So for instance if I was to say something like by raising taxes all of Canada will prosper more. It's complicated. Some theories suggest of course raising taxes do benefit to all Canadians and then others would say that's not true, so it live. Others do say that's not the truth. That's oh.

VOICE 1: Well yeah, but I mean I think we've already shown examples here that maybe Facto is not bullet proof here. And you know philosophically it could be dangerous for Canadians to rely on a technology like this in order to make decisions. Do you agree or disagree?

VOICE 3: No no no no no no no. Oh okay. You know what we've given Facto too much information here.

VOICE 1: Okay. But it's all fact reading is I think what it's saying.

VOICE 3: No. No. No no no no no. Facto's overloaded. So this is. Yeah. It's going too fast.

VOICE 1: Philosophically you don't think that a technology like this could be dangerous in our political process journey?

VOICE 3: No definitely not. Well and you know what I think fact I was saying my no was correct. That's what was.

VOICE 1: OK well I think yes we're getting the signal that we're out of time here, Jeremy. I want to thank you for being on the program and it was a pleasure having you here.

VOICE 3: Oh.

VOICE 1: Okay. Yeah. We got to go.

VOICE 3: Thank you.

[Music]

LL: And thank you to our friends at Kelly & Kelly for that special report. Coming up in our next half hour, Kurdish fighters were on the frontlines in the fight against ISIS in northern Syria. Now U.S. forces are pulling back from the area. We'll talk about the implications of that in a couple of minutes. I'm Laura Lynch and you're listening to The Current.

[Music]

CSIS analyst makes sense of the chaotic situation unfolding in Syria

Guests: Missy Ryan, Aykan Erdemir, Stephanie Carvin

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

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE: We defeated ISIS, 100 percent of the Caliphate. 100 percent. We wanted to do 100 percent. I was going to do this 9 months ago and we were not at 100 percent, but we were pretty close. Everyone said can we get to 100 percent? Now I get to 100 percent and they say well maybe we could stay longer. I said well when do we get out? We have to bring our people back home.

LL: U.S. President Donald Trump explaining yesterday that his decision to withdraw U.S. troops from northern Syria which seemed to come as a surprise to even his own administration and the Pentagon. Shouldn't have been a surprise at all. The White House pledged to remove troops from the area around the Turkish border and said it wouldn't be involved in an operation that Turkey was preparing to launch into that region. And overnight Turkey did appear to start shelling near Syria's border with Iraq. The change in U.S. policy is being called a stab in the back to the Kurds who have been instrumental in the U.S. fight against ISIS, but who Turkey deems to be terrorists. Missy Ryan is a reporter for The Washington Post. She covers the Pentagon military and national security issues. We've reached her in Washington D.C. Hello.

MISSY RYAN: Good morning.

LL: The White House seems to have ostensibly paved the way for a Turkish offensive into northern Syria. Can you give us a sense of what's happened in the last 24 hours?

MISSY RYAN: Yes. So this began late on Sunday night. The White House White House issued a statement saying that the president had decided to pull back U.S. forces from a buffer zone along Syria's border with Turkey. And he the White House said that it was doing so because Turkey was going ahead with a long threatened offensive against Syrian Kurdish forces who the United States had worked with in Syria against the Islamic State. And this is the latest incident of President Trump really plunging American foreign policy and specifically the strategy for dealing with the war in Syria into upheaval it up and months of efforts by American diplomats and American military officials to work with Turkey to avert such an operation which everyone believes will be very bloody for this small force that has been a really important ally against the Islamic State. And so the U.S. military has been conducting a series of patrols and working with the Turkish military to make Ankara feel comfortable about what's going on in northern Syria. And so what happened on Sunday was really just abandoning that effort and saying OK well you're going to go ahead with this operation and we're going to make sure that American forces are safe if you do so.

LL: Now we heard President Trump say there that no one to have been surprised by the move, but just how much of a surprise was the president's decision to his administration and to officials in the Pentagon?

