The Bridge with Peter Mansbridge - Why Did Hamas Do It?

Episode Date: October 16, 2023

It is a very complicated question and today we have Middle East expert and friend of The Bridge, Janice Stein, to help us answer that and some other basic questions on a rapidly evolving story.  Dr Stein's expertise also involves conflict management, so how does this conflict end? Also today, the CEO of Enbridge,  Greg Ebel, on his idea to move Canadian natural gas to export markets in Europe and China.

And hello there, Peter Mansbridge here. You are just moments away from the latest episode of The Bridge. Why did Hamas do it? One of the central questions to trying to understand the latest conflict in the Middle East. That's coming up. And hello there, Peter Mansbridge here. Yes, it's Monday, the beginning of yet another week and the beginning of more anxiety and tension surrounding the latest developments in the Middle East. Here to try and answer some of the pressing questions is one of our favorite guests, Dr. Janice Stein

from the University of Toronto, specifically from the Munk School, where she is a founding director. She's also a Middle East expert who's relied upon by many different, not only news organizations, but governments, not only in North America, but literally around the world. Janice has her finger on the pulse of a lot of different issues. Middle East is one that she is clearly extremely interested in. Later this week, she'll be in Washington as part of her consulting and advising on issues surrounding the Middle East, and in particular, obviously, the situation in Israel and Gaza right now.

So we're going to talk to Janice. In fact, I talked to her yesterday, so keep that in mind. For this discussion, though, is mainly not about what's happening in this moment, but what's happened over the last week and trying to put some of the issues in context. Later in today's program, we'll shift gears completely and deal with another issue. A very interesting article, speech in some ways, that was given by the CEO of Enbridge. We're going to talk to him about what he's proposing for Canada and for the Canadian government. But that's later. First, the Middle East. So let's get right to the discussion.

One of the things that Janice has agreed to do with us over the next little while is to basically fill in for Brian Stewart. Brian, who's been with us for the last year and a half on the Ukraine story, is writing his memoirs, and he needs time to make his publication deadline. And so we've agreed that Brian deserves a bit of a hiatus, and so he's going to get that. He'll come back if something pressing happens.

But in the meantime, and to cover us off on this Middle East story, as well as Ukraine, Janice will be joining us, hopefully on a weekly basis. All right, enough from me. Let's get to my discussion with Janice Stein. Janice, I want to start off with, I guess in some ways, it sounds like a simple question, but I know it's involved. Hamas has been attacking Israel and killing Israelis for years, but nothing to the extent of what we witnessed a week ago. Why now? Why did they do it? The why now, it's actually a complicated question, Peter. The obvious answer is the momentum

toward a Saudi-U.S.-Israel deal was building. And the key piece of that deal was a security guarantee for the United States to Saudi Arabia that the Saudis were insisting would have to be ratified by the Senate, locking in, in other words, the United States, committing it to at least consult seriously if Saudi Arabia were attacked. I think that's what really pushed the planning, which started long before, as we now know, pushed the planning over the edge into operational action.

That, I think, for the whole access that Iran is at the center of, Hezbollah, Hamas, it's built a series of alliances through the region. That was just a step too far. And they wanted to disrupt that. And they have. And they have. We should assume that that potential deal is is dead now oh yeah um look it's on life support at the very best peter and so much will depend on what the war looks like we're just on

the on the very edge of it um how extensive it will be, how much the suffering of civilians and garrisons grows, how many civilians and garrisons are killed. When that happens, it becomes absolutely politically toxic for Mohammed bin Salman to to move forward so they've suspended these negotiations officially and they will they will go into the into the refrigerator the freezer as we say until it's politically possible to do this and survive that could be a long time is that the sole upside for hamas that they've managed to put this deal on the back burner? Yeah, I think it's far more than that, Peter, because it goes without saying that there is deep Palestinian resentment against Israel and particularly against this government of Netanyahu,

which brought into the coalition a collection of far-right parties that frankly were focused on the West Bank. That's where it was for them. That was the heart of it. And they engaged in provocative activity, to put it mildly. So any Palestinian organization that pulls off, and it in a brigade backed up by 1,500 others in reserve, they broke through the barriers, stunned Israeli intelligence, were able to penetrate 30 miles inside the southern border of Israel. The army was nowhere, as we all know, for 12 hours. And so, well, and I think this is hard for people to understand.

