THE WEST BLOCK
Episode 32, Season 13
Sunday, April 21, 2024
Host: Mercedes Stephenson
Visitors:
Jonathan Panikoff, Scowcroft Center East Safety Initiative Director
Panel: John Manley, Former Liberal Cupboard Minister; and
Lisa Raitt, Former Conservative Cupboard Minister
Location:
Ottawa Studio
Mercedes Stephenson: Israel and Iran are engaged in an unprecedented backwards and forwards of direct army strikes on each other. To this point these strikes have been managed and restricted, however may that change?
I’m Mercedes Stephenson. The West Block begins now.
[Sirens]
Requires calm as Mideast retaliatory strikes make historical past. With Israel and Iran launching drones and promising penalties for one another, the place do the strikes cease? And is that this a path to warfare?
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau: “This funds is about equity for each technology.”
Mercedes Stephenson: And Canadians have now had time to digest the federal funds and for a lot of, it’s leaving a bitter style. We get takes from either side of the political aisle.
All eyes are on the Mideast, trying to find any clues that Iran will strike again at Israel. This after Israel was the most recent of the 2 to lash out late final week, elevating tensions within the area to probably catastrophic ranges.
Antony Blinken, U.S. Secretary of State: “We’re dedicated to Israel’s safety. We’re additionally dedicated to de-escalating.”
Mercedes Stephenson: What may this imply for the way forward for the Center East?
Becoming a member of me now could be Jonathan Panikoff, director of the Scowcroft Center East Safety Initiative on the Atlantic Council.
Jonathan, thanks a lot for becoming a member of us. I do know you’ve acquired an in depth background in defence intelligence and safety. That is clearly a scenario that everybody is watching with nice concern, anticipating what Iran may do subsequent. What sort of response do you suppose we may see from the Iranian regime?
Jonathan Panikoff, Scowcroft Center East Safety Initiative Director: Properly thanks a lot for having me. Proper now it could seem that the Iranians actually try to downplay this and so it’s possible you’ll not see a very strong response, if any in any respect. The propaganda that you just’ve seen popping out of Iran really, is that every little thing is regular, that the Israelis have been humiliated, that there was a quadcopter or a drone that the Iran’s air defence took out. And so I feel you’re solely seeing Iran attempt to put this away and never have a giant warfare over this, as an illustration. Iran’s in all probability not prepared for enormous escalation in a warfare, and Israel actually doesn’t need it at a time once they’re additionally struggling to finalize issues in Gaza and work out what to do about Rafah.
Mercedes Stephenson: I feel that’s so fascinating as a result of, in fact, one of many pure considerations right here is does this change into a regional warfare, but it surely does appear to be each gamers don’t need that as a result of they might have gone to a warfare by now but it surely may, in fact, nonetheless occur. How managed are these selections about what the targets are and what occurs when it comes to the backwards and forwards we’ve seen remaining a backwards and forwards versus an escalation?
Jonathan Panikoff, Scowcroft Center East Safety Initiative Director: Yeah, it’s an excellent level. The truth is I feel that on the Iranian aspect, their preliminary response final weekend to Israeli strikes of Basic Zahedi in Syria was fairly the escalation: over 300 missiles, cruise and ballistic missiles, UAVs have been launched in opposition to Israel. It was really unprecedented and the primary, clearly, direct strike by Iran on Israel. I feel Israel’s response has been very, very cautious right here and really calculated deliberately. It isn’t a proportional response, however it’s a symmetric response. Which means, Israel hit what’s clearly a army base with out civilians round and had no intention to escalate this. And it’s actually saying to the Iranians, look, we are able to hit you. You aren’t allowed to focus on us with impunity it doesn’t matter what you say publicly your retaliation goes to be. It doesn’t matter what our allies favor, we’re not going to permit ourselves to be focused and we’ll strike again when you strike us however, we’re providing you with an out right here. Now we have little interest in escalating when you don’t wish to escalate. And so it’s actually now within the Iranians court docket to decide about whether or not or not they really feel a have to strike Israel once more or to let it go.
Mercedes Stephenson: That is, within the case of the Iranian regime, a regime that desires to develop nuclear weapons. To this point, we haven’t seen proof that’s occurred and the IAEA got here out and mentioned no nuclear websites had been struck, which was apparently a deal that Israel and the U.S. had come to as effectively, that if Israel retaliated they’d not go after nuclear websites due to that escalation. Israel is a nuclear energy, nevertheless. What roles do these nuclear weapons have in probably making this a extra harmful scenario as a result of we’re speaking about nukes or a calmer scenario due to the deterrent worth that nuclear weapons have?
