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 April 5, 2017

Host: Piya Chattopadhyay

STORIES FROM THIS EPISODE

Listen to the full episode

Prologue

[Music: Theme]

SOUNDCLIP

What is it going to take? How many more chemical attacks are there to be? How many more children need to wash up on shores or end up covered in dust? How many more children need to end up dead from some mysterious gas?

PIYA CHATTOPADHYAY: It's a question that's been asked for more than six years now, as the civil war in Syria grinds on. Medical professionals say dozens of people, including children, suffocated to death while they slept, after a suspected gas attack on a Syrian rebel held town yesterday. As the international community condemns the attack and wrings its hands yet again, we'll speak with a Syrian journalist about the impact of this latest deadly strike. Then we'll check in on the progress in another war torn country.

SOUNDCLIP

Right now I think we have a failed government and I'm afraid that we may end up with a failed state. And of course that's not going to be good for anybody.

PC: The list of Afghanistan's troubles is long. Poor leadership, corruption, security troubles, and a lack of law and order. Canada's military mission may be over but we still have a hand in Afghanistan's reconstruction. We'll take a hard look at what our dollars have actually created in terms of development. Then, a push to modernize our House of Commons has drawn criticism for being a threat to our democracy.

SOUNDCLIP

JUSTIN TRUDEAU: We are pleased that we launched a discussion paper a number of weeks ago to actually open an important discussion on how to get our parliament working even better.

PC: In an hour from now, three MPs will discuss and debate that. No filibustering allowed. Hi, I'm Piya Chattopadhyay in for Anna Maria Tremonti, and this is The Current.

Back To Top »

Syria chemical attack: what we know so far

Guest: Rami Jarrah

SOUNDCLIP

[Sound: breathing through machine, anxious voices]

PIYA CHATTOPADHYAY: The sound of a person struggling to breathe and chaos at a Syrian hospital. Yesterday, a suspected government chemical attack left at least 72 people dead in a rebel held town in Syria's Idlib province. This latest chapter in the Syrian conflict is being described as one of the most deadly chemical weapon attacks in years. For more on the attack and the international response it has triggered, we're joined now by Rami Jarrah, he's a Syrian journalist who has been covering the war. Today he is in Gaziantep, Turkey near the Syrian border. Rami hello.

RAMI JARRAH: Hello there.

PC: Let's first talk about the scene and the scope of this attack. What do we know about the scope of it? How many people were wounded? How many have died?

RAMI JARRAH: Those that have been confirmed based on documentation done both inside the country and evidence that was handed over to the Turkish government is 78. The numbers we assume are up around 120 and the reason being is because of the fact that the hospital or the main clinic that was in Khan Sheikhoun, the area that was attacked and contaminated, was also attacked a few hours later. So the hospitals around in other areas such as Maarat and Hama and Salamiyah, those that have been servicing and taking in these people. And based on the communication problems that there are inside Syria at the moment.

PC: So about 120 is what you're estimating right now in terms of how many people were killed? Men, women and children. What about wounded? How many people were hurt in this?

RAMI JARRAH: I don't think that's very clear at the moment. But the last numbers that came in were up at around 450. And this is because not all were just contaminated but a lot of people harmed by the excessive use of aerial bombardment because there were attacks. There were three air strikes that took place at 6:30 AM, and at 6:30 AM is when they used this deadly agent that was used that we're assuming might be sarin, which is definitely not chlorine.

PC: What was hit in these attacks?

RAMI JARRAH: At first it was next to a factory. So it was an industrial area. In addition to the fact that refugees in this area, it's an area called al Shamali, which means the Shamali neighbourhood within Khan Sheikhoun. So basically people that were displaced from Hama, which is just south of this area in Idlib, it’s another city, they were displaced to this area. It's those displaced civilians that were living in these industrial factories because there are no refugee camps in the area. And this is where they were staying and it’s that area that was targeted.

PC: You know, in the last 24 hours or so we've seen pictures come out, they’re, I mean, horrific. Can you give us a, I guess, more of a sense, Rami, about what does a chemical attack look like? I mean, what is the scene at the attack like?

RAMI JARRAH: You know, I remember more explicitly the attack that happened on the 21st of August, 2013. And that was in Damascus in the Ghouta area, killed around 1,400 people. I remember because we were receiving footage from some of the people that were working with us at the time in Damascus, and it was different to the case now. There was a quick response this time from people that have been used to this war and been involved for six years now. But at the time there was a lot of chaos. And I remember we found families that had made it that were running upwards on staircases because they were trying to run away from the fumes. And there were children that were on the steps and were passed out on the steps with foam coming out their mouths. Far away from them, what was strange was that all the family members were far away from other, and it was as if it was this moment of panic where everyone just forgets grabbing someone or trying to help someone else.

PC: You had said that you suspect that this was sarin gas that was used, not chlorine. And I don't know much about chemical weapons, so what, I mean, how do we know that? What do the symptoms indicate? What symptoms are doctors reporting that would suggest that?

RAMI JARRAH: I'm not claiming that it is sarin. But based on what the doctors have said on the ground and the analysis that they've made it's definitely not chlorine. And it is something similar to sarin because it disrupts the central nervous system and it creates an internal panic within the nervous system where the body doesn't know how to cope with itself anymore. There’s overheating, there’s foam coming out of the mouth, the eyes are dilated, there’s a yellow substance around the eyelids. And this is all stuff that was apparent when sarin used. So this is why we're assuming it’s sarin. If it’s not, it’s something similar and it's a deadly agent. It's not chlorine. Chlorine gas has been used over 160 times and it has been documented in Syria being used 160 times since the uprising began. That is something that Syrian citizens unfortunately have gotten used to. This yesterday was not something that Syrian citizens were used to.

PC: There of course is suspicion that this was carried out by government forces but hasn't been established in any way beyond I guess suspicions. What forces carried out raids?

RAMI JARRAH: First of all, there are no groups on the ground, neutral groups on the ground that are investigating this. And I think, you know, that's a responsibility of the international community. However, that does not mean that we can just point fingers at anyone. What is somehow now, there is informations being provided now of spotters that were able to stop the planes that were leaving their air bases. And this is based on a service that's been around for around two to three years now. And it’s information that’s provided then to the civil defense that then respond to the attacks. So a signal, if a signal has been recorded and picked up by these spotters that proves that the planes and SU-22s that were spotted at 5:00 AM, that began then circling around these areas, if that can be documented and proven and followed by the then there becomes proof that these, if the missiles are found and there's proof that it’s found that these missiles were in fact launched from airplanes, then that will leave us with no doubt that it was carried out by someone that actually owns a plane. And the Syrian opposition do not own planes.

[Sound: ambulance sirens]

RAMI JARRAH: But that would leave it open and that would mean that it could either be Russia and it could either be the regime. And people that support the Assad regime and those that support Russia would probably say it could be the United States as well. But I think in that case, we would accuse the Syrian regime of carrying out something like this. I don't think Russians really have an interest in doing such and obviously not the international coalition.

PC: Well let us talk just briefly about the international response. The UN Security Council is holding an emergency meeting today. The US is calling on Iran and Russia to prevent chemical weapons attacks in Syria. You know, the Trump administration is signaling that it is more sympathetic to Bashar al-Assad than the previous Obama administration. How effective is this kind of international community response expected to be?

