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 2023

The Current Transcript for March 21, 2023

Host: Matt Galloway

STORIES FROM THIS EPISODE

Prologue

[Music: Theme]

SOUNDCLIP

MALE SPEAKER: I see this as a show of support for Russia. And also, there is a message for the rest of the world because Xi hopes that it will rally more support from developing countries.

MATT GALLOWAY: China's president Xi Jinping is in Russia today visiting Vladimir Putin. He arrives with what China calls a plan for peace between Russia and Ukraine, on the heels of facilitating a deal between Saudi Arabia and Iran. In an hour, why observers say this is the latest effort by China to become a global power broker at the expense of the United States. Also this morning, cool it now. A new U.N. report says the earth will hit a critical threshold for global warming in the next decade. The Canadian climate scientist Katharine Hayhoe will be here to talk about what needs to happen now and whether the world is likely to respond. And later.

SOUNDCLIP

ROMEO SAGANASH: As an indigenous person, I wasn’t supposed to be there. And you have to work doubly hard to achieve the things that you want to do. You have to stay more focussed on what you need to do there and why you think you belong.

MG: Former NDP MP Romeo Saganash resisted entering political life. He doesn't regret leaving. His reflections are part of a new podcast featuring ex-MPs talking about how to make politics in Canada better. In 30 minutes, Saganash and fellow recovering politician Scott Brison on public service, toxic debates and why an independent mind is seen as a threat in the House of Commons. We begin, though, in Montreal with a tragic fire and demands for a closer look at illegal short term rentals in that city. Good morning. I'm Matt Galloway and this is The Current.

[Music: Theme]

Back To Top »

MONTREAL FIRE

Guests: Sarah Leavitt, David Wachsmuth

MG: The mayor of Montreal, Valerie Plante, had firm words for Airbnb after at least one person died and six others are still missing in a fire last week in a building that housed several Airbnb units.

SOUNDCLIP

VALERIE PLANTE: Forbid any type of renters who do not respect the law, which is to get their permit number because if they would have to come to the city and we would tell them here you can, here you cannot. So ultimately, Airbnb Canada cannot just say, oh, well, we did what we had to do. It's not true. And what is happening in Montreal happens in other places in Quebec and in Canada, to be honest.

MG: Sarah Leavitt has been covering this story for the CBC and joins us from Montreal. Sara, good morning.

SARAH LEAVITT: Good morning, Matt.

MG: This area, you're there in old Montreal. It’s at the foot of the city. It's a very popular tourist area. I know that you've been speaking to people who came, parents or loved ones of those who are still missing. Tell us what you've been seeing in that area over the last couple of days.

SARAH LEAVITT: Well, you know, Matt, on Sunday night I was here. And suddenly a man approached me. He asked my camera operator, can you zoom in on that window and I can look through the lens? He wanted to see into the room that his son had been staying in. And, you know, they didn't want me to share his name just yet. But this man, the man that was in the Airbnb said that the parents said since Thursday they'd been travelling from Europe to get here, 72 hours where they hoped and prayed that they would hear from their son before they arrived. They didn't. Instead, they stood outside the building crying. The dad told me I would risk my life to go inside and search for my son's body. I would do anything. I want to get in. Of course he wasn't allowed. So they were left standing out there just watching as firefighters worked inside.

MG: And the fact that he had travelled. I mean, there are family members who are still in home countries who are trying to get here to Canada, right?

SARAH LEAVITT: Yeah, it's remarkable to hear from them. I also spoke to friends of Anne Wu. She's a neuroscientist that was from China but in school in San Diego. She was in town for a conference. The last time that her family heard from her was just a few hours before the fire. It was about 2 a.m. and she was sending pictures of the Airbnb she was in to them. The friends, they recount the struggle of getting any news. Now, these are friends in San Diego and family in China. They enlisted the help of the conference organizer. He actually went to every hospital in Montreal looking for her with no luck. We also heard from the fathers of Sania Khan and Dania Safar, both originally from Pakistan, childhood friends that decided to come to Montreal for a visit. Dania was living in Toronto, but her family is back in Pakistan. They say they had no idea what was going on. In fact, they're the ones that contacted CBC to get answers. And for both Anne Wu’s family and Dania Safar's, English isn't their first language. They also don't speak French. So it adds another layer of confusion and complexity.

MG: And Anne Wu, I mean, she was at this conference and then stayed an extra day to be a tourist and was staying in that Airbnb.

SARAH LEAVITT: Exactly.

MG: We've also been hearing from Louis-Philippe Lacroix who said his 18-year-old daughter was one of the missing. What do we know about the Airbnb that she was staying in?

SARAH LEAVITT: We know that it was in the basement of this building. According to him, what police told him was that they received two 911 calls in all. The first one was Charlie saying, there's no windows where we are. There's no windows where we are. Come get us. We can't get out. And then a call not long after that actually cut out. And so questions there about how she was in a bedroom without windows. And there were other concerns to another couple that did get out saying that their fire alarm never went off.

MG: I mean, again, I said that this is in old Montreal. For people who know the city, they may know this area. But for people across the country who may not, can you just describe the building where this fire happened? Where is it and what is this building like?

SARAH LEAVITT: Yeah. It's right by the old port. So right along the St Lawrence River. There's the archaeology museum right nearby. And this is a heritage building. It was built 200 years ago by the Ogilvy family who used it as offices for the mill, the milling company which later became Farine Five Roses, that famous sign of Montreal. And this building is a stone facade. And inside was known for its intricate woodwork. And it was as I said a heritage building. So it needed to follow certain rules to be protected because of the history behind it.

MG: Yesterday, the mayor of Montreal, Valerie Plante, said that the city would tighten regulation of Airbnb. Airbnb said it would work with the mayor's office. But she also said it's not particularly Montreal's responsibility alone. What does she want to see from the province when it comes to enforcing the rules? And these rules are specific around Airbnbs in this neighbourhood of Montréal in particular.

SARAH LEAVITT: So it's been interesting to see the response to this fire. And in fact, yes, the mayor has pivoted towards anger about Airbnbs, right? She says that the body responsible, the provincial body responsible, Revenue Quebec, must increase the number of its inspectors to investigate those illegal Airbnb operators. She said that the solution isn't just for taxpayers to pay for inspectors, but Airbnb also has a responsibility. And, you know, the question of Airbnb is a good one because what we do know is that six of the seven victims were in Airbnb units, and Airbnbs in that area are illegal. In fact, according to a website that monitors Airbnb rentals, in the city, more than 90% of the rentals are unlicensed. But, you know, there's so many layers of responsibility in this case. The building owner and whether or not building codes were followed, the city in making sure those codes are met and ensuring a heritage building is well kept. So lots of safety questions. And I asked the mayor that yesterday. I said, you know, you're talking a lot about Airbnb, but it's about more than that. Does the city, yes or no, take responsibility in part for this fire? And she said yes, but we need to see where this investigation goes.

MG: What about the owner of the building? What do we know about him? His lawyer has spoken, he hasn't.