MISSY RYAN: Well it's you know Turkey has been threatening for four months that it would go ahead with this offensive. You know Turkey describes these these same Syrian Kurdish forces as terrorists. They see this as a big threat to their national security. So it's not a surprise that they would want to do it, but the timing of the announcement was a surprise in the fact that at least it appeared to be an opportunity for President Trump to follow through with something which he has repeatedly said he wanted to do since he was a candidate, which was to get American forces out of Syria. So for his critics who are many including many lawmakers from his own party it's been really amazing to see the bipartisan pushback that he's facing in Congress even from people like the Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. He is facing a lot of pushback to this this move, but it really goes back to I think President Trump's worldview and in some ways you're seeing him articulate that Trump doctrine which is that these endless wars, these counterterrorism wars in the Middle East do not suit American interests and we should get out and let the people in those countries fix their own problems. And that's what he said in a series of messages on Twitter yesterday.

LL: Well can you take us back and explain the role that U.S. troops have been playing in that part of Syria? You talked about them running patrols, but what were they trying to accomplish?

MISSY RYAN: Yeah. I mean the primary mission is against the Islamic State and what we're really trying to do there is make sure that the Islamic State doesn't regain strength and doesn't emerge as a force that could hold territory and threaten the West. But there was a small contingent of forces and we're talking about 50 to 100 people who were position and observation post in far as northern Syria close to the Turkish border. And the idea was they were working with Turkish forces who were poised to come into Syria on a larger scale and do these joint patrols and really make sure that Kurdish forces wouldn't get too close and threaten the Turkish border. And so you know this has been something that the Pentagon and. The State Department have been trying to put together for months and the Turkish government just felt like it wasn't happy and in a way that allayed their own security fears.

LL: Now the Kurds as we said have been allies with the United States in helping to defeat ISIS. Are they also playing a role in the custody of ISIS prisoners in the region?

MISSY RYAN: That's right. And that's another big issue that Trump has come under criticism for so that the SDF, the Syrian Democratic Forces, which is the primary Kurdish forces the United States partner with also has responsibility at this moment for thousands of ISIS militants who are imprisoned who were captured during the last few years of fighting against the Islamic State. They're also guarding camps where family members so women and children from the ISIS fighters are being held and they're already seen as sort of a precarious security scenario in these camps. And so the fear is that when the Kurdish forces are attacked that there will actually draw some of the forces who are guarding these presidents in these camps away to fight the Turkish backed forces. And that could result in the prison breaks in some of these fighters who still present a real threat escaping and allowing ISIS to re-emerge and the fate of these prisoners has really been something that has revealed the extent of the tension between Trump and for example European allies. And he has been pressing to take back many of these prisoners some of whom many of whom are European citizens. And that's just not happening. And so in making this announcement Trump is criticizing European countries saying we've we've told you to do this and you're not responding. And he's also chided Turkey saying if you guys do this operation you need to take responsibility for these prisoners. And while that may make sense sort of from a logical perspective it may not work in practice because most people believe that the Turks have no intention or probably even not the capability to come in two camps if they were threatened if Turkey actually presses forward to Syria to take responsibility for these camps which you know are. It's a complicated detainee operation. And so the fear is that they could somehow get free and you'll be looking at another a serious counterterrorism threat.

LL: Missy, we have just a few seconds left. And I'd also note that there are Canadians in that in those camps as well. I'm just wondering could the bipartisan criticism in Washington change the president's mind?

MISSY RYAN: It might and we saw something along those lines happen in last December when he made a sudden withdrawal announcement related to Syria. And so certainly there's the possibility that he could somehow make a decision to pressure the Turkish government to forestall their invasion or perhaps hit pause on any further troop reductions in Syria.

LL: Alright we'll be watching. Thank you.

MISSY RYAN: Thank you.

LL: Missy Ryan is a reporter for The Washington Post who covers the Pentagon, military and national security issues. We reached her in Washington D.C.

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE 1: Following four months of intense fighting, Kurdish forces have pushed Islamic State out of Kobani.

VOICE 2: Around a third of the Syrian Kurdish fighting force is made up of women. They fight alongside the men facing the same enemy.

VOICE 1: ISIS fighters are caught infiltrating with refugees trying to flee. They're engaged by soldiers and police. It's literally trench warfare.

VOICE 3: The Kurdish led Syrian Democratic Forces or SDF has the backing of American airpower and ISIL is surrounded. Commanders are confident that this will be ISIL's last stand.

