The West Block – Episode 21, Season 12 – National | 24CA News

THE WEST BLOCK

Episode 21, Season 12

Sunday, February 12, 2023

Host: Mercedes Stephenson

Guests:

Retired Gen. Thomas Lawson, Former NORAD Deputy Commander

Stephanie Levitz, The Toronto Star

Bob Fife, The Globe and Mail

Location:

Ottawa, ON

Mercedes Stephenson: Drama within the skies: an F-22 fighter jet shoots down a excessive altitude object over Yukon.

I’m Mercedes Stephenson. Welcome to The West Block.

With three shoot downs in every week over North American airspace and fighter jets scrambling each few days, what is going on above us?

And…

Stephanie Levitz, The Toronto Star: “Premier Danielle Smith from Alberta, she is no ‘bestie’ shall we say, of Justin Trudeau.”

Bob Fife, The Globe and Mail: “And now he is going after them on bail reform and he had a big win.”

Mercedes Stephenson: Our Sunday panel is right here with a crucial eye on the massive tales.

NORAD has been round for the reason that Cold War, designed to cope with Russian bombers, intercontinental ballistic missiles, and even hijack civilian plane. But for the primary time within the command’s historical past, it truly shot one thing down on Saturday, and that was what was described as a cylindrical object the dimensions of a small automotive by the Canadian defence minister. It was over Yukon, after authorities had been monitoring it floating from United States over into Canada. It was shot down about 160 kilometres from the border at 3:41 p.m. on Saturday.

Here to speak about what is going on, what we all know, and what we are able to anticipate subsequent is former retired Gen. Thom Lawson. He, after all, was our chief of the defence employees in Canada. He was the previous deputy commander of NORAD and he’s a former fighter jet pilot. Welcome to this system, Thom.

Retired Gen. Thomas Lawson, Former NORAD Deputy Commander: Thanks very a lot for having me.

Mercedes Stephenson: Thom, what do you make of the knowledge we’re getting to date about what this object might need been?

Retired Gen. Thomas Lawson, Former NORAD Deputy Commander: Well, you recognize, it does seem that it’s, in any kind of army sense, fully non-threatening. It doesn’t carry a payload that threatens life or limb and subsequently, it’s extra of a set object, the dimensions of a small automotive as you talked about. That may play into an intelligence lengthy sport, however actually little or no menace in a standard army sense, anyway. Really, it turns into a part of this barrage of balloons that’s coming from someplace west of right here.   

Mercedes Stephenson: We did hear the defence minister describe it as being just like the article that was shot down off the coast of North Carolina. That was a balloon. Gen. Eyre truly did name it a balloon final evening. Tell us what the shoot down course of appears to be like like, from the selections which might be being made on the political degree and at NORAD headquarters in Colorado Springs, to these fighter jet pilots who’re truly within the air with eyes on this.  

Retired Gen. Thomas Lawson, Former NORAD Deputy Commander: Right. So that is a part of the envelope for NORAD. All of the sensors trying outwards and upwards, principally tweaked and optimized over a long time and a long time of historical past for sooner shifting objects, however however in a position to obtain bounced vitality off of balloons, would see this factor in some unspecified time in the future off of the continental coast and begin to monitor it. If they don’t see it there, then it may be missed and seen over continental territory. But as soon as it’s seen and monitored, NORAD headquarters and decision-makers go right into a full course of to find out what the menace is, each within the short-term and long-term what the menace is to civilian air visitors, after which begin to deliver the elected officers and decision-makers into the method. So this all would have been happening yesterday, forward of the shoot down yesterday afternoon. 

Mercedes Stephenson: How onerous is it in case you are a C-18 pilot or an F-22 pilot, to shoot down a balloon?   

Retired Gen. Thomas Lawson, Former NORAD Deputy Commander: Yeah. It sounds prefer it needs to be straightforward. It’s not. If anybody’s had the chance to hearken to the radio transmission from the sequence of fighter jets that took down the primary balloon just a few days in the past off North Carolina’s shoreline, it’s fairly an intricate course of and it’s difficult by the truth that many of the weaponry that’s carried by our fighters is optimized for fast-moving issues. This doesn’t—actually the mylar and the helium doesn’t present any returns on radars, and it doesn’t actually have a warmth signature both, which many of the missiles require. So it might require one among these very trendy missiles. I used to be considering of a number of the missiles that I used to make use of once I was flying fighters, you recognize, a long time in the past. I don’t assume I might have had an opportunity to take down one thing above 40 thousand ft. So, I, not like many Canadians and Americans, I’m fairly impressed that they had been in a position to take this down. Not solely this one, however the different two, I believe is affirmation of the expertise that’s been constructed into newer missiles.  

