The Agenda with Steve Paikin (Audio) - Is a Full-scale War Brewing in The Middle East?

Episode Date: October 12, 2024

The Agenda's week in review features a look at the Robinson Huron Treaties settlement, the Rogers takeover of Toronto sports, a possible all-out war in the Middle East, and a rise in youth violence in Ontario.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

You know what, it might be helpful at this point if we just brought up a map so we can show everybody what part of the world we're talking about. And for those who are listening on podcast and can't see this, let's just talk about what we're looking at right now. On one side, the highlighted Robinson Superior Treaty region. On the other side, the region where the Robinson Huron Treaty nations are located. And this wraps really north of Lake Superior, right around to, if you think of Lake Superior as a wolf's head, right past the eye of the wolf's head, then coming south and east and really covering a significant

swath of territory east of Lake Huron as well. Chief Bell, maybe I could ask you, why is this land considered so valuable to First Nations in this province? So good evening, everyone. Thank you for inviting me to this panel. And I could say as recently elected chief in my position for one calendar year, that this area, this land, and actually the whole country has been very sacred to and it is people since time immemorial. And having a father who was in his 90s and share and provided the understanding of the stewardship that we all have for the land, that is I think what is so important for people.

We either, although treaties were signed, we are still responsible to ensure that the land is being kept sacred and is going to stay as pristine as possible that it can over time in a memorial act. It was actually back in July that the Supreme Court of Canada made a decision regarding the Robinson Superior Treaty. And here's part of what the court said in its decision. Today, in what can only be described as a mockery of the Crown's treaty promise to the Anishinaabe of the Upper Great Lakes, the annuities are distributed to individual treaty beneficiaries by giving them $4 each. For almost a century and a half, the Anishinaabe have been left with an empty shell of a treaty promise.

Given the long-standing and egregious nature of the Crown's breach, a declaration alone will not help repair the treaty relationship or restore the Crown's honor. Duke Peltier, that's some pretty tough language from the Supreme Court of Canada. How do you react to it? Well, I think it's something that we expected the Supreme

Court to really challenge the federal and provincial governments on their approach to honoring the treaty promises themselves. I think it's been very clear that the Vinnishnavi peoples have been carrying the burden of treaty for over a century and it's just now that the courts that we have to use these colonial systems to actually convince and compel the Crowns to get back to the table and treat the treaty responsibilities with honor and respect. Harley, I'd like to get your reaction too. When you read that from the Supreme Court of Canada, how did you react? Well, it was a recognition that was long overdue. It was a recognition that I was glad to see because my hope is it'll spur on some real action by the Crowns to make good on the promise.

David, it does not seem to have done so yet. In fact, the government of Ontario appealed the first two stages of the trial and then filed an appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada a couple of years ago. Did you expect them to do that every step of the way? Well, it's important to note that Canada didn't appeal, Ontario did appeal. And it was unfortunate really that Ontario didn't take the occasion at least even with the initial decision from the trial court, Justice Hennessy, to undertake good faith negotiations. But that's been a bit of the history of the Crown over the years to be somewhat adversarial.

We're hoping, as Mr. Dracter has indicated, that the Crown will change its tune now that the decision has been delivered by the highest court in the land, that the Crown needs to act more honorably, particularly with regard to these treaties, but with regard to these treaties, but with regard to treaties across the country. Let me get on that as well.

Many states are sending claims. Yeah, Duke, let me get you. How disappointed are you that the Ontario government has basically appealed every step of the way? Well, I think the provincial government itself has clearly taken a legal approach. I think that we've heard a lot of great things from both levels of government coming out of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples reports. However, as noted, some of the action is a lot slower than we would like, but we do know that on a political perspective, I believe that some of the leaders there truly do want to do

something and have put forward an offer to truly sit down in a council fire. So we're hoping that the action is a little bit more meaningful and a little bit more quicker. quicker. We want to remind everybody here of what Rogers did not too long ago to become the undisputed kings of the Toronto sports scene. Here we go. They spent $4.7 billion to buy out Bell's 37.5% stake in Maple Leaf Sports and Entertainment. They now own 75% of MLSC and that of course means Leafs, Raptors, Toronto FC, Argonauts, Marlies, don't forget Scotiabank Arena,

NBA TV and they already own the Blue Jays and the Rogers Center. So they own everything basically. Okay Alexandra start us off tell us why this deal made sense for Rogers. Well as you've mentioned since they already own the Blue Jays they're now essentially consolidating their ownership position in all of the city's most valuable sports franchises and so what that could mean is potentially in the future they could spin those properties out through an IPO and then perhaps actually see the value of some of those sports teams reflected in their own stock price.