RAMI JARRAH: I think it's better nothing, it is better than nothing. But Piya, the problem is with this is that we saw this in 2013, and we saw a lot of statements, very strong statements. And this was during a phase where a lot of ambassadors, a lot of countries had actually kicked out Syrian ambassadors, withdrawn their ambassadors from Damascus. And a lot of that has been reversed now. So I think now the atmosphere is actually much easier for Assad to get away with this. But right now, I mean there’s the UN Special Envoy to the UN, Steffan de Mistura, said yesterday that an investigation needs to be launched. That sounds very incompetent of the person in charge of Syria from the aspect of the United Nations. A statement has actually just been released by Syrian citizens and Syrian activists and prominent activists and whatnot, and they're actually offering to volunteer to actually learn how to gather evidence for chemical weapons and to go into the contaminated area themselves and gather it. And it's actually the satire, where we're trying to provoke the United Nations and saying if you won’t do your job we'll do your job. And no one said it was easy. I mean, because every time this is proposed they say that Syria is too dangerous. Of course it's too dangerous and it's definitely too dangerous for children that live in those zones that are just civilians. It's obviously dangerous for them if it's dangerous for the United Nations. But there hasn't been any serious attempt to put a finger on this and say this person or this side is a perpetrator.

PC: From what you're saying I suspect that you don't think much is going to change this time.

RAMI JARRAH: [sighs] I don't think much is going to change. I do have faith in the general populations across the world that actually care and are trying to do something. And I think the only thing, and this might sound a bit sad, but I think something that we certainly do benefit out of all of this, after all this time and all this chaos and everything that has happened is these connections that have been created across the world, where people are now very quick and through social media, very quick at collaborating, working together and finding solutions. That are, you know, solutions that states should be finding. But what we're seeing now is that people are taking matters into their own hands and if it’s possible to solve this matter than they are being solved.

PC: Rami Jarrah, thank you for your time. I really appreciate it.

RAMI JARRAH: Thank you Piya for having me.

PC: Rami Jarrah is a Syrian journalist. Today he's in Gaziantep, Turkey.

[Music]

Back To Top »

Amanda Todd's mom confident alleged cyberbully will be extradited to Canada

Guest: Carol Todd

PIYA CHATTOPADHYAY: You're listening to The Current on CBC Radio One and Sirius XM, I'm Piya Chattopadhyay sitting in for Anna Maria Tremonti.

SOUNDCLIP

AMANDA TODD: Hey guys. It’s Amanda and I’m going to be singing Someone Like You. A lot of people have requested it.

[Sound: Amanda Todd singing]

PC: Well that is Amanda Todd singing online for her friends. By the time Amanda was nine years old, she'd figured out how to record herself and post songs on the internet. But it was the other thing she had posted online that 15-year-old Amanda Todd was trying to escape when she took her own life in 2012. She'd been lured into posting sexual images of herself online and was blackmailed. The perpetrator was a man she'd never met. The images he is alleged to have posted of her spurred more online attacks by Amanda's classmates and peers. In the years since Amanda's death, Amanda Todd's name and story have drawn global attention to the issue of online abuse. A video she posted describing the pain and anguish she suffered has been viewed more than 20 million times. Aydin Coban is the man who is alleged to have cyber bullied Amanda Todd. And earlier this year, he was found guilty in the Netherlands of similar charges involving 34 young men and women. Coban has been sentenced to almost 11 years in jail. Then yesterday, a Dutch court decided that Aydin Coban could be extradited to face charges here in Canada in connection with Amanda's case. Amanda Todd's mother Carol has become a vocal advocate in the fight against cyber bullying and she has been following this case every step of the way. Carol Todd is on the line from her home in Port Coquitlam, British Columbia. Hello.

CAROL TODD: Good morning.

PC: You've had about a day, about 24 hours for this latest news to sink in. How are you feeling about this decision that Mr. Coban could be extradited to Canada to face charges that relate to your daughter?

CAROL TODD: If I could, every time I think about that question I come up with a different word. And this morning it's victorious because I think it's a huge step to have approval of extradition, especially when he is all the way over in the Netherlands.

PC: What are the other words you’ve come up with?

CAROL TODD: Sad, confusing, surreal. They just keep going, I didn't know there were so many adjectives actually that would describe my emotions.

PC: Understandably. How confident are you that in Aydin Coban will be brought to trial in Canada? The Dutch government has said, or the Dutch authorities have said yup he could be extradited, but there's usually a long road from there to here.

CAROL TODD: Well it's already been a long road because, and this all started in 2014, when it was announced that he was found to be allegedly guilty of offending Amanda. And then, you know, we find out there's other victims. And just recently in the Netherlands there was a trial and, you know, 34 other young victims and I don't know however many more. Confidence, we can just go with it step by step because initially there was so much, the government was confident they could do this and then there were other people who said it'll never happen, you'll never get, you know, Canada will never sign off on it, the Dutch won't sign off on it. And here we are on April 5th, 2017 and the Dutch have gone through a couple of processes and have said yes. So we can only wait and see, but I'm pretty confident that they're working hard to make this happen because it sets a precedent, it sets a standard, a new standard. And if this case goes to trial in Canada, it also sets new case law.

PC: And one of the people that aren't, that isn't as confident as you are is Mr. Coban’s legal team. And we tried to speak with Mr. Coban’s team but we haven't received a response. But Christian van Dijk, his former lawyer, wrote to us saying that there are doubts the case will be successful in Canada because of double jeopardy. In other words Mr. Coban can't face the same charges in two countries, though to be clear in Canada he is facing charges in relation to what he's alleged to have done to your daughter. But his former lawyer also questioned a police technique and it's called keylogger, which I understand means to secretly record the keystrokes used on a computer. How concerned are you, Carol, that this case will not go ahead in Canada given at least what the former lawyer is saying?

CAROL TODD: Well, I don't know when Mr. van Dijk messaged you but when you talk about double jeopardy, and you know what, in Canada the legal team, they wouldn't have proceeded with this if they had any doubts, right? Because this is a huge undertaking and probably a costly endeavor. Double jeopardy is only when someone is tried twice for the same crimes in two different places. And as we know, there was a trial recently in Amsterdam and Amanda was not involved with that. Her name was not out there, her case was not involved. So he is not being tried, he is being tried for probably the same charges but not for the same people. So it's not double jeopardy in that case. In terms of keylogger and all that, well, you know, there's different countries and different countries have different laws in terms of their criminal code and what they use for evidence and investigation. So as I said, if our country wasn't confident they wouldn't have proceeded with this.

PC: You went to Amsterdam back in February to be in the courtroom for a trial, a different trial, similar charges though, of Mr. Coban. Why was it important for you to be there?

CAROL TODD: Well initially I didn't think it was important. For the past two years, I was adamant that I didn't need to be there. I didn't want to be involved or see it. And as the time grew closer, one, I really wanted to see what he looked like face to face. And two, in touching base with my own therapist, it was important for me to start that emotional process of what did he look like? How would I feel being in a courtroom? How would I feel being in a courtroom and seeing him speak? And so then I decided that this is what I needed to do. And it was a really good decision because as hard as it was, it did prepare me a little bit emotionally for what is to come. A little bit because yesterday when the announcement came through about extradition, I just felt all that stuff come to the surface. But I can work through that. I can work through some of it now for when this happens out here. I'll know the processes on how to alleviate my anxiety because it's a huge emotional toll that this whole thing has taken. And so you can only prepare yourself so much, but I know that I need to and I need to know what's going to come up so that I can prepare my family for that also.

PC: You spoke earlier about, you know, that this sends a message to different jurisdictions or different laws. You have been advocating for tighter controls and charges against people who perpetrate these kinds of things. What does a decision yesterday by the Dutch court say to parents who are trying to find, you know, trying to keep their children safe from cyber attacking?

