CTV QP Podcast #520: What's the objective of the war against Iran?

When life gets unpredictable, preparation matters. In medicine it's all about staying alert, ready for whatever comes through the door. On the road, it's no different.

That's why Volvo designs vehicles to help anticipate risk, reduce harm and protect lives. The Volvo XC90's advanced safety systems inspire confident decisions wherever the road takes you.

The Volvo XC90 for life. Proud sponsor of the pit podcast. Learn more at VolvoCars.ca-safety.

Welcome to Question Period on this Sunday March 8th on Vashika Pelos. Today, shifting war objectives.

The United States military together with the wonderful Israeli partners continues to totally demolish the enemy

far ahead of schedule. Despite the U.S. President calling on the Iranian people to rise up and take over their government, the White House now won't say whether regime change is a strategic objective.

So how does this war end? I'll ask Donald Trump's former national security adviser, John Bolton. Then Canada's shifting position.

We do, however, take this position with regret because the current conflict is another example of the failure of the international order.

Prime Minister Mark Carney's position on the war appears to be fluctuating. Despite backing in principle, the American and Israeli air strikes on Iran, he now also says, had Canada been consulted in advance of those strikes, he would have said they appeared to contravene international law.

The Sunday strategy session with Kathleen Monk, James Moore, and Scott Reed will tackle that. Plus, a new partnership.

There has been a new energy mutual trust and positivity in our relations.

Canada and India sign a number of deals worth billions of dollars after Prime Minister Mark Carney and Prime Minister Narendra Modi meet in New Delhi.

Top of the list, a multi-billion-dollar deal for Canada to supply India with uranium. But tariffs on key agricultural goods remain and the shadow of transnational repression looms large on the relationship reset.

Saskatchewan Premier, Scott Moe will join me from India.

We'll start today with the situation in the Middle East.

The United States and Israel continue to hammer targets across Iran with air strikes. The regime in Tehran, while beleaguered, is hitting back, launching attacks against Israel and against American assets across the Middle East.

But, as the war enters its ninth day, uncertainty persists over American strategic goals.

The stated military objectives of Operation Epic Fury are as follows.

Eliminate Iran's ballistic missile threat, destroy their naval capability, disrupt missile and drone production infrastructure, sever their pathway and end their pathway to nuclear weapons.

Their anti-aircraft weapons are gone, so they have no air force, they have no air defense, all of their airplanes are gone.

The communications are gone, missiles are gone, launches are gone, about 60 percent and 64 percent respectively. Other than that, they're doing quite well.

Despite U.S. President Donald Trump insisting he wants to be involved in picking Iran's next leader, his press secretary insists any questions about regime change are, quote, hypothetical.

So, what is achievable? And at what cost, John Bolton is a former U.S. ambassador and former national security adviser to U.S. President Donald Trump.

Hi, Ambassador, good to see you. It's always thank you for making the time.

Thank you, Evan.

What is your assessment thus far of what the White House thinks the objectives are and what do you think the objective should be?

Well, I think Donald Trump thinks the objective is regime change. He doesn't use those words, but everything he says tends in that direction.

I think the administration is deeply split inside, starting with Vice President Bans, who is an isolationist and who is probably in meltdown now as what is transpiring in Iran.

I think regime change should be the objective because over 30 plus years we've seen that nothing has diverted the Iranians from their desire to get deliverable nuclear weapons and their support for international terrorism and their own state terrorism around the world.

It's not a question of persuading them or changing their behavior. It doesn't work.

So, regime change is the answer. It may not be the most pleasant thing to contemplate, but nuclear weapons and terrorism aren't terribly pleasant either.

Yeah, and just jumping off that, you know, would it be fair to say in your view that regime change would serve the national security interests of the United States and its allies?

Absolutely. And I wish the President had done more to prepare the American people for this, not to talk about the specifics of the operation, but to make what I think is the very strong case for regime change.

Why it's in our interest? He could have done the same with Congress. He could have done the same with the allies. It's not too late, but it's definitely time to get started.

Yeah, I actually, I was thinking, as I was heading into this interview, I very much wanted to ask you about that. I have heard you speak in some other interviews about that.

And I sort of have that impression, even outside of the United States that many people who don't have a vested interest or, you know, a great degree of knowledge about the Iranian regime are looking at gas prices right now as one of the primary impacts of what's being done.

What is the impact in your view of this administration, not really, you know, talking to allies, talking to Congress, talking to the public more bluntly about what the point of this is and what interests of theirs would be served by this action?

Well, I think the president would be better off if he did it. I think in part it's because he's restrained within his own administration. They can't make up their mind. They're just astounded that after saying he wasn't going to start any new wars and would end the forever wars in the Middle East.

And frankly, we just stopped worrying about the Middle East and focus on China that he's done this.