Barbara, what would you add to that about why this makes sense for Rogers? Well, that was a pretty complete answer. I think that is why they went for it. They've owned the Toronto Blue Jays though for some 20 plus years and I think that is really key. They never really feel that they got recognition for owning that sports franchise in their share price and doing this deal will, as Alex said, consolidate those teams and sort of hopefully surface that value. So at the end of the day it's about improving the share price of Rogers. Well I think

everything Rogers does, bottom line, is probably about improving their share. I'm not saying that critically, I'm saying that that's not a love of hockey or love of basketball or whatever. Well, I think they clearly showed that they had some interest in sports in 2000. And it's a way of they've just sort of struggled to get recognition for that. So you don't want to own something

that is not being recognized. You want sort of the sum to be worth, you know, at least the parts. Gotcha. Tim, how about you? Well, I mean, with this deal, they'll have a sports monopoly on, with Toronto, but then also it's important to keep in mind that the Toronto Blue Jays and the Toronto Raptors

are Canada's only representation in those professional sport leagues. So the region is actually the entire country with those particular teams. I think one other thing is that there's been escalating broadcast deals and I think they're assuming with this deal that it's going to continue to escalate in terms of the financial sort of decision making behind this deal. We do have to remember that.

We sometimes get tunnel vision sitting here in the province of Ontario that there are lots of Blue Jays fans in British Columbia. And when the Blue Jays are in Seattle, they descend on the place and they make Seattle a home game for the Toronto Blue Jays. So yeah, their region is not Toronto and environs, it's the whole country, isn't it? It's very true. I've been one of those fans that's actually seen a game in Seattle when Toronto is playing and it's kind of amusing to see because Seattle will if their pitchers throwing the first base to the hold a runner the crowd starts booing you know the Seattle team. So it's a bit of a home game for the Blue Jays. Very much so. Even when it's in a different country. That's really quite funny. Okay other side of the coin

obviously Rogers had a willing partner in Bell which needed to sell. It's 37.5% stake of MLSC. Why did they, Bell, do that? Yeah, so need is a strong word but they certainly were incentivized to sell because of course Bell has a lot of debt they've borrowed in order to build out 5G, build out fiber in their copper territory and so they so they have a lot of debt on the balance sheet, and doing this allows them to pay down some of that debt in a time when we have still elevated interest rates. And the alternative, which is cutting the dividend, is simply not an option for Bell

because they're so widely held as a dividend stock. Can I get you on that, Barbara? Was Bell ever really in danger of reducing the dividend in order to deal with its other financial issues? Well they did get busted down to just I think a notch above junk status on some of their bonds so that's pretty serious for a corporation and so I think I'm not sure how quickly the dividend would have been in danger but that's not a good sign so and they have been making a habit of getting rid of some of their non-core assets. So this fits with that, the timing.

Rogers probably saw that and the timing was good. Besma to you first. Even before the incursion into Lebanon by Israel, there were concerns in Israel that Hamas had really stretched the Israeli military pretty thinly. The economy in Israel is facing some sharp challenges. There are protests in Israel to bring the hostages home. In your view, to what extent can Israel take on a second front in this war in its north against Hezbollah in Lebanon? Well, it's all a matter of at what cost. I mean, can it is a bigger question, but really it's a matter of at what cost.

And I think there's a lot of worrying signs here, you know, especially after Netanyahu last night said something I think that really stood out. It was effectively a warning to the Lebanese people saying, you know, get rid of Hezbollah or you will become like Gaza. And I can't help but feel that today Lebanese are waking up to feeling that this was a threat. And again, it may not have been meant that way, but it surely was perceived that way. And that is really ominous. So it's all about at what cost. I mean, if he is foreboding what, you know,

what happened in Gaza to happen in Lebanon, and we've only had a million people displaced in Lebanon. We know that people in Gaza have been displaced many times, I think at this point, 10 times for some people. We're looking at 41,000 dead in Gaza already. Is that the cost? Are we talking about the reality that we have 66% of all buildings in Gaza destroyed? Is that the cost? I mean, it all has to be part of this broader conversation about Netanyahu has constantly talked about tactics, but has never had a strategy. This is not going to decapitate or bring the end of these organizations. There will be a new leader brought forward. And yes, they've gotten through a number of leaders of Hezbollah. But is Hezbollah over? It's not over.

It's a deep, deep organization. I don't think you can say by removing its leader, just like Hassan Nasrallah's previous predecessor, who was removed and he came in force, it's just going to continue. Because there's a core element of this issue, which is they're there to fight the reality that Israel continues in occupation, both in Gaza and in the West Bank.