CAROL TODD: What it says to other parents is that something can be done. And if a child is being victimized, or any person that's being victimized to the extent of emotional distress, it needs to be reported. Because, you know, we need to be able to be people that live in an environment that is safe for us, right? We don't want any more stories like the Amanda Todd story and there's many more out there. And so if something's happening, one, you need to seek support and two you need to report it. And we always tell our kids and as an educator, you know, advocating with parents, it's like if someone doesn't listen to you the first time, you find someone else to tell, because something needs to be done. You just can't let it go and become that and stay victimized, right?

PC: Carol Todd, thank you for talking with us today. I do appreciate your time.

CAROL TODD: Thank you.

PC: Carol Todd is the mother of Amanda Todd. And she joined us from Port Coquitlam, British Columbia. The CBC News is next and then when we return we'll be talking about Canada's military involvement in Afghanistan, which of course is over, but our involvement in the country's future is not. You're going to hear from one man who spent years monitoring Afghanistan's reconstruction and what it says about the development dollars that we and other countries have been spending. I'm Piya Chattopadhyay sitting in for Anna Maria Tremonti, you're listening to The Current. We're back in just a bit.

[Music: Extro]

Back To Top »

Have billions of aid dollars helped Afghanistan?

Guests: John Sopko

PIYA CHATTOPADHYAY: Hi, I'm Piya Chattopadhyay sitting in for Anna Maria Tremonti and you're listening to The Current.

[Music: Theme]

PC: Still to come, the opposition is pushing back on a push to change the rules in the House of Commons. But first, taking the pulse on Afghanistan's democracy after a legacy of war.

SOUNDCLIP

Canada made one of the first and one of the largest contributions. To date we have committed nearly 3,000 members of the Canadian Forces to this campaign. It's the fourth largest national contribution in the coalition.

[Sound: gun shots, soldiers yelling]

NEWS ANCHOR: And the word today of a threefold blow for Canadian troops on mission there. Three more soldiers have lost their lives.

NEWS REPORTER: The incident occurred at approximately 5:40 PM Kandahar time in the Arghandab district. Killed in action were Warrant Officer Dennis Raymond Brown.

[Music: bagpipes]

VOICE 1: Nichola was returned home to her grieving husband and family. The loss of her life shook the nation.

VOICE 2: We would like her to be remembered as being good. A good citizen of Canada. A defender of the values that we all hold. She epitomized what we want our children to become.

NEWS ANCHOR: Ottawa’s decision to end Canada's combat mission in Afghanistan in 2011 isn't sitting well with the US secretary of state.

SOLDIER: Flag party, lower the Canadian flag.

[Music: Canadian national anthem]

PC: In 2014, Canadian troops lowered the Canadian flag for the last time in Afghanistan to mark the end of 12 years of military involvement. Canada still remains tied to Afghanistan through aid and funding development programs today. But despite billions of dollars of aid from Canada and other allied nations pouring into Afghanistan, the country remains among the top ten on the fragile states index, marked with high levels of insecurity and corruption, a burgeoning drug trade and little improvement in the standard of living. Well our next guest is closely monitoring how well the aid to Afghanistan is being used. John Sopko is a US Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction. For the last five years, he and his staff of 200 have measured the effectiveness of American government funding in Afghanistan. To date the US has allocated over 117 billion dollars from everything from Afghan security forces to education programs. John Sopko is in Ottawa this week to meet with Global Affairs and the RCMP. And he is in our Ottawa studio. Hello.

JOHN SOPKO: Good morning.

PC: We have much to talk about. But first of all, just describe the work that you have and are doing in Afghanistan.

JOHN SOPKO: Well, you were very accurate. We’re a Special Inspector General, we have audit and law enforcement authorities and since 2008 we have been looking at the 117 billion that the US has spent on reconstruction alone in Afghanistan. So we have a staff of about 200, we have about 45 auditors and investigators and engineers on the ground in Afghanistan. We have the largest US audit presence and the largest US law enforcement presence. And so we're still there and we're still monitoring the billions of dollars that are being spent.

PC: And John when you say monitoring, I mean, you're basically following the money right? You're going to see how it's working on the ground. And you said you've been traveling around Afghanistan. I mean, can you? Is it easy to get around Afghanistan? In the sense of security and for you to be doing that over these past years?

JOHN SOPKO: Well it is more difficult. In the five years I've been doing it, it has changed dramatically. When there were more troops on the ground and when the security situation was a lot better, it was easier for myself and my people, as well as the diplomats and that applies to the Canadian and other allied diplomats there to get around. So it is difficult, you're absolutely correct. It’s getting more difficult.

PC: And I imagine more difficult for the people who live there as well?

JOHN SOPKO: Oh absolutely. And it's the Afghan government itself is having problems getting around to large parts of their country. They only really control about 57 per cent of their country right now.

PC: And so why is the security situation worsening over these past handful of years?

JOHN SOPKO: Well I mean, I think there's two reasons. Number one, when the coalition was there with over 100,000 troops, we were doing the bulk of the fighting. For the last few fighting seasons, the decision has been made that the Afghan government and their troops and their police should do the fighting. So it would be expected that they would have a little more difficulty than the coalition did. So they have lost a number of soldiers, they've lost some ground and that is a problem. The additional reason for why they have not been as effective is highlighted in reports that we've issued and highlighted in observations by even our senior officials that corruption, corruption and incompetency and nepotism in the government, and particularly in the armed forces and police, have led to poor decisions, poor actions, and the lack of support by a lot of the troops and a lot of people on the ground.

PC: Who are they fighting? Because it takes more than one to fight. Is it just the Taliban or are there other groups that government forces are fighting against?

JOHN SOPKO: Unfortunately for Afghanistan, you have ISIS there, you have almost every major terrorist group. General Nicholson, who's our supreme commander and the NATO commander in Afghanistan, noted that in a recent testimony before the Hill that you have 20 some terrorist groups operating in Afghanistan now.

PC: And so amidst all this, you're trying to figure out where our billions of dollars, and by our I mean many many countries that are contributing, how they're being spent on the ground. We know that Americans are still involved with Afghan security forces, so let's start there. What did you discover when you audited the American program for the Afghan security forces?

JOHN SOPKO: Well, we have seen problems with the money going to the Afghans. The biggest problem again had to deal with corruption and the theft of fuel, the theft of food, the theft of salaries. Our biggest concern, and we've raised this for almost as long as I've been there, so almost for five years that we were concerned about ghosts and I don't mean spirits. I mean troops and police who are on the books as being alive and fighting or doing their work, but it turns out that they don't exist and so corrupt officials would take their salaries. As well as all the other, the long tail I call it, which is all of the other money it goes to support a real Afghan soldier. So that's one of our concerns.

PC: So let me just understand this.

JOHN SOPKO: Sure.

PC: Ghost soldiers, so essentially on the books there are X number of soldiers, some of them die, some of them leave and yet they're being funded for those dead and the people that have left, and that money in through corruption is going to government officials or other officials.

JOHN SOPKO: Oh absolutely. And it's not just ghost soldiers, it's ghost police, ghost teachers. I mean, recently there had been some allegations and I think reported also by the Canadian press, about the new Afghan government. And let me just say the new government in Afghanistan is really trying to do something about it but it's a big task for them and we have to support them on that. But they just issued their own report, in which their new Minister of Education said instead of the number of 11 million students that the Karzai regime claimed there were, there are only six million students. So that means five million students never existed but we paid for five million students potentially.