SARAH LEAVITT: Mm hmm. So he the building owner himself is also a lawyer, the owner of several buildings in Montreal. And it appears to be he's a pretty litigious landlord. If you look at a quick search in the decisions of Quebec's rental board, they yield a range of results of him going after tenants for late rent or tenants going after him for rental hikes or problems in the various building he owns. He as you said isn’t talking. His lawyer, Alexandre Bergevin,, is. He says that the building owner is cooperating with investigators. He says that his client isn't the one that's listing units as rentals on Airbnb. They blame a tenant that is doing that, one that they have taken to the rental board because of that. But that's all that we've heard so far from them.

MG: Just a couple more questions before I let you go. One is what is the sense that there might be criminal charges laid after this fire once the investigation is concluded?

SARAH LEAVITT: Well, you know, authorities haven't definitively ruled it out, but there's so much scrutiny into this. The investigation is ongoing. Police and firefighters are very tight lipped otherwise. But as I said, they haven't definitively ruled it out. And we'll just have to see what they come up with with this investigation.

MG: Just finally, I mean, this is a terrible tragedy. It is also a larger conversation about the place of short term rentals like Airbnb in cities like Montreal. Montreal is a tourist attraction. People stay in hotels, but they also stay in Airbnbs. And I just wonder what the tenor of the conversation in your city has been like in the days following this fire about that issue, about the place of Airbnb in a city like Montreal.

SARAH LEAVITT: I think the overwhelming sentiment from citizens, family members, the city itself has been that it can't continue the way it's been. To hear that number, 90% are unlicensed. Who wants to see another tragedy like this is the question. And also, the other concern is why are changes perhaps coming because of the possible death of seven people, six people still missing, one dead. So lots of questions. And I think there will be quite the crackdown in the city on Airbnb and these short term rentals for certain.

MG: Sarah, thank you very much for this.

SARAH LEAVITT: Thank you, Matt.

MG: Sarah Leavitt is a CBC reporter in Montreal. We did request an interview with the mayor of Montreal, Valerie Plante. She was unavailable. David Wachsmuth is an associate professor of Urban Planning at McGill University, Canada Research Chair in Urban Governance. David, good morning to you.

DAVID WACHSMUTH: Good morning.

MG: How is it possible that more than 90% of the Airbnbs, these short term rentals in the city would be unlicensed?

DAVID WACHSMUTH: Yeah, it's a great question. I think that number is a little bit high, but it's true that the majority of Airbnbs in Montreal are operating without a license, which means they're illegal. This is unfortunately the result of a kind of failure of multiple levels of government and Airbnb, the company, with a lot of kind of buck passing between them and nobody really taking charge and laying down the law.

MG: I mean, the other issue, as Sara said, is that in that area of Montreal, in old Montreal in particular, there aren't supposed to be any Airbnbs. I looked on the site this morning. There are a thousand listings for this weekend.

DAVID WACHSMUTH: Well, you know, this is a little bit complicated because you're allowed anywhere in the city, actually anywhere in the province to operate an Airbnb out of your own home on a casual basis. The problem is that commercial Airbnbs are totally banned in that part of the city as you say. And because hosts aren't registering their listings with Revenue Quebec, it's very difficult for any of the authorities to figure out what's a home sharing operation where I've got a spare bedroom and what's a commercial Airbnb of the kind where we saw the fire.

MG: So who's responsible for this? Who's responsible for monitoring and shutting down illegal rentals?

DAVID WACHSMUTH: Well, you know, there are multiple points of responsibility here, but I think the low hanging fruit is Airbnb, the company, because they know perfectly well that since May of 2020, so, you know, we're talking now about three years, every single Airbnb in Quebec needs to display a permit number. And they also know perfectly well that something like three quarters of them, that's the number I have, are operating without one of these license numbers displayed. So leaving all other issues aside, they should have removed three quarters of all the Airbnbs in Quebec years ago because they're 100% guaranteed to be illegal. Now beyond that, the province has a role in inspecting the city, has a role in setting the rules. But I think it's pretty unconscionable that Airbnbs have been allowed to just ignore the rules for this many years now when they could with a flick of a switch get rid of most of those illegal listings.

MG: Let me come back to the inspection part in a moment. We did ask to speak with Airbnb, including we put a request in directly to Nathan Rotman, who's the regional policy director for Airbnb Canada. He was singled out by Mayor Valérie Plante. The statement that we received from Mr. Rotman reads in part, “Our hearts go out to the victims of this tragedy, to their families and loved ones. We're providing our support to those affected. We are assisting law enforcement as they investigate. We are also engaged with the mayor's office.” Why would Airbnb not flick that switch as you say? What's going on that would prevent them from doing that, to take those listings that are not legal, that are not registered off of its platform?

DAVID WACHSMUTH: I think the simple answer here is those illegal listings make them a lot of money. And, you know, I've been studying short term rentals for almost a decade now. And in my experience, Airbnb complies with laws when policymakers hold the company's feet to the fire. And until and unless policymakers do that, Airbnb is very, very happy to just kind of ignore these kinds of issues.

MG: What about the city? What about the city and the province? Because also those people who would stay in Airbnbs would spend money in the city, would be part of the tourist attraction that Montreal is and that Montreal thrives on. So what is the responsibility of the city and the province in that?

DAVID WACHSMUTH: Yeah, absolutely. I mean, you know, unfortunately, there's is a situation where there's a lot of blame to go around. I mean, you know, Quebec in theory has a great system for regulating short term rentals. The province registers everybody, collects the information, and municipalities decide where they want to see this kind of activity. Unfortunately, what's happened here is there hasn't been the commitment to enforcement at either provincial or municipal level. So Airbnb hosts have realized they can just break the law and get away with it. So again, I single out Airbnb here because they have the easiest path to making this better. But certainly, it doesn't make a lot of sense that the province passed what looked like a really good law years ago now and just hasn't put the effort into enforcing it. And meanwhile, the city is kind of saying, well, it's not our jurisdiction. But, you know, there also are steps they could be taking more proactively. So I think it is true that there's a lot of blame to go around.

MG: What about the very basic safety elements of these apartments? I mean, as we're hearing, some of the rooms had no windows. Fire alarms appear not to have worked. What responsibility, aside from the issue of short term rentals and the short term rental companies, what responsibility does the city have to inspect buildings like this to make sure that people are safe?

DAVID WACHSMUTH: Well, you know, this is a really tricky thing because of course, you know, in the wake of a tragedy like this, it's the kind of situation that reveals some of kind of the gaps in the way that monitoring happens, that licensing happens, that inspections happen. And there are a lot of old buildings in the city of Montreal. And so I certainly understand that it's not feasible for the city to be, you know, inspecting every building in a really aggressive way.

MG: But also, you would expect that there would be working fire alarms, for example, or smoke alarms.

DAVID WACHSMUTH: You 100% would. And I think that, you know, the fact that we've got a kind of chain here where you've got a building owner who's apparently renting it to a tenant who's actually kind of operating Airbnbs on the side, and that, you know, there's a kind of breakdown of responsibility. And I do think that these are the kinds of areas of the city where the government, the city government probably could foreseeably say these are high risk areas and where the inspections could be more aggressive, particularly because of the issue of illegal short term rentals.