LL: The U.S. and the Kurds have long been allies in the fight against the Islamic State. So this abrupt change of policy has many scrambling to understand what it could mean for the future of these groups and of Syria. Two guests are with me now to talk more about that. Aykan Erdemir is a former member of the Turkish parliament, who is now a senior fellow at the Foundation for the Defence of Democracies, a think tank in Washington. Stephanie Carvin is a former national security analyst who teaches at Carleton University's Norman Paterson School of International Affairs. She is in Ottawa. Hello to you both.

STEPHANIE CARVIN: Good morning.

LL: Aykan Erdemir let's start with you. How surprised were you to hear this news on Sunday night?

AYKAN ERDEMIR: This was not very surprising because we have lived through this once before. In December President Trump and President Erdogan of Turkey had a similar phone call and Trump had a sudden change of heart and wanted to pull out of Syria immediately. Given the pushback on the Washington front, he slowed things down. Now this is his second attempt to pull out rapidly from Syria and again we see a bipartisan push in Washington and also you see concerns raised by various European allies. So let's see whether this time around Trump will also take a step back and slow things down or whether he will insist on going forward full speed.

LL: But there were reports and that even the Turkish government didn't know this announcement was coming. So why do you think Donald Trump decided on this right now?

AYKAN ERDEMIR: It's very difficult to you know second guess Donald Trump. But I think he often takes these you know swift decisions during what he sees as you know bargaining you know in negotiations. And there are reports that the Turkish president was giving him a hard time on the phone for not offering him a one on one meeting during the UN General Assembly. And suddenly you know Trump you know came with this formula to appease the Turkish president. And of course for the Turkish side every time they make demands from President Trump they're often surprised to see him a given all the way. Meaning I think Turkey's president never expects the whole of the Syria issue to be his responsibility. He's just trying to extract certain concessions mostly about a safe zone limited to the border area whereas that is part of this. The art of the deals that's President Trump is so famous for. He often just hands the entire portfolio over to Turkey which definitely Turkey doesn't want. So this is really a mind boggling you know bilateral negotiation that has repercussions way beyond the countries, the two countries involved.

LL: Stephanie Carmen I'm interested in your thoughts on why Trump chose to do this now.

STEPHANIE CARVIN: I very much agree with Aykan. It is hard to anticipate why Trump makes a certain decision when. Often because he so often has to walk it back and we're seeing that already. You wonder, I mean I would just point to two things that we've seen happen domestically within the United States. One of course the elephant in the room which is that President Trump is facing impeachment hearings, which also have to do with his foreign affairs. So perhaps this is some kind of distraction. The second thing of course is also he has lost a lot of the people around him who were providing some advice against these kind of impulsive moves. James Mattis resigned over the issue in December. Of course he's recently lost John Bolton who is has his views. But at the same time he's very mindful of the importance of U.S. alliances particularly in the Middle East. So I think you know those two events help explain perhaps why the president did it. But it could also have just been a phone call someone just presented him and someone in the White House to represent him with a fait accompli and said hey let's send this out. There's a number of reasons and that's part of the problem for U.S. allies. It's just so hard to know why Trump makes these decisions so impulsively when he does without because he just doesn't consult.

LL: And you just mentioned two names there John Bolton who is his former national security adviser and James Mattis who was his former defence secretary. I want to play a clip for you now of Donald Trump about a year ago when he was asked about U.S. relations with the Kurds in Syria. Here's what he told a Kurdish reporter.

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE: OK. We're trying to get along very well. We do get along great with the Kurds. We're trying to help them a lot. Don't forget that's their territory. We have to help them. I want to help them. Go ahead, what's next. They fought with us. They fought with us. They died with us. They died. We lost tens of thousands of Kurds died fighting ISIS. They died for us and with us and for themselves. They died for themselves, but they're great people. And we have not forget. We don't forget. I don't forget.

LL: Aykan Erdemir, why would the Kurds see this as such a betrayal?

AYKAN ERDEMIR: Now I think Kurds never had the misconception, Syrian Kurds that is you know the constituent elements of the Syrian Democratic forces, never had the misconception that U.S. would be there forever to protect them. But they were expecting the U.S. to play a mediating role with Turkey. They were you know the SDF was involved with US, through U.S. in these trust building measures with Turkey.

LL: Syrian Democratic Forces, yes?