But the real impact here, you know, as oil from the Middle East has stopped flowing through the Strait of Hormuz by far and away, the biggest purchaser of that oil is China.

Now, our allies like Japan and South Korea and Taiwan also need that oil. I think Canada and the United States are very well placed to supply it to them.

I think if you had a civilized government in control in Iran that returned to pre-1979 days, it would be supplying enormous amounts of oil.

So this is, I think, the real economic upside comes after this regime disappears.

Do you think the president still has the opportunity to make the case? Do you think he will? Is the second half of that question based on the differences that you mentioned in his own administration?

Well, I don't know. I think he also still misunderstands. He keeps saying he's going to pick somebody from the regime like Delci Rodriguez and Venezuela and deal with them.

You know, the eye toll is deep down, including the younger eye tollers are even more radical than the top leadership.

It's not this regime that's going to provide somebody he can talk to. It's going to be a different regime, maybe in the interim, a military government.

It's something that can keep order while the people of Iran freed of this dictatorship can decide what their future looks like.

I don't think regime change has finished its Venezuela. And certainly removing one or 500 eye tollers doesn't amount to regime change in Iran either.

So would the president not have people who can inform him of what you just laid out? Because it is interesting to note the language that he uses on multiple instances about picking the next person or, you know, he'll be working with that person like there's very vague statements made about what comes next.

And I think that what comes next question is very important to allies who are watching the Sunfold.

Well, sometimes Trump listens to what he wants to hear and disregards what he doesn't want to hear. That's a fairly common.

But I think the case is being made by Marco Rubio by Lindsey Graham from the Senate and others and by Bibi Netanyahu. That's what Israel's primary objective is and we are participating in it.

I think what needs to happen is more force applied to destroy the instruments of state power.

And that threaten us and threaten the people of Iran. And as that happens, other figures in the regime, other figures in Iranian society say, you know, this regime could be going down and we don't want to go down with the ship.

That's how it fractures at the top. And you get the potential for the opposition to make those fractures even bigger.

There's no opposition leadership, the substitute for the itoals at the moment, which is why some kind of military government may be the interim solution.

And let's face it, it's not a question of just picking new leaders. People of Iran have to decide a entirely new form of government post itoals.

And it's not the thing outsiders, people sitting in Europe or here can write and say to the people of Iran, here's your new government.

They have to plan, live with it. That's not going to happen either. There's uncertainty. That's true. I'd prefer some uncertainty with the prospect of a good outcome than living under the threat of Iranian nuclear weapons or terrorism.

How do you assess so far Iran's response?

I think it's been very counterproductive. I understand why they're attacking Israel, why they're attacking American military positions in the region, but why they've attacked the Gulf Arab states, particularly the United Arab Emirates, why they've attacked Azerbaijan, why they've attacked Akhrjiri, the British sovereign base area on Cyprus, why they've attacked Turkey.

They've just made enemies of the Arab states. I think they've long wanted regime change in Iran. They just wanted it without a lot of fuss and bother. That hasn't happened, but they are being driven to the American sidedness.

It appears that the UAE, for example, is strongly considering freezing all Iran's assets in the UAE. That would be an enormous blow to Iran if they did it.

If the Iranians were thinking more clearly, they wouldn't have alienated these countries. They would have taken their limited supplies of missiles and even limited supplies of drones and attacked the U.S. and Israeli targets.

Just time for one final question for you, Ambassador. When you look at how things have unfolded so far, what do you think the prospects are for this coming to any kind of conclusion in the near future?

If near future means less than four or five weeks, I don't think that's going to happen. I think we need patience and persistence here because this regime has never been more unpopular.

It has never been weaker since it came to power in 1979. There aren't any guarantees and international affairs, but if there were ever a time to seek to bring this regime down, this is it.

I'll leave it on that note. Thanks very much, Ambassador. Thanks for having me.

Thank you, former National Security Advisor to Donald Trump, John Bolton. When we come back, polls promises.

Prime Minister Mark Karnie signed a slate of deals with India on a trade trip to the country this week, but tariffs are still in place on some key agricultural products.

So what's next? The sketchman's premier will join me from India after a short break.

Welcome back to question period. Prime Minister Mark Karnie signed a series of deals and MOUs this week in India.

One of the biggest announcements, a $2.6 billion multi-year deal that will see Saskatchewan-based kamikos supply India with millions of pounds of uranium.

Indian import tariffs on key Saskatchewan agricultural products remain in place, and so too do national security concerns two years ago.

The RCMP accused agents of the government of India of being involved in violent crimes here in Canada.

For more on this, I'm joined by Saskatchewan Premier, Scott Moe.

Hi, Premier. Pleasure to welcome you back to the program. Thanks so much for making the time.