MG: The issue of short term rentals has been tricky in municipalities not just across this country, but right around the world when it comes to the housing crisis, but also when it comes to safety and ensuring that the places that people are staying in are actually safe. I mean, this is an awful tragedy and it's still unfolding and the family members are going through hell trying to get the answers that they are looking for. But is your sense that something like this might propel change in a city like Montreal where that conversation is, as Sarah was saying, a very lively one already?

DAVID WACHSMUTH: Yeah. Well, you know, I think unfortunately, if you look at the historical record here, what you see is that tragedies of this kind often are the things that motivate serious change. So, you know, a lot of the kind of modern fire codes, building safety codes, they were all created in the wake of these kinds of tragedies. So, you know, in that sense, I'm optimistic that, you know, it's not like we have new facts here. We've known for years and years and years about the problem of illegal short term rentals. But I do think there is the chance that the tragedy is going to kind of push this issue off the backburner again, given that we've got some pretty reasonable options for how to deal with this and we've known about those for years.

MG: And so what would you want to see done?

DAVID WACHSMUTH: Well, I think the very first step is to put enough effort behind enforcing the existing rules, which again, in Quebec and in Montreal, there are actually pretty good rules. They're as good as it gets in the country on paper. The issue has been enforcement. And that starts with demanding that Airbnb is accountable for illegal listings on its site. And it also means the province seriously stepping up its kind of proactive inspection and verification of listings. I think that's a really good start, and I am optimistic that we're going to see those changes in the near future.

MG: Where does that leave people who use Airbnb? Again, full disclosure. Stayed in Airbnbs. Not in Montreal, but in many other cities. And we may not know. People who use it may not know whether the sites that you're looking at, the loft that you're looking at is licensed or not.

DAVID WACHSMUTH: That's right. And, you know, it's a big part of the problem. I mean, I think Airbnb has improved some of the disclosure of safer safety features. You know, they make it pretty clear if there's a carbon monoxide. I doubt that they’ll declare that there's a carbon monoxide detector, those kinds of things. But I think the reality is that it's quite hard to use Airbnb and be confident that you're staying in a licensed, legal, safe place.

MG: That you would be up on the local rules and, you know, the regulations of the jurisdiction that you're trying to visit.

DAVID WACHSMUTH: That's exactly right. And that's why I think it's in the company's best interest to be a little bit, you know, to be stronger on this issue, to be able to say with confidence, we're part of ensuring that the operators on our site are following the rules. And that means you as a guest can book with confidence. And I think unfortunately, we're not in that situation right now. Definitely not in Montreal and definitely not in a lot of other places.

MG: David, we'll watch the story. It is an awful story in Montreal, but certainly I think people across this country will be paying close attention because of similar conversations perhaps in their own communities. Thank you very much.

DAVID WACHSMUTH: Thank you.

MG: David Wachsmuth is an associate professor of urban planning at McGill University and Canada Research Chair on Urban Governance. Your CBC News is up next. And then, just about any day, you can hear politicians in question period often toeing the party line, perhaps speaking to talking points. What happens after those politicians leave the job? We'll speak with two former MPs about their experience in politics, whether it matched what they thought it would be and why they believe politicians need to be able to speak more freely to make politics work better in this country. That's coming up in six minutes. My name is Matt Galloway. You're listening to The Current on CBC Radio and the CBC Listen app. Stay with us.

[Music: Theme]

Back To Top »

HUMANS OF THE HOUSE

Guests: Sabreena Dehlon, Romeo Saganash, Scott Brison

MG: Good morning. I'm Matt Galloway and you're listening to The Current.

[Music: Theme]

MG: Still to come, China's president Xi Jinping is in Russia. He says it's a trip for peace. But on the heels of a war crimes indictment for Vladimir Putin, questions are being raised about what China's possible role in ending that conflict would look like. We'll talk about that in just under 30 minutes. But first, there are the politics of Parliament Hill, and then there are the people in the House.

[Music: Theme]

SOUNDCLIP

CATHERINE MCKENNA: I was in the line of fire in the House of Commons, and that was one thing. It wasn't pretty. And also, I have things to say about question period and how we run question period. I think it's almost like harassment. When I got in, I had no idea that people would just be screaming at me and heckling you. You can barely actually think to get your answer.

[people talking loudly]

CATHERINE MCKENNA: I actually committed that I would not read my answers, but it is very hard when people are yelling at you.

MG: Former Liberal Minister of the Environment and Climate Change Catherine McKenna is reflecting on her time in the House of Commons. That conversation is part of a new podcast called Humans of the House. It's based on a series of exit interviews with former members of Parliament and offers a rare look at the personal lives of the people behind the politics, what got them there and why they left. Sabreena Dehlon is executive director of the Samara Centre for Democracy, host of Humans of the House. She's with me in studio. Sabreena, good morning.

SABREENA DEHLON: Good morning.

MG: Why did you want to do this podcast on, as I said, the people behind the politics?

SABREENA DEHLON: You know, in our political conversations today, there can be a lot of darkness. And so we were interested in looking at the human side of politics. And what we've been able to do with Humans of the House is have conversations with politicians without talking points. We were able to interview a dozen former MPs and learn about their experience on the job.

MG: Can I ask you about the title of it, Humans of the House? I mean, again, of course these are human beings, but why do we need to be reminded that these are people?

SABREENA DEHLON: A lot of the political conversation today can be dehumanizing, particularly of politicians. And human stories are line in for us to have some guidance on what should come next for our democracy. At the Samara Centre, we've been conducting exit interviews with former MPs since 2008. And we've done over 150 so far. And they proved to be an excellent instrument to help us understand the health of our democracy and to provide some solid insights about the experience on the job. And what they were able to do in our conversations was be so open and so forthcoming about the ups and downs of the job, what was satisfying or difficult for them. And they're so reflective in these conversations that it wasn't uncommon for them to become emotional when they were talking to us. None of them regret their years of public service. And that's pretty incredible when we are able to, you know, have an unfolding of the range of experiences that they had in the role. It's important for people to understand what it's like to be an MP, what it's like to serve the public, their conditions of work, have a deep reflection of the conditions of our democracy today and how they can be even better.

MG: Were you surprised? We're going to hear from a couple of those former MPs in a moment. Were you surprised at how open they were and what they said?

SABREENA DEHLON: They were very candid with us. And I got the sense in these conversations that they were ready to have someone ask the kinds of questions we were asking them.

MG: I mean, it also helps that they're no longer in parliament.

SABREENA DEHLON: You know, exit interviews are used in a range of workplaces when someone leaves a role so that you can get a sense of what would have helped them stay, what would have made them more productive.

MG: Let's hear from a couple of those former MPs who are part of this podcast. Romeo Saganash served as the NDP member of Parliament for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou in Quebec from 2011 through 2019. Scott Brison served on both sides of the House, first as a progressive conservative, then for the Liberals representing the riding of Kings-Hants, Nova Scotia from 1997 through 2019. Good morning to you both.

