CTV QP Podcast #521: Examining the disruption to oil the war in Iran is causing

Welcome to question period on this Sunday, March 15th on Vashika Pellos, today global

energy crisis.

The oil will be coming down, it's just a matter of war.

The U.S.-Israeli war with Iran is sparking a global energy crisis as Tehran targets

production facilities and oil tankers in the Middle East.

Dozens of countries have agreed to release emergency oil reserves, but will it be enough

to avert the crisis?

Chief Financial correspondent Amanda Lang and M.L.I., senior fellow Heather Exner-Piro will

tackle that question.

Plus, we have a liberal government that has done absolutely nothing to stop it.

The opposition conservatives accused the liberal government of being lax on the Iranian

regime's presence and threat here in Canada.

Public Safety Minister Gary and Anna Sangri is here and I'm going to ask him about that.

Then, Karnaia Broad, again.

I'll be meeting the UK Prime Minister on Monday.

The Prime Minister is on another international tour, this time stopping in Norway to observe

NATO exercises before heading to London to meet with the British Prime Minister and King

Charles.

Canada's brand new high commissioner to the United Kingdom, Bill Blair, is here ahead

of those meetings.

Plus, all for one.

The Liberals are one seat closer to securing a majority government as Nunavut MP Laurie

Idlow defects from the NDP to join liberal ranks.

With three by-elections in April, the Prime Minister could secure his majority before

spring.

What are the political implications, though?

The Sunday Strategy session with Nathan Cullen, Lisa Raid and Scott Reed will tackle that.

We'll start today with the far-reaching consequences of the war in the Middle East.

The ongoing war between the U.S. Israel and Iran is plunging the global oil market into

extreme uncertainty.

Why?

It all comes down to a global oil trade choke point known as the Strait of Hormuz.

About a quarter of the World Seaborn oil transit through this narrow sea channel, but according

to the international energy agency, since the start of the war, export volumes through

the vital strait have plunged to less than 10 percent of pre-conflict levels.

The result?

An oil price shock not seen since the onset of the Russia Ukraine war in 2022.

For more on this story, I'm joined by CTV's Chief Financial Correspondent Amanda Lang,

and Heather Exner-Piro, who serves as Director of Natural Resources, Energy and Environment

at the McDonald-Lorrier Institute.

Hello to both of you.

Thank you very much for making the time.

Amanda, I'll start with you.

If you could characterize what's gone on over the past two weeks, essentially, with the price

of oil, how would you do it?

I mean, honestly, it's been a game of uncertainty, and a reminder that the price at which oil

trades does have a slight disconnect from the actual supply and demand picture.

Oil trade in the futures market for profit and for speculation, and it's not necessarily

tied to the supply and demand picture.

And we know that fashion because we headed into this year, a Washington supply, but the

price stayed firm because of concerns about this geopolitical risk.

What we're seeing is that uncertainty about how long this goes on is why the price is

so volatile, and that's been incredibly painful.

On the connection between Heather's supply and price, I did want to ask you this.

I think a lot of Canadians watch this week as the member countries of the IA said, we're

going to release all these hundreds of millions of barrels of strategic reserves to help mitigate

against the supply crunch that's driving up the price of oil.

And we didn't actually see that materialized toward the end of the week.

Why is that?

Well, so we created these strategic reserves exactly for this purpose.

This was, you know, from the 1970s oil embargo that oil that OPEC had put on.

And so it's a concerted effort to say we need to have some release valves, but there's

a lot of logistics that goes into moving these many barrels.

The same reason why even if Canada had a strategic reserve, it wouldn't mean that we could

at least 10 million barrels onto the market tomorrow.

There's, you know, take her bottlenecks, there's pipeline bottlenecks, there's refinery

bottlenecks.

A lot of logistical disruption has occurred, and nothing is going to be easy about, you

know, setting this straight.

What does this more specifically mean for Canada and Canadian energy, Amanda?

It means a few things.

I mean, in the short term, a higher oil price is good for oil companies, right?

They're going to make more per barrel.

There's sort of a sweet spot, Bashy, as we can all appreciate where oil companies, other

investors and governments buy it through royalties make money when the price of oil goes up, but

you don't want it to go up so far that it begins to act as a tax on consumers and great

inflationary pressures.

The thing that's so complicated about the Strait of Hormuz is none of us really thought

about 30% of the world's Urea, which is nitrogen used in fertilizer.

So that will go right into our farmers' costs.

And I didn't even realize that 30% of Taiwan's natural, liquefied natural gas comes through

that straight.

Taiwan is, of course, the manufacturer of the chips that fuel all of our economies.

It cannot afford to run out of energy.

So there's a knock on effect here, Iran holds a lot of parts in terms of keeping

this bottleneck and keeping the straight flows, and it can be quite painful.

Those knock on effects are something, Heather, I know you talk about as well, right?

