The Agenda with Steve Paikin (Audio) - A Political Life

Episode Date: June 20, 2024

Our review of the week begins with Andrew Lawton discussing his book on Pierre Poilievre. Then, how food can bridge cultural, political, and religious divides. What does a cease-fire deal between Israel and Hamas look like? And, assessing Canada's record on reconciliation.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

From epic camping trips to scenic local hikes, spending time outdoors is a great way to create lasting memories to share with friends and family. This summer, TVO is celebrating the natural wonders that inspire unforgettable adventures with great documentaries, articles, and learning resources about beloved parks in Ontario and beyond. Visit tvo.me slash Ontario summer stories for all this and more. And be sure to tell us your stories for a chance to win great prizes. Help TVO create a better world through the power of learning. Visit TVO.org and make a tax-deductible donation today. No one writes books about opposition leaders.

You write books about prime ministers and presidents and that kind of thing. So why? I think in an American context, it's actually quite common to have a book about someone before they achieve a particular role they're going for. And I think there's a logic to that. Canadians have a right to learn who these people are that are vying to be prime minister. I mean, Justin Trudeau was a much more well-known person in the Canadian consciousness when he became prime minister. And I thought with Pierre Polyev, there was an opportunity there

to really help tell that story of who he is and where he came from. You are an unabashed conservative. He is an unabashed conservative. Should we infer from that that you're being a little too sweet on him in this book? I think on television, you need to distinguish the small C from the big C there. It's that, you know, certainly I have an ideological view of the world that I don't hide from, but I don't have a partisan loyalty. And I think that the book is fair and has actually, I noted, Mark Miller tweeted approvingly an excerpt of it when it came out, the immigration minister. So the liberals have found something in there they like.

But also, I think the crucial point is that because of the connections I have in the conservative world in Canada, I was able to delve into his life and the people around him in a much better way than a lot of other journalists would have. And I think in that sense, even if people don't like my view of the world, they're going to have a much greater understanding of Pierre Palliev because of that. For what it's worth, I totally agree with what you just said. There are some parts of this book he's not going to like. I don't know if you've heard back from him yet on this or from anybody in his inner circle, but you reveal some stuff about him that I think he would not be all that thrilled with.

Fair to say? Yes, and I think that when I went into it, the goal was always that it was going to be fair. And I think where I would take a different view than some journalists that might have a different philosophical persuasion is that I'm not interested in arguing about his beliefs and arguing about his policies. I really just wanted to go to a factual account of who he is. And I do think I did that. The easy version on Pierre Palliev is that he's the Donald Trump of the North. How accurate do you think that is? Not at all. And I think there are two problems there. One is that he's the Donald Trump of the North. How accurate do you think that is?

Not at all. And I think there are two problems there. One is that Donald Trump is such a disruptive figure in politics that it becomes an easy comparison for anything, where if you really look hard enough, you can always find some Trump comparison of anyone in politics. And I think it becomes fairly lazy when people do that as a political sport. But I also think that his experiences have been uniquely Canadian in a lot of ways. I think his influences coming from the Reform Party of Alberta of the 1990s, you can look at him as a modern Preston Manning far more than you could look at him

as a Canadian Donald Trump. Well, Donald Trump was raised by a multimillionaire land developer from Queens, New York. And Pierre Polyev has the most interesting background, perhaps, of, well, I was going to say of any prime minister. He's not prime minister yet. But certainly, this guy has a very atypical background. You want to go into some of that? Yes. And I'll say on this, Canadians have heard the very brief snapshot that he gives in his

speeches. The adopted son of two schoolteachers from Calgary, born to an unwed teenage mother. So people have heard that. And I think there's a lot more complexity there. And we heard glimpses of it from him in some speeches over time. His parents were affected by high interest rates and had to downsize their home. He actually went through a process with his brother to reach out and build a relationship with their biological mother and her family later on in life. And they were certainly interesting. And I think in that way, when he says it's a crazy mixed up family, there's some truth to that. Yeah. I mean, just for those who don't know, his parents' marriage ended when he was 12 years old. His father ended up with another man. And there doesn't appear to be, at least I didn't read any in your

book, this sort of, oh my God, this is so embarrassing and going to ruin my life in Alberta of the 1990s. Why not? I should say first and foremost that I would have liked if I had had a bit more access to Pierre Polyev himself, who didn't do an interview for the book. I would have loved to have tried to get a bit more about that, about how this affected you in your life and how you did. But people around him said it was never an issue, that, you know, sure, the divorce may have had the issues you'd expect of a child of, I think, around 12 years old,

but his father coming out as gay was not something that he really had an issue with. He's always had a positive relationship with his father and his father's partner, with whom he still is, and who was actually at, you know, the leadership announcement when Pierre Polyev won in 2022. So it was never an issue from what I gleaned from talking to those around him that caused him much in the way of grief, if any, when he was younger.