AYKAN ERDEMIR: Yes the Syrian Democratic Forces recently dismantled their you know trenches, their fortifications on the Turkish border, withdraw from certain areas near the Turkish borders, gave up some of their heavy weaponry. So they thought this was a U.S. mediated process with Ankara to provide assurances security assurances to Ankara so that there could be a modus vivendi between Turkey and the emerging Syrian democratic council led enclave in northeast Syria. And then overnight they found themselves not only with a U.S. withdrawal but also a green light for a cross-border Turkish operation hence they now feel betrayed. And the worst part about it is that they now feel compelled to turn to the Assad regime and its backers, you know Russia and Iran. So I think that the real loss here for the transatlantic alliance is here is a you know a pro-Western relatively secular you know westward looking, a polity in the making, a community in the making and now we're pushing them away from you know Western values and partnerships into an extremely oppressive regressive regime.

LL: Stephanie I'm wondering what you think of that view? Are the Kurds going to just walk into the arms of the Assad regime and Russia?

STEPHANIE CARVIN: I mean the Kurds have been fighting for years, well beyond what happened in recent times. So I think you know their main concern is survival at the end of the day and they're going to turn to whoever will protect them or who can ever at least broker their survival in the region. So it doesn't surprise me at all that they would turn to Russia, Iran, if they think that the U.S. isn't going to protect us, who else is in the region can we strike a deal with. That's who they're going to turn to.

LL: So let's about an issue that I touched on with Missy and Stephanie, I want to stay with you on this. The Kurds as our allies in the fight against ISIS are in charge of the camps where many defeated ISIS fighters are being held. What concerns you about that those camps, as this changes, as the situation changes?

STEPHANIE CARVIN: Well for a long time and we saw actually Ralph Goodale's office, he's the Minister of Public Safety, who would be in charge of any kind of repatriation of Canadians coming back from those camps. You know for a long time Ottawa's position has been always too dangerous. We can't go there we can't do anything. So a lot of Trump's frustration that you know Missy was talking about relation to Europe also applies to Canada as well we've just simply refused to take. I believe it's around 35 Canadians which leads me in those camps back into repatriate them. And so there's really a number of concerns which is that firstly if these camps you know either the Kurds let the prisoners go because they're going to have to start fighting for their own survival or secondly they just let everyone go as maybe kind of a spiteful measure. And so we're going to have a bunch of Canadians who are either going to be trying to get back by themselves or they're going to go to perhaps Europe or they're going to go to another you know other countries perhaps in an effort to even join the Islamic State. Again we've already seen reports that the Islamic State is regrouping in many parts is building its capacity again and so will they try to join those efforts. So I think that in the end Canada has been trying to avoid dealing with this problem of the caves and the camps and I should put out it should state upfront that of those 35 Canadians the vast majority of them are children under the age of 10. Right. They're just probably about I think like six or seven ISIS fighters that we're really looking at here. But at the end of the day they're going to have to come back and the thing that Ottawa has been pushing off and pushing off and pushing off is now a reality. And we've just you know tried to kick the can down the road. Well guess what? We've caught up to the camp.

LL: Okay Aykan Erdemir, I want to ask you about President Erdogan's arguments and motives in this. He's been against the Kurds saying that the Kurds in Syria saying they're aligned with the PKK, which is a Kurdish group in Turkey, which is deemed a terrorist group. Could you address that aspect?

AYKAN ERDEMIR: Sure you know the main Turkish government talking point is the Syrian Democratic Forces is actually a fig leaf to hide the key constituent elements in that group. And that is the YPG People's Protection Units, which is predominantly Syrian Kurdish. And Turkey argues that YPG is one and the same as the Kurdistan Workers Party, namely the PKK that has been fighting an insurgency against Turkey since 1984. A designated terrorist organization, not only by Turkey, but also by the U.S. and the European Union. Now there is some fact to this meeting there are historic organic links between the PKK and the YPG. But then when we take a look at Syria, the Syrian Democratic Forces and the YPG have actually not posed any threat to Turkey. So we're not one of the most secure borders in between Syria and Turkey actually concerning jihadist infiltration turned out to be the SDF controlled area. And Turkey furthermore back in 2015 in late 2014 early 2015 when Turkey had an ongoing peace process with its own Kurds in Turkey. PYD, the political wing of YPG turned out to be a major partner for Turkey and even helped Turkey relocate a historic Turkish shrine from ISIS controlled territory. So it is a much more complex story but for the time being it serves Turkish president add ons interests best to reduce this whole complex story into you know and a counterterrorism effort given he has a quite a bit of problems at home. The economic downturn the cracks within his own party and defection of his closest aides a unified opposition that includes the Kurds a defeating and won twice in a row in Turkey's local elections. So this is a very difficult moment for him at home. And I think for survival reasons, for personal political survival reasons, he believes a cross-border operation and the rallyaround the flag effect of that operation is his best chance at home.