While there are many responsible Palestinians who've come out and said killing and murder of innocent civilians, you just can't justify it there was nevertheless um a feeling um a palestinian group finally was able to pierce that invincibility of israel's military and they have there's no question they have here, seven days or seven or eight days later, we're looking at what was bound to happen. Sure, the Israelis were slow off the mark, but they eventually got their act together, and now they're, by the hundreds of thousands,

are poised around and inside Gaza. Hamas must have known that was going to be the result of what they did. So I still don't quite get it. Why would they do it knowing that was going to happen? So for sure, they knew. And when you do this kind of thing, Peter, when the violence is so graphic, so intimate, right, in any population where you experience the kind of attack that you know what the result is going to be, that country is going to mobilize every ounce of resource it has and launch back

after 9-11 in the United States. It took the Bush administration just a few months to go after bin Laden in Afghanistan and then to go after Saddam Hussein. That was a visceral impulse when you're attacked this way. So why do this? Well, the plan is incite and push Israel into a war in which thousands of Palestinian Gazans, because they are Palestinian. They live in Gaza, but they're refugees. Thousands of them are Palestinian. They live in Gaza, but they're refugees. Thousands of them are killed. There are horrible pictures of women and children killed. And push Hezbollah, which is really their closest friend and partner in the northern border, to come into the war full scale. They have 150,000 far more powerful rockets and missiles. And we saw some performative fire over the last three days. But that's the goal, to push Hamas into an all-out war. Layer on top of that an uprising in the West Bank, pull the Syrians in, and you get a region-wide war, which in Hamas's view,

and I suspect others, is the only way that they could see forward of defeating Israel. That's what the game plan is. Well, as yet, that hasn't happened, right? And you wonder, is Hamas, do you think Hamas is, you know, surprised, upset, mad that Hezbollah in the north, as you said, they're, you know, they're in Lebanon come down and there have been, there's been some active fire from Hezbollah forces into Israel, but not to the extent that one assumes Hamas is wishing for or hoping for. Do you think they're surprised that, you know, a week later that has not happened yet? I think there is an element of early disappointment. But again, the scenario for them is Hezbollah comes in only after Israel goes into Gaza. And we get the pictures that you and I both know are going to come of civilians in the streets,

dead, children dead, a million people displaced. So the test of their hypothesis will come a week from now, 10 days from now. Hezbollah had a brutal experience in southern Lebanon. Its infrastructure was destroyed in the last war with Israel. But more sobering for Hezbollah was an uprising against them by people living in southern Lebanon who said, enough is enough. This is not our fight. We don't want this fight. And it was a perilous moment for Hezbollah in Lebanon. You know, Peter, there's no government in Lebanon right now. There's a terrible economic crisis. There's an interim prime minister. So the calculation for Hezbollah is going to be, are we putting our base in jeopardy?

How serious is the risk to us? There's no doubt in anybody's mind that if Hezbollah comes in, there will be a ferocious response in the north as well as in the south. Because the whole country, Israel, as you know very well, is a very small country. And so were Hezbollah to come into this war, literally every part of the country would be subject to missile fire. Everybody would be in shelters. The economy would shut down. That would be all out war. And I don't think under those circumstances Israel's army would stop at anything. That's the dilemma for Hezbollah right now. You know, we've learned through the relatively short history of Israel to assume that Israel is always going to come out on top in these

conflicts, because it always has, eventually. I'm wondering how different we should look at this. If it turned into a two-front war within its own boundaries, the north and the south through Gaza, can Israel maintain itself with that kind of a conflict going on? You know, and the question was a really important point, Peter, so let me just pull it out before I answer your question. It is important for everybody to understand that this attack against Israel was within the green line, was within the borders that Israel,

were established by the UN, the armistice lines. So that is a chilling message inside Israel. It wasn't in the occupied territories. It wasn't in the West Bank. It was inside the Green Line. There isn't an Israel who doesn't take away from this attack. This is about, as the slogans are appearing, from the river to the sea. You know, eradicate Israel. There is no space for Israel in the Middle East. And that's, of course, consistent with Hamas's ideology.

But the fact that it happened this way has pulled literally everybody, no matter what the political divisions, into a really resolved status. This is once again, a fight. Now, how do you deal with a two front war, which has always been Israel's nightmare, and a war which is for the first time, Peter, that's what makes this different. It's a war that is taking place on the civilian territory, would take place with civilians as the home front. It's a home front war. The war in 1973 where Israel was cut so badly and was surprised just like this. It was surprised, but it was fought along the Suez Canal, and it was fought on the Golan Heights,

and the civilian front was spared. That's not true this time. It will not be spared. And so in some ways, this is the worst challenge that most severe challenges in Israel have faced since 1948-49, when the Arab army swept up from the south and came down from the north. And it was, in fact, a war fought on the home front. Could it survive?