SCOTT BRISON: Good morning.

ROMEO SAGANASH: Good morning.

MG: Romeo, tell me why. And we hear this in the story. This is quite a story and it involves you meeting up with the former leader of the NDP, Jack Layton, who twisted your arm and convinced you. Why did you decide you wanted to run for political office?

ROMEO SAGANASH: Well, I resisted for a long time. In fact, Jack approached me in 2005 or 2006, but he would call and ask how I was doing, how are the kids once every three or four months. And that's the way he was. So when I finally decided to go for it in 2011, he was pretty happy. He was in Toronto, I was in Quebec City. He said, Romeo, what are you doing tomorrow? Well, I said, I have a couple of meetings. And he said, can you postpone those meetings and come and see me in Toronto? So we sat down for three hours and discussed what I wanted to do as a member of Parliament.

MG: Scott, When you entered politics, I mean, Romeo talked about it was a bit of a challenge to get him to that place where he would throw his name into the hat. For you, was it difficult to convince yourself that this was something that you should do?

SCOTT BRISON: Yes and no. Growing up in rural Nova Scotia, my family were involved in the Progressive Conservative Party. I grew up in that tradition. PC youth president for Nova Scotia, different things like that. I was a bit of a nerd but then I'd gotten away from it. I was in business and I was living in New York when the Progressive Conservative Party was decimated in 1993, reduced to two seats. But even though I wasn't living in Canada all the time at that point, I became involved in helping support Jean Charest as leader in the rebuilding process, and he asked me to run. I ran, I had a contested nomination, but I won it and I ended up winning the riding. I was 30 and the decision was made quite quickly.

MG: How did the job actually compare to what you had dreamed it would be?

SCOTT BRISON: To be honest, I threw myself into it. And my work in my riding , I found that hugely restorative and purposeful helping people and communities in your riding. I just really believe that is so important. But I also thought the work I did in Ottawa was important committee work I found to be very important. And I was lucky in that my first committee was the Foreign Affairs Committee chaired by the Honourable Bill Graham who passed away a few months ago but was one of the finest parliamentarians and I believe the very best committee chair I saw in operation. He wasn't a rabid partisan and he ran a committee that was superb in its ability to bring out the best from everybody. I think most people, I think whether you're Romeo or myself, people who get elected do so because they genuinely believe that they can better the country and they can make a difference for Canadians and for the people in their ridings. They arrive with the very best of intentions. And they are contrary to public opinion overwhelmingly Good people.

MG: Romeo, Did that square with your experience that you arrived with the best of intentions thinking that you could change the country for better?

ROMEO SAGANASH: Oh, absolutely. I mean, up to that point in 2011, I had worked from outside the walls of the National Assembly in Quebec City, outside the walls of Parliament of Canada here in Ottawa. So I thought that maybe if I went inside, get elected, maybe I could effect that change more easily. And I did in a way. I did in a way. It helps to have a legal background of course, but then again, I found it extremely challenging given the riding that I had. Not only did I have the riding to be Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou is one of the biggest in the country, it is a challenging riding in the sense that there's a diversity of people. We have 14 Inuit communities, nine Cree communities, two Algonquin Anishinaabe communities, and the rest of the non-Indigenous communities in the riding depend on resource extraction, resource development, forestry, mining, hydro development and so on. So how do you balance the rights of interest of the indigenous nations in that riding with the rights of interest of the non-indigenous people?

MG: What was it like being an Indigenous man in the House of Commons?

ROMEO SAGANASH: Well, it's funny because my partner calls the House of Commons the dude’s fest because there's a lot of dudes and there's a lot of masculinity there.

MG: We should mention she's a sitting MP. She represents Winnipeg Centre. Leah Gazan.

ROMEO SAGANASH: Yes, Leah Gazan represents Winnipeg Centre. And I told one someone maybe it's going to be easier for me because I'm a man. But on the other hand, I'm indigenous. So the second part and also essentially the first part in my case, I believe. And I mean, as an indigenous person, in the first place, I wasn't supposed to be there. And you have to work doubly hard to achieve the things that you want to do. You have to stay more focussed on what you need to do there and why you think you belong there and so on. So I think, you know, I set out a couple of objectives and I agree with Scott about, you know, trying to do the right thing in that place. And I set out a couple of objectives when I got elected. One of them was the U.N. Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, getting affirmation or confirmation from the House that it has application in Canadian law. We did pass and make it through Parliament, but not the Senate. And the other one was of course the importance of Indigenous languages not only in this country, but throughout the world. They’re disappearing rapidly, rapidly declining around the planet. And I thought it was important for any indigenous person to arrive in the House of Commons and be able to speak his or her indigenous language if that is their wish. I had to fight for it, but it took seven years to convince the House that I had the right to do so. And now any Indigenous person can come in there and speak their language without having to fight for it. And that's a major accomplishment for a colonial place like the House of Commons.

MG: Scott Brison, One of the most interesting episodes in this podcast is about who's the real boss. And you might think that the boss would be the voters who sent you there. You might think that the boss would be the leader of the party. You might think the boss might be the people who help run that party. There are many different bosses. What did you learn about who the real boss was when you were in politics?

SCOTT BRISON: I really think it's important as a member of Parliament to exercise your judgement and to do your homework and to tell people what you really believe based on the facts as you understand them, which means you may disagree with your constituents sometimes, which I did, or they disagreed with me on certain issues from time to time but I would take a principled position. And they continued to elect me because they don't have to agree with you on everything if they trust you and if you respect them enough to tell them the truth. And the relationship with your constituents in your riding is an important one. And I found over the years they taught me things and perspectives that I had not considered and maybe sometimes I could help them on and change their minds. So and the same in Ottawa. You have to be prepared to change the minds of others by doing your homework. But to do so, you really have to be prepared to change your own mind. The problem in many ways is the concentration of power in leaders’ offices both in opposition and government. And initially, it was a concentration in cabinet and then people got elected and they would spend their time in Ottawa auditioning for cabinet as opposed to being members of Parliament because that was what was the incentive. And today, I believe even leaders’ offices, including the PMO, are controlling much of which even Cabinet ministers. And this is not something that is unique to this government. This has been a secular change over time.

MG: Where does that leave members of Parliament if it's the centre such as it is that controls things not just from talking points, but from the perspective that you might be bringing more broadly, where does that leave those MPs?

SCOTT BRISON: Frustrated. You know, members of Parliament get elected. They are often leaders in their community. They are people of character, accomplishment, judgement, experience and ambition to do good things. And a lot of them bring experience to the House of Commons that is quite important and could be drawn on. But when they get elected, this is totally asinine, there is no effort made to actually teach them and train them as you would in any other professional environment in an onboarding. There are authorities and there are responsibilities. Members of Parliament actually have the authority under the rules to hold government accountable and the responsibility to do so. Even if you are of the same party as the government, even if you are in a cabinet, you have a challenge function that you should play because that is part of your job. But instead of that, leaders’ offices spend no time helping members of Parliament understand their real job and their authority and responsibility according to the Constitution. What they do is tell them that your job is to support the party and the leader. If you're an opposition, the objective is to support the leader and the party to form a government. The concentration of power in leaders’ offices both in opposition and in government is very dangerous.