Mercedes Stephenson: Not as straightforward because it sounds. I need to ask you about the truth that this was an American F-22 and also you had the president saying he licensed that. I’ve seen loads of response from Canadians who had been saying why wasn’t this a Canadian pilot? Do we have to fear? Is this as a result of we’re not able to doing it on our personal? Is this an instance of NORAD working because it ought to, the place you’ll be able to have planes on both aspect of the border? Or ought to individuals be involved that this was an American jet that shot it down?

Retired Gen. Thomas Lawson, Former NORAD Deputy Commander: Well to begin with, I’ve to say that as a Canadian boy, I want it had of been a Canadian pilot who shot it down. I’m positive the Canadian pilots who had been racing up there over the Yukon had been hoping they’d get there first, too. But past that, no. This truly is important and symbolic of the energy of the NORAD Agreement, to my information, nonetheless, the one bi-national settlement on this planet. There are all types of bilateral agreements, commerce agreements and such, the place the companions preserve their sovereignty, however the clear and current hazard there was round that Russia introduced again within the late 50s when NORAD began, blew all of these issues away. Let’s not see territory as Canadian or American. Let’s actually hone the choice course of so we don’t have to fret about whose plane is used, whose missiles are used and all of that also stands at the moment in 2023. So as soon as NORAD assessors and analysts move all of this info on up the chain to the president and prime minister, they usually present, on this case prime minister, supplies the authority to shoot this factor down, the commander of NORAD, who by the best way is all the time American. Deputy commander, the function I had some years in the past, all the time Canadian. They actually don’t see the fabric as being American or Canadian. They don’t see the territory as being American or Canadian. Once given the order, they use their finest property and the primary ones on web site to take the photographs. And that is what occurred yesterday. 

Mercedes Stephenson: Yeah, listening to from loads of army sources that this was truly textbook NORAD, the place each international locations had been in a position to function collectively and it permits Canada to have extra entry to extra sources whereas sustaining our sovereignty as a result of we make the ultimate name on what’s going to occur over our territory simply because the Americans do. You know, NORAD has launched some info, the commander of NORAD who can be the commander of North Com., about balloons previously. They’ve been digging again by means of their data and it’s clear this was not the primary time. How, Thom, do they search for extra balloons on the belief that there could possibly be extra on the market? 

Retired Gen. Thomas Lawson, Former NORAD Deputy Commander: Yeah, I assumed this was a exceptional piece of knowledge that the NORAD commander gave us. Certainly, he would have thought of the results of passing this on, the truth that balloons at the moment are decided to have handed over continental U.SA. Perhaps Canada previously, so far as years in the past with the politicization of all the pieces within the states, this then turned a method to embarrass, I assume, the Trump administration. But extra to the purpose, what he was saying was—I believe the sensors by the best way had not been upgraded in recent times. That’s one thing that’s going to occur sooner or later. Canada and United States most likely will see an acceleration because of a few of this. But I believe what has occurred is that a number of the indications they now see had been there. Indications that they didn’t assign to something weren’t in a position to acknowledge as balloons at the moment are seen as balloons in not less than a number of instances. Three because the commander was saying. So I believe what they’ve finished is that they most likely upgraded the info processing with an eye fixed to seeing if this has occurred previously.

Mercedes Stephenson: They in a few instances left these balloons up for lots longer than we knew about them. I realized about this one yesterday afternoon. They knew about it for lots longer than I did, as regular. People are saying why are they not capturing it down, instantly? Is there some kind of a worth in letting it look ahead to intelligence? Are they ready till it’s over a protected space? Obviously within the North, that is likely to be just a little bit simpler than over, you recognize, the United States. But I’m curious to know if there’s some kind of a bonus to them watching it for some time as a substitute of simply taking it down instantly?  