PC: Yeah, when you say paid, I mean Canada spending goes to development programs in Afghanistan, with a particular focus on education and our contributions go through the World Bank, which operates the Afghan Reconstruction Trust Fund. So when you say there are ghost students, in other words, students that don't exist but money is being put towards quote unquote them, but is being used in corrupt ways. That`s some of our money.

JOHN SOPKO: Unfortunately it is. And that's one of the things I’ll be talking to your government about when we come here. I met with some internal auditors of the Canadian government not too long ago. But this is a concern not only of United States and Canada, but it's a concern I think of many of the contributors, is that we have to make certain the World Bank is doing its job in overseeing the money. Likewise, we have to see the UN is doing its job in overseeing the money we are countries give to them. And up to now we have not had a warm fuzzy feeling about that. We've had some concerns about how effective a job. I know we did some work on the UN a couple of years ago, in which they were paying the police and there was just no oversight at all that we could find.

PC: So when you talk to Canadian officials, what are you going to say to Canadian officials? To monitor the effectiveness of our programs, other than saying we've got to, you know, put the heat a bit on the organizations, the World Bank, the UNs of the world for monitoring how the money that we're all contributing is going. But what do you say to the Canadians, for us to be more effective in seeing where our money goes?

JOHN SOPKO: Well, it's not my role to tell the Canadian government what to do. So first of all, let me say I am here really to learn from the Canadian government and the Canadian NGO community, non-government organizations. So it would be very improper for me to tell an ally such as Canada how to work, and obviously they do a pretty good job. And as a matter of fact been very impressed with the Canadian government on how they look after funds in Afghanistan. And they've actually taken the lead in Kabul on fighting corruption. So it would be remiss for me to tell the Canadians how to do their job. But what I'm here is to learn from them. You know, what are their experience been or what are their problems or what have they seen and see if we can share information on that.

PC: OK. Well, let me ask you this one then. Could one of the solutions, if one of the problems, which you pointed out, is that the World Bank, the UN, you know, there's not enough oversight, who is taking all this money that we are all contributing and using it on the ground. Is one of the prospective solutions, being that Canada and others should be investing directly in their own programs in Afghanistan, rather than channeling all this money into umbrella organizations?

JOHN SOPKO: Well that is one approach. A promise was made by President Obama and others a number of years ago to give at least 50 per cent or more of all of the aid directly to the Afghan government, either cut a check to their Ministry of Finance or to do it through international organizations. Now, if you don't do that and you still want to assist the Afghan people, which they need a lot of help, then you would have to set up your own program and do it. And many countries, either their presence is very small or it’s very expensive or because now because of the security they don't want to do it directly, they tend to be doing it through third parties and international organizations, in particular the UN, World Bank, Asian Development Bank are three of the main sources. So it's a dilemma. And I think rather than not funded through the third parties, we just have to make certain the third parties are doing their job and that's far more important than just cut and try to set up your own system.

PC: I want to ask you about another area. You know, in the post-9 11 era when we all went in, it was to fight the Taliban, it was to get girls back to school, it was to get this failed state back on track. And some of the focus was also on eradicating the drug trade. Your country invested billions in trying to eradicate the poppy industry in Afghanistan. And we saw some progress on that front in the early years of the war. But where's the narcotics trade there now? Has it just, you know, bloomed again?

JOHN SOPKO: Unfortunately, yes. That's actually the one growth industry in Afghanistan is the narcotics trade. They are producing more hectors under cultivation of poppy. They are producing more opium than ever before. They are exporting more and they have more drug addicts themselves. And the sad thing is that your drug problem here with opium is mainly coming from Afghanistan I think your RCMP and your public health officials are saying 80 to 90 per cent of your opium is Afghan derived.

PC: And so here we are John Sopko, 12 years on, 12 years ago we said we're going to go in and crack down on the drug trade so it doesn't affect us here at home and also help Afghanistan. We're going to get girls back to school. We're going to, after years and decades of war, we're going to get this country back on its feet. And it seems to me that you're suggesting that we haven't accomplished much of that.

JOHN SOPKO: Well we have accomplished some things. I mean, it is a safer place than when we found it. And, you know, we do have a functioning democratic government, not maybe as functioning or as democratic as we would like and we are used to here in the United States or in Canada. So there are some successes. But you're right, there are a lot of failures. And part of my job and, you know, I'm not a cheerleader but I will highlight successes where I can. But part of my job is to identify the problems and try to fix them. And I think this is a perfect time now and again, I can't tell the Canadians what to do. But I mean, in the United States we have a new president, a new administration and a new Congress. It's probably a good time to revisit a lot of programs to well I call it rack and stack. You know, tell me what are your most successful and what are your least successful and decide which programs to cut and which ones to emphasize. And it's even more important to do that right now because the amount of funding is decreasing.

PC: And if the root of so many of these problems or one of the roots is corruption, which we, you know, we see in all kinds of countries around the world, especially after years of being ravaged by war. If that is the central point to all of this, the main concern, what is to be done?

JOHN SOPKO: Well again, I think we can learn from our experiences elsewhere. And I was very fortunate to have worked for 25 years in Congress for some great statesmen. And I remember looking at the problem of dealing with narcotics in countries such as Colombia, Bolivia, and Peru. And one of the things they did there was they tried to create independent and separate courts and law enforcement and they protected those people and protected from bribes and protected them from threats. And that's one approach actually is being done right now with the corruption issue and that's a positive approach. It was spearheaded by the United Kingdom actually and supported by the Canadian ambassador there, Ambassador Lyons, who's now your ambassador, I think, in Israel. But they spearheaded that. And so they've created a nascent court and judicial system it's a little separate, but it's protected and they're starting to prosecute big time corrupt officials. And we're hopeful and we give support where we can do that, but we're hopeful that that is a start in fighting this. It's not hopeless.

PC: John Sopko, thank you for your time.

JOHN SOPKO: It's a pleasure.

PC: Take care.

JOHN SOPKO: Thank you.

PC: John Sopko is the US Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction. Today he's in Ottawa.

[Music]

PC: Well, Monday on the program we explored the state of public education in rural Ontario. And The Current’s John Chipman visited tiny Markdale, Ontario, population 1,400, where it's only school, it's called Beavercrest, was slated to close at the end of this school year. We got an update, John's back, hey.

JOHN CHIPMAN: Hey Piya, how are you doing?

PC: I’m OK. What do you got?

JOHN CHIPMAN: Well so just a quick reminder, Markdale, the community was struggling to save their local school. And the local company, which is an ice cream maker, Chapman's, had wanted to put money into either saving the school or building a new one. So after the story aired on Monday, actually later that day the Bluewater District School Board it released its final report about the school’s future. So I called back Darrin Patey, his daughter Rebecca, she goes to Beavercrest. And Darrin and his wife Michelle, they've been heavily involved in trying to find a way to keep a school in Markdale.

SOUNDCLIP

[Sound: phone ringing]

DARRIN PATEY: Hello.

JOHN CHIPMAN: Darrin, it's John Chipman phoning.

DARRIN PATEY: Oh man. [chuckles]

JOHN CHIPMAN: How are you doing?

DARRIN PATEY: I'm on cloud nine right now.

JOHN CHIPMAN: I guess, I guess.

DARRIN PATEY: We're actually heading over to school right now to see some happy faces.

JOHN CHIPMAN: Tell me what's happened.