Yes. Yes. For two reasons. And I think it's important. There will be a lot of civilian damage and civilian casualties if Hezbollah comes in because of the capacity to use missiles. Israel has a good anti-missile system, which intercepts most. People will live in shelters. There are two aircraft carriers in the Mediterranean, which is a very strong, it can't be a stronger signal

than that from the United States to Syria, to Iran, stay out. So as bad as this is, and I don't minimize it, it's the most severe challenge Israel's faced since 1948. I do think that the israeli army would prevail do you think iran a huge cause a huge cost people i mean to civilians in israel civilians and gas so civilians in southern lebanon this is a nightmare and what we're about to see do you think iran will stay out of it? I mean, they, you know, obviously that we know that they've armed Hamas and Hezbollah and they've funded them both, but they're claiming, I don't know, we didn't know about this. We didn't know this was about

to happen. And they seem to be trying to keep a distance. Do you think that will be maintained? You're reading the tea leaves correctly. It was really interesting to see Iran in the first day literally saying, oh, we didn't know about this. So that's a message, right? We don't want to get involved here. We are not prepared to wind this war into an all-out war between Israel and Iran. The United States has been, it is no accident that Tony Blinken is living in the Middle East right now, right? They are working with Qatar, with other governments. They are sending message after message after message, back-channeling, frankly, to the Iranians

with the message, don't stay out, don't stay out. All the intelligence that has leaked. And the next best country to be in if you're looking for leaks is the best. After that, Israel. And the sources have already leaked that they monitored the intercepts and the Iranians' officials, the chatter.

They were surprised the morning that it happened. So did the Iranians encourage Hamas? For sure. Were there training facilities for Hamas in Lebanon and in Syria? For sure. Where did they learn to paraglide, for example? Did Hezbollah provide support and money and training? For sure. Did the Iranians have their thumb on it? Looks like no. And that's why you got that statement, not only from Iran, but you got it from Tony Blinken too. We can find no evidence that Iran was involved. So there's a dance here between the two of them. You're not involved. Yeah, we know you're not involved. Well, if you're not involved, stay out of this. We're not involved, stay out of this. We're telling you, stay out of this.

That's the conversation that's going on now, literally nonstop. How big a gamble is it that the U.S. is taking by being so 100% on the side of Israel in a way that has never been the case before? I mean, they've always been the ally with Israel, but there's always been wiggle room on how they position themselves in a conflict. Here, there's no wiggle room. They're in, all in.

This is by far the most forthright, unambiguous support. No president has made the statements that Joe Biden made in the last week. There's no question about that, Peter. So what are the risks? The risks are manageable if the war doesn't widen, right? And really what I mean by widened there is not Hezbollah, but widened if Iran stays on the sidelines, the risks are frankly manageable. It doesn't seem credible to me that a weak, fragmented government like Syria, which has seen its own military depleted, will come in in a big way here. So if the war doesn't widen, the risks are manageable and there's a lot of upside for the United States because who's hearing these messages? The target is not the Israeli public or the Israeli government. It's the Saudis. It's the Emiratis. It's the Turks. It's the Egyptians.

It's all of those because, in fact, they had come to the conclusion that the United States had withdrawn from the Middle East, weak under Obama, and they had begun to write the United States off, layer on top of that heavy engagement in Ukraine, Indo-Pacific. What this does for good or for ill, and there are some in Washington who would say for ill, it returns the United States as the player in the region that comes in when the game gets rough. There is nobody in the Middle East who's going to miss that signal, not even the Iranians. Okay, here's your last question. When one Googles or goes into a search engine and puts down the name Dr. Janet Stein, the first thing that pops up of many things that pop up,

but the first thing that pops up is basically that you're an expert in conflict management. So we have a conflict. How's this going to end? Well, you and I have had so many conversations over the years and even in the one we had last time um as we were talking about the saudi deal yeah i said to you right this could escalate you sure do so um i am pessimistic here. I have said openly that I think it's a mistake for Israel to go all in in Gaza. I do not believe you can decapitate the Hamas leadership, despite all the rhetoric.

A chunk of those leaders are out already. They're in Qatar. They're elsewhere. They're safe. Many of them are in already. They're in Qatar. They're elsewhere. They're safe. Many of them are in tunnels. The capacity to manufacture these rockets, they learned how to do it from the Iranians, but it's domestic now.