Thank you, Vassy, and welcome to Regina.

Good to be here. Hopefully next time we do this in Regina. I of course today want to talk to you about where you are though, which is in India.

I know that you've been going for years. Saskatchewan has a trade office there, a trade representative.

Was this trip actually different and if so why?

The tone has changed, and the relationship has changed, and that was quite evident in the meeting we had earlier this week between the two prime ministers, and it's been very evident in the number of meetings that we've had since then as well.

So that's a positive thing. We've been waiting years for that as we do a significant amount of our exports to come to India.

They're a third largest trading partner, so we're happy to see the tone change, and we're going to carry on and take some strides to a little more value here in the future as well.

How does that tone change materialize into real benefits for people in Saskatchewan, for example?

And I would note, and we have, of course, in the introduction talked about the big deal with chemical, but I would also know you're there representing a lot of exports in the agricultural sector, some of which there are still very punishing Indian tariff zones.

So how do you anticipate or how will this tone shift actually materialize into something tangible for Canadians?

I believe it will, and I said when we came on the agricultural piece, I don't know whether that will materialize this trip, but it is going to materialize over time. I'm convinced of that.

The, you know, one example in addition to the almost $3 billion uranium deal, which is a positive, and we have shipped uranium to India between the years of 2015 and 2020.

So it is a longer deal than we originally had, and it's a larger deal, and so that is a positive on the agricultural side.

Also the India Canada Pulse, Pulse Protein Center of Excellence, which from the Indian perspective, in the Indian government's perspective will provide nutrition to youth and expectant mothers, and that's a positive.

The Canadian side will be able to provide some of our pulses into that, that stream as well, and yet to be negotiated, I suppose, you know what tariff's might look like for that stream for the broader streams of exports that we have here.

And then just I would say one note of somewhat not directly related, but somewhat is, we have a significant amount of pulses that have been loaded and are finding their way to China now in the advent of the deal we had there last month.

So we are finding our way in a world that has direct and indirect tariffs related to the US and otherwise, and we just do our best in each of these markets and try to, you know, advance the relationship and advance our commerce and the trade that we can do.

I guess, though, premier, that's why I'm asking, right? I think they're, and we'll get into this in a moment, but there are a lot of Canadians who have concerns about India's conduct.

This trip obviously was made on the part of yourself and the Prime Minister in order to amplify the trade relationship, even though those national security concerns exist.

And that's why I asked about, like, what difference does it make? Why aren't those tariffs lower?

I know you said in advance of the trip and even at the start of the trip that there was some speculation that tariffs could actually go up. So even status quo would be somewhat of a win.

But I guess I would ask on behalf of, for example, those sectors that are impacted. Is it really a win if those tariffs remain?

Well, if they don't go up, that's better than it is better that they remain status quo, and it's our hope that they'll be removed in the not too distant future.

And I would say, you know, in addition to that, in addition to the Uranium deal and the other agreements that were signed, there's a real commitment made by both Prime Ministers to find our way to conclusion of the SEPA agreement to the Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement this year, which is going to open up a number of opportunities, I would say, to advance our trade across Canada.

In multi sectors, and not just the sectors that we see now that Saskatchewan is largely taking part in.

If I would hope that our tariffs on our pulse crops would be gone by the wayside, prior to even the culmination of that deal. But if they're not, I would hope they'd be part of that deal as well.

You know, it's an important trip to engage in a country like China, or sorry, a country like India, and like other countries, we do have our differences, but we need to move forward in points of agreement in particular in this world when you know, trade is just so uncertain with the countries that we often used to take as being certain markets.

And I certainly do understand that point, but when it comes to that free trade agreement that you reference, I wonder, I heard you say you have a lot of optimism that that might address the tariffs, but also it could come to a conclusion as both Prime Ministers indicated they wanted it to before the end of the year.

There have been other attempts at a free trade agreement, and I know, you know, there's a tendency to defer to the situation over the last few years, but I remember covering Ed Fast in 2010, pardon me, 2011, Peter Van Lone on an international trade minister.

Prime Minister Harper was very positive towards India and still a free trade agreement could not materialize, and a lot of that had to do with India's conduct.

Do you notice enough change in the way India governs itself to give you some sort of certainty that this free trade agreement might actually happen this time?

I do, and both Prime Ministers made, you know, statements to the fact that they would hope or expect that that deal is done by the end of this calendar year, that's I've never heard that statement made before.

I've heard statements made around we're going to negotiate, we're going to, you know, work on it, but there are, you know, challenges and nuances to it.

I didn't hear any of that this time. What I heard is two Prime Ministers saying that they're going to do their level best to instruct the trade ministers to come to a conclusion by the end of the year with a goal then to double to a trade by 2030.