DARRIN PATEY: Well, we knew the board report was going to go up today. We didn't know what time. But within about five minutes of the show this morning, the link turned blue and I clicked it and all of their recommendations are to work with us. And like they're looking at working with Chapman’s, as far as funding they're looking at working with the municipality, as far as covering the losses for the next year. Everything we wanted has come together. We have one year to put it all together, you know, financially but that's going to happen, that's not a problem.

JOHN CHIPMAN: So how do you and your wife feel?

DARRIN PATEY: We're ecstatic right now. We're ecstatic. We’re just headed over the school shortly to shake some hands and give some hugs.

JOHN CHIPMAN: Were you surprised? What were you expecting? It didn't seem all that hopeful when I saw you a couple of weeks ago.

DARRIN PATEY: No, the last report was still to close the school. The recommendation hadn't changed since September. And then something within the last few weeks has, yeah they had another meeting with special delegations presenting directly to the trustees. And Michelle did one final presentation there as well as 12 other people. And I think we swayed them somewhat to change their report. And this is huge because we've been trying, you know, thinking OK if the staff report is still for closure we still can try to convince the trustees to not vote for it. But now that the staff report is recommending what we want and the trustees tend to go with the staff report, we're over the moon.

PC: So John, that's Darrin Patey. Obviously as he says, over the moon. The Bluewater district school board, which had recommended closing Markdale’s only school Beavercrest, now recommending the closure be postponed a year while the board continues to explore alternatives. Why'd the board change its mind?

JOHN CHIPMAN: Actually, and I do have an update there. I just got an email this morning from the mayor not of Markdale, but of Grey Highland, which includes Markdale, a gentleman named Paul McQueen. There was a meeting last night that extended it from one year to two years. Apparently there was phone calls from the ministry, perhaps even from the education minister. So yeah, they're very very happy. As to why they changed their mind? You know, I think the media attention, ours included, probably didn't hurt. But I think the real factor was money. So Chapman's had been looking for other companies to kick money in and to help kind of sweeten the pot. They had offered two million and they found one. Actually, an official with Chapman’s said a company called Parataxis Design and Development Corp.. This is in urban planning and architecture firm based in Toronto. They had offered to match Chapman's donation, doubling the total to 4 million dollars.

PC: Alright, 4 million bucks.

JOHN CHIPMAN: That's money.

PC: That’s a lot of money. [chuckles] And if they have to build a new school, that's going to cost even more money I imagine.

JOHN CHIPMAN: Yeah, so the last estimate for a new school in Markdale was 7 million dollars. So Markdale the community has raised more than half the cost of a new school through private donations. Which I mean is great news for Markdale but it doesn't address the underlying funding challenges facing rural school boards because, you know, the reality is most small communities they just they don't have local businesses willing or able to make up those kind of shortfalls. And I should note that the Bluewater School Board’s report it's just a recommendation, school board trustees will be making their final decision later this month.

PC: And this is the thing about your story John, it's about one school and one small town but it is sort of replicated in other places in Ontario and Canada, schools that are facing closure in rural communities. And to that end I mean, we got a lot of response from our listeners, we’ll read a little bit. Ken Hoffman of Ottawa wrote in to say, “we desperately need a new lens for looking at this issue to recognize that the population of communities goes through natural cycles. We need to consider schools as community resources rather than single purpose buildings. They could provide a home for senior services as the population ages and be reconverted to classrooms as a community regenerates. Schools should be owned by municipalities or municipal trusts, which can look after the long term interests of their communities and then leased out to school boards and other users.”

JOHN CHIPMAN: Greg Gamble of Greenbank, Ontario writes, “there's more than enough money and school space in the short term to return to teaching kids in the one room school model. Mixing ages and grades was how the school system functioned until the 1960s and there are still a few operating today.”

PC: And Shannon Devenish of Petawawa, Ontario writes, “as a teacher, I am outraged at what is becoming of our public rural schools. City dwellers and the province as a whole surely must realize that we are reasonably self-sufficient in Ontario and in Canada because of our rural counterparts who put food on our tables, heat our homes and provide fuel for our vehicles. Shame on us for denying rural families the basic human right of access to education.”

JOHN CHIPMAN: Justin Kritikos of Tilbury, Ontario writes, “I'm surprised the idea of merging school boards to save rural schools wasn't covered. Listeners from outside Ontario would likely be surprised to learn there are five publicly funded school boards in Ontario, including English public, English Catholic, French public, French Catholic and a new Native school board. Merging at least some of the school boards would save money for all Ontario taxpayers. There'd be fewer directors, superintendents and bus routes, and it would save many Ontario, many rural Ontario schools.”

PC: Some of the feedback from our listeners. Thank you John, you will stay on this story and let us know how it all develops.

JOHN CHIPMAN: Of course, thank you.

PC: John Chipman is a producer of The Current. If you have thoughts on the state of education in rural Canada, we do want to hear your thoughts. You can post them on our Facebook page, @TheCurrentCBC is where to find us on Twitter and you can search for us on Facebook as well. Or you can send us an email if you prefer. Click on the contact link on our website cbc.ca/thecurrent. And if you missed John Chipman's original story on Monday, you can find it on our website or podcast or on the CBC Radio app. And just a small correction to the segment that aired on Monday. The public education advocacy group, sorry I'll try that again. The public education advocacy group People for Education was misidentified as Canadians for Education. It is People for Education. We apologize for that error. Alright, we got to take a quick break but when we come back, we're going to talk to opposition MPs and a Liberal MP about the plan to modernize the House of Commons. Some are calling it a thinly veiled power grab. I’m Piya Chattopadhyay in for Anna Maria Tremonti We're back in mere moments.

[Music: Extro]

PIYA CHATTOPADHYAY: Hi, I'm Piya Chattopadhyay sitting in for Anna Maria Tremonti and you’re listening to The Current. Coming up in just about a minute, three MPs on a debate facing Canadian democracy. But first, I want to tell you about an interview that is headed your way next week, when Anna Maria will be speaking with Steven Sloman. He's a Professor of Cognitive, Linguistic and Psychological Sciences at Brown University. And he's co-written a new book it's called The Knowledge Illusion. The Knowledge Illusion argues that it is important to understand our brains aren't as strong as we think and that we all get by with a little help from community knowledge.

SOUNDCLIP

STEVEN SLOMAN: We don't know that much. And in particular, we think we know a lot more than we in fact do. We think we know more than we do because we depend on others for our knowledge. So we're foragers for information, we use our bodies to think, we use the world to think, but more than anything we use other people to think. And the fact that other people understand how bicycle work, give us the impression that we think we know how bicycles work.

ANNA MARIA TREMONTI: And when it comes to a mechanical device, we get a little spoiled because we don't have to know eventually, we just have to hop on the bicycle.

STEVEN SLOMAN: Exactly. We live in a community of knowledge. There's a division of cognitive labour, such that, you know, we have our own tiny little area of expertise but other people have their areas of expertise. And in order to accomplish things we work together.

Back To Top »

Opposition MPs argue proposed parliament changes threaten democracy

Guests: Scott Simms, Scott Reed, Murray Rankin

Piya Chattopadhyay: So you might not be as smart as you think you are, but that doesn't really seem to matter, at least according to Steven Sloman. And you can hear him in conversation with Anna Maria, next week here on The Current. So where does the idea of a community of knowledge come into play when the subject turns to something like politics? Say, the Liberal government's push to reform the way our House of Commons runs. Well, understanding those proposed reforms may sound about as much fun as watching grass grow. But opposition parties are desperate to get the public's attention on this matter. They say the proposed changes are a threat to our democracy. Conservative Interim Leader Rona Ambrose even suggests Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is trying to pull a fast one on Canadians.