Mark, how do you not look at him at some point during your day and not think what, quote-unquote, your people are doing to, quote-unquote, my people on October 7th is making me furious and I just can't work with you anymore? How does that not happen? I mean, I think, first and foremost, the Haifa room is, the project was that we share a common humanity. And I think what's happening right now is both sides are extremely polarized and we're losing that humanity. And no matter what, I look at Fatih and I see a human I love,

I work with, I get along with. And no matter what and what happens in the world, we're still, you know, face-to-face looking, hanging out, working on this project together. I actually think we mostly agree about the situation. Like, where we get a lot of flack on Instagram, both sides, you know, people are like, oh, you know, the Jewish side is saying, oh, Haifa is pro-Palestinian. And what does that mean? Are we pro the Palestinians having security, dignity and prosperity? Yes. Are we pro Hamas?

No. Okay, let me ask you the same, the other side of that question, which is how do you not have at some moment in your day a moment where you're thinking to yourself, do you not have at some moment in your day a moment where you're thinking to yourself, I can't work with this guy because what his, quote unquote, his people are doing to, quote unquote, my people in the Middle East is beyond the pale? Well, I mean, it's a difficult thing, right? Because I was born here. I was born in 1972 in Parkdale in Toronto. So, I mean, yeah, of course, I'm first generation. My parents immigrated, in Toronto. So, I mean, yeah, of course I'm first generation. My parents immigrated, you know, in 1970.

So when all said and done, and, you know, I was kind of talking, I was thinking about this before that like, you know, I grew up in the 70s in Parkdale, not easy for an Arab to do at the time, you know, tons of racial slurs being thrown in a school yard. But interestingly enough, a few of the people that threw those racial slurs back in the day, I'm still friends with.

The idea here is that I think we are blessed being Canadian, you know, being born here. We see things, unfortunately, like fortunately, we see things, you know, through a little more of a humanitarian lens where workers are forced to be together. And within that, like, you know, I think that you start to see commonalities more so commonality, inevitably commonalities come out. I bet you one of the things that you have in common is that you probably heard the odd slur during your time growing up in Montreal. No, not directly to me. And I just think this whole situation, it's so important for us to just talk and not reach these kind of levels of intensity where it's just impossible to have a conversation.

And I think social media, it's just we're in echo chambers and it's really hard to have these conversations. Well, let me throw that a bit more. Sorry, and I think like a lot of people, even, you know, from my side are saying like, you know, is, I get messages of like, you know, is Haifa room pro-Israel? I'm like, absolutely. Just like there's 500,000 people demonstrating every night in Tel Aviv against, you know, the current government. I agree with them. I agree with Chief Gadi Yadzinkrot and Benny Gantz and even, sorry, I'm forgetting the head of the opposition right now. You want to make a distinction? Yeah, you're like, well, that you can support Israel, but also be, you know,

You want to make a distinction? Well, that you can support Israel, but also be, you know, think that there's another way of dealing with the situation. And so, like, I just want to make it clear that I am, we are pro-Israel. Or what I mean is we believe that Israel has a right to exist. Fatih believes that. 100%. However, however, both sides need to be able to live in security, prosperity and dignity. Let's talk shifting alliances here. Besma, I'll go to you first on this.

To what extent do you think the war in Gaza has realigned who the key players are in the Middle East right now? Well, somewhat. I mean, certainly I think it's elevated the regional power of the Saudis, undoubtedly, and shifting away from the United Arab Emirates. And that's partly because the Saudis feel like they have a big carrot still, which is normalization with Israel. And in many ways, I think they're looking at the UAE as though they made a mistake. They normalized with the Israelis a lot of fanfare, and that bought them nothing in terms of persuasive power over the Israelis to stop this war against Gaza. And so I think they're going to hold out. They're going to hold out to the last moment.

I think those who, and including myself, perhaps misread Mohammed bin Salman, thinking he would sign the minute that his father passed, I think that's actually looking less and less likely because of October 7th. And now what we're going to see is the Saudis holding out. And what they're asking from the Americans is immense. Everything from a security pact to also, you know, a civilian nuclear program. I mean, it's pretty high stakes for them. And I think that's really the biggest takeaway. The challenge, I think, with some of the other parties in the region is just that they're facing their own challenges. I mean, Sisi, you know, in Egypt might have looked a bit strong because he's able to be

an important, you know, interlocutor in the whole, you know, sort of getting humanitarian aid into Gaza. But the reality is the country is suffering economically and immensely at the moment and doesn't really have a lot of clout regionally as a result. So I really think it's the Saudis at most. Iran, in a little bit, in some way, has been able to, of course, and we think we need to talk about Hezbollah and Lebanon, because that really is, I think, where... We'll get to there in a second. I'm going to go to Hussein on that in a second. But let me follow up, actually, with Hussein on the Abraham Accord partners right now. We do remember, under the Donald Trump administration, the Abraham Accords were signed.