That to me is, you know, a real positive, and that's honestly that's language that I haven't heard in my, my elected time going back to 2011.

And I did want to ask you as well about the national security backdrop to all of this. I understand obviously that's largely the purview of the federal government, but were there discussions?

I know you flew over with the Prime Minister, for example, on the way, you know, with the Canadian contingent, the Canadian side of this, were there discussions about how Canada would represent these concerns?

Did you and the Prime Minister engage in a conversation about that?

Not directly this time we have prior the, and again, you know, this is an area where we have another discussion that is, is there needs to happen with India, but also needs to happen within, you know, two points on that one is how the federal government needs to ensure that foreign interference from whatever country is not happening in our nation and keep Canadian safe.

When laws are broken, we do rely on the RCMP to enforce those laws and enforce them vigorously, and so.

But we also have to remain the table in countries where we have differences, and we need to not entirely, but largely separate some of the trade conversations to a degree from some of the other, you know, very difficult conversations that we have.

If we're truly serious about, you know, marketing our products and trading both ways with countries outside of the United States of America, we're going to have to in some ways adopt the Australian model where we separate some of our discussions from the trade discussions that we have.

I guess, though, if I use the Australian model, that hasn't necessarily always worked out in that case with China, and I would ask in this instance, and I do understand, and we've talked about this before, the economic impetus behind trying to expand trade with countries like India and China.

In the case of India, though, when you reference the RCMP, I mean Canadians will remember two years ago, the RCMP telling them the government of India was connected to a murder and extortion on Canadian soil.

How do you justify to Canadians, you know, who are worried about that, that what you and the Prime Minister are doing is worth it?

I've heard different messages from whether it be the RCMP or, you know, various politicians that are there, and I do have faith that the RCMP will find their way through any investigations that they might have.

But I also say pushing ourselves as a nation away from discussions with, in this case, India or any other country for that matter, within reason, that we just need to remain at the table, work through some of the challenging conversations that we have, but also don't push ourselves away from the trade table either.

You know, India is one of the largest by population countries in the world. It's the largest democracy in the world, and increasingly they want to trade more and more with, you know, not only a country like Canada, but other countries.

And if we're serious about, you know, producing more, and ultimately diverting or sending that additional value to countries outside of the United States of America, these are the conversations that we absolutely need to have.

So we don't really have a choice if that is what Canadians want for us in Saskatchewan. We've engaged in India and other markets, you know, throughout some difficult times, but engaged solely on a trade conversation.

And we're going to continue to do that, and we're happy to see the federal government taking that approach as well.

I'll leave it on that note. Premier, safe travels as always. Thanks for making the time.

Thank you very much, Vessie.

Coming up, a shifting stance, Prime Minister Mark Carney faced criticism this week for a lack of clarity on his foreign policy on both India and Iran.

The Sunday strategy session with Kathleen Monk, James Moore, and Scott Reed is here to talk about that next.

When life gets unpredictable, preparation matters. In medicine, it's all about staying alert, ready for whatever comes through the door. On the road, it's no different.

This is why Volvo designs vehicles to help anticipate risk, reduce harm and protect lives. The Volvo XC90's advanced safety systems inspire confident decisions wherever the road takes you.

The Volvo XC90 for life.

Proud sponsor of the pit podcast. Learn more at VolvoCars.ca slash safety.

To engage you, you have to be able to talk to countries, countries where there have been issues.

And to engage you, you have to be able to talk to countries, countries where there have been issues.

And to raise issues, including at the highest levels, to ensure that the cooperation is there, whether it's extortion or some other form of cross-border criminal activity or security risks.

That is what we have done. From the moment that we re-established a dialogue at the leader level with India.

Prime Minister Mark Carney, this week telling reporters his government's approach to transnational repression is one of, quote, vigilance and engagement.

He's now wrapped a nine-day international trade tour to India, Australia and Japan, during which he faced criticism for a significant relationship reset with India, despite accusations from his predecessor that agents of the Indian government were linked to serious crimes in Canada, including murder.

The Prime Minister, while he was abroad, also fielded questions about Canada's stance on the still ongoing conflict in the Middle East.

We support efforts to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon and to prevent its regime from further threatening international peace and security.

We do, however, take this position with regret, because the current conflict is another example of the failure of the international order.

So what are we to make of the Prime Minister's foreign policy? Our Sunday strategy session is here to break it all down. Kathleen Monk is a former NDP strategist and director of communications to the late Jack Layton.

James Moore is a former conservative cabinet minister and Scott Reed is a former communications director to Prime Minister Paul Martin. Hi, everybody. Good to see you.

James, I'll start with you on this one and Iran specifically, because the initial statement from the Prime Minister in the wake of the strikes last weekend was one of support for the strikes with the objective of making sure Iran does not acquire a nuclear weapon.

