The Munk Debates Podcast - Friday Focus: David Johnston – Inflation Risks

Episode Date: June 2, 2023

Friday Focus provides listeners with a focused, half-hour masterclass on the big issues, events and trends driving the news and current events. The show features Janice Gross Stein, the founding director of the Munk School of Global Affairs and bestselling author, in conversation with Rudyard Griffiths, Chair and moderator of the Munk Debates. On this week’s edition of the Friday Focus podcast, Janice and Rudyard start the show with a discussion of the ongoing political fallout around former Governor General David Johnston’s report on Chinese interference in Canadian democracy and his recommendation not to hold a public inquiry. With Parliament’s censure this week of Johnston, are his days as the Prime Minister’s “special rapporteur” numbered? What are the implications for Canada’s democratic institutions, including the office of the Governor General, if he continues in his role? The second half of the program looks at the economic news that has dominated headlines the last week. New inflation numbers suggest higher prices are persisting despite interest rate hikes. Is it time for central banks to come off their self-declared “pause” and push forward with more rate increases? And, if they don’t, what are the risks that we are repeating the inflation-fighting missteps of the 1970s? This podcast is a project of the Munk Debates, a Canadian charitable organization dedicated to fostering civil and substantive public dialogue. More information at www.munkdebates.com.Become a Munk Donor ($50 annually) to get 72-hour advanced access to the full length editions of Friday Focus and Munk Dialogues. Go to www.munkdebates.com to sign up. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The following is a complimentary excerpt of this week's edition of the Friday Focus podcast by the Monk Debates. To access full-length editions of each and every episode, along with all kinds of great additional benefits and perks, become a donor to the Monk debates. You can do that for as little as $25 a year, and you'll receive each and every year 50 Friday Focus episodes at full length. It's all available right now on our website. in just a few simple clicks. Triple W. The Monk Debates.com. Look for the Friday Focus option in our navigation bar, the top right of the website.

Make your donation, and we will send you each and every Friday a link to listen to the full-length edition of this program. Thanks in advance for your generous contribution. Hello, Monk listeners. Rudyard Griffiths here, the executive director of the Monk Debates. Welcome to this, our regular Friday Focus podcast. This is the program. where we dig into the big issues and ideas each week with Janice Gross Stein,

the founding director of the Monk School of Global Affairs, renowned scholar, and author Janice, were sweating it out under this heat dome in Central Canada. What the heck's going on? What a wonderful problem to have. If I hear a single Canadian complaint after months and months and months, it is t-shirt weather. Yeah, we are thawing out big time.

Well, two-part show this week. Let's in the first half, Janice, check in on where we're at on the Johnston report. This for our American listeners is kind of Canada's big election interference story that took a big turn. In a sense, a week ago with the release of a report by a former head of state, our governor general, who effectively said, public inquiry was required. It's had a huge amount of blowback between now and then. So let's unpack where we're at, Janice. And in the back half of the show, let's talk the dismal science,

economics. It's been a bunch of big developments here in Canada, the United States, inflation, clearly not conquered. Central Bank decisions, critical ones coming up. And a kind of pot-pery of just stories that kind of make your jaw drop when it comes to thinking about economics today. So we'll do that in the back half of our show for our valued among donors. But let's start with the Johnston report and the former Governor General himself. Effectively, Jan, is a motion in Parliament, the Canadian Parliament this week that I think walked right up to the line of censuring the former Gigi and the report saying in effect

that he should resign and that a public inquiry should be called. report passed with the majority of the members of parliament voting for it. David Johnston comes out with a statement reminding everybody, maybe not entirely to the government's liking, that he is not appointed by parliament. He's appointed by the prime minister. He is a special advisor to the prime minister. Where are we ending up this week, Jess? What have we learned? And are you surprised? I'll share my thoughts later, but are you surprised at the kind of stalemate that we seem to be in here, very little resolution between Parliament, the executive, David Johnston, and the media. This seems like a frozen conflict

at the moment. Well, I'm not surprised, and I don't think you are either, Roger, that the blowback that we both expected actually came. This was entirely foreseeable. I think the core of this story is that Parliament by a majority vote asked for a public inquiry and asked David Johnson to resign his mandate. Now, he's right technically that he's appointed by the prime minister, but you and I know that the prime minister is accountable to parliament. So it is, I think, concerning. Let me put it to you that way. that Parliament speaks, and in this case, the NDP added their votes. They have undertaken to support the government on any motion of confidence.