SOUNDCLIP

RONA AMBROSE: If he gets away with this, he will only have to show up to work once a week. And he also wants to strip the opposition of their power to hold him accountable. Now we know that the prime minister says China is a dictatorship he admirers and he certainly had a bizarre infatuation with Fidel Castro.

[Sound: Parliament yelling]

RONA AMBROSE: But can the prime minister at least agree that he, the prime minister of Canada, should accountable to this House and to Canadians more than once a week.

[Sound: crowd applause]

PC: Well, Government House leader Bardish Chagger set the controversy into motion last month, when she published a discussion paper with proposals to quote “modernize the House’s Standing Orders.” Those are the rules that govern business and conduct in the Commons. The sweeping changes include everything from eliminating Friday sittings in the House and restricting omnibus legislation to limiting speeches in committee and prohibiting the opposition from stalling, delaying or even completely preventing a vote. In other words, no more filibustering. When faced with the threat of having their filibuster powers taken away, opposition parties began to filibuster. And after a week break, they were vowing to continue filibustering the committee examining this issue this week. But then on Monday, Bardish Chagger reportedly called a meeting with her opposition colleagues to try and find a compromise. However, in Question Period yesterday, she didn't appear to be backing down.

SOUNDCLIP

BARDISH CHAGGER: We will always encourage our members of Parliament to represent their constituents, that’s exactly what we were elected to do. That was not the approach of the previous government.

[Sound: yelling]

BARDISH CHAGGER: We know that the Harper government did not take that approach when dealing in this House. We believe that we can modernize this place. But we will not give a veto to the Conservatives over our campaign commitments.

[Sound: yelling]

PC: That’s Liberal Government House leader Bardish Chagger. Well for more, we're joined today by three MPs to discuss the proposed changes to the rules in Parliament. Murray Rankin is NDP MP for Victoria and House leader for the New Democratic Party. Scott Reed is the Conservative MP for Lanark-Frontenac-Kingston Ontario. And Scott Simms is Liberal MP for Newfoundland and Labrador riding of Coast of Bays-Central-Notre Dame. They're all in our Ottawa studio. Hello.

MANY VOICES: Hi Piya.

PC: Hi. Scott Simms, let us begin with you. What changes do the Liberals want to see to the way Parliament works?

SCOTT SIMMS: Well, the basic changes were talked about in our campaign. And we talked about four elements actually, including omnibus legislation, prorogation, which were hot topics at the time if you remember a few years ago. The other big thing was the PMQ. Now, in the introduction what was said was about, you know, and what the opposition is doing is talking about the prime minister showing up once a week, which is similar to what happens in Great Britain for about 30 minutes. We never said that he would show up once a week. His goal was to say I want to be accountable to not only the frontbench but the backbench and everybody for the entire duration of Question Period. So that's one of the things that we talked about and the minister just talked about as well, as far as campaign commitments go.

PC: So this proposal though is to have the prime minister one day each week be dedicated for questions to the prime minister?

SCOTT SIMMS: Correct. But that doesn't preclude him from going to the rest either. And that was the whole point, that was never talked about from the beginning. And we talked about having him accountable and future prime ministers accountable for that duration.

PC: OK. One of the other proposals Scott Simms, is eliminating Friday sittings in the House of Commons. Why do the Liberals believe that would be a good idea?

SCOTT SIMMS: Right. So this has been discussed, I've been here 13 years. And my colleague here has been here longer and it's always been talked about and here's why. Fridays are half days, now with the exception of private members’ business which on occasion can be useful on a particular day depending what you’re talking about, sometimes it gets delayed and we won't get into more details about it. But Fridays have been half days. You know, the opposition’s saying that we don't want to show up on Fridays. No, we want either one of two things. We either want to make Friday a constituency day or and you allot the hours missed, those three or four hours, to other parts of the week or other parts of the month or you make Friday a full day and make it a useful one. Because if you think, one of the things that we keep hearing is about constituency days. Fridays are good days to spend in our ridings, it's good day for the office, people come to visit, we get a lot cleared up at that time. So this is why we want to use the hours allotted for that day to other parts. And let's not forget, we don't sit in January nor do we sit in September. Those hours should be used up as well.

PC: OK. So Murray Rankin, you know, Scott Simms just said hey this is all good, we're going to get questions directly to prime minister.

MURRAY RANKIN: [chuckles]

PC: One day a week we get to spend more time to the people we serve in home ridings. What concerns do you have about the changes that are being proposed here?

MURRAY RANKIN: Well look, this is about a process question. I know it sounds boring as you said in your introduction but it's the way our democracy works, it's the rules of the game in Parliament. And the government wants apparently to proceed without the support of the opposition parties. Now, Piya that's a process that's never been much used before. Virtually always when you change the rules of democracy, you do so with the support and consent of the other parties. It's that which is really problematic here. Some of the ideas are certainly worth discussing. There are others that are nothing more than centralizing power for the government of the day.

PC: Like what?

MURRAY RANKIN: Well for example, one idea would be to have the parliamentary secretary, who is essentially a almost cabinet minister, be member of the committees. And I think that would be problematic. That would centralize power. There's other things that really the devil's in the details of these changes. The point is you don't go ahead and do them as one party without the support of the rest of your colleagues in the House of Commons. This isn't just government policy, like whether we're going to continue mail delivery or the like, this is about the rules of our democracy.

PC: OK. Scott Simms, I'm going to get you to react to the all party approval.

SCOTT SIMMS: Well first of all--

PC: But just let me get Scott Reed in here and get his perspective. Scott Reed, for the Conservatives what do you find problematic about the government's proposals to reform their rules?

SCOTT REED: I think anything that involves reducing the amount of power available to the opposition parties, to slow down the process of approving government measures long enough to draw those matters to the attention of the public, just as we have done with this very issue is problematic.

PC: Where do you see that happening?

SCOTT REED: Well, they have a number of suggestions regarding changes to how committees run, reducing the amount of time one can address an issue to ten minutes. It's not clear whether it will be a single ten minute intervention, meaning that essentially once you go through the people at the table on an issue that's it, you're now going to have a vote. Or it might be that you're allowed to repeat yourself, but that decision that no one can speak for more than ten minutes would be a very substantial issue. The idea that the government can say, look, legislation must pass through each of its stages including committee within a certain amount of time, which is effectively automatic time allocation on every step of every bill and measure, those two would be extremely problematic.

PC: And to those who would say we need to speed up the pace of government business and these are two effective ways to do it, you would say what?

SCOTT REED: Well I'd say two things. Number one, the role of Parliament is not to speed up legislation. I understand why the executive wants that, having been the deputy government house leader for a decade, I understand that entirely. But that is part of having checks and balances is to have the ability to slow things down, draw these issues to the attention of the public. If the public is sympathetic to what the opposition is doing as it slows things down, that will be a strong signal to the government to back off a bit. And if the public says no, the opposition is being abusive of its powers to slow things down, the public will react to that and the opposition will back off.

PC: OK. Scott Simms, you heard Murray Rankin say this and others have said it, yesterday the Liberals vote down an opposition proposal requiring all parties support for parliamentary rule changes. So everyone's got to be in if we're going to change how our House of Commons works on these matters is the argument. Why was it voted down?