MG: Romeo, does that sound familiar? I mean, did you feel as though your place as an independent thinker was undermined when you were in politics?

ROMEO SAGANASH: Well, somewhat. And I think respect in that regard goes both ways. In my three hour discussion with late Jack Layton, we spoke about that and that I was very clear, very respectful towards him by letting him know that I have guiding principles that will guide me in my work in Parliament. And sometimes, those positions might go against party line or party positions. I think one important aspect in my relation with the constituents however diverse they were, it is crucial and critical that they know where you stand. Even if they disagree with you, you have to show that respect to tell them and let them know what you stand for. And that was critical for me in my re-election.

MG: Scott, just briefly on this, the last point on this. Why does this matter? I mean, people will watch the House of Commons and they will see somebody asked a question and perhaps the member of Parliament who answers just read the answer off a piece of paper. It has no connection with what the question might be, but it also might not reflect what their own thoughts are. Why does it matter that independent thinkers are part of our political system?

SCOTT BRISON: I think it's important not just to be independent thinkers, but just to be thinkers and to be able to apply your knowledge and your understanding to solving problems. We're not going to be able to continue to get good people to enter public lives if they don't believe they can make a difference. Members of Parliament need to play a challenge function not just to the government, but to their own leaders. And ministers and Prime ministers and governments need to negotiate with Parliament. The concentration of power in leaders’ offices and ultimately in the Prime Minister's office has left our democracy more vulnerable. And I think a lot of citizens in Canada realize and we’ve got to change that.

MG: Sabreena Dehlon the executive director of the Samara Centre for Democracy and the host of this podcast is with us in studio and she's been listening to this. And you were nodding when Scott said one of the dangers here is that you won't get good people entering politics. I mean, the podcast starts with people on the street talking about how, oh no, I would never enter politics and the belief that if they entered politics, they would just change their beliefs, that people go in thinking one thing and coming out thinking a completely different thing. What's the danger of that, do you think, if we're talking about the health of our democracy?

SABREENA DEHLON: Yeah. If we're talking about the health of our democracy, if we're talking about the recruitment, the retention and the representation that we want in the House of Commons, we need to be responsive to the type of insights that Mr. Brison and Mr. Saganash are sharing with us today. Independent thinkers supported and enabled are professionals, people of character, people who are dedicated to public service. We need to hear what they're saying about how they can be more effective in their roles. If we don't, then those conditions of work will continue to decline in terms of how they relate to a strong democracy. And then the leaders that we need will leave or they'll stop stepping forward altogether.

MG: Do you yourself think that that can change or has the world been poisoned already when it comes to partisanship, when it comes to, I mean, Catherine McKenna at the beginning of this talked about how question period in some ways almost felt like harassment, people yelling at her. Is that, well, here's more metaphors. Is the horse already out of the barn?

SABREENA DEHLON: It is not. When you listen to this show, you are going to hear stories that change your mind when it comes to thinking, ah, there's nothing good about politicians and politics because you're going to hear so much hope and honesty. You know, there can be a lot of difficulties in political conversations today. They're divisive. They're angry. One way forward is for people to simply recognize the humanity in those that represent us and for us to all set about establishing healthier and more productive working conditions in the House of Commons. We will all benefit from that.

MG: Scott, we're just about out of time. I'll ask you a question and then Romeo. One is what would you say to somebody who is thinking of getting in politics but as we hear in this podcast, is worried that there's a cynicism there that people say one thing when they're running and then they get into office and they say something completely different. What would you say to people who are thinking I could do this and I could make a difference?

SCOTT BRISON: I would encourage them. And depending on who they are and if they were thinking that for the right reasons. There's two kinds of ambition, ambition to be something and ambition to do something. But I regularly meet people who are doing great things outside of politics, and I encourage them to plan their life accordingly to enter politics someday. I am the father of nine-year-old twin daughters. I would be delighted if one of them were to enter public life. And in fact, in 10 years when they're out of high school, if my husband and family allow me, I might even go back.

MG: Oh dear.

SCOTT BRISON: And I would be 15 years younger than Joe Biden is today. But the point is I believe in politics. I don't think I will ever do anything more purposeful and important than being a member of parliament. I believe in public service. And I can tell you and I spent 16 years in opposition and six years in Cabinet, two different cabinets, and there was no year that I didn't make a difference. And I believe there is no bad seat in the House of Commons, but you have to be tenacious and sometimes fierce and fearless.

MG: Romeo Saganash, what would you say just briefly to somebody who's thinking about this, But they've heard this conversation and they're wondering actually how much agency would they actually have in that job?

ROMEO SAGANASH: I went through 1600 pieces of legislation during my eight and half years. If we were paid by the hour, we'd all be millionaires. But it's not the case. But when adopting these pieces of legislation, I think it's always important to focus and remember what are the impacts on my constituents? What are the impacts on indigenous peoples? What is the impact on the environment? What will this piece of legislation do to the climate crisis, etc.? So those are the guiding principles that I have had throughout the eight and half years, and I kept my focus on those matters.

MG: Do you miss it at all?

ROMEO SAGANASH: Not at all. [laughing]

MG: [laughing] You didn’t even hesitate to answer that question.

ROMEO SAGANASH: No. I'm just happy that I had that experience. It's a very nice experience. I’m glad that I did it. And now I can move on, but I know exactly what it takes to be there.

MG: It's a really revealing conversation. And Sabreena, these are a series of revealing conversations throughout the podcast. Glad to have had the chance to listen to it and to talk to you all about how we might make Parliament work better. Thank you very much.

SABREENA DEHLON: Thank you.

MG: Scott and Romeo, thank you very much as well.

ROMEO SAGANASH: Thank you for having me. Bye.

SCOTT BRISON: Thanks, Matt.

MG: Romeo Saganash is a Cree lawyer and former NDP MP. Scott Brison is a former progressive conservative, then Liberal MP, now vice chair with BMO Wealth. And Sabreena Dehlon is executive director of the Samara Centre for Democracy and host of the podcast Humans of the House. The first episode of said podcast drops today. You can find it wherever you get your podcasts. Well, coming up after your regional update.

SOUNDCLIP

ANTONIO GUTERRES: Humans are responsible for virtually all global heating over the last 200 years. The climate timebomb is ticking. Our world needs climate action on all fronts, everything everywhere all at once.

MG: The latest U.N. climate report is once again sounding the alarm, but it comes with a message of hope. We'll speak with the Canadian climate scientist Katharine Hayhoe about how she believes we have the tools at our disposal to address this crisis now. And we'll talk about how to get people perhaps to think otherwise. That's coming up in about 90 seconds. I'm Matt Galloway. You're listening to The Current on CBC Radio and the CBC Listen app. Stick around.