Jonathan Panikoff, Scowcroft Center East Safety Initiative Director: Properly as a result of not each of them have nuclear weapons, it’s a totally uneven relationship proper now. Clearly, there can be an enormous develop loud cry if Israel ever used nuclear weapons in opposition to Iran, and there’s no indication that they may. That is largely a deterrent for Israel when it comes to their possession of nuclear weapons, one thing they’ve had for years.
On the Iranian aspect, although, Iran has been very, very delicate, backwards and forwards about whether or not or not it really needs to develop a nuclear weapon. And the reality of the matter is correct now they’re in all probability someplace between 10 and 14 days away from having sufficient enriched uranium. For a nuclear weapon, it could be crude. There’s nonetheless in all probability 18 to 24 months away from weaponization, really with the ability to have a nuclear succesful warhead placed on a conventional missile. That’s not a straightforward factor to do. It takes some work, and that’s what you’re seeing worldwide organizations say they haven’t actually seen that progress. However clearly, Iran actually views its nuclear program as the most effective items of leverage that it has, not solely in opposition to Israel however in opposition to the—with the worldwide neighborhood. And so the fact is, if Israel have been to strike—it has been years of discussions about what would occur—it could virtually actually set off a a lot, a lot larger battle and a a lot larger warfare. It’s arduous to think about the Iranians letting that go in any respect.
Mercedes Stephenson: What sort of targets do you suppose Iran is in Israel proper now? I imply they knew that the Israelis has the potential to shoot down a variety of their drones and missiles, they usually did due to a really aggressive defensive system, a lot of which has been supplied by the US. So, what kind of targets may we see?
Jonathan Panikoff, Scowcroft Center East Safety Initiative Director: I feel it actually will depend on what it’s Iran is attempting to do. So in different phrases, when you’re beginning to goal Tel Aviv or Haifa, Elot, you’re speaking about actually hitting civilian populations and that’s going to result in an all-out warfare. What we noticed actually with Iran, particularly over final weekend, is an effort to attempt to goal entities that have been actually rather more army in focus, or independently or along with Hezbollah, the Iranian proxy, clearly based mostly in Lebanon, to focus on the objective on peak areas which are disputed. I feel if Iran retains it to army targets, it does barely change the calculus, and I’ve little question that the Iranians are constructing a goal checklist that in all probability consists of each the army targets for a future battle that’s considerably contained, a civilian goal that’s a lot broader. There’s a separate checklist, in all probability, for Hezbollah as effectively, that they actually work in live performance collectively. And so that you’ve seen rumours, as an illustration, that Hezbollah may goal Israeli off-shore fuel platforms, and even presumably goal Dimona, the place Israel’s nuclear program is alleged to be headquartered.
Mercedes Stephenson: I do know that each Israel and Iran may have allies and regional powers whispering of their ear. Who will Israel and Iran be speaking to, and what messages do you suppose these nations will likely be sending them?
Jonathan Panikoff, Scowcroft Center East Safety Initiative Director: For the U.S.—I’m sorry, for Israel—it’s clearly the U.S. The Israel-U.S. relationship is lengthy and has been very sturdy, but it surely is also different allies: the UK, Germany. My guess is the message will likely be what it has been, they actually—proper—instantly try to keep away from a regional warfare, however they may proceed to come back to Israel’s defence within the occasion that it’s attacked once more. Nevertheless it has—they’ve acquired little interest in Israel conducting offensive operations.
On the opposite aspect, Iran is in just a little little bit of a spot of flux. The Iranian-Russian relationship has gotten a lot, a lot nearer all through the Russian warfare in Ukraine and its Iranian drones that Russia’s largely utilizing in Ukraine. However there’s questions on whether or not that’s simply tactical or there’s really a strategic nature to it. Will Russia come and meaningfully help Iran within the occasion of a battle? Will China present help to Iran? Most likely not. China’s the largest importer of Iranian oil and really a battle is the very last thing that China needs to see within the area as a result of it could disrupt their oil flows and financial development. And so that you’re going to listen to on the Iranian aspect largely from Russia, largely from China. However the messages are completely different between the U.S. and Israel, that are clearly such shut allies and Europeans versus Russia, China and Iran, the place it’s much more transactional of a relationship.