In particular, fertilizer and LNG, what are you seeing in both of those spaces and what

should Canadians be aware of when it comes to the impact on both of those products?

Well, bottom line, this is inflationary.

So people see that immediately at the gas pump, but this will almost certainly trickle

through to electricity, it'll trickle through into food, it'll trickle through into manufacturing

as Amanda pointed out.

And it goes to show, you know, we have so much riding on the straight of our moves.

This is what it means for Canada.

We don't have to go through bottlenecks.

We don't have to go through hot zones.

The more that we could be providing those materials to our allies, the less that you have

to worry about is such a deep shock in the future.

Let's talk a little bit about Canada's role in augmenting or trying to mitigate against

that shock, because there was a lively political debate.

I'll call it this week, based on the IA and member countries releasing those reserves.

And then the question of, well, why aren't there reserves here, the response from the government

was essentially, well, we have other levers through, you know, we're a net exporter basically.

What levers does Canada have at its disposal to try and help with the supply issue, Amanda,

and are any of them immediately at our disposal?

I think, I mean, maybe it is the tricky word, how quickly you can act.

We don't have to do reserves.

This will create maybe a new debate about whether we should.

But again, to Heather's point, in some ways, it's more symbolic than not, because actually

replacing a barrel of oil with a different barrel of oil, including those now potentially

coming from Russia, courtesy of a change from the White House, is not an easy task.

And it's itself expensive in a pleasure, but a lot of our oil, of course, don't ship

a barrel of oil.

Use it.

We refine it somewhere.

There are pipelines that ship it.

There's a whole process.

We care more about, frankly, the other fuels than we do about the price of a barrel of oil.

It's the distilled products and the cost of those, that diesel in particular, that hits

all of us in transportation costs for food and all the other goods.

And so what can Canada do?

Not a lot in the short term, and I'll tell you, Vashy, if we're going to debate something

in this country, we should debate.

Can we learn the lesson of the last supply chain bottlenecks, post-pandemic, the Ukrainian

war?

We knew that we needed a member of resiliency in our supply chains.

Did we do it?

We're going to find out right now as to expect the answer will be not nearly enough.

Heather, the idea of strategic reserves, like I said, was part of that political debate.

Why don't we have any?

Should we?

And secondarily, when you think about other levers at our disposal, what does your mind

go to?

So we don't have one because we export.

We release $4.5 million barrels into the world every single day.

So that's a huge net benefit, obviously, in maintaining global supplies.

Producers and shippers are going to produce and ship as much as they can and capture the

extra value.

So you don't need to say, hey, it would be really useful to do a little extra.

I mean, they're getting $100 a barrel.

They're doing exactly as much as they can do, but the pipeline egress is the constraint.

You just can't ship more through pipelines if you don't have that pipeline capacity.

But I also had to say, if we built another pipeline, we wouldn't hold it abandoned until

you have a shock.

We'd be trying to fill up that pipeline too.

The one thing that does look like we're doing is really maximizing LNG Canada, that seeing

as many shipments as it has seen yet, luckily, both trains were functioning.

And so we are able to find a little bit of that liquidity on the Pacific side for LNG.

This is all going to be a drop in the bucket.

So you're talking about trying to adjust to the shock of the state of our most being

closed.

Everything is a mitigation.

Nothing is a solution.

Well, on the prospect of that and the lessons learned, Amanda, from the supply chain shock,

you know, post 2022 war in COVID, I guess you could say as well.

Like what will you be watching for to see if any of those lessons have been internalized?

I mean, the biggest thing of course will be whether we see manufacturers actually having

to take charges or actually stalling production, whether they actually did build this resiliency.

Resiliency is expensive.

It means having redundancy.

It means having two suppliers instead of one.

And then of course you have less clutch with your suppliers.

All of that can be inflationary.

We do that though.

And we do that.

We should be doing that.

It'll take some time.

And I may have to show up frankly, but we'll start to hear from you and I talk to business

leaders.

Are they seeing it?

Are they in trouble?

This is at one part of the world.

It's a narrow part.

I think only 10% of the ships that are stranded in the Middle East right now are cargo ships

or non-fuel ships or non-oil ships.

But that's still a big number, right?

And we've heard from everything from the bank to some manufacturers that some of their

staff are, is that it on hold.

We probably could have done better than we could, but we would have paid a price for

that in inflation.

And when you look at the prospects for this level of uncertainty and price volatility

continuing, Heather, there's not, I would argue, hardly any certainty actually over how

long this lasts and what actually ends up happening with the straight.

It was a focal point for example for the new Supreme Leader this week who said, who insisted

like, I'm going to keep this thing closed as long as this conflict goes on.

What should we expect when it comes to the price and in particular, it's impact on the

price of gas?

So it looks like every day that this goes on, the price of oil is going on.

By now, we're about $3 a barrel, so do the math going out.

This is obviously becoming quickly a political problem.