[Music: Theme]

Back To Top »

IPCC REPORT

Guest: Katharine Hayhoe

MG: Hello again. I'm Matt Galloway and you're listening to The Current.

SOUNDCLIP

ANTONIO GUTERRES: Humanity is on thin ice and that ice is melting fast. The climate timebomb is ticking.

MG: U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres was blunt as always. He spoke at the release of the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report yesterday. And in it, scientists signal that this is the final warning to act on climate change. Katharine Hayhoe is a Canadian climate scientist, professor in the Department of Political Science at Texas Tech University and the chief scientist for Nature United, a land and water protection group. Katharine, good morning.

KATHARINE HAYHOE: Good morning. Thank you for having me, Matt.

MG: It's great to have you back on the program as always. The language in this report speaks of time bombs and final warnings. From your perspective, how dire is the climate crisis right now and how urgent is this warning?

KATHARINE HAYHOE: It is completely justified. And I want to be clear, it's not about saving the planet. The planet itself will be orbiting the sun long after we're gone. It is about saving us, us humans, our civilization and most of the living things that share this planet with us. That's what's at stake.

MG: And so what's different now than from the last reports which had I mean, as I said, similarly, not apocalyptic, but language that reminds people that this is a crisis, an existential crisis. What's different now?

KATHARINE HAYHOE: What's different now is we're much closer to that. And the window of time that we have to take meaningful action to avert the worst consequences is closing quickly. We scientists have been warning people of the impacts of this issue since before I was born. We've known since the 1800s that digging up and burning coal and gas and oil is producing heat trapping gases that are building up in the atmosphere, wrapping an extra blanket around the planet. And today, we can see that evidence with our own eyes. It is no longer a future issue. It's happening right here. Our heat waves, our wildfires, our floods. It's also affecting our food, our water, our health, the safety of our homes, our infrastructure, our economy, our supply chains, all of the living things again who share this home with us. We are all being affected today. And that's why this is urgent. Climate change stands between every one of us and a better future.

MG: You said that on Twitter that climate change stands between us and a better future. But you also said many of the solutions are already at hand. What are we waiting for? What are the solutions? I mean, in some ways we know this, but it seems as though we're not acting on it. What are the solutions that are in front of us?

KATHARINE HAYHOE: We aren't acting for a couple of reasons. One is we still suffer from psychological distance. We still see this as a faraway issue when actually it's right here in front of us. But the other issue is that we don't know what the solutions are. We think, well, you know, if somebody is the CEO or they're the prime minister, there's somebody in charge of things, they can worry about it. But what do I have to do with the solutions? The reality is we all have something to contribute. We all live somewhere. We all work somewhere. We might study somewhere. We might belong to an organization. And how does any change happen? It happens when somebody advocates for that change and catalyzes it and says, why don't we do something different? So what do those changes look like? Well, if you think of the atmosphere like the aboveground swimming pool I grew up with in Etobicoke where my toes just touched the ground, so I was safe there. But that swimming pool is like the atmosphere. The level of water is like our heat trapping gases. And at the beginning of the industrial revolution, we stuck a giant hose in the swimming pool and we've been turning it up every year. We have to turn the hose off through efficiency and clean energy. But that swimming pool has a drain. We have to make the drain bigger to take our carbon out of the atmosphere. And that's investing in nature. And we also have to learn how to swim. That's climate resilience because our toes don't touch the bottom anymore.

MG: That goes to the second part of this, which is what are we waiting for? The chair of the IPCC said that we're walking when we should be sprinting. Is it realistic to speed up the efforts that we might be making meagre as some people might see them now, but is it realistic to speed those up to deal with the onrushing reality that this report presents?

KATHARINE HAYHOE: Well, we are certainly already taking action. So we have a price on carbon. We are investing in climate resilience. We are already moving in the right direction, but we definitely have to do more. How much more? As much as possible. How much? As soon as possible. Why? Because as the IPCC concludes, every bit of warming that we can avert through our actions saves us from suffering.

MG: But what is realistic when it comes to those actions? We'll hear from people who perhaps have a vested interest in this who will say the world still relies on fossil fuels. There's a huge portion of the world that still relies on fossil fuels. To pretend otherwise is denying reality for those who don't have the option to get off of oil and gas just yet. So what is actually realistic, do you think?

KATHARINE HAYHOE: So the United Nations and the International Energy Agency have both developed scenarios of how we can quickly transition to net zero. There's no magic switch that we can flip tomorrow turning off all our fossil fuel use as you point out. But there is a way to accelerate this transition. And in fact, the International Energy Agency projects that by 2025, with today's policies, renewable energy will be the most significant source of electricity around the world because of falling costs as well as climate policies. So again, we are already heading in that direction. But if we can accelerate it, we will reap the benefits because again, it's us that's at risk. And fossil fuels have brought us tremendous benefits. I mean, imagine what our lives would be like without energy, without electricity, without transportation. But just as we no longer depend on formula and baby food, in the same way, we have to move beyond what was good for us in the past because today we realize that remaining addicted to those fossil fuels today in the year 2023 carries a price tag that we cannot pay.

MG: What would you ask of Canada in that fight?

KATHARINE HAYHOE: Several things. First of all, we need to do more. We are already heading in the right direction, but we need to do more and we need to do it faster. Second of all, we need to influence others to join us. And many are already there, but many more need to come faster. And as individuals, there's so much we can do because how does a system change? It changes only when individuals within that system call for change. Again, we all live somewhere. Most of us work somewhere. We might study somewhere. We might be part of an organization or group. And when we talk about why this matters to us here and now, when we connect our head to our hearts and we connect a heart to our hand, when we talk about what we can do to make a difference together, that's when change starts to happen. And we need that change at every level from that of the individual all the way up to the entire human civilization on this planet.

MG: I'll come back to the individual in a moment. But again, in this country where oil and gas particularly in parts of western Canada is still such a huge driver of the economy in those communities, would you want to see a moratorium on new development? What would you want to see from a country that you know so well when it comes to addressing that part of the energy mix in this country?

KATHARINE HAYHOE: Well, first of all, what the science says is that new oil and gas development is incompatible with our Paris targets. That's what the science says. We already have access to enough carbon in the ground that if we burn it, we can pass that target. And if we develop more, we will definitely pass that target. But at the same time, we have to absolutely invest in a just transition. A just transition means that there are people whose jobs, whose ability to put food on the table for their families depends on the oil and gas industry. And those people did not willingly make the choice to say, well, I'm going to work in this industry even though it's producing all these heat trapping gases that are causing climate change and may eventually end civilization. They are doing it because that's the only option they have. And for those communities, we need other options. We need green jobs, we need clean jobs. And that investment is already happening, but it needs to happen more at every level. We also know, though, that in Canada, the oil industry has significantly invested in delaying climate action. There's a really interesting book by a Canadian journalist called “The Petroleum Papers”. It just came out this past year. And in it, it describes how oil companies studied carbon pricing 30 years ago, concluded that it would rapidly reduce Canada's carbon emissions and decided to actively lobby against it.