SCOTT SIMMS: Well, for me it was problematic because for several reasons. If you look at the past, like he talks about the fact that unanimity was achieved. And one of the biggest, greatest reports in history was a former member of Parliament from Newfoundland, Jim MacGraw, who had the MacGraw report. Now, what the NDP is saying is that, you know, this is a wonderful report, it achieved unanimity, which it did. But if you read the motion that started the study, which is where we are right now, if you read the motion, the requirement for unanimity was never there for the MacGraw report. As a matter of fact, and I say this with all due respect, Scott Reed had a bill in the House, he changed the Standing Orders by the election of the speaker in the last Parliament. But Mr. Reed never asked for unanimous consent. 41 per cent of the people voted against his bill. I voted for his bill and I say that with great amount of respect because I really enjoy what he just talked about, because I think it was a decent discussion about some of the issues that he brought up, Murray as well. What I want is to get past this, get into the study itself, because we're having great conversations about issues. By way of example, Scott Reed just talked about, you know, the ten minute speeches and then it stopped in committee. I personally do not want to see debate and vote induced. If you want 20 ten minute segments in a row, have them. The only reason why I like ten minutes is because he gives other people a chance to speak. So that's to that, and I like that discussion.

PC: But Scott Simms, I guess it goes back to like look, if we're going to change some fundamental rules of how democracy works in our House, where we send people like you to represent us, shouldn't there be a consensus and not a majority government, no matter what its stripes are, trying to arbitrarily change the rules?

SCOTT SIMMS: Right. But that's what, we want unanimity coming out of this report to see what is unanimous. Naturally we're going to have things that we don't agree with. So let's take this for one moment, in the discussions we've had so far, let's say there's one element that everybody agrees on and that's electronic voting. So that means we come up with a report that says the only thing we can come up with is maybe we should vote differently. It's too bad that differing views cannot be reflected in this report. If you only require unanimity, that's what I fear would happen. I would love for us to be unanimous in this report.

MURRAY RANKIN: Piya--

SCOTT SIMMS: And I would say, I'm sorry, Murray, go ahead.

MURRAY RANKIN: I was just going to say that sounds fine. The practice in Canada however, has been different. Virtually always when major reforms our rules of democracy are contemplated, the Library of Parliament did a report and showed us, virtually always it's done with the support of other parties. It's not just the Liberal Party at this moment in time Piya. You must understand this is changing the rules forever, until some later government does it. Imagine if these centralizing powers were in the hands of some future prime minister along the lines of Donald Trump. Would Scott Simms be saying this is just fine? I don't think so.

PC: Well--

SCOTT SIMMS: Well, this, hold on Murray, you’re talking about a different type of government there.

MURRAY RANKIN: [laughs] Do I have to think about all types of government?

SCOTT SIMMS: But let's talk about what you just said. You just talked about the great thing about unanimity and changing the House rules. And I would never disagree with you. But you say--

MURRAY RANKIN: [crosstalk] That is our tradition.

SCOTT SIMMS: Virtually always. Well, I'll tell you there are far more examples where unanimity was never required going into that debate. Brian Mulroney slapped right on the table a motion to change the Standing Orders. No discussion paper, no study, no nothing. And this happened several times. As a matter of fact, a member of your own party put a private member's motion in the House and never ask for unanimity. Why, why?

MURRAY RANKIN: Why did Stephen Harper never do this once? Would you have been happy if Stephen Harper did this?

SCOTT SIMMS: No.

PC: Well, let me get Scott Reed in here. Because the Harper example of proroguing Parliament and passing giant omnibus bills that many felt were not adequately debated is being cited throughout this discussion. So Scott Reed, you know, now that you’re in opposition some might say that it's a bit rich for you to be crying foul against the Liberals on similar matters.

SCOTT REED: Well, I think the issue that you're addressing here, actually you're not addressing it but I think it should be addressed, is the fact that under the Harper government there was, nor under the Chrétien government was there the use of unilateral changes to the Standing Orders. I mean, it has happened in the past where governments will simply ram through standing order changes without the consent of other parties. That's how we got closure, that's how we got time allocation. So the examples we look at are typically examples of things that Canadians actually find the least acceptable of the Standing Orders. So that was not done under the Harper government or the Chrétien government. Now with regard to omnibus bills and the use prorogation I'll just say this, prorogation I think would be difficult for us to deal with via the Standing Orders because of the fact that it's a crown prerogative, it's not under the purview of Parliament. Omnibus bills, I understand the government, I think they have good intentions in this regard.

PC: Trying to split them.

SCOTT REED: Well that's right, but the way they propose to do it I think is problematic. And, you know, if we find ourselves in an actual discussion of the details, I'll be pointing this out to other members of the committee, asking the speaker of the House to make the decision on splitting things unilaterally puts him in an extraordinarily difficult position. So I think that mechanism would prove problematic. But that is an issue for a later time. Right now all we want to do is stop an omnibus change to the standing orders in which we give our approval to a motion to push all the changes through by June the 2nd without knowing what they’ll be. And that’s the real issue.

PC: I'm glad you brought up that date because it speaks to what Scott Simms, you were saying earlier. You know, you say want time to discuss this, there’s lots of proposals, let's talk about specific ones, let's all get together, aren't we, you know, we can have this discussion and this debate. And yet the government has, you know, has imposed a June 2nd deadline, it's left to the Liberals being accused of ramming through these changes. So on the one hand, let's take time to talk, on the other hand there's a June 2nd deadline. Square that for me.

SCOTT SIMMS: Yeah. Sorry, Scott Simms here.

PC: Yeah, you are the Liberal.

SCOTT SIMMS: Yeah that’s right.

PC: [chuckles]

SCOTT SIMMS: Actually that's a valid fair point. It wasn't the government who imposed June 2nd, it was me, it was my motion.

PC: OK.

SCOTT SIMMS: And I put June 2nd only because I thought we could, you know, if you look at the finance committee, they have meetings five days a week, they have expanded meetings for pre-budget, so on and so forth. If you look at it, we could have done up to June 2nd because we could have had all those extra meetings in between. However, given what I've heard thus far and now we're into a filibuster, I'd be willing to change that.

PC: OK. So June 2nd deadline.

SCOTT SIMMS: Yes.

PC: Is not a June 2nd deadline?

SCOTT SIMMS: No, it was my deadline at the beginning because I thought it gave us ample time to listen from witnesses. Because I want to hear from witnesses, I've heard from us and we're fairly smart people to a certain degree.

MURRAY RANKIN: [laughs]

SCOTT SIMMS: To a certain degree.

PC: Murray and Scott Reed, Murray Rankin and Scott Reed, when you hear Scott Simms who put forth the June 2nd deadline and say look, I'm willing to change that deadline. I mean, does that help you in terms of looking at these issues?

MURRAY RANKIN: It's a start. I really wish they would agree to follow the Canadian tradition. Maybe Scott can tell us that today. And accept that we will go ahead on these omnibus changes with the support of other parties. Would you do that as well today?

SCOTT SIMMS: I would seek out the support of other parties, sure I would.

MURRAY RANKIN: In other words, you'll agree that you will only make the changes with the support of the other parties?

SCOTT SIMMS: Let's go into the study and let's find out where we achieve unanimous consent on, because that to me means more than anything else. But I don't want to leave other ideas off the table because you get to a point where we can only agree upon this. You brought up good ideas, Murray, Scott Reed has some excellent, he just spoke about in the discussion paper about omnibus bills and of course prorogation, I'm beginning to agree with him to be quite honest with you. I think he's got some very valid points.

PC: What is happening here? Like what? We've got three politicians from different parties who are having this civilized discussion debate saying I like what you're here. I mean, this is not the temper or the tone that we’ve been hearing on this issue in the House of Commons.