You're seeing quite a few gas stations in the United States exceeding $5 a gallon.

I think that's a psychological threshold where the American voter gets extremely sensitive

to the prices.

So there's going to be a lot of pressure on the United States to resolve this somehow,

especially ahead of the summer driving season, especially as we're going into the midterms.

So I would say it's that pressure on the United States that is most likely going to be a

difference of how long can this go on?

One last question for you Amanda, as we look more largely at the economy, if I could just

on those job numbers at the end of the week, huge job losses, unemployment rate takes up,

a counter to what analysts had expected.

What are your thoughts on that?

So we always preferences by saying the labor force survey is is terribly unreliable and

yet it's the one we've got.

It's a terrible number.

It's the worst jobs data that we've seen in four years.

It shows that economic weakness even before the effects of everything we're seeing now,

business uncertainty and lots of confidence, potential for even more price pressure.

And by the way, in the data, Vashi, you will have seen that wage increases were 3.9 percent.

So inflation is still very much with us in some places.

All of it adds up to a really weak economy at a time when we can't afford it.

Okay, I'm going to leave it on that now.

Really appreciate both of you making time for the conversation and your analysis day.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Come back.

A new liberal just dropped.

None of it.

MP Lori Idlow, defects from the NDP to join the liberal ranks, moving Prime Minister

of Mark Kerni one step closer to a majority government with three by elections less than

a month away.

Our Sunday strategy session will be here to tackle that next.

And then there were four Prime Minister Mark Kerni successfully poached a fourth opposition

MP this week.

In this instance, Nunavut MP Lori Idlow, who defected from the beleaguered NDP caucus

to join liberal ranks.

It means the Prime Minister is now one seat closer and just two seats away from securing

a majority government.

And depending on what happens in the three by elections in April, he might just do it

before spring.

Our Sunday strategy session is here to talk about the implications of that.

Nathan Cullen is a former NDP MP and former provincial NDP minister.

Lisa Raid is a former conservative cabinet minister and former conservative deputy leader.

And Scott Reed is a CTV News political analyst and former communications director.

Two Prime Minister, Palmer and Hi everybody.

Good to see you.

Thanks for making the time.

Scott, I'll start with you.

It looks like it's, you know, the Toronto by elections are considered pretty safe.

They will be able to secure a majority of 172, maybe 173 at some point 174.

Is that what you think they actually are looking for?

Yes, yes, I think the government wants a majority government.

That's just my personal theory, but I definitely think that's the goal here.

And I think actually the companion of that is, it seems to me the Prime Minister's made

a decision, not just with this most recent floor crossing, but also with the decision to

call those by elections to not wait around because there's a couple of other MPs who might

be stepping down and NDP member from Montreal and other Toronto, but to move now to call

these for early, I think the Prime Minister's made the decision, no spring election.

This is going to be the focus.

And, you know, I look, it comes one year almost to the day when, you know, Markarni took

over as Prime Minister.

And I think the really astonishing thing, the people out there are municipal floor crossers,

but he's taking from the NDPs, taking from the Conservatives.

He's very popular in French Canada and English Canada, even in Western Canada.

And rain will fall on the political garden party of Markarni at some point.

But boy, he is on a heater and I, I don't think it's a left right thing.

I think it's a north-south thing I think it has to do with this calmness, I think it

has to do with the confidence he gives Canadians when it comes to dealing with the impossible

preposterous presidency of Donald Trump.

And I think he's probably wise enough, push for a spring election because it is that seriousness

as opposed to partisan focus that I think is giving him this kind of appeal.

How much do you think of what Scott just described, Lisa, is about the Prime Minister versus

the moment that we find ourselves in the sort of characterization of a crisis?

And what are the implications of that for opposition party leaders who are trying to

stop other MPs from crossing the floor?

Well, are they trying to stop them anymore?

That is the question.

I mean, it seems to be a foregone conclusion that some folks have been agitating for

a while that they are interested in sitting with the government, not necessarily with the

Liberal Party, with the government, to answer your question directly.

I think they probably feel they have a fair amount of cover in changing from conservative

to liberal because of the fact that Mr. Carney seemed to be very popular in all the areas

in which the folks have been crossing the floor.

Maybe not so much in Alberta, but Matt General is going to have to deal with that when he

runs for the election, when he runs in a general election.

And I think I agree with Scott, it makes a whole lot of sense that the Liberals would

seek their majority this way.

I really think that a general election, just not in the cards for the next year or so

as we're going through whatever we're going through in the moment.

It seems like there's always something in the moment.

So in the end, I believe that will there be more floor crossers possibly?

Are people going to get us up in arms as they did on the first couple?

Probably not.

It seems to be a foregone conclusion.

And the reason I frame the question about the majority of the way I did to Scott, Nathan

is because of the size of it, right?