LL: Stephanie Carvin then who stands to gain the most from this U.S. withdrawal? Would it be President Erdogan or President Bashar al-Assad of Syria?

STEPHANIE CARVIN: I can say it certainly won't be the United States. That's for sure. It's hard to say. I think it's too soon to say because I think Trump's policy right now is just too predictable. If the U.S. does pull out, yes I could see you know kind of a loose alliance between Turkey, Iran and Russia. You know basically claiming victory because they will have at least in the case of Iran and Russia been able to secure the situation for Bashar al-Assad Russia if it's able to secure that region will actually be able to pull out. That's something that it wants to do because it's support in the region is very expensive and costs the Russian economy quite a bit. So it's not so much I think who wins who loses and I definitely think it's the West and more importantly I think it's not just the United States it's its allies as well because this is going to have definite repercussions for you know Western alliance politics the politics with Turkey and its problems already with NATO that are happening. So it's a kind of unfortunate situation and these erratic actions by the U.S. president just aren't helping.

LL: You mentioned NATO there. It is a very important military alliance to Canada. So what's at stake for Canada as all this unfolds? Aside from the ISIS supporters, fighters who are in those camps.

STEPHANIE CARVIN: I think it's really two things. The first is of course the Turkish issue. Erdogan has already made overtures to Russia. He's buying Russian military equipment and it's increasingly an authoritarian "allies," I use that in quotation marks within the alliance and that's been problematic because you know that NATO's trying to have this one position and if it's you know engaging in these kinds of operations it again you know a Western ally the Kurds if it's kind of overtures to Russia that fractures the alliance. But also you know yesterday we saw the president when he was trying to justify what he was doing. He was yelling about NATO. He was talking about how the allies are you know carrying their weight doing your things. He's just putting another crack in the alliance as well. So this you know this and this is why I'm saying this situation just has so many implications beyond just the immediate and very unfortunate situation for the Kurds. But you know if Western allies can't depend on the United States to at least consult when it makes these major policy decisions. If it can't rely on Turkey to be a partner that is working in concert with the other NATO members then you know the future of transatlantic security, the institution upon which Canada really does depend for its own protection, is in doubt and that's very bad news for Canada.

LL: Those are big stakes. Aykan Erdemir, but we are hearing a lot of Republicans saying those kinds of words about the U.S. not being a reliable partner, among other criticisms of President Trump. You're in Washington. What are the chances that Trump might eventually walk this decision back?

AYKAN ERDEMIR: Again we are now seeing various steps to slow this down, but ultimately I think President Trump has his mind set on what he calls ending endless wars and he approaches most of these issues from a pure you know bottom line perspective. You know how much money is the US spending? And he's not, I think he's so much into you know the tactical side of accounting that he misses the strategic big picture because I do agree with Stephanie. I think the real cost here is that U.S. is undermining its own credit, the ability and reliability as an ally, not only these state actors you know let's say within NATO, but also these early non-state actors in the Middle East that are being increasingly important.

LL: We will have to leave it there. I thank you both for your insights.

STEPHANIE CARVIN: Thank you.

LL: Aykan Erdemir is a former member of the Turkish parliament, now a senior fellow for the Foundation for the Defence of Democracies, a think tank in Washington. And Stephanie Carvin is a former national security analyst who teaches at Carleton University's Norman Paterson School of International Affairs. She was in Ottawa. That is our program for today. Stay tuned to Radio One for Q. Brittany Howard won a boatload of Grammys with her band Alabama Shakes. She'll tell Tom Power why she's put that on hold for her new introspective solo album, Jamie. And finally for all the undecided voters, a song from The Lovin' Spoonful to end the show. I'm Laura Lynch. Thank you for listening to The Current.

[Song: "Did You Ever Have To Make Up Your Mind" by The Lovin' Spoonful]

Oct. 8, 2019 episode transcript

Social Sharing

More from this episode