Retired Gen. Thomas Lawson, Former NORAD Deputy Commander: Yeah, completely proper. So it could anger some individuals. It could excite some individuals to know that North American intelligence companies fed by all types of organizations, together with the army, know numerous issues that the typical civilian doesn’t know in Canada or the United States, and as long as our elected officers are rooting by means of this information earlier than and afterwards, they’ll assist make selections to our greatest profit and in loads of instances, some of these items ought to stay secret. So on this case, to your level, the balloon was allowed—this balloon and others—had been allowed to sail freely within the stratosphere over prime of North American territory with the concept, I believe, that the Chinese wouldn’t understand it has been detected, or whoever owns these objects which might be flying over. And that permits different sensors: CP-140s, the Aurora, the U-2 the Americans had up close to this one, to truly collect…

Mercedes Stephenson: Okay. Thom…

Retired Gen. Thomas Lawson, Former NORAD Deputy Commander: …or intercept the alerts going from the balloon up into house: satellite tv for pc and going again to China or wherever and acquire information and reverse engineer. So sure, it may be very invaluable to observe these items. 

Mercedes Stephenson: That’s tremendous fascinating. I’m so sorry that we’ve got to leap in there, as a result of we’re out of time. But thanks a lot for sharing your experience with us and we’ll learn how many extra of those balloons there are. 

After the break, our politics panel is right here to speak about all the pieces from bail reform to that new well being care deal. Stay with us.  

[Break]

Mercedes Stephenson: There has been loads of political response to the prime minister’s well being care announcement, but it surely looks as if the one consensus from the opposition leaders is that it’s not ok.

Jagmeet Singh, NDP Leader: “There is no clear path here. There’s no clear plan to hire more health care workers and that means it is a failure.” 

Pierre Poilievre, Opposition Leader: “He had money for the WE Charity, $54 million for the useless and broken ArriveCAN app, over $100 million for the McKinsey high-priced consultants, but he doesn’t have enough money for health care.”

Mercedes Stephenson: Joining me now to debate the politics of this deal and a number of the different scorching button points on the Hill this week is our panel: The Globe and Mail’s bureau chief Robert Fife; and Stephanie Levitz from The Toronto Star.

There was a lot hype round this well being care deal. Everyone thought the massive spending Liberals had been going to return out with the cash gun, make everyone pleased and that doesn’t appear to be what occurred. Bob, what’s their technique right here?

Bob Fife, The Globe and Mail: Well I’ve had loads of Liberal MPs coming as much as me and saying, “Why were they spinning you about the fact that there’s going to be all this money when it’s just the Liberal party’s campaign commitment of $46 billion?” And it didn’t make loads of sense as a result of they—everyone was assuming, together with the premiers—that there was going to be a giant, massive pile of cash on the desk for well being care. And it’s a big amount of cash, let’s not idiot ourselves. But it’s nowhere close to what they pretended that it was going to be. So lots of people had been dissatisfied, together with the premiers about that. But look, they’re all going to just accept the cash. I don’t assume there’s going to be loads of complaining about it when the premiers meet on Monday. They’ll come out and say, “It’s not enough” however on stability, they’re going to take the cash and run.

Mercedes Stephenson: Steph, what’s the technique in that to you? Because the Liberals don’t seem to be they’re afraid of spending, usually. And well being care is a giant problem. It’s a difficulty persons are upset about. They need to see modifications. And then there was kind of this fiscal limitation all of a sudden on the Liberals. Why on well being care?

Stephanie Levitz, The Toronto Star: Well, I imply, to 1—for peculiar individuals, they see this large sum of cash they usually assume, “Okay, how is that going to help me get a family doctor tomorrow?” And the reply is that it isn’t. And I believe maybe the Liberals are inching in direction of, and possibly our nation is inching in direction of a a lot larger debate of how we repair our well being care system past throwing pots of cash at it. And let’s recall that that was a part of the sticking level initially, between the premiers and the prime minister having the ability to arrive at some form of well being care funding deal. The federal authorities needed strings connected. They needed circumstances. They needed sure issues. The premiers had been very, very immune to that concept they usually received themselves to a spot the place they may say, “Okay, we need to have some shared priorities.” So I assume in sum, what it’s: Why preserve throwing pots of cash at a damaged system? And how do you find yourself having a dialog that claims, “We acknowledge these things are broken. These are what we’re going to fix and this is the money we need to fix them.”