If you have a majority by three or four seats, it's certainly not as stable as the one

Nick Nanos' numbers right now, predict the Liberals would be able to get, which is well

in excess of 200 seats.

That's why I'm wondering if you think this is the objective where that temptation will

still loom large.

I think it's a happy coincidence for the Prime Minister that he has people that are interested

in crossing the floor.

Let me, just for those Canadians watching who don't like this at all, that find MPs picking

up and moving over to another party without going back to them as voters, let me raise

that objection on their behalf because aside from the partisan politics and the numbers

and barely getting across the line of a majority and what that does for Prime Minister, there

is this undemocratic notion in my mind and the mind of many others that says, when people

vote in the elections, all our research tells us that the candidate does factor, but let's

be honest, it can maybe be as high as five, six, seven percent.

The majority of the reason people vote for who they vote for is leader, party, maybe a

policy that they particularly like.

And I've just, forget the partisanship, I've just always found it distasteful that if you

really said, it's time I have reasons that I need to leave the party that I stood for,

the platform, et cetera, and here are the reasons, then take it back to the voters.

For working class people, people struggling to make ends meet, they find this stuff a little

bit on the cynical side of just the politician justifying their move for whatever reasons

and you have to wait, you have to wait until the next election to actually decide whether

that's popular or not.

Scott's right, Mr. Carney is enjoying a very good moment, all leaders are made by the moments

they live in.

And for the most part, he's been hitting the right notes, I would say is a RAM position,

vis-a-vis Mr. Trump's illegal war, missed, and then he's been projecting course since.

But generally speaking, Canadians are looking for reassurance, and I don't get any sense.

People are never looking for an election.

I don't get the sense that the drumbeat for an election from Canadians is particularly

high right now, they just want government to govern.

We did a really interesting poll this week with Mr. Nannos that showed that Canadians were

exactly evenly, but 33% were very, very much against any kind of floor crossing, 33%

wanted them to sit as an independent and 33% were like totally fine with it.

But collectively his read was that they lay blame with the floor crosser and not with

the party receiving, which I thought was kind of interesting.

On the prospect, just this one poll obviously, but on the prospect, Scott, of 200 seats,

not offering temptation.

I understand all the arguments everyone's putting forward about why an election right

now is not, what Canadians are asking for.

But again, a majority of 173 or 176 or 174 versus, if they think they can grab many more,

what is the sort of discussion around that or the calculation?

My guess is that discussion is relatively subtle for the time being because of the way

the Prime Minister has played his cards for the past 10 days, however, I don't dismiss

the possibility that we will still have an election in 2026, not just because these polls

are so overwhelming.

And you're right.

If you're in office, they are attempting.

Although I will say any Prime Minister I've ever worked with didn't want to go to the

people.

Always a little bit reluctant to give up that chair, always a little bit reluctant to gamble.

So you have a job as an advisor to persuade a Prime Minister, even when you've got big

fat polls like this.

But I think this world in which we live is so turbulent.

I think Trump is so unpredictable and so unappealing that we could easily see other triggers

that might provoke an election between now and the end of the year.

So I think for now that temptation has been set aside from will we see an election in

2026?

I think it's a very real possibility.

I think there are things that Trump could do that might obligate the Prime Minister to

call on the election to seek a full mandate.

And I'm not certain that Canadians in that context would object.

It does feel, and correct me if I'm wrong Lisa, like if the election decision is made,

it will be by the liberals.

You really get the sense right now that both the NDP and the conservatives are not itching

for one at all.

Of course it's going to be by the liberals, of course it is.

And I just kind of shook my head there when Scott was talking about the temptation to

go for a general election that we'd be triggered by something Donald Trump does.

I don't know whether or not that's going to be a valid enough narrative for an election

call.

I mean, we're going to have this blow up with respect to Kuzma over this summer.

There's no question about it.

But I think people feel that they've already given Mark Carter the mandate on this.

And there's really nothing but cooperation, I think, from all parties trying to figure

this part out.

And then the second one is the United States midterms are actually in the fall.

And a lot of people may just be waiting to see if there's going to be a change, whether

or not the House of Representatives ends up going to the Democrats instead of the Republicans

and as such, Donald Trump may not be as problematic for Canada.

So there's no real reason coming from there.

So I'm not on the election bandwagon right now.

And I do believe that conservatives and definitely the NDP not to speak for your folks, Nathan.

But boy, we need some runway and we need some time before we hit a general election.

I'll conclude with a question to Nathan about that actually.

In fact, it's a rough week for the NDP.

And they're heading into the election, the vote for the party's new leader.

What are your thoughts on their feelings around an election and sort of how they regroup

after this week?

Oh, we're reaching for a fight, Bashy.

Like, let's go tomorrow.

There's two realities for the NDP.

One is what's happening in parliament, which is not great, it's tough losing a seat.

It doesn't make a material difference.

The party's not in a strong place, doesn't have official status.

One less MP doesn't change that.