Four days later, he gets questions and he says he arrived at that position with regret.

And how do you be consulted in advance? He would have said those strikes contravene international law. How do you unpack that? And what do you think it says about the Prime Minister's position?

Well, I think it's a truism of communications to have the ethos of always respond, never react, go slow, measure carefully.

And the reality of the situation in Iran is that the ground is shifting so dramatically with the president that is so, you know, frankly unhinged and, you know, illiterate in terms of his approach to foreign policy and what he's unleashed in the region.

That is very difficult for the Prime Minister to stake out a clear position because the America hasn't staked out a clear position in a region that has no clarity.

When Yamamoto was asked in 1941, could you sink the American fleet in Pearl Harbor? He said, yeah, and I can run rampant in the Pacific for six months to a year, then what?

And the Americans have uncorked something here in Iran that we don't know where it's going to go and what it's going to look like.

So for Canada to have a hard position now in the first couple of weeks of March for what we don't know will be perhaps a three month, six month, three year, six year, misadventure in the region is very hard for the Prime Minister.

So, you know, he would be wise to go slow, establish some principles about where Canada will not go, what we will not do, and go slow and assess the situation.

And I think more calm manner than what we've seen in the past week.

Scott, how much do you think of sort of the evolution of the way in which the Prime Minister responded to questions on Iran was about what James just laid out sort of the complexity and the lack of answers from the US?

And how much is about the fact that his initial position got a lot of pushback from within his party?

I don't think it has much to do with pushback within his party. First of all, to be blunt, I don't think the Prime Minister cares that much about the pushback.

I don't think he feels threatened by it. I don't think he's terribly influenced by it. This is a guy who knows his own mind.

And I think he has a view that his view is probably superior to that of others. He has more information, more experience, more perspective on those questions.

So I don't think it's a reaction to a couple of backbench MPs. What I do think is that when you're in the Prime Minister's office and I used to dwell there, it's always on you.

I mean, there's no such thing as being misinterpreted. There's no such thing as being misunderstood.

Ultimately, fair or not, it falls upon you to make certain that your message is clear and that people do understand where you are going.

And I do think the situation, unfortunately, calls for some nuance and it will call cause for development and evolution because the situation is so chaotic and so shifting.

And because we do, as James pointed out, have an ally in the President of the United States who was utterly unpredictable and whose motives to be very blunt, Canadians do not have any confidence in.

And so it would and will be wise for the Prime Minister to hold some cards back to make certain that he establishes a couple of basic ground rules.

Absent, you know, NATO treaty obligations. We are not going to have any trucker trade in terms of ground troops or any kind of involvement whatsoever.

I think that's an important principle to establish because Canadians expect nothing less and I think on that point, Canadian opinion is really hard.

And beyond that, I think you know, we work for their allies and we try to secure stability as much as possible while recognizing that it's a good thing to have the Iranian regime robbed of its ability to pursue an included program or to harm others in the region.

Beyond that, I think you got to, you got to remain flexible because this thing is moving not by days but by hours.

Yeah, I certainly take the point, Kathleen, that like it's not easy to assert a policy in response to Donald Trump's foreign policy which is ever changing and ever evolving in this situation in particular has a lot of nuance to it.

I do think so that particularly when the Prime Minister employed terms like, you know, I arrive at that position with regret or, you know, had I been consulted before, I would have said it contravened international law even though on Saturday that was, you know, the initial position never, never staked it that out.

Like does lead to some questions about what exactly the position is?

Yeah, I think it's been really confusing over the course of the week and I want to pick up on two words that both all of you have mentioned.

One is that diplomacy requires nuance and the problem is that media and politics often require speed and he focused on the latter.

He was feeling pressure obviously to speak to media had been, you know, many days since he had spoken to media so he came out and he made the statement and I think in some ways it was too quick and it wasn't thought through.

It could have been so much simpler if he had just come out with a boilerplate statement and said, you know, if our allies calling us and our allies are attacked, of course, Canada will stand with our allies.

But we will work through international law and be consistent with international law.

He didn't do that. His full-throwed support for the original strike and his original statements kind of actually betrays, you know, Canada's normal stance.

And I was reflecting back on, you know, when John Crachet in 2002 had to struggle with a similar decision, you know, and he took many, many months saying in October 2002 when he was questioned about whether Canada would go into the Iraq war.

He said, only if it is sanctioned by the UN and that debate went on for some time.

And when it was clear that the UN Security Council was not going to sanction the attacks on Iran, you know, Crachet made the decision that Canadians would not go into war in March of 2023.

And I think that that spoke to, you know, the strength of Canada always working through our international bodies.

And what is frustrating about Carney's comments was he says it's regrettable and that this strike on Iran is another example of a failure of international institutions.

I'm paraphrasing here, but that's essentially what he said.