Mercedes Stephenson: And it appeared…

Bob Fife, The Globe and Mail: But there’s something good about these bilateral agreements. Rather than giving the provinces a complete lot of cash, with an escalator clause that they’ll spend wherever they need. The federal authorities is saying, “We’ll give you $25 billion, but it’s got to go to specific things, which we will negotiate with each province because each province has a particular need, whether it’s primary care in Ontario or long-term care facilities or home care. Ottawa can now—we now know that money will go to those specific needs and each particular province and that’s a good thing. Also good from the federal government’s perspective is there’s no escalator clause in that. So it’s just one-time payment of money. They’re not going to have to have, say, if inflation is up a 9.5 increase every year. So that, from their point of view, is good. And a lot of economists were as surprised as you were about the fact that there wasn’t a lot of money. But from a fiscal standpoint, it’s a good thing because our deficit isn’t going to go skyrocketing up. It’s actually inching downwards. .

Mercedes Stephenson: Steph, we were saying, you know, the premiers are unlikely to say no to this, but is there a united front there? Or has the government kind of with these bilateral offers, managed to split them off a little bit and be able to have really cash-strapped provinces who need to say yes?

Stephanie Levitz, The Toronto Star: Well I think to some degree, perhaps there can’t be a united front because as Bob so accurately pointed out, different provinces have different needs. They have different demands, different weaknesses baked into their own system. So it seems to me, a proper functioning of federalism when it’s not just one policy for everybody, but there is some targeted arrangement for the cash. I wonder amongst the premiers, though, the fact that Doug Ford was sort of the one who seemed to break the logjam to signal that he’d be willing to put—have some conditions put on the money, that he was more open to sort of more direction from the federal government, how that plays amongst his premier colleagues. I mean, you know, Premier Danielle Smith from Alberta, she is no ‘bestie’ shall we say, of Justin Trudeau. Nor does she want to Justin Trudeau’s ‘bestie’. But how does she play her role amongst the premiers? Is she going to be the one who screams and stands up and demands more? Is she the one who says, “Let’s all get along?” So there are some provincial dynamics there which might be fascinating because it pertains to the connection with the federal authorities. But on the finish of the day, as we each all mentioned, they’re not going to not take the cash.

Mercedes Stephenson: Let’s discuss bail reform, one other massive subject over the previous couple of weeks, together with Pierre Poilievre, Conservative chief, got here out along with his proposal. Bob, what did you make of what Mr. Poilievre needed to say on bail reform? 

Bob Fife, The Globe and Mail: Well, Mr. Poilievre has already had success in becoming a member of with Indigenous teams and farmers and hunters, and getting the federal authorities to tug again their gun laws. And now he’s going after them on bail reform, and he had a giant win as a result of sure, on Thursday, the premiers wrote unanimously a letter to the justice minister saying, “We want you to immediately reform the bail legislation in this country.” And the justice minister mentioned, “Okay, I have to seriously look at this.” And so Poilievre’s going to have the ability to rise up and say, “See, we won this for you.” Because what the premiers need is to have a reverse onus, which implies that when you’re a man who’s been concerned in violent crimes with weapons, then the onus have to be on you to have the ability to clarify to the bail hearings why you must have the ability to get out, not the opposite approach round. Because the best way the legislation is now, the laws is you could get out very simply, as early as doable, circumstances to get out, which is why we’re seeing loads of these situations the place persons are getting out after which committing violent acts. So, Mr. Poilievre is definitely onto a superb factor right here, and clearly, the premiers are too. And the federal government goes to have to maneuver on this.   

Mercedes Stephenson: Steph, what’s your tackle it? 

Stephanie Levitz, The Toronto Star: So I’m going to choose up one thing that Bob mentioned about it being a win for Pierre Poilievre, as a result of the gun problem is such a delicate political debate on this nation and what tends to occur is that each time the Liberals attempt to tighten gun rules, the Conservatives rise up they usually discuss not taking away from the skills of hunters and others to, you recognize, fish—I’m sorry—and to hunt, clearly. And then the Liberals will come again and say, “Oh, you know, you’re crime and da, da, da, da, da.” But what Pierre Poilievre has managed to do right here is say, “Oh. You say,” the Liberals, “that you’d like to protect and keep people safe? Then fix bail reform.” Right? He has gotten, lastly a parry that he can throw proper again of their face after they say that their gun laws, they usually need to make individuals safer. Well right here’s one other approach you may be making individuals safer and also you’re selecting to not do it. So as a result of he has the premiers behind him on this one, as a result of he has members of the authorized career behind him on this one, it makes it a extra salient political argument and extra of a political win for him as a result of it’s not about terrifying those who the Conservatives need armed weapons on each road nook in Canada, which is what the Liberals are inclined to argue. 