There's the other reality, which is what's going on within the party itself.

So more than 100,000 members are now voting and we'll pick a leader at the end of March.

The candidates have raised somewhere near $2.5 million.

And there's a lot of energy in the campaigns that are running.

I think what's, as Lisa mentioned, what happens in the midterms is going to be more consequential

than any floor crossing that happens in Canada.

And what happens in Winnipeg when the NDP picks the next leader will be much more consequential

come the next election than anything that we're talking about here today with respect

to these narrow numbers.

If the NDP are viable, if they are able to bring forward a positive progressive voice,

this is going to be something that's significant for not just the NDP, but obviously the other

parties.

And there is so much room on the center left right now on a lot of the debates, be it climate

change, the economy in general for working class people.

I think the space is available for the NDP and the next leader they pick will be very

consequential.

Remain hopeful.

I don't even have rose colored glasses on.

I think it's going to be a real lift for the party.

And there's just so much room on that side of the conversation to talk to Canadians who

are not hearing much from this grand coalition environment right now between the Liberals

and Conservatives, just agreeing on most everything, fundamental.

It's nice to have a little opposition.

I think it's important for any good debate in the health of our democracy.

The Liberals, the Conservatives, and one new NDP now liberal M.P.

I'll leave it there.

Thanks, everybody.

Appreciate the discussion.

As always, Scott released a rate and Nathan Cullen, our Sunday strategy session.

When we come back today, opposition conservatives say the liberal government is failing to crack

down on Iranian regime officials here in Canada.

Public Safety Minister Gary Anand say angry is here to respond to that criticism next

on question period.

Your first place to hear it all.

Because you don't like it, love it, want to play it, try it.

Playing now.

High-hard new music.

Your digital station for brand new drops, fresh vines, and tomorrow's bangers.

I think we need something new.

Discover high-hard new music.

Always fresh.

Always first.

Stream now.

On the free.

I hear Radio App.

There are hundreds of IRGC agents presently on Canadian soil using Canada as a safe haven

to organize and to fundraise and to terrorize diaspora communities right here at home.

Against the backdrop of the war in Iran, there are growing concerns about the threat posed

by individuals aligned with the Iranian regime who live right here in Canada.

After the killing of Masa Amini in 2022 in Iran for simply wearing her hijab improperly,

the government here instituted a policy banning IRGC officials from this country.

Since then, though, the CBSA has opened dozens of investigations, only one individual has

been deported.

Earlier this week, I sat down with Public Safety Minister Gary and Anne DeSangri to talk

about that.

I do want to ask you about the situation in Iran, but more specifically how it applies

to the public safety of Canadians.

The Iranian diaspora in this country has certainly raised concern, not just in recent weeks,

but especially in recent weeks about the possibility of people associated with the IRGC being

here in Canada and targeting them.

How many people, Minister, are you aware of that are associated with the IRGC who are

in Canada?

So, let me just say I've had the chance to meet with the diaspora.

I met with the community members both in Vancouver and in Toronto, and I continue to engage

the community who are deeply concerned about what's happening back home, but also concerned

about the IRGC members here.

We listed IRGC in 2024.

As you're aware, it is not every member of the IRGC, these are senior officials of the

IRGC.

CBSA has reviewed 18,000 applications for visas and other documents, including PR from

outside of Canada, 239 of them have been rejected or canceled because of membership in the

IRGC.

They never came to Canada.

Our investigation right now, 270 odd reviews, there are 32 individuals who fit the definition

and who are deemed to be inadmissible, out of which there are roughly 28 that are still

in country, four have left, and one is removed as you're aware, and there's 28 that we are

going through the system.

We have a number of different measures that people need to go through before the removal,

so including the Immigration Refugee Board, the rights of appeal, and this is the top

priority of CBSA.

They're working towards, you know, if for example, there's a negative decision that one

that says that IRB, if they say this individual is inadmissible, is admissible, then based on

the facts, we will appeal it, and we're rigorously going through the process of removing them.

I understand that there is a process in place.

The policy that your government initially put in place following the death of Masa, the

killing of Masa Amini, was back in 2022, right?

It's been a number of years since then.

Can you understand how to the DSP, and Canadians more and largely, the deportation of just

a sole person would give them the impression that your policy is not working?

Well, actually I would say the fact that, so when a complaint comes in, when an individual

is alleged to be a member of, in this particular case, IRGC, there is a rigorous legal test.

So we have to establish that this individual, this credible evidence that this individual

was a member, a senior member of the IRGC, that is the basis by which we can actually

commence the proceedings.

And as we go through, there's a number of layers to the process, but Canadians would want

to do a process available to every single individual, whether it's in a criminal proceeding

or in a proceeding in front of the immigration refugee board.

And that's what we're doing right now.

So we've done the investigations, the work has been done, and we are aggressively ensuring

that these individuals are removed from Canada.