Mercedes Stephenson: Actually fascinating info and context. Thanks a lot for becoming a member of us.
Jonathan Panikoff, Scowcroft Center East Safety Initiative Director: Thanks for having me.
Mercedes Stephenson: Up subsequent, will modifications in capital positive aspects imply losses for on a regular basis Canadians?
[Break]
Mercedes Stephenson: Because the federal funds is now being analyzed by specialists, a giant flag is the change to the capital positive aspects tax, and it may hit some center class Canadians arduous.
As a technique to improve its personal income, the federal government introduced that it could improve the inclusion fee of capital positive aspects for companies.
And for people, effectively when you promote property like, say, a second property at a value over $250 thousand, you’ll now pay extra, too. Up from one half to 2 thirds.
To inform us extra about this, we requested Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland to come back on the present, as we now have a number of instances this season and final. However once more, she has not accepted. The final time she appeared on The West Block was late 2022.
The Conservatives additionally declined to come back on and speak in regards to the funds with us at present, unlucky since you would suppose that politicians would wish to speak about this. So as a substitute, with their take, we now have our panel who’re going to interrupt all of it down for us.
We’re joined now by Lisa Raitt, former Conservative cupboard minister; and John Manley, former Liberal cupboard minister. Each of you’ve got a number of expertise with budgets and the financial system, so I couldn’t wait to listen to what your take is on this funds.
John, you’re the previous Liberal so I’m going to start out with you. What are your ideas?
John Manley, Former Liberal Cupboard Minister: Properly a few areas which are of concern. I imply, it is a funds that attempted to do a variety of issues and that’s all the time difficult and it’s actually within the pre-election section. So I perceive that politically this was a difficult funds, however I’m apprehensive first, Mercedes, in regards to the general degree of spending, simply two numbers that dramatize that. One is that the full authorities spending has doubled because the remaining yr of the Harper authorities. That’s a—means it’s a giant quantity. And secondly, that the curiosity we’re paying on our gathered debt now consumes 100 per cent of the GST revenues. So these each point out to me that we’re going to must regulate this or we’re going to be again to doing stuff that we needed to do again within the Chrétien years and make some actually arduous selections to chop a few of that spending. In order that worries me.
And the opposite factor that worries me, like I all the time ask myself, “What drawback are we attempting to unravel right here?” And the prime minister has been very articulate, I might say, in arguing in behalf of his carbon tax by saying you tax the stuff you wish to discourage. So if we wish to decelerate the consumption of carbon within the financial system, we tax it. So the elevated capital positive aspects tax, appears to me like we’re attempting to decelerate the extent of make investments, which is simply precisely what I might have thought was the incorrect factor to do in a rustic the place we’re scuffling with competitiveness and productiveness. So two areas of concern there.
Mercedes Stephenson: Lisa, I do know that you recognize the housing file very, very effectively. You’ve been concerned in it. This was a really huge housing funds, although housing is definitely not the function of the federal authorities, however the Trudeau authorities form of made it their function as a result of they saved speaking about it. So then they began getting blamed with the housing disaster was ballooning. Do you suppose that there’s sufficient in right here on the housing aspect to make it definitely worth the modifications on capital positive aspects, or to attraction to younger folks? The title of this funds was Equity for Each Technology, very completely different from equity of the center class, which is what they used to speak about.
Lisa Raitt, Former Conservative Cupboard Minister: Once I speak about the necessity to handle the housing disaster that we now have, it’s based on the notion that to ensure that us to retain our younger folks, to draw funding, we have to have housing that is smart. I might by no means advocate for a taxation on precisely these two issues: a taxation on entrepreneurs and funding, and a taxation on youngsters who might not wish to stick round for much longer as a result of they simply see their capacity to be an entrepreneur not be as profitable as it’s in the US. So I nonetheless basically imagine that a number of the stuff that’s in there with respect to housing makes a variety of sense. It actually does rely upon severe cooperation with the provinces and with municipalities for it to come back to fruition. The federal authorities doesn’t construct homes. It’s the non-public sector that builds homes, so that they must be alongside for the experience as effectively. However on the similar time, you’ll be able to’t do it and never—and punish those that are going to be including to the long run financial system on the similar instances.