And that is the broader issue at hand that unfortunately no political leaders are investing in, and Netanyahu has a personal, personal political interest in this war continuing, which is the really sad reality. I gather you're referring to the fact that if the war ends, suddenly he's under charges on corruption, and therefore that process goes forward. Arif, how about you? How do you see this potential second front

in a full-blown Middle Eastern war? Yeah, look, I think Besma's right. I think Israel is perfectly capable of having a two-front war. But the question is the cost. And the question is, will this destroy Hamas and Hezbollah for good? And I think you don't destroy these types of organizations

in the war. You actually destroy them in the peace. And what I mean by that is they will not come back. The ideology will fade if in peacetime there's actually a reconstruction and a real change on the ground. Well, that raises the question about whether there is a partner for peace at the moment. Well, I think it's very difficult. It's very difficult first because Prime Minister Netanyahu has not laid out his objectives. We know his sort of war fighting objectives but we don't know

what is expected at the end. And I think that is the problem that Israelis will face because once the war stops and I think it will and I think that there is a timeline for that. I've said previously I think Prime Minister Netanyahu is trying to establish as many facts on the ground as possible before the November 5th election in the United States. Regardless of who wins, I think Prime Minister Netanyahu wants to have established as much as he can in terms of territory. So I think that's a timeline. We'll come back to that international angle in a second, the American angle on that as it were. Let me ask the question from the other side of the coin to you, John, and that is,

Hezbollah has for about a year been lobbing bombs into northern Israel. It's resulted in 50,000 or more Israelis having to flee from their homes because their government can't ensure their security. What exactly do we expect Israel to do under those circumstances? Well, it's a good question. security. What exactly do we expect Israel to do under those circumstances? Well, it's a good question. I agree with both Bessma and Arif that there's a problem of tactics versus strategy. On the other hand, Israel has to defend its people. The question is how do they go about doing it? Yes, they had to respond to October 7th. The Americans told them to do it one way.

Don't repeat what we did in Iraq and Afghanistan. Targeted. Don't alienate the people. This is the Youth Crime Severity Index in Ontario from 2003 to 2023 based on the Uniform Crime Reporting Survey. The Crime Severity Index is a tool that takes into account the amount of crime that's happening and the severity of it. Here, in terms of youth crime in Ontario, we can see a steady decrease in the early 2000s and 2010s, but there, just at 2021, you can see a spike.

Now, looking specifically at youth violent crime, there was less of a reduction over the past 20 years and some clear recent spikes. Lena, I'm going to come to you looking at that data. How do you react to those trends? So from 2004, we saw a huge decline, like 60, 65, 67% decline. 67% decline. But then what we saw is in 2021, we start to see an upward spike a bit. 6%, I think, what we're finding is that it's

more accused of a violent crime. But it is going up. And we need to be cautious of that. And we need to be watching it. Do we know why? There's lots of reasons why. I think the pandemic had a major impact. We had kids being isolated.

They weren't, they were, you know, kids are, we're social beings. And so here they are isolated. They're not going to school in person. And their social world is at home. That's all they're doing. And so I think what we've seen is parents reported that up to almost 80% of parents reporting that their kids' behaviour was getting worse, especially those kids who already were

experiencing issues. And about almost 60% of those parents whose kids were not, they were seeing some major issues with their behavior. Okay, Scott, I want to talk to you. This is obviously something that you have looked at for quite a while. You worked on the Roots of Youth Violence Inquiry in 2008. Has anything changed since? Is this data concerning? Is this something that, you know, is different from what you were looking at earlier? I think the data differs significantly from public perception.

When you talk to people and when you poll the Canadian population, there tends to be this feeling that crime is out of control, that it is always increasing when, in fact, as we've seen, the long-term trends are downward with spikes of violence here and then. Any violence is of concern. Any violence needs to be dealt with and is tragic. But I think that we first of all got to address the fact that, you know, in the long-term things are actually going down. With these moral panics that are often driven by very high-profile sensationalistic cases that create public concern. That being said, there are some disturbing trends that I think we have to monitor if we're not

going to become more like the United States. We have increasing economic inequality that is often divided by racial lines. We have a shrinking middle class and a higher proportion of young people living in poverty, as well as an increasing wealthy class who is not necessarily interested with the problems that are taking place in the lower echelons of society. What we're finding is that this is creating a sense of alienation and disillusionment

among young people, that they don't feel a great deal of hope about the future and are kind of removing themselves from the mainstream and taking place in subcultures that can be conducive to illegal activity, including violence. And I think that trend we have to watch. Particularly profound is the disillusionment that we experience when we interview young people about their future. Many of them feel that they're not

going to be engaged in the mainstream economy. And interesting about youth, what we're finding is that, overall, the young offenders under 18, still a steady decline. Where we're seeing a concentration is among young people 22 to 32 who have not been able to engage in the mainstream economy. It's almost like they leave the protection of high school, they leave the protection of being youthful and becoming adult,

and they have nowhere to go. And they become increasingly frustrated and more willing to engage in the illegal economy. All right. Davon, I'll get you in on this. In terms of that recent spike that we have seen in that last chart there, what's causing that recent spike in youth violence? Yeah, I would say it's an issue that's been ongoing for some time.

And one thing about violence is the fact that it's over time. It's an evolving phenomenon. So a lot of the issues that you see playing out in today's situation were in the process from some time.