I guess I take issue with great respect with the term aggressively, because I understand

again the process that you're laying out, but there is no transparency for Canadians about

that process.

We get little numbers here and there, for example, of the five cases where the IRB opted,

as you mentioned, to let them remain in Canada.

I think four of them, the CBSA, is appealing.

We're trying to find out who the individuals are, or even when they're in the hearing,

and journalists are often shot out of those hearings, only to be let in, in the case of

global news, for example, to argue for some more transparency.

One deportation out of 28 cases in three years is perhaps the bar that you've said about

how high up the ladder of the IRGC that these individuals have to be too high, given how

the terror that the IRGC is inflicting around the world.

So let me just say that as we look at IRB's first follow-up independent body, the information

that you have, in terms of the number of investigations, the number of files that we

are processing, the number of inadmissibility cases, they're all online from a transparency

point of view.

There are every single information I've provided you.

It's online, and I can send you the link and send, offer that to Canadians.

The process of the IRB are published, the proceedings are published, the summaries are published,

and they're available to Canadians, maybe the name may be anonymized, but the facts...

In some of those cases, they've said they're just not high at the ladder, high enough

up the ladder.

The fact patterns are certainly available to people online.

The fact is, in terms of IRGC, it's a mandatory military service in Iran.

So there may be individuals who may have served, you know, year, and they may have come

here who may not meet the threshold, and I think we have to accept that because

that is the way that the due process works, because based on the investigation...

Are you sure that threshold is the right threshold given what we know now about the IRGC?

And given, if I could also minister, what's happened in the last few weeks in this country,

the boxing gym owned by an Iranian Canadian activist and outspoken critic of the IRGC near

Toronto.

No one's hurt, but the work on shots, you know, there was a message that was aimed at

sending there.

Then you've got the RCMP in British Columbia in the past few weeks launching a homicide

investigation into the disappearance of an Iranian activist who was also critical of

the regime.

So you're saying we're doing due process.

This is a process that's in place, the policy is the right policy to have here, and yet

we have that evidence to counter the claims that you're making.

Well, I mean, those are...

Let's just say the homicide in British Columbia is under investigation, so I don't want

to comment on that.

With respect to the gym, I met with Samar at the round table, he's one of the individuals

I met.

At the protest, but what I can say is, and Canadians need to be reassured of this.

We have a process in place.

We have investigations that are credible, that are not ad hoc, that are...

We spend an enormous amount of resources into investigating these.

And once a finding of inadmissibility is met, and that is the threshold that's internally

to CBSA, then they're referred for removal.

And we're going through the process of removing those individuals, as 32, as I said, four

have gone to early left, which is based on the aggressive nature of our proceedings that

they have chosen to leave and abandon their defense.

And we're going through the others as the hearings stay place.

What I will say is that we will aggressively pursue every single individual who's deemed

to be inadmissible, based on their membership in the IRDC, and we will ensure that their

removal isn't forced.

But if you have, and I take your point, that those are investigations that are underway,

but if you have the people who are on the other side of those investigations, the victims

of these crimes, and more largely members of the Iranian community in this country saying

to you and to your government that we don't feel safe, why are you defending the process

so ardently as it exists?

I'm not saying it's wrong, but should you not be open to re-examining whether, for example,

the threshold is too high, or whether the process needs to be amended to better address

a feeling and a sense, and a very real sense to these people that their public safety is

at risk.

So I'm defending the process because it is robust, and it does ensure that there's adequate

due process in place as per the charter rights and freedoms.

But they're worried about their safety.

Well, but, actually, look, and we just had a conversation earlier about law enforcement

and, you know, overreach, right?

I think we have to be consistent in our approach.

So charter applies here, charter rights and freedoms applies, while our CBS say, makes

determination of invisibility, there is an independent process that ensures their

removal, and that is what we're going through right now.

And I want Canadians to be assured, I want Iranian Canadians to be assured, that, you

know, every member who we deem to be inadmissible, based on the listing, based on the information

that we have, and I implore members of the community to provide that information, we will take

the size of steps, and that's exactly what we're doing now.

We're going to leave it on that note, Minister of Pleasure is always thank you for making

the time.

Thank you.

Coming up from Minister Morkerney is visiting the United Kingdom again, Canada's brand

new high commission or to that country, Bill Blair is with me next.

Canadian women are looking for more, more of themselves, their businesses, their elected

leaders, and the world around them, and that's why we're thrilled to introduce the honest

talk podcast.

I'm Jennifer Stewart, and I'm Catherine Clark, and in this podcast, we

interview Canada's most inspiring women, entrepreneurs, artists, athletes, politicians,

and newsmakers, all at different stages of fair journey.

So, if you're looking to connect, then we hope you'll join us.

Listen to the honest talk podcast, an on-art radio, or wherever you listen to your podcasts.

I want to pre-judge the discussion that we have.