Egypt, Jordan, the Emirates, Bahrain, Morocco. They all now have ties with Israel that they heretofore had not had. What is the status of that relationship now that this war has gone on so long uh it's it's um holding steady because it brought especially in for the uae and bahrain which were the two main countries that were involved in ibrahim accord framework um the bilateral relations israel has brought a lot of benefits, and they were relatively satisfied with the benefits that they got. They've found that they've been able to manage the public opinion blowback, even though it's been difficult, and so steady as she goes. But they're not expanding ties to Israel in an aggressive way or in a fast-track way,

but they're not pulling back either. And that's basically where it is. I think all eyes are on Saudi Arabia, as Besma was saying. Okay, now let me go to Janice on the issue Besma brought up, which is we certainly have been hearing the most about the war in Gaza. What we're hearing more about lately, but what has also been going on is a second front in this war up in the north between Hezbollah operating out of Lebanon and the Israeli Defense Forces operating in the north of Israel. And there are hundreds of rockets coming

out of Lebanon towards Israel in that time. If there's a ceasefire in Gaza, and I know you don't like the odds on that, but if there is, would you anticipate a ratcheting it up of that second front? No, I think it would be the reverse. If there were a ceasefire in Gaza, I think it is overwhelmingly in the interests of Hezbollah not to escalate at this point. And that is because there's a longstanding pattern here that Iran, this is the forward defense forces for Iran. It is their most effective deterrent weapon against Israel is Hezbollah, because it could inflict

so much damage by orders of magnitude on the infrastructure and civilian population inside Israel. It's a very effective deterrent, frankly. It's a very effective deterrent, frankly. I want to ask Karen Pugliese about something that has happened in greater numbers since the TRC reported, and particularly in the last few years, and that is Ryerson University is no longer Ryerson University. Sir John A. Macdonald Law School at Queen's University is no longer Sir Johnny MacDonald Law School. There have been increasing efforts to change the names of places that many in the Indigenous world find upsetting. And I wonder if there is a sort of consensus

in the Indigenous world in Canada about the advisability of doing that. You know, it's interesting. There is a bit of a debate that goes on. And I actually, like, long before any of this, there's actually a statue that's not there anymore that was in Ottawa. And it was on Champlain, and there was a Native person

kneeling in front of them. And the story goes that there was supposed to be a canoe, and that's why the Native person was kneeling. But they never got around to building the canoe because it would cost too much. Anyways, people considered that offensive even back in the day, and they moved the Indian and placed him in a place with all the sweet grass and stuff, and Champlain got to stay there.

And there was a local photographer, Jeff Thomas, who took this great picture of the native in the new spot saying, why is the Indian the one that has to move? Now, that debate that was happening at the time is the same one I hear now. Is it important to keep these things around in some way and maybe put a plaque and put a reinterpretation on them to show that people used to think this way? You know, like statues of Native people are often of fantasy Native people. They're not of actual, like there's no statue of Karen.

There probably will never be, but you know what I mean. Like there's no statue of our national chiefs or anybody who is like real, very few of them. Maybe Louis Riel is one of the few. Whereas for non-Native people, they're actually of people. Anyways, pulling these down, to what extent, it's not that it erases history, but it's interesting on the landscape to be able to go and look at something and say,

well, here's Sir John A. MacDonald, but here's the way we understand the history now, looking at it from our point of view and looking back. And that's one side of it. And the other side of it is tear them down and put some statues of us up. And where do you fall on that? I think it's, I have mixed feelings about it. Like, I mean, I'm not really an activist. I'm more of a journalist.

So I might more like to engage with the conversation. I see the value in both of them, to tell you the truth. But I do think it says something about, I think not doing anything is the problem. Because when you hold people up who are very harmful and you don't say anything about it, it's just sort of like, what do you value in society? And how can you talk about things? Deborah Parker, let me get your view on that, because I think this issue has been back in the news lately, that very famous statue of Abraham Lincoln with an indigenous person kneeling by him. There's a great debate now about whether that statue can stay or whether it has to go or be contextualized with a plaque. Obviously, the stars and bars have come down in some state capitals and places in the United States, although certainly there's lots of support still for the old Confederate flag.

What's your view on how all that should be handled? Well, I'm definitely an activist at heart. So if it doesn't bring joy and happiness, tear it down. Why keep something that doesn't ignite love and compassion and embrace people who are here today to bring about positive change in this world. And so coming together is so important as a human race. Well, I guess the, okay, you've asked the question and I guess the conventional answer is because if you make all these changes and tear all these statues down, as opposed to leaving them there and contextualizing with a plaque, you deprive people of understanding how people thought back in the day, how their views have changed and what we're aiming to do better.

That's the argument. Well, I mean, I think in those places we can create gardens, we can create places that bring about happiness and change. That dialogue can still continue, but do we need everyday references to colonizers or to people that hung our children or took our children in federal Indian boarding schools and beat us, who passed policies that were, you know, contributed to slavery and other ethnic cleansing. So I don't know that I'd want to be reminded of that all the time, but certainly that's a part of history that we can continue to discuss so that we don't continue those behaviors. The Agenda with Steve Paikin is made possible through generous philanthropic contributions from viewers like you. Thank you for supporting TVO's journalism.