MG: And so back to the individual. If people feel as though they hear about this report, they hear that language and they either think, well, I've heard this before or it's all too difficult and I don't know what to do about it. You and I have spoken a lot about how do you reach people. How would you reach those people who pull back at that language but also pull back at the scale of the effort that's going to be needed to address the crisis?

KATHARINE HAYHOE: Well, I wouldn't be surprised if people did pull back because fear often paralyses us. It causes us to freeze rather than take action, especially the type of action that requires much more sustained investment. It's not about running away from the bear. It's about changing the entire foundation of our society as quickly as possible in order to ensure our own survival. And that doesn't just take fear. That takes hope. And what is hope? Hope is not, oh, if I just, you know, bury my head in the sand, everything will be fine. If we do that, No, it will not be fine. Real hope is the fact that if we do something, we are convinced that it can make a difference. We're convinced that there is a better future possible if we do everything we can to get there. And the science supports that. The science shows and this IPCC report shows that the solutions are at hand and our choices matter. In fact, literarily, the report says, you know, every bit of warming matters. Every action matters. Every choice matters. The power is in our hands to ensure a different future. And the good news is that many of these solutions carry benefits today as well as for the climate tomorrow. So for example, burning fossil fuels produces air pollution as well as heat trapping gases. And that air pollution is responsible for 10 million premature deaths around the world every year. So in our transition to clean energy, in our transition to a more efficient way to use our energy, we are also immediately saving lives. Investing in clean energy can also increase energy accessibility for communities who don't have access to it. Building climate resilience looks especially to those neighbourhoods where people are already vulnerable, where people already don't have the resources to cope with heat waves and floods. So there are many benefits today to our own lives, to our cities, to our businesses, to our economy in building climate resilience. But there are also benefits for climate tomorrow. When we talk about those benefits, that's when people see the opportunities in change. And I don't think we talk about the possibility of that better future nearly enough.

MG: Katharine, it's great to talk to you as always. Thank you very much.

KATHARINE HAYHOE: Thank you for having me, Matt.

MG: Katharine Hayhoe is a Canadian climate scientist and professor in the Department of Political Science at Texas Tech University. She's also the chief scientist for Nature United.

[music]

CHINA DIPLOMACY

Guests: Bessma Momani, Ava Shen

MG: You're listening to The Current on CBC Radio and on the CBC Listen app. My name is Matt Galloway. The International Criminal Court has issued an arrest warrant for Vladimir Putin for war crimes. Yesterday, though, in Moscow, China's leader took a conciliatory tone when greeting Russia's president.

SOUNDCLIP

XI JINPING: Dear President Putin, I always call you my dear friend.

MG: The two leaders are in the midst of their first state visit since the invasion of Ukraine. China has called it a meeting for peace. U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken sees it differently.

SOUNDCLIP

ANTONY BLINKEN: That President Xi is travelling to Russia days after the International Criminal Court issued an arrest warrant for President Putin suggests that China feels no responsibility to hold the Kremlin accountable for the atrocities committed in Ukraine. And instead of even condemning them, it would rather provide diplomatic cover for Russia to continue to commit those very crimes.

MG: Bessma Momani is a professor of political science at the University of Waterloo, senior fellow at the Centre for International Governance Innovation. Ava Shen is an expert on Chinese foreign policy with the Eurasia Group. She is at our CBC studio in Washington, D.C. Good morning to you both.

BESSMA MOMANI: Good morning.

AVA SHEN: Good morning. Thank you for having me.

MG: Thank you both for being here. Bessma, let's start with you. How significant is this visit at this moment between Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin?

BESSMA MOMANI: Well, definitely strong symbolism. And we've seen quite a bit of this, including the fact that Putin visited China right before the invasion of Ukraine itself. I think there has been a deep understanding between the two leaders. They clearly, I think, have very much a shared world view and absolutely geostrategic interest in supporting each other. But China's visit in particular at the time of the ICC call for Putin I think is absolutely symbolic and meant to really thumb the nose in the international system. That's what China wants to do, to say that this international system, by the rules that were primarily, you know, designed in the West, of course, though, with the caveat here that the Americans are not a part of the ICC, are really something that President Xi does not feel is something worthy of his attention.

MG: Ava shen, what do you think Xi is actually trying to achieve with his visit? Antony Blinken says it gives cover for the war in Ukraine.

AVA SHEN: I think it definitely does because Putin is facing diplomatic isolation by Western countries and also Russia is being pushed back at multilateral venues such as the U.N. and the G20. And so Xi’s shaking hands with Putin Definitely contrasts sharply as the professor mentioned, you know, against the ICC arrest warrant. And I would just like to add that China has before opposed rulings by the ICC before.

MG: And so China would not see this ruling, see this arrest warrant as anything that it needs to be concerned. But again, you could say that, and this has been partially what Anthony Blinken has said, but others as well, that it could really put the president in some sort of dilemma in visiting Vladimir Putin days after that arrest warrant. But you're suggesting that China would just dismiss that.

AVA SHEN: I think China is definitely valuing its bilateral ties with Russia over this arrest warrant. And I think the main purpose of this visit is to deepen this bilateral relations of which, you know, the Ukraine war is part of the conversation. But I don't think that is the sole purpose of this visit as Xi has said and has actually authored an op ed in Russian media saying that, you know, we are going to deepen our trade ties, our investment ties, and also integrate our work with China's BRI and also Russia's initiative of the Eurasian Economic Union.

MG: I was going to say, what are the limits of that friendship? But they've said in China, the Chinese leadership and Xi Jinping have said that this is a friendship in some ways with no limits. What are the limits of that friendship?

AVA SHEN: I think the limits so far we can see is that China is still reluctant to send, you know, large scale lethal aid to Russia, even though Russia has been saying maybe China will send this if, you know, Russia remains open to peace talks, but then Ukraine doesn't. But I think from China's perspective, China is reluctant to do so because it's wary of the negative effects of U.S. direct sanctions, as well as further alienating Europe as a diplomatic partner. And China's relations with Europe is already, you know, not so good. And there is another piece to this, which is China is trying to recover its domestic economy and is trying to attract more FDI from European companies. And so by sending weapons to Russia, this would, you know, impede China's objective of stabilizing relations with Europe.

MG: FDI, foreign direct investment?

AVA SHEN: Yes.

MG: Okay. Bessma Momani, Xi arrives in Russia with a peace plan of sorts, a 12 point plan to end the war in Ukraine. Do you think that he has an opportunity to be a peace broker here?