Bob Fife, The Globe and Mail: Yeah, and you recognize, the Liberals, when the House got here again, they needed to be on the sport. They thought, “Okay, we’ll have this big health care accord,” however first they had been knocked again on their ft by having to withdraw the laws on weapons. And then they overhyped the well being care spending commitments that they made with the premiers, in order that they haven’t actually benefitted from that and now they’re on bail reform, the place they’re having to backtrack on that, too. So who is aware of what’s going to occur this week after they’re going to must be some backpedalling.

Mercedes Stephenson: They have some NATO conferences the place there’s going to be questions on spending, and a NATO member, after all, is Turkey and there was that horrific earth quake in Turkey and Syria that has killed hundreds and hundreds of individuals. Steph, that’s a weirdly muted response from the federal authorities. They didn’t step up and supply massive quantities of matching assist. They are doubtlessly deploying DART, the army catastrophe response workforce, however they’re nonetheless figuring that out. It hasn’t even deployed since 2015. Did this strike you as unusual in comparison with their regular response to worldwide disaster? 

Stephanie Levitz, The Toronto Star: It did appear sluggish. It did appear—I imply, I assume it’s a tragic actuality of the instances that we’re in that these crises, particularly issues like earthquakes and different pure disasters have gotten extra commonplace world wide and it appears as if, as cynical as this may occasionally sound, there’s a template that’s obtainable for presidency response. There are a sequence of issues they typically do. They do them rapidly. This one didn’t really feel prefer it moved as rapidly as regular. And then, you recognize, because it pertains to the army element, deploying DART, that was one the place once more, we discover ourselves asking this existential query: What is our army for, proper? I imply, we’ve got all these numerous parts of it and it appears as if each time we’re referred to as upon to deploy or to help utilizing a element of our army, it ends in dithering. It ends in questions on properly, if we try this, then we’re not going to have the ability to do that. And what about this? And we should all the time be prepared. If we should all the time be prepared, what are we all the time prepared for, if when one thing occurs, we don’t do something?

Mercedes Stephenson: And you’ve the chief of defence employees saying actually, loads of the time we is likely to be prepared.

Bob Fife, The Globe and Mail: Look, it is a no-brainer. We have DART. It’s been—everywhere in the world, it’s been very, very profitable. Countries are actually appreciative of us once we ship the DART workforce. And we didn’t ship it. Now we’re nonetheless speaking about it. You know, over 20 thousand persons are lifeless. We ought to have been there proper from the get-go. I don’t know whether or not this was as a result of the federal government is aggravated at Turkey as a result of they haven’t been nice on the problem of Ukraine? But regardless of the case is, it’s truly an embarrassing state of affairs for Canada. And you recognize, an increasing number of, we’re turning into relegated to a bit-player. When the president meets with world leaders, it’s typically like 4 or 5 of our 5 eyes individuals, however not Canada. Often, it’s simply three individuals. So we’re not being invited to the desk very a lot. And, you recognize, I believe, we, as Canadians, needs to be anxious about that, that we aren’t being taken severely anymore on a complete vary of points as a result of we all the time have previously been gamers.  .

Mercedes Stephenson: Certainly eyebrow elevating and Canadians like to consider our nation that approach. That’s on a regular basis we’ve got for at the moment, for our politics panel. Thank you each for becoming a member of us. We’ll see you once more, quickly.

Bob Fife, The Globe and Mail: Thank you.

Stephanie Levitz, The Toronto Star: Thanks Mercedes.

Mercedes Stephenson: Up subsequent, what I’m watching. An vital NATO defence assembly forward on the one-year anniversary of Russia’s warfare with Ukraine.

[Break]

Mercedes Stephenson: One very last thing that I’m going to be keeping track of this coming week: NATO conferences with defence ministers from throughout the alliance shall be occurring simply forward of the one-year anniversary of the warfare in Ukraine. The Ukrainian energy and stoicism has seen them overturn hypothesis that Russia would merely roll by means of Kyiv in underneath 24 hours. And NATO international locations have stepped up, escalating from powerful discuss to offering more and more highly effective weapon programs like tanks. But what is going to they do now that the Ukrainians are asking for fighter jets? Likely not an choice for Canada and there shall be massive questions on our means as a nation to ship army heft in an more and more harmful world, the place are capabilities are declining.

Thanks for hanging out this week, and I’ll see you again right here once more, subsequent Sunday.