So they really, they're walking very close to the line here. They supported all the opposition parties and, in fact, sponsored the motion. It is really troubling. Now, when Parliament speaks with a majority voice, which in this case, constitutes three of the parties, right? This is not a case where the governing party has an overwhelming majority. Rams it through. This is, in fact, the opposition united in asking that David Johnson give his mandate back

to the prime minister, which he can do, and that the prime minister appoint a public inquiry. I was surprised. You know, David Johnston is a person of the utmost integrity who takes his public responsibility seriously. And I can see the frame that he's in. I was asked to do this by the prime minister. I am going to meet my obligations. I understand where he's coming from. But there's a bigger frame here, Roger.

You know, the majority of Parliament has spoken. And frankly, I do not think he is doing the prime minister any favor by persisting this way. Is it not a good precedent for this country? Yeah, and it follows in a week where an NDP member of parliament was finally briefed by CIS, that she was also the target of, in a sense, interference and, intimidation on the part of the PRC in terms of her strong stance against, you know, the interment of the Uyghur population and advocacy around Hong Kong. We then had Aaron O'Toole, the former leader of the Conservative Party of Canada,

received an additional briefing from CIS that seemed to reveal that not only was he the subject of a series of disinformation campaigns on Weibo and at the riding level, he's also seemingly still subject to the delicious attentions of the PRC and their kind of propaganda secretariat. So that to me was a horrible backdrop against which former Governor General David Johnston was kind of forced to continue to argue for his relevancy and the relevancy of this report. The news flow seemed totally against him. And again, what gives more credency.

I think to the vote that happened in Parliament this week is that this is happening to Parliament. It's happening to parliamentarians. It's happening to the NDP, the conservatives. It's across party lines. It creates a, I think, an unfortunate circumstance for David Johnson that he is appointed by the executive, by the prime minister. He's right. He has no standing with parliament. But parliament is the one and the parliamentarians are the ones who are are being affected by the very issue that he and his report is supposed to address. So absent the support of Parliament, I just don't know how he can credibly push forward. I mean, this idea of having hearings at this point or making recommendations, is this just stubbornness, Janice?

Is it just, I don't know, maybe the most charitable way to put it, you know, a blind sense of duty that, you know, come hell or high water, I've said I'm going to do this. I'm going to do this. I just, I think he's acting not only against his own interests, I think he's acting against the national interest. And I just don't get it. You know, I think it is that it is this, and he's known for this, an extraordinary sense of duty. And he must interpret this as a, I failure to fulfill his obligations if he doesn't continue. But unfortunately, what this does, And this is, I think, overwhelmingly what we should not want, Reddard, is a politicization, is the further politicization of this process. It's very interesting op-ed that actually said, you know, what can we learn from the United States?

They've had a real go-round with election interference, you know, starting in 2016. And that's a very sobering story. And they're better protected. They have ways to do this, as we talked about last week. But you look at the Miller investigation. He did what he did. And as soon as he was finished, Trump appointed an investigator to investigate Miller. Now, that's where you don't want to go, where you're so hobbled by politicization and bipartisanship that the public loses all confidence in the integrity of the process.

And to me, that's the big issue. At some point, whatever your individual obligations are to fulfill your duty, you have to look beyond that frame and ask, am I serving, not the prime minister, but am I serving the country well by persisting in this? And my own view is, the answer is he's not. He's not. And there's a price to be paid for this because these problems are not. not going away in the digital age. This is not the first or the last problem we're going to have like this, Rudyard. And to use a phrase that most Canadians hate, we need machinery of government here. We need institutions that can rise above the politics and meet the expectations

of Canadians, that their elections are secure and that their MPs are not being targeted. That can't be a partisan issue. But then why did he release this statement right after the vote in Parliament this week? Because as I understand it, next week he has been called to a parliamentary committee and will have to be subjected to three hours of intense questioning on his report. And I just think, you know, maybe what people don't understand is that there are parliamentarians have been having committees and hearings on issues of Chinese interference for the last three

years. This is going to be a very asymmetrical event for the former Gigi in terms of parliamentarians who have deep knowledge of this file. They may not have had the security clearance or the ability to look at the raw intelligence, but they know this file inside and out versus someone who has no national security experience who has only come to this issue in the last couple months and is now putting himself in the position of, in a sense, a grilling by unhappy parliament. who have voted in a majority for him to resign. And he's appearing there as a former governor general, as the supposedly neutral head of state to represent a proposition that there should be no public inquiry,