But what failure does Canada, what part, frankly, does Canada have in that failure when we really haven't spoken up on things like what happened in Venezuela on the threats to Cuba?

And now what's happening truthfully in Iran? Don't get me wrong. Iran is an exporter of terror.

Obviously Canadians, you know, see that state as only wreaking havoc, pain, struggle on its own people and internationally in terms of an exporter of terror.

But I think Carney really made a mistake this week and it shows just kind of poor politics and saying he could have actually put out a statement which was slower.

That had the nuance that diplomacy requires and not the speed that the media or politics of the moment demanded.

I think, and just quickly, I think you meant I mixed up all the two, a thousand and three, not two, a twenty-twenty-three.

Oh, yes, two thousand and three.

But I take the point that you're making all good.

Twenty years ago. James, I think, yeah, twenty.

I think it is interesting that, you know, what I found notable last weekend was that actually the Prime Minister took a position, that it wasn't boilerplate, that there is obviously a lot of debate about the position that he took.

But it wasn't actually hard to figure out what it was versus a few days later when it became sort of much different.

What is the takeaway from that?

Well, I mean, I think he aspires to clarity, but I think to Scott's point as well.

And I think to reiterate my point is that there's not a lot of clarity.

You know, as we're having this conversation, Donald Trump is on social media talking about the need for that the war will not stop until there's an unconditional surrender.

By whom? By Iran? By the Ayatollah that you killed, and then the new one that came in place that you then killed.

By whom? The Kurds are now invading from the North. How does that work?

What, who is going, how does this work? As I said, the then what question of once you take action like this and the egress from the region for the United States and the Allies is not clear.

So for Canada to make any kind of monetary military peacekeeping structural support to the region is unknown because again that there's seems to be that there's the United States has started a football game here with no plan beyond the opening kickoff.

We don't know where they're going or what the plan is. And so again, to assert Canadian principles at the outset that there would be no trips on the ground that we believe in the rule of law that we want to have an Iran that is peaceful and democratic and respecting the rule of law.

That the removal of the ASEAN regime can be a very positive and a good thing.

And we're hopeful that Iran will emerge from this. We will keep an eye on it. We're going to stay close to our allies and protect Canadian interests.

There's a lot of safe ground there around there's around which there's a great deal of Canadian consensus.

And I don't know that he needs to say a lot more than that. Canada is not a large military power that's going to flex our might in that region at all.

I think we can assert some principles, stay on some safe ground, keep Canadians united and just observe the situation as it's tragically seems to be unfolding.

I've just got a minute left 30 seconds to both Scott and Kathleen Scott.

You know what? I'm going to pick up on somebody Kathleen said because she made this comparison. It's frankly rising a little bit up the wall to 2003 in Iraq.

I mean, this situation is dramatically different in a bunch of ways.

Well, we've not the question isn't, are we going to send in ground troops? That question's not opposed to us. And second of all, we no longer have United States led by a president who pays any adherence whatsoever to international norms or institutions.

And so we have to deal with the world as it is as the Prime Minister says not as we wish it to be.

The only thing I would say is that 2003 might be instructive in this sense.

There's one iron clad crystal clear thing that Canadians want to hear from the Prime Minister. And that is again absent some sort of attack on a NATO country.

We will have no involvement. There is no coalition of the willing that Canada is willing to take part in.

I think establishing that as a ground rule will go a long way to reassuring people and the rest will play it out as it unfolds.

Last word to you, Kathleen.

The House returns tomorrow, and I would expect an emergency debate to be called whether the Speaker grants that, but to be called on precisely this issue on what Canada's position is on Iran and whether there'll be a debate around whether there'll be further involvement, which, you know, the Prime Minister hasn't been, you know, he's been clear that, you know, if we're called on, we could go in, but, you know,

it's not clear where this could go as James has said in the next three, four, five months, and what will result as a result of the Trump attack.

Okay, I'm going to leave the discussion there. Thanks, guys. Appreciate it. As always, Scott read James Moore and Kathleen Monk, our Sunday strategy session.

When we come back, I'm going to speak with Canada's AI Minister, Evan Solomon, met with the CEO of Open AI this week, pledging he get more information about how the company will bolster its safety protocols.

The Minister will be with me after a short break.

When life gets unpredictable, preparation matters. In medicine, it's all about staying alert, ready for whatever comes through the door. On the road, it's no different.

That's why Volvo designs vehicles to help anticipate risk, reduce harm and protect lives.

Volvo XC90's advanced safety systems inspire confident decisions wherever the road takes you. The Volvo XC90 for life.

Proud sponsor of the pit podcast. Learn more at VolvoCars.ca slash safety.

We want to understand what they're doing. What are your safety protocols? What do you do specifically for Canada? When do you escalate? How quickly? What are the thresholds?