Mercedes Stephenson: John, relating to capital positive aspects, I used to be speaking to some senior people within the enterprise neighborhood. They have been initially considerably relieved with the funds, though they weren’t comfortable about capital positive aspects. They have been involved that that windfall tax on companies can be in there, that when you had a giant revenue—that is one thing the NDP was pushing for—grocery shops or oil and fuel, that the federal government was going to go arduous, however there was a variety of concern about potential capital flight from Canada if that occurred that these huge corporations, particularly round oil and fuel would merely flip round and go away. And we had the setting minister on the present a pair weeks in the past and he principally mentioned that himself, which is admittedly fascinating from Steven Guilbeault. Do you suppose that the capital positive aspects tax was kind of the lesser of two evils on this, if that they had to decide on between windfall taxes on massive companies or these capital positive aspects taxes on people?
John Manley, Former Liberal Cupboard Minister: Properly I feel that they acknowledged that the notion of some form of windfall tax is poorly based as a result of sure, this yr oil costs might be excessive. So you’ll be able to say effectively take a look at how a lot their income elevated. Subsequent yr, oil costs fall and no person is saying effectively, we higher throw some cash into the pot to assist these corporations out. So, you recognize, you’ll be able to’t have it each methods. I feel the—what they turned down was a common improve in general taxes and both on the consumption tax aspect and even on the revenue tax aspect. The reality is that if you need actual income, you improve common taxation. And that may really be essentially the most trustworthy technique to do it as a result of it then says to Canadians we’ve determined the federal government must be larger. And when you like that, then you definately’re going to be paying for it. That’s trustworthy. It’s additionally somewhat troublesome politics to promote. So I feel they selected in opposition to a common tax improve they usually have been on the lookout for money from someplace and this was maybe an opportunity that they have been keen to take, that they’d annoy some folks however not as many as can be the case if it was a generalized tax improve.
Mercedes Stephenson: Lisa, what does the capital positive aspects tax imply for the typical individual as a result of I get a variety of questions on this? What does it appear like for many Canadians?
Lisa Raitt, Former Conservative Cupboard Minister: Properly that’s the purpose isn’t it? I imply the Liberals would have you ever suppose that it’s solely individuals who have cottages in Muskoka who’re being impacted and fairly frankly, that’s not the case. The individuals who dwell in Muskoka with very nice cottages can afford folks to do tax planning for them so as to have the ability to mitigate the affect of this capital positive aspects change. The individuals who get caught are the folks like, I suppose, a home cleaner who decides that she needs to purchase a second property, a condominium. And it serves virtually as her retirement fund and she or he does gather hire on it, however she pays down the mortgage. And sooner or later, she’s going to promote it and that’s going to be her retirement revenue and now she simply misplaced a giant chunk of it as a result of there’s no manner that she will promote it in time for Could. And it’s these sorts of tales. Lots of people acquired into actual property and have a second residence as a result of they needed to take a position their cash in one thing that they knew would recognize in worth and there it’s.
The opposite mistake, I feel, is that they’re going after—and I don’t suppose they notice this, Mercedes, however Gen Z is a really completely different group—a really completely different demographic than earlier than. They’re extraordinarily entrepreneurial. They wish to have their very own gigs. They’ve acquired aspect hustles going on a regular basis they usually aspire to make some huge cash. They aspire to have their corporations offered and for them to do effectively. And now you’re simply telling them go begin it in the US.
Mercedes Stephenson: John, this clearly was a funds that was designed to attempt to pull the Liberals out of a little bit of a political downward spin that they’ve persistently been in for months. You’re elevating considerations about what this might imply for productiveness, for the financial system. It additionally has some issues in there that they suppose will likely be interesting. In your opinion as a former politician, is that this sufficient to show issues round for the Trudeau authorities?
John Manley, Former Liberal Cupboard Minister: No, I don’t. I don’t suppose so, Mercedes, however that’s partly as a result of—and I’ve mentioned this earlier than—I subscribe to what I name the Seinfeld principle of political longevity, which is, you recognize, Seinfeld, nice present. Lasted 9 seasons.
Mercedes Stephenson: I really like Seinfeld.