There are local factories. We both know that you take out a factory or a runway, how long does it take to rebuild that after you're gone? So I think this war will not resolve any of the issues, and it's a potential quagmire. The longer it goes on, the more dangerous it's going to get. And it is really important to stop it before it broadens um i will just say this you know there are active hostage negotiations going on right now very very active and they're all behind the scenes it's fair watch watch the secretary of state of the united states where is he he's still in the region. Yep. Right? That's a damper. Nobody starts much of anything while the Secretary of State of the United States

is in the region. There's a reason he's there. The message from Lloyd Austin, the Secretary of Defense, so resolved. But again and again, how you do this will really matter to us. How you do this will really matter. The most optimistic scenario I can offer,

this is short because the military leadership in Israel decide it's short. And they leave as quickly as they can, but with a new understanding of what Hamas is, what its goals are. And there are multiple ways to pursue leaders. Exactly. Other than going in. Correct.

That's the optimal one. Can they do that with the enraged public they have, Peter, right now, who have lost confidence in the Army? This government is finished. There's no way this prime minister survives the commission of inquiry that will come after. So the domestic incentives are, in fact, the biggest push right now to an unwise escalation, frankly. Okay.

All I will add to that, and you kind of just touched on it a moment ago, is that history has shown us that the Israeli arm reaches a long way and can reach a long way, as we witnessed after the 72 massacre in Munich. If there's Hamas leadership out there anywhere, anywhere in the world, they're likely to find it. They are at risk. They are at risk. Exactly. Yeah, absolutely. Janice, as always, thank you so much for this.

You've given us, you know, an understanding to a degree, as much as one can expect on this story that we've we've really needed over the last week. And I'm glad we've had this opportunity to talk and we will talk again, as we always do. It is, you know, Peter, it is always a pleasure to talk to you. Janice Stein, Dr. Janice Stein from the Munk School at the University of Toronto. And absolutely, we appreciate her analysis always. Okay, we're going to take a quick break. When we come back, something totally different. We're going to talk about Canada's natural gas supply

and what we could be doing with it to further the fight against climate change, to better the Canadian economy, to do a lot of things. But it's not happening. Why isn't it happening? We're going to talk about that when we come back. Thank you. Okay. Did we have enough music there? We sure did. Peter Mansbridge back again with The Bridge for this Monday. You're listening on Sirius XM, channel 167, Canada Talks, or on your favorite podcast platform. Enbridge Gas is the biggest natural gas company in Canada.

It's been around for 175 years. Its CEO is a Canadian by the name of Greg Ebel. He had a piece in the Financial Post about a week ago, you may have seen it, where he's talking about the ability that Canada could have to influence the climate change debate by moving natural gas to markets, especially in Eastern Europe and China. That would involve a lot of infrastructure, a lot of change, and a lot of policy decisions. None of those are happening.

So the question is, why not? And so I wanted to talk to Greg Ebel about that, and I reached him. He was actually traveling in the States over the weekend. And I reached out and he was good enough to have a conversation with me. So let's get at that right now. So I read your piece. I found it fascinating, but like I'm sure a lot of people, I got to the end of it and I said to myself, okay, this all makes sense. So why hasn't it already happened?

What's the answer to that? Yeah, well, you know, maybe it goes to the basis of our Canadian Constitution, peace, order, and good government. We like to take our time about things. We like to be very, I find at least, very specific and make sure everything's in order before we go forward. And I think that's been it. You know, we're a pretty consensus group of Canadians, generally speaking. And that means it's difficult to do big, major projects. It's difficult to do cross-country projects. It's difficult to do projects that mean big trade-offs. And, you know, when it comes to LNG, you are making a trade-off, right? You're shipping, you know, you may have to forego some of your own goals at home to help global goals.

And I think that's difficult to do. And, you know, Peter, I have not been through it. Perhaps you have. But the Supreme Court of Canada decision yesterday on C-69 is a good example. Right. So it's not there was some doubt about who has who has control here, who provincially or federally. An age old problem in Canada, Section 91, Section 92. And we keep revisiting it over and over again. Unfortunately, the rest of the world keeps moving along. And when it comes to energy, we use more. We're not going to use less. It's going to be all kinds of energy, but it's going to be more. And our greatest friend, ally, neighbor, trading partner has a lot that we have and they sure aren't waiting, right? So I think that's the issue. I think if we can find a way that we have and they sure aren't waiting, right? So I think that's