We were very disappointed with that meeting. They did not have specifics.

Canada's AI Minister this week ahead of a meeting with the CEO of Open AI, saying the tech giants plans to boost safety protocols for its online chatbot, chat GPT, quote, black detail.

The meetings between the federal government and Open AI come after it was reported that the Tumblr Ridge shooter who killed eight people last month in one of the deadliest school shootings in Canadian history had been flagged internally by Open AI.

For quote, abuse and enforcement last summer. The RCMP, though, was not notified until after the tragic events in British Columbia.

So how do the ministers meeting with the CEO of Open AI go and how do the feds plan to ensure safe AI guardrails are in place?

Evan Solomon is the Minister of Artificial Intelligence and Digital Innovation.

Hi, Minister. A pleasure to welcome you to the program. Thanks for making the time. Good to see you, Vashi.

So last week after you met with the initial group of Open AI officials, I remember you saying, and I think you released a formal statement to this effect that you were, you know, unsatisfied with the lack of detail that they provided on what exactly they would do to ensure something like this doesn't happen again.

How do you feel about that after this meeting with Sam Altman?

You're absolutely right. When I met with the senior management team, I called them to Ottawa. They just to remind people I met with them.

I was alongside the Minister of Public Safety, the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Heritage, using charge of the online harms element.

And look, after that meeting, we wanted to find out about their safety thresholds and when they escalate threats that they catch in their technology to police and their safety protocols.

They sent us a letter back. I said straight out, I'm disappointed. It lacks detail. I want to speak to the founder at Sam Altman. So I spoke to him and I said, you know, look, I want more details.

And I want some more concrete action to keep Canadian safe. My job is to make sure Canadians are safe. And we're going to look at it closely.

So as I listen to kind of detail all the questions you have, what strikes me is, it's, you know, their response is dependent on them voluntarily, basically saying, we're going to do all of these things.

I understand as you point out, you have some checks on that, but ultimately, collectively as a society, it appears we're relying on a company like OpenAI or a big tech company to police itself and do the right thing in the name of Canadian safety.

Is there not enough evidence now to show you that they will not and that it's time for your government to do more to force them to?

This is exactly what this exercise is about. And you're asking the exact right question. First, this is a new technology. And we've acted quickly. I mean, when the story broke about OpenAI flagging this back in June on last Sunday.

Remember, I had them their office fly up on Tuesday. I've now spoken to the founder. We've got to assess their protocols. There's an ongoing case here. I'm not going to jeopardize the investigation of the RCMP Vashi.

And you know that and it's important that we get a full understanding of what happened in this horrific case. But this has wider applications to other AI chatbots.

So one, we've got to understand what these companies are doing. Understand the technologies. Get a better assessment of it. That's first thing. And we're doing that.

But you're absolutely right. We, I have said all options are on the table in terms of my top priority keeping Canadian safe. That's why the public safety minister joined me, the justice minister and the heritage minister.

And I will tell you that whether it's AI transparency rules, whether it's the online harms, whether it's what I'm in charge of, the privacy and data rules that we will be tabling legislation, whether it's the justice minister who's already tabled legislation on non-consensual sharing of sexualized imagery.

We all options are on the table and we will have a regulatory framework on this as well. So, but first and foremost, we got to make sure that the protocols they're using today are safe.

I would respectfully challenge minister the idea that you've put a primacy though on what you just laid out. What I remember from the time that you've been minister is a real championing of not brand new technology, but technology that you said is going to change the economy.

Change the world that we have to be a part of or will risk being left behind. In fact, the way that you've consistently characterized the idea of regulation, which there have been many people pushing you to do more on is to say light tight and right.

Might you need to drop the light in light of what's happening right now and lean more on the tight.

I haven't changed my view, Vashi, and look, first let me just say this. We're going to be tight. We're going to be right.

And when it comes to innovation and making sure Canadians have opportunities for technology, we're going to make sure they have that.

But let's not mix up two things here. Look, I don't know what the characterizations have been, but you're asking the question so I can tell you.

We've got to be open to the opportunities of a technology that is transforming and has the ability to really add productivity, create jobs, and help the country. I get that.

But we've got to be super candid about the concerns. I have never backed away from making sure that my number one priority is keeping Canadians safe and finding that balance between making sure that we're open to innovation.

We are here to build this country strong. That is my job to do that. And we are going to use every tool to do that. Not at the expense of safety.

I'm a father, not at the expense of children's safety. And we're going to make sure you can do both. And it is not a choice.

You don't have to choose between being open to innovation and being having reliable, safe AI. That is not something you have to choose. We've got to do both.

This tragedy, I just want to say, this tragedy at Tumblr Ridge is not the moment to have to choose this. This is a moment to talk about safety.