He had quite a fulsome discussion with the Treaty Six Chiefs, I know, in the last 48

hours, and there are many subjects for him and I, too, right?

Prime Minister Morkerney is scheduled to meet with King Charles in London tomorrow, likely

on the agenda, Alberta's separatism.

His majesty met with Treaty Six Chiefs last week who are concerned about the prospect

of Alberta leaving the Federation and what that could mean for their treaty rights with

the Crown.

This is the Prime Minister's third visit to the United Kingdom since becoming Prime Minister.

He is also scheduled to meet with British Prime Minister Kier's starmour on the trip.

On this visit, I'm joined by Canada's new High Commissioner to the UK, Bill Blair.

Hello, High Commissioner.

It's a pleasure to see you.

Congratulations on your new role.

Thank you very much, Fashine.

It's good to be able to chat with you again as well.

I appreciate you making the time.

I do want to start off if I could just on that private audience with the King and what

you're able to share with us about sort of the intention behind the meeting or the meeting

in general.

Well, first of all, I think the Prime Minister and the King enjoy our King, enjoy a very

good strong relationship.

Of course, our King came to deliver the phone speech for when Prime Minister Karni assumed

leadership of our country.

They are meeting again during this trip as well.

I'm sure that there are a number of items that will be discussed, but I don't have a precise

agenda for that discussion.

Understood.

And I wonder just briefly if I could ask you as well, High Commissioner, and acknowledging

you're just a few days into the job, you know, following on the heels of that meeting

with the treaty chiefs, chiefs pardon me, the issue of separatism in its intersection

with the Crown.

Is that on your radar in this role at all?

Well, of course, and we're very pleased to see the Treaty Six Chiefs here in the meeting

that they had been keeping in mind the primary purpose of that visit with the Treaty Six

Chiefs.

And his majesty was to them to extend an invitation for him to attend the 150th anniversary

of the signing of Treaty Six.

We're well aware of Chief Pete's concerns that he expressed as well.

And of course, that relationship between our government and into just leadership is

critically important to us.

But again, the focus of the Treaty Six Chiefs visit to Canada was merely to extend that

invitation.

And we're very, very pleased to see that ongoing relationship.

You know, the indigenous communities have a direct and valued relationship with his majesty

and I think the meeting today was reflective of that long-standing relationship.

I want to ask you more broadly, high commissioner, about sort of the relationship between the

UK and Canada and where your rule will fit in.

And I do want to start on the issue of trade because for a number of years under the

previous government as well, being covering the possibility of a new free trade agreement

between the UK and Canada, it's definitely had hit a number of hiccups.

I remember in June, both prime ministers were saying, let's get a working group together,

figure out what the issue is, get back to the negotiating table.

They were supposed to report back by the end of the year.

I could not find that report anywhere.

I could be mistaken.

It may be exist.

But what is the hold-up in your view and how much of your role will be focused on moving

those discussions forward?

The Prime Minister has been very clear.

He's giving us strong marching orders.

You know, we're all over, not just in the United Kingdom, but right around the world.

Canada's diplomatic community is working really hard to strengthen the relationships and

the ties that we have with all of our trading partners.

And the United Kingdom is one of our longest standing and most important trading partners

anywhere.

And so the Prime Minister, as you mentioned, the two prime ministers met in June of last

year.

They gave that direction to our trade commissions, had been working really hard in working

through it.

99% of all of the trade between Canada and the United Kingdom is tear free.

And just in 2025, and over the past year, we've seen a 63% increase in trade between

our two countries.

It's a very significant part of it.

It supports over 170,000 jobs in Canada, over 190,000 jobs here in the United Kingdom.

It's a very important relationship to us.

There are some small issues still to be resolved, but I believe that the conversation that

the Prime Minister is going to be having with Prime Minister Starmer on Monday will give

it an opportunity to continue to advance those discussions.

I think we'll also give a very clear signal to us.

Those of us who are responsible for delivering on the Prime Minister's promise is to the

direction that we need to go in.

I think it's a very strong step forward in the progress of those discussions.

If I could ask you bluntly, do you anticipate that there will be formal negotiations that

happen again?

Because it has been now a number of years since the British, they were the ones that walked

away.

I take your point about the issues.

On the face of it, compared to other trade deals, I'm actually surprised at the degree

to which it's ground things to the halt.

You're looking at more dairy access for the UK, but they had it before, so it would kind

of just be restoring it, and then also the problem of, there's been no beef that's being

allowed, Canadian beef, into the UK.

On the face of it, and I'm no expert, but that doesn't seem insurmountable compared to

issues that we have with other countries, so do you anticipate that there will be formal

negotiations soon?

Well, there are discussions taking place between our two countries, but under the trade continuity

agreement, that was put in place after the United Kingdom left the European Union, and

those discussions did take place because there were certain commitments and agreements

in place that needed to be replaced.

So that work has as begun.