BESSMA MOMANI: I mean, from what we understand of that 12 point plan, I don't think so. And I think really he's there to more importantly, I think, focus on that bilateral element. You know, from what we've seen, there's very little talk about Ukraine, even though he claims that's kind of the broader, I mean, if you read between the lines, this never quite said Ukraine, but there for peace mission. But he's there to get energy. I mean, as my colleague noted, you know, China is really focussed on getting its economy back on track after zero COVID and the fact that we've had this technology war happening between the Americans and the Chinese, which are putting enormous strain on China's supply chains and all the suppliers and buyers of Chinese products. And so it really does need more allies, not less. So I think there is a huge demand for energy in China. It is a huge importer of energy. And Russia is obviously selling it now on the cheap because of the sanctions on it. It wants to create allies at the U.N. Security Council in case they do decide to one day invade Taiwan. And of course, it really is I think that symbolism that he wants to foster, similar to what he did with Iran and Saudi Arabia, that rapprochement that he claimed that he negotiated, which is really about saying to the world that, you know, the liberal international order that the Americans and the West have claimed to prop up, well, you know, if these rules don't meet our needs, we are not going to abide by them.

MG: One of the reasons why people might think that there could be the possibility of China being a peace broker is because of what you just said about that deal that was brokered or you suggest he suggested he brokered between Saudi Arabia and Iran. What do we know about what China was actually able to negotiate with Iran and Saudi Arabia?

BESSMA MOMANI: Well, I don't think they did a lot of the negotiating, even though they took a lot of, I would say, you know, claim that they did. You know, there was one reference suggesting that, you know, they did four weeks of shuttle diplomacy to get the final product. I mean, if you look at the terms or at least the loose terms of what we saw negotiated, I think they're very similar to what has been already agreed upon by the Iranians and the Saudis by both Oman and Iraq previously in previous rounds. The reason that the Iraqis and Oman couldn't, I think, ink the deal, so to speak, was just because neither of them had the regional heft or global heft more likely, and China did. And of course, the Americans would not be seen inking that kind of deal with the Iranians at this current time. So it really was an opportune almost put on a silver platter for the Chinese to take it. And there's very low, low cost, lots of gain for them to be seen as the broker of such a deal.

MG: Ava Shen, I'll ask you specifically about the Middle East, but if you take a look at what happened there, is there the opportunity for China to position itself as a peace broker between Russia and Ukraine?

AVA SHEN: I think currently, this visit is unlikely to deliver any substantial progress toward peace talks. If you look at what Putin has said, you know, he says that he is open to peace talks. But then in his op ed on the People's Daily, which is very unusual for a foreign leader to do that ahead of a visit, he wrote an op ed on The People's Daily saying that, you know, the peace talks broke down last April not because of Russia’s attitude, but because of the West and Ukraine essentially. So basically, Xi is not doing a lot more than just saying we advocate for peace talks, but, you know, without mentioning any concrete steps to reach those. And as the professor mentioned before, the 12 point plan is quite vague, honestly, in terms of its terms on, you know, ceasing hostilities and also advocating for peace, peace talks. So China is just saying its position that it wants peace talks without actually, you know, working toward it.

MG: What about in the Middle East? What does China see as its interest there, do you think?

AVA SHEN: I think the diplomatic deal between the Saudis and the Iranians is definitely a, you know, international boost for China in terms of its image as a constructive peacemaker or facilitator. But also, I think behind the scenes, China is quite opportunistic on this one because the pieces are already in place and China was the actor that both sides needed to push this over the finish line. And so this deal I don't think is, you know, a beginning of China trying to, you know, solve all the other difficult problems in the region or around the world. But this does say that, you know, China is trying to increase its international profile and maybe potentially looking at other hotspot issues such as Horn of Africa. But I think overall, China has a long way to go to, you know, entirely replace the U.S. in the Middle East. And I honestly don't think China is trying to do that given that China has no interest in, you know, handing out security guarantees or the amount of military ties that the U.S. has in the region.

MG: Bessma, how do you think democracies should respond to what China is doing? In some ways, you said earlier on that, you know, China going to Russia, the Chinese president going to Russia is a way of thumbing its nose at the international system. What should democracies do in response to China repositioning itself in this way?

BESSMA MOMANI: Well, I mean, not all democracies are created equal, of course. And so I have to point that out. But, you know, we haven't been very good ourselves. And I mean, pointing out really here at the Americans. I mean, you know, just to give you an example here that the U.S. Pentagon doesn't want to share some of the evidence that they have that would actually help put Putin away or charge him at the ICC because of the fear that it would set a precedent to then turn it against their own generals. I mean, that's the kind of hypocrisy that I think really infuriates people who, you know, see leaders like Biden talk about this, you know, epic battle between democracies and autocracies. But yet, you know, the very so-called leader of the free world is too often frankly siding in many ways, fist bumping in the case of Mohammed bin Salman in Saudi Arabia, autocratic leaders for political convenience. And so I think there's just, you know, a lot of frustration in the world right now with the American liberal international order. I mean, you can call it that because it very much is because they are selective in choosing when they feel it applies to them or not. And so there's a lot of, I think, worry here. But, you know, I think in terms of what can we do to sort of counterbalance China, I think there's a lot that can be done, particularly in the digital space because the sort of digital authoritarianism that China is selling to the world is really taking so much of what it uses at home and exporting is now going to be a huge, you know, it'll destroy civil liberties and any hope for democracy blooming in many of these countries. I mean, we see that in the Middle East. It's really quite scary. It's dystopian. I mean, you know, you can't help but use that word because that is what they're exporting. It's a model of control and monitoring and surveillance that they have perfected in places like Xinjiang with the weaker community. And it is now in wholesale export to the rest of the world. And countries like Saudi Arabia and Iran are absolutely buying it up.

MG: Ava Shen, we just have a minute or so left. What will you be watching for in terms of, I guess, broader moves from China in that international system or perhaps trying to create its own orbit?

AVA SHEN: I think in the near term as we talk about Xi’s visit to Russia, I'll be watching if there's any official confirmation that Xi is going to hold a call with President Zelensky. And in terms of the broader international system, I think we'll definitely see more active engagement by China at the U.N. and at the other multilateral forums as well.

MG: And that that will be a way for it to position itself, as you mentioned, in the Horn of Africa and in parts of the world that perhaps it feels it can get an advantage over the United States in?

AVA SHEN: Yes, I think so. China is not trying to create a brand new international system from the ground up, but rather modify the current international system as governed by the U.N. to, you know, have more say in it and maximize its influence.

MG: We'll be watching. Glad to talk to you both. Thank you very much.

AVA SHEN: Thank you.

BESSMA MOMANI: Thank you.

MG: Bessma Momani is a professor of political science at the University of Waterloo, Senior fellow at the Centre for International Governance Innovation. Ava Shen is an expert on Chinese foreign policy with the Eurasia Group, and she was in our studio in Washington, D.C. That is The Current for this Tuesday, the 21st of March. Q is up next on your CBC Radio One. Just a reminder, if you missed anything or you find that the radio is not the place that you are listening to your CBC Radio anymore, you could do that through the CBC Listen app. It's free. You can take it wherever you happen to be at. Listen back to anything on CBC Music, CBC Podcasts or on CBC Radio or just listen out and about. It's free. Get it wherever you find your apps, look for the CBC Listen app. I'm Matt Galloway. Thanks for listening to The Current and we'll see you tomorrow.

[Music: Theme]

Back To Top »

Provide Transcript Feedback

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

Tuesday March 21, 2023 Episode Transcript

More Stories Like This