the issue. I think if we can find a way to streamline regulation and maybe C69 and some things that will come out of that will be positive. If we can embrace being global as opposed to local, perhaps that'll help us. And then perhaps even most importantly, if we can find a way to include our indigenous nations in these large infrastructure projects, I think we can provide an opportunity not only on the reconciliation front, but to get these projects done, too. So it's a multitude of issues, as it always is in Canada, right, or any federation. Well, as you said, it's going to involve some tradeoffs. So what are the trade-offs? Well, I think first and foremost, recognizing that it may take us longer than we expect as a nation to maybe hit our own targets if we want to help things globally. So as I mentioned in the

article and in speaking last week in Toronto, 1.4% of global emissions approximately comes from Canada, but we can have a huge impact on 98.5%. Which one do we want? These are trade-offs that I think we have to think through and we should positively think it through. We have to probably move away from some of our dogmatic approaches on energy that it all has to be one way or it all has to be another way i think in the last 18 months uh 24 months and the last 10 days i think canadians and the globe have realized just

what a fragile amount of security we have and that is is on many fronts. But energy is no different. And we've seen that in Russia with their attacks on the Ukraine and the invasion, obviously, the terrible terrorist attacks on Israel and the Middle East conflict that seems about to erupt. We're going to have to recognize that all that says perhaps we need to be more flexible. Perhaps we have to be less certain about our answers in the past. And I think nothing more so comes through on that in front of of of energy. You know, the company that I have the honor of serving is involved in liquids shipping. It's involved in gas shipping. It's involved in renewable production.

It's involved in 42 states, eight provinces, and five countries, all of which have their unique set of issues, and all of which demands some amount of flexibility in how we look at these issues. So I sure never said in my discussion this would be easy, but I think it's consistent with Canadians looking at things on a global basis and finding solutions. And I spoke to those, whether it's 1939, World War II, whether it's the Suez situation. I could not obviously have known what was going to happen in Israel in a couple of days later that day after I spoke. And then, of course, things like apartheid, where Canada played the leadership role. Do we want to play a leadership role or do we want to play a domestic role? That is probably the biggest

trade-off we have to decide. Okay. Well, you've raised a couple of things that I want to pursue a little bit. When you sit down with, whether it's the prime minister or the energy minister or the environment minister, whoever it may be, and you pitch this to them, what's the response you get well it's adapted over time i would say you know i think originally as all governments it doesn't matter if it's federally provincially or whatever most people come in as you well know you've you've covered this stuff for a long time with a very specific mandate with eight or ten things they're going to get done and they're going to get it done like this governing doesn't really work like that does And the economy doesn't work like that. Ultimately, it's, yes, I want to get those things done, but there are trade-offs. And I,

increasingly, I, and this is the same, I would say in Washington, as it is in Ottawa or capitals, provincially or statewide. So increasingly people are recognizing that maybe they've got to be a little bit more flexible, but that's really hard to do politically, right? I mean, we all have constituencies. I have constituencies, you have constituencies, and surely any elected government does. And it's hard, therefore, to pivot to what may not be, which may be a trade-off decision. So they listen. I think you're seeing progress. I think, you know, you think things like in the United States, the IRA, I think efforts in Canada to try different, find different ways to move forward with the energy evolution we know that's

going on and create incentives. But I mean, even things like, you know, the idea of a indigenous, a federally indigenous loan guarantee. I've yet to feel that at least at the federal level, they're comfortable in doing that for all energy infrastructure. Maybe they're more focused on one type of energy. And I think that's where policy sometimes goes offside with the reality of what we have gifted to us as a country in terms of natural resources and what the economy and our export partners are actually looking for. So it's a classic history of us trying to maybe create more at a government level in the economy than the markets really could let us do. Let me talk about liquid natural gas for a moment, the LNG.

It's been a topic of some discussion, especially on the West Coast, for some time now. But your proposal talks about moving LNG to Eastern Europe, to Asia, and in big quantities. Now, that obviously would involve a wholesale change in the infrastructure that's available in Canada. So how does that happen? Right. I mean, that's not something how does that happen? I mean,