The Prime Minister and Prime Minister Starmer gave a very clear direction about the next

step of those discussions.

In addition, there's also legislation that our government just introduced before the

House in order to allow the United Kingdom to get involved in the CTP, I'll forget the

acronym here.

That's okay.

CPTPP, I always get it wrong as well.

But all of that work, I think, is demonstration of real progress that we're making, and there

are a number of issues that are still very much between us.

You mentioned issues around a boundary and beef, but there's rules of origin.

There are a number of important discussions that will take place, and if it requires a more

formal discussion and agreement, I'm sure we'll work to that, but I believe that we're

already very well positioned to move forward in those discussions.

As I said, the United Kingdom is already one of our most significant and important trading

partners, and we see real opportunity, Vashi, to continue to grow that relationship, and

it's not just in trade, but also in direct investment in two countries, the movement of capital

between our two countries.

We, there are also other discussions taking place with respect to defense procurement

and collaboration between our two countries.

I think there are limitless opportunities for us to continue to grow the relationship

between us.

It's one of our most longstanding, most trusted and reliable partnerships around the world,

but we see real opportunity to continue to grow, and certainly that's one of the focuses

I hope to bring to this job, and to continue on the excellent work that was done by my

predecessor, High Commissioner Goodall, in advancing those trade discussions, we've got

great teams here, and the work is moving at pace.

And certainly, I understand all that you just said, I guess I ask about the formal nature

of it, because while that provisional agreement does apply, there has been nothing on the

face of it to advance towards the original intended objective, which was a new free trade

agreement that wasn't just provisional in nature.

And so I discern from what you're saying that that could be the case, eventually, but

it's, there's nothing explicit at this point yet.

Well, in fact, I believe that the conversation that our two prime ministers will have on

Monday morning will continue to advance those discussions.

All of us take our marching orders from our respective prime ministers in this matter,

and I think they've been very clear of what the goal of our two nations is to come to

a stronger relationship.

There are some, I wouldn't refer to the message as irritants, but impediments still to completing

that.

I mark the fact that 99% of the trade between our two countries is, in fact, terror-free.

There are a number of issues that both countries are still pursuing, and I believe when we

complete that, then we'll be able to remove those impediments and move forward together.

Just one final question for you, High Commissioner.

Just given all of your time overseeing defense in this country, you mentioned the potential

for defense cooperation, I know there's been a number of discussion around the defense

industry and sort of opportunities there.

Is there something that you could isolate for our audience, for Canadians watching now

that you know very clearly coming into this job is an objective in that space for you?

A couple of priorities that are very clear Canada has a very strong interest.

We're investing much more significantly in defense, but also through our industrial strategy

investing in our own industries.

We think that there are a number of opportunities, and I know we'll form part of the discussion

between our two prime ministers on the defense security and resilience bank.

It's an initiative that Canada is strongly supportive of, and there are ongoing discussions

with our friends in the United Kingdom, and the second issue is on the Global Combat

and Air Program that's a program that already exists with between the United Kingdom, Japan

and others and Italy, and Canada is as our new defense minister just articulated today.

It's interested in continuing and perhaps exploring the possibility of being part of those discussions.

So I think there are, again, there are many important areas of discussion between our two countries.

Canada has a very strong interest and great capability in issues around critical mineral

on AI and quantum computing, and we believe that through the pursuit of stronger partnerships

between our defense industries, there's opportunities for growth and prosperity in both of our countries.

Okay, I'm going to leave it on that note.

Hi, Commissioner, I appreciate your time as always.

Thank you very much.

Always special.

Good to see you again.

Good to see you too.

That is, hi, Commissioner, to the UK brand new, hi, Commissioner, to the UK build layer.

When we come back, the three things I'll be watching for next week.

Stay right there.

If you look at the performance of the labor market over the course of the last six months,

we've created over 80,000 jobs net over the last six months.

The United States has created 6,000 jobs.

Okay, the United States 11 times the size of our economy.

Prime Minister there, defending his economic record after the Canadian economy,

according to Statistics Canada late last week, shed 84,000 jobs in the month of February.

That's against what analysts expected.

They thought the economy would gain 10,000 jobs.

It's part of why the three things I'm watching for this week are mostly about the economy.

First of all, Monday, we're going to find out what the rate of inflation was for the same month for February.

And that will help bleed into what we hear Wednesday from the Bank of Canada.

When we anticipate they will deliver one of their interest rate announcements.

This will be fascinating to watch.

Maybe the announcement won't reflect the inflation shock around oil prices,

but we'll be looking to hear from the governor about how he thinks it might impact

the interest rates going forward this year.

And then finally, on the politics side, Pierre Pauliev is in the United States,

so we're looking to see how that trip goes.

I'm going to leave question period there.

I'm Bashikapelos.

Thanks so much for watching.

I look forward to seeing you tomorrow on Powerplay.