which happens to be the same proposition as the then prime minister of the day, Justin Trudeau. I worry, Janice, that we're putting institutions in conflict with each other that should never be put into conflict. And I just mean the appearance of conflict, the appearance of a conflict between a former G.G. And Parliament, a former G.G. being, in a sense, the cutout in a way now for the prime minister, his party, and, you know, their theory of the case versus one that is the opposite as advanced by Parliament. This is just, this is unhealthy. And I think your analogy that United States is right. It's like we're getting sucked into this vortex. of like institutional, partisan political,

uh, rancor that is going to lead to nowhere good. Yeah, I, I share your concerns, frankly, Roger. And I think that's why people have said and, um, you know,

the governor generalship should be the last job you ever take in your life. And the last thing you are ever paid for in your life too. And although that's not an issue in, this case. And why is that? And why do we give Governor General's, you know, a salary for life, even after they retire our pension is a better way to put it? We do that because we're so concerned that we not politicize the Crown. That's really what this is about, right? You know, if the Prime Minister had pointed somebody else, not a former Governor General, we would still be concerned if that person was locked in mortal combat with Parliament, which is,

David Johnson now is, but add to that that it is a governor, it is a former governor general. And inevitably, that has the consequence of politicizing the crown. And that's why we, you know, in my view, I understand why giving back his mandate would be so unpalatable to him. But if you take the larger interest here of shielding the crown from partisan rancor, and allowing, unless you're violating somebody's rights, that's the issue. The majority in Parliament does not trump our charter of rights, frankly. But short of that, Parliament is sovereign in our system. And for Parliament to speak out this way and to stand against it,

really pits the Prime Minister against Parliament, as well as politicizing the Crown. So the stakes are much larger, frankly, than what China did. Yeah, and the unfortunate thing is we're now doing damage to our institutions, which is exactly what China wanted from undertaking this interference. Now, maybe it's gone in directions in ways that they couldn't have factored in in terms of their initial interference. But, boy, has it ever ended up in a place that is in their interest? of undermining the faith, the credibility of these various critical institutions.

And unfortunately, Janice, I think the damage to the governor general ship has already been done. I don't think we can entirely put Humpty Dumpty back together. Again, I think there will be suspicions around future Gigi appointments about are these people really independent? Are they going to reemerge in some future incarnation after their Gigi and use all the status and, you know, institutional oomph and aura around that institution to then pursue what is, in a sense, in this case, a political appointment to, yes, to come up with his own decisions, and I'm sure this is genuinely what he thinks.

But nonetheless, this was a political appointment and order and counsel to make him a special advisor to the prime minister, not parliament. So the damage has been done. And I guess I end by just hoping that the prime minister himself could see this. And just let Johnston off the hook. In a sense, say, you know, sir, we thank you for your service. This report is important. My government continues to feel that a public inquiry is necessary.

But you do not need to proceed with these hearings. We will not be looking to you for recommendations because there's no credibility in that process, Janice. And we're just, we're wasting his time. We're wasting parliament's time. We're wasting the country's time. You know, I wouldn't rule that out, Roger, frankly, events have a way of driving processes. You don't think you'll ever go somewhere. And a week later, you find yourself knocking on the door.

And I do not see a good trajectory, as you've just said. There's the committee hearings. There are people in the diaspora communities. Who are enraged, yeah, and angry. angry. Some of these people would actually want to participate in the public hearings, but now are concerned about their security and their security of their families. So the next stage of this has to provide some privacy for people to share their experiences, even those who are citizens who feel that they have been targeted. And I think everybody has to learn from this.

was just a terribly misconceived idea. It shouldn't have happened, frankly, this way. And he shouldn't have been asked. I mean, that's the thing. He shouldn't have been put in the position of feeling somebody, maybe who has this instinctual, deeply habituated action, reaction that, you know, my country calls and I must act. You know, I think he was primed to accept this, unfortunately, and he never should have been asked. Well, Janice, let's take a quick break.

And when we come back on the other side, we're going to talk again, the dismal science. But boy, it's time to think about some big economic issues that are coming down the pipe right now. We'll have that for our monk donors exclusively right after this short break. Thanks for listening to this excerpt of the Friday Focus podcast. To get full-length editions of each and every episode of this program, simply go to our website. triple w the monk debates.com. Click on the Friday Focus tab in our navigation on the top right of the site. Make a donation as little as $25 a year or 50 cents an episode. It will send you not only the full-length editions of each and every Friday Focus podcast, but all kinds of special offers, perks,

access to events, and additional content. Again, you can do that right now by becoming a donor to the Monk Debates at Triple W. Monk Debates, MUNK, Debates with an S.com.