And you have seen how clear all options are on the table. And we will come with the exact appropriate tools necessary to keep Canadians safe.

That's why I called Mr. Altman in. That's why I demanded a safety team come in. And we got to make sure our number one priority is to keep Canadians safe.

I understand what you're saying. And I wouldn't take away from the meeting that's taking place. But I think, and I'm not trying to hinge it all to this one case.

But I think it is a shocking case for Canadians, for parents across the country who are worried about something like this happening to their kid.

And what becomes abundantly clear is that the company on its own cannot be trusted to do the right thing. Like you have to call them here to even force them to give you answers.

There are other examples of big tech not doing the right thing. Your government has dropped the digital services tax. Your AI strategy consultation was heavily weighted towards business.

Are you rethinking your approach to regulation given what has happened and should you not be?

Yeah, again, Vashi, I've said this dozens and dozens of times, technology moves at the speed of innovation, society moves at the speed of trust, and we're going to go at the speed of trust.

And our principle of establishing trust means safety, and it means sovereignty. And sovereignty is a form of safety, having control, building Canadian, so we have control over this stuff.

These are new technologies. They're moving really quickly. And you know, we have legislation. You will see me tabling privacy and data legislation.

We will have online harms legislation that Mark Miller is in charge of, and we're looking closely at these situations. These are new evolving technologies.

And we are looking at these really closely, and we've got to find that right balance.

Number one is to keep Canadians safe. And again, you know, let's not make a false choice here. And I think Canadians watching want to do two things. They want to build a country strong. They want to be open for innovation.

And this is a technology invented in Canada. We know that the Godfathers of AI are here, but we are candid about the real concerns. And we will be pragmatic, and we will be open. And like I'm being with you, open and transparent.

We will make sure they're safety. We will call in these billionaires, and these hyperscalers, and anybody who is, we believe, is not acting responsibly.

And we will come to terms to make sure they are acting responsibly, and that we have all options on the table from a regulatory standpoint to make sure Canadians are safe, and this stuff is reliable.

And our kids are safe, and we're really open to transparent about it. And I really urge you not to have a false choice between building and innovating and keeping safe. We can do both.

I agree completely. It's not a false choice. I'm not presenting it that way. What I am is representing concerns from Canadians, who, while you say there will be online harms, while you say there will be data and privacy legislation, have yet to see it.

And that online harms legislation you talked about actually came in under the past government and ended up dying and not moving forward.

There were a lot of people working on that. I remember interviewing people who were actually, you know, whose kids had been affected by this, who were counting on liberals to do more. It's not a false proposition I'm putting forward.

It's something that matters to Canadians, and I'm simply just trying to hold, you know, your government to account on a timeline for this, which has been largely absent.

And by the way, we're in agreement here. I mean, I just want to be clear. You're absolutely right. I share exactly your concerns, the concerns of families, the concerns to make sure we get this legislation right, and we get it passed in a minority parliament.

And I think Minister Miller, myself, Minister and Anna Sangria, like the Public Safety Minister and the Justice Minister, are moving quickly to get the suite of measures to keep Canadians safe while at the same time making sure that we're open to innovation.

But look, it's not at the expense. And I just, like this is a uniquely difficult moment, the horrible tragedy at Tumblr Ridge. I know, you know, the families are, this is still very early days.

I'm very mindful of obviously Premier Ebi and his population and the citizens of BC and the people of Tumblr Ridge. So, you know, we're trying to move quickly and be respectful of the RCMP investigation and obviously the issues.

But I share the urgency that you are right to point out, Vashi, and we are moving quickly, and we are very determined to make sure that Canadians are kept safe.

I'm going to leave it on that. No, Minister, I always appreciate your time. Thanks so much. Thanks, Vashi.

We're going to take a quick commercial break, but we've got more question period on the other end of that break.

Welcome back to question period. A lot to look ahead to next week. Primarily, the return of both the Prime Minister and the leader of the official opposition.

The Prime Minister Mark Kerney and Pierre Paulier will both be back in the House of Commons as it comes back for an additional week of sitting.

There will likely be a debate around Canada's role, whatever that may be in the conflict in the Middle East. So, we'll look ahead to that as well.

I'll be back in Ottawa, of course, for power play to take you through all of that. I'm in Regina right now hosting question period because I'm here to also host a charity function.

I just want to say thank you to everyone here at CTV Regina for hosting us. It's been a real pleasure, and I look forward to seeing you tomorrow.

Have a wonderful rest of your weekend. Thanks for watching. I'm Vashi Capelos.

Thank you very much.

Thank you for bringing new drops, fresh vines, and tomorrow's bangers.

I think we need something new. Discover I Heart new music. Always fresh. Always first. Stream now on the free I Heart Radio app.