SCOTT SIMMS: Sorry.

MURRAY RANKIN: Well it’s because the nature of how they're doing it Piya, that's causing so much of the concern. We offered the House leader Ms. Chagger, both my opposition counterpart Candice Bergen and I, a bit of an off ramp. And the idea would be to, you know, get a deputy speaker and get people from all the parties individuals to sit around the table and try to sort it out. And like you said, I think we'd find more light than heat. But I really fear that where the government is going in this particular committee is not going to lead anywhere productive. And I do think we need to look at the changes to our rules of democracy, but not the way that this prime minister and this House leader seem determined to do.

PC: OK. Let me ask this question. So we seem to have some consensus around that table in Ottawa right now, that changes need to be made, there's some shared ground for where we can do that. So Murray Rankin, when the NDP looks at this, this larger issue of improving how our Commons works, where are the areas that you see for improvement that are up for discussion, this discussion paper right now?

MURRAY RANKIN: Prorogation is a good example. The Liberals suggest limits, I don't think that they're particularly effective limits, all you do is apparently make a report after you've done it and said we did it. I think we can go much further and improve the things because the way Mr. Harper did prorogation was a disgrace. The omnibus process, I agree with Scott Reed, there's some things that could be improved on that. But the idea of trying to make those improvements, I'm 100 per cent behind. Electronic voting, Scott Simms made a comment about that. There seems to be some things we might find common ground on that. Look, the problem with this is the process Piya. The ideas are worth discussing. Individually there's some good ones, some of them don't go far enough, that we need to constantly be trying to improve the rules of our democracy is obvious. Why the government insists on holding a gun to the head of the opposition is something I just do not understand.

PC: Scott Reed, what changes do you want to see?

SCOTT REED: Well, you know, when I proposed the idea of changing how the speaker was elected, my argument to members of the other parties was look at how much time it has taken in the past, multiply how much spending a day times 330 of us, 338 of us works out to be. So obviously I have a real interest in trying to reduce the amount of time taken up in the process of voting. So electronic voting, I'd be very sympathetic to that as long as it involves coming into the chamber to vote. Pressing a button on your desk is fine, I think that would save a lot of time. I would object very much to the idea of doing what they do in the States, where you can vote from your office. I think there is a real value to being in your seat in the Commons. But having said that, that's the obvious first place to go. Particularly as we are going to move in a year and a half to a different building and the electronic voting could be built into the desks there.

SCOTT SIMMS: Agreed.

MURRAY RANKIN: Agreed.

PC: Scott Reed, I'm just reading, you know, some of the things that you said. And I'm putting this in quotes, you said “this is a despicable attempt by the government to ram through sweeping changes.” Murray Rankin, you've said, you know, this is, I think, it was a grand threat to democracy. Do you still stand there this morning Murray Rankin?

MURRAY RANKIN: 100 per cent Piya. The way they're doing it is offensive and they don't seem to understand, the current government, that what they're doing applies to future governments as well. They'd be in our place if they were in opposition. We know that. They simply want to normalize a bunch of things and make things quote “more efficient” for them, not taking into account what a democracy is all about. Scott Simms, react to that.

SCOTT SIMMS: Well, I've been in that place where he's been. [chuckles] And, you know, we've had many discussions about this. I mean, I remember when Stephen Harper brought in the Fair Elections Act and there was not much discussion that happened before that. And I don't want to dwell on that too much but I just bears mentioning. What we wanted to do, I mean, if we’re considered evil and maligned in a certain way I feel badly because I never wanted it to go this way. I just wanted it to have a discussion, fundamental witnesses to talk about the concepts, number one, that we talked about in the campaign like prime minister's questions and omnibus legislation. But the other stuff that we put in this discussion paper as well as we've discovered along the way. We had a great debate back in October, it was called a take note debate. Fantastic ideas. I liked, you know, I just co-edited a book with Michael Chong and Kennedy Stewart and Michael Chong has some great ideas about reforming and I want to talk about those too. So I'm sorry this got off the rails, I'm sorry if I caused all my colleagues grief, but I think it's very important and I want them to know that I think it's just as important and I think the prime minister does as well.

PC: And Scott Reed, you know, if the June 2nd deadline is no longer a deadline and Scott Simms says well, let's just talk about this stuff. There are Canadians saying goodness, haven't we been talking about this stuff for long enough? Isn't it time to just make some changes?

SCOTT REED: Well no, the nature of the Standing Orders is that they are continually in slow evolution. If you trace them back, you'll see that many of the Standing Orders can be traced to 1867 and those Standing Orders came from the assembly of the province of Canada back to 1840 and those from the assemblies of the provinces of Upper and Lower Canada back to 1791. So, you know, this is a slow evolutionary process. The conversation never stops. And I was just gonna make the suggestion if Scott is open to the idea of moving back from the June 2nd deadline, then I would suggest that we have the option of coming and sitting as a committee over the summer. I did that last summer as part of the electoral reform special committee, and the ability to work together when you haven't got things on your agenda is actually, in my view, the best time to deal with this kind of issue where a fair bit of research is needed on each of the specific items.

PC: Scott Simms, let me end by asking you this, your government did not deliver on electoral reform. Critics including people like Andrew Coyne, are saying the Liberals handling this issue just confirms that your government cannot be trusted. Why should Canadians trust you on this issue?

SCOTT SIMMS: Well, I've been in this one about the changing the rules of the House and modernizing the House for quite some time. I can only tell you how I feel. I can only be honest about it. I've been as honest as I can be, changing the dates and the deadlines. I've mentioned things that I like from the other parties. I, yes I do, we have a fundamental disagreement about process. But I can say this much, is that we're modernizing it, our goal is to modernize it not just for our government, for all future governments whatever stripe that may be. And I think this has been a good discussion. I'd just like to get on with more discussion so that we can make some greater changes for the rest of the House.

PC: Well, we will have to leave our discussion at that. Scott Simms, Scott Reed, Murray Rankin, thank you all three of you for your time. Appreciate it.

MURRAY RANKIN: Thank you.

SCOTT REED: It was a pleasure.

SCOTT SIMMS: Thank you Piya.

PC: Murray Rankin is NDP MP for Victoria and House leader for the New Democratic Party. Scott Reed is a Conservative MP for Lanark-Frontenac-Kingston Ontario. And Scott Simms is a Liberal MP for Newfoundland and Labrador riding of Coast of Bays-Central-Notre Dame. Today they were all in our Ottawa studio. That is The Current for today. And remember, you can always take The Current with you on the go on the CBC Radio app. It lets you browse through past episodes of our show. Select what you want to hear and start listening in just a few seconds. You can search for stories you missed or want to hear again or listen live to your local CBC station right from your smartphone or from your tablet. It is free from the App Store or Google Play. Now, we began today's show talking about a gas attack in Syria that has left dozens and dozens of people dead, including at least 11 children. And so we're going to leave you today with a song performed by some other children of Syria who have been affected by six years of war. It was released by UNICEF last month and it is performed by a ten-year-old Syrian girl named Ansam. She was born blind. The music video for the song was filmed in Syria, in a war ravaged part of Damascus. Now, Ansam is backed up on the song by a choir of other Syrian children who have, like her, been internally displaced. The song is called Heartbeat, a Song for Syria. My name is Piya Chattopadhyay, I'm sitting in for Anna Maria Tremonti. Thank you for lending us your ear here on The Current.

[Music: Ansam and choir]

Back To Top »

Provide Transcript Feedback

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

April 5, 2017 full episode transcript

More Stories Like This