John Manley, Former Liberal Cupboard Minister: And when you suppose when it comes to trendy political historical past in Canada, you recognize, suppose again. Brian Mulroney, 9 seasons. Jean Chrétien, 10 seasons. Stephen Harper, 9 seasons. Even when you return to Pierre Trudeau, he acquired an extension after being defeated after 10 seasons. Margaret Thatcher, 10 years. And even in France, on the finish of the de Gaulle period, the crowds within the streets have been chanting, “Dix ans ça suffit”. So profitable once more after three governments, after 9 or 10 years, it’ll be 10 years in October 2025, that’s a tricky promote. So I don’t suppose it’s sufficient as a result of I feel persons are going to say ah, let’s, you recognize, loved the present, but it surely’s time for one thing new.
Mercedes Stephenson: Properly Lisa, talking of one thing new, final query to you. Pierre Poilievre clearly just isn’t going to help this funds. He mentioned that there are some issues in right here which are actually in style for people, although, like contraception, diabetes remedy. Issues that sure folks—it’s going to make a giant distinction of their lives. How does he determine what stays and what he guarantees to eliminate when it comes to a marketing campaign as a result of it’s all the time straightforward to poke holes? It’s rather a lot more durable to place out a platform.
Lisa Raitt, Former Conservative Cupboard Minister: Yeah, however you’re not going to marketing campaign on I’m going to take this away from you. I imply clearly they’re going to must have a communication technique on how they’re going to take care of these questions and fairly frankly, they’re the one questions that the Liberals are going to shoot at them on a regular basis. That’s a truism. It’s already began already. You understand they are saying that they’re going to lower the scale of presidency. What are you going to chop? Which isn’t a good remark as a result of fairly frankly, when you suppose that the scale of our authorities is delivering productiveness to you as a person citizen, then I feel you’re kidding your self as a result of it’s not serving to in any respect and it’s an unimaginable drain on the tax greenback and the sources. So him having a look on the general dimension of the federal government, figuring out which initiatives nonetheless make sense, which initiatives don’t make sense. Who is definitely retiring? Do we have to refill that area? Alongside the identical traces of what the Liberal authorities is doing already proper now, or they are saying they’re going to do, that’s the form of, I suppose, lens he’s going to be . However he’s going to vow to remove that carbon tax and he’s going to vow to assist get homes constructed. What he says he’s going to do, Mercedes, is precisely what he’s going to do. Take him at his phrase and he’ll discover a technique to do it.
Mercedes Stephenson: I’d like to any politician at their phrase. However I’ll take each of you at your phrase. Thanks a lot for becoming a member of us at present. Nice insights.
Up subsequent, one final thing. And it’s one thing that hasn’t been seen on Parliament Hill in additional than 100 years.
[Break]
Mercedes Stephenson: Now for one final thing…
Parliament Hill is the seat of our democracy however generally, a number of the politicians up there could make it appear to be a shameless place. It’s straightforward to really feel jaded with all the politicking, political manoeuvring, spin and lobbying.
That cynicism was not helped final week when the ArriveCAN scandal returned to the highlight, the place for the primary time in over 100 years a personal citizen was questioned within the Home of Commons.
Kristian Firth, co-founder of GC Methods, the corporate behind the controversial and costly ArriveCAN app, was grilled within the chamber after being present in contempt of Parliament for beforehand refusing to reply MPs questions at committee.
Elizabeth Could, Inexperienced Celebration Chief: “Aren’t you ashamed?”
Home Speaker: Mr. Firth.
Kristian Firth, GC Methods: “Mr. Speaker, do I’ve to reply that?”
Home Speaker: “Sure. Sure, you do.”
Kristian Firth, GC Methods: “No. I’m not ashamed.”
Mercedes Stephenson: It was a uncommon present of the particular energy Parliament has. However behind the political theatre are actual questions on rooting out allegations of mismanagement and potential fraud in federal authorities procurement and contracting.
Navigating the COVID-19 pandemic was arduous for everybody, together with governments. There was a lot unknown and the scenario simply saved evolving. And whereas we will be understanding of these difficulties, the worldwide pandemic doesn’t equal a free move for presidency accountability.
Anita Anand, Treasury Board President: “And I’ll take you again to the pandemic, David, and I’ll take you again to very troublesome days once we have been below excessive strain to make sure that our nation had the PPE, the speedy checks and the vaccines to outlive.”
Mercedes Stephenson: If the Liberals need Canadians to revive their belief in them and imagine that they’re fiscally accountable following final week’s funds and forward of the following election, they might want to take the lead on reviewing their very own billions of {dollars} in pandemic spending with a crucial eye.
That’s our present for at present. Thanks for watching, and we’ll see you subsequent week.