that's not something that's built overnight. I mean, something's going to take time. One assumes billions of dollars. Absolutely. I'll tell you how it happens. It happens with leadership at the top and it happens with a more defined regulatory structure and commitment of people embracing what we're going to do. And that may sound, well, that sounds nice, Greg, but have you ever seen that? Absolutely. We've seen that south of the border. In the last 10 years, we have seen exactly that LNG industry created from scratch. When the Obama administration and subsequent administrations have realized both the export of oil in that case and liquefied natural gas in a larger way was important not only to domestic needs from a from a economic and I would even say industrial perspective, but for global needs, both from a security perspective and an environmental perspective. So today, the largest LNG exporter in the world is the United States from scratch 10 years ago. We had the exact same opportunity. We chose not to do that. So we definitely, and there's a reason for that if you're uncertain about whether large

infrastructure can be built. And as you know, Peter, throughout our history, we've built a lot of large infrastructure, but we've also passed on many, right? We don't need to go down that list. Some of them are very recent. But you need to have some certainty so people can invest, as you said, billions and billions of dollars. They're not going to do that if those billions of dollars are tied up forever. If they can't get certainty about who's in charge of a particular project, is it at the provincial level? Is it at the federal level? Will there actually be a reasonable time frame to meet the market? So, you know, again, it is possible. There's a definition of success

south of the border. And it's not about mimicking the United States. That's not the way to look at this. It's about what do they have that we don't have? And from my look, they don't have anything we don't have. We've got the skills, we've got the capabilities. And when you're speaking about the West Coast of Canada, we have an incredible source of power, which is hydro, which actually allows us to produce LNG and ship it at a lower environmental impact than any country in the world. That sounds to me like a pretty good opportunity if we've got the will. So let's get the regulation right. Let's find a way to get indigenous nations involved and the capital will flow and the opportunities will flow. Our customers want it, right? Do they want it? The biggest customer one assumes is China, a potential customer. And if they want it, that means they're going to pass on what they have themselves,

which is coal, which they keep opening more and more coal production facilities. Why would they pass on that to go for something that's more expensive and is coming from elsewhere, like outside of their border? Right. Yeah, no, good point. Let's leave the China question for one second, because I'll come right back to it. So the customers that do want it are folks like the Germans, folks like the Japanese, our G7 partners, right? We're not an economic nor a military superpower. We're an energy superpower. So we should serve them the south koreans right so why would the chinese they want so why would the chinese want it look regardless of regimes and we know that's a communist dictatorship but the

people still matter right and the environment and the air that those people breathe and we've all seen those pictures and we know the issues when be has to shut down or other Chinese cities because of coal. That's a problem. That's a problem at a national level. I don't care what kind of government you are. So, yes, they do have coal resources, but they also would like to get more natural gas. So I think the customers are numerous and for different reasons, some for economic well-being, some for environment, some for both, some because they have no resources at all. But, you know, if we fully use the two big LNG projects, the two main LNG projects being built on the West Coast of Canada today, we could take all that gas. You could eliminate the three

largest coal plants in the world. One is in China, two are in South Korea, and that's assuming they are used 100% of the time, which they're not. So if you assume more typical operating, there's another one in Taiwan. So there are many people that want this i don't think there's any doubt about it there are very few people gifted with the resources that canada and frankly north america has as a block from an energy perspective i assume if we built a facility of some sort on the east coast uh it would the liquefied natural gas would get there by some form of pipeline, not train, right? Pipeline.

Have we got a pipeline that will do that? Sure, absolutely. Well, let's be clear. You'd have to build more pipe. If you wanted the gas to come from Western Canada, you'd have to build more pipe. There's already a pipe that comes from the south called the Maritimes and Northeast Pipeline that could take gas to the east coast. In fact, it was built to, first of all,

take gas off the east coast being produced in Canada to the northeast United States. It was then utilized as an import facility for LNG because there wasn't enough gas. So, and that was coming down to the United States. You could reverse it the other direction. So there is some infrastructure there, but one from Western Canada would be a challenge.

There is no doubt about it. Not a challenge technologically or resource-wide, but as you know, it might actually be the Meech Lake Accord of pipelines you got to across virtually every province and any single province could probably put up its hand and stop it. So I think that's why we haven't seen that today. But that's where nation building comes in, right? We got over that with the rails. We've got over that with many things. So yeah, I think that's a challenge.

But let's not assume, even if you couldn't do that, let's not assume the impact on on Eastern based customers. So Germany, Europe, et cetera, of shipping off the West Coast doesn't have an impact. It does, because you see you'd see more of the gas that's being shipped out of the United States, some of which comes from Canada, that would go instead of through to Asia, more of it would go to Europe because we could look after more of Asia from the West Coast of Canada. It's actually shorter. And we talked about some of the benefits. So it is a global market. So I think we can help our customers in Europe if you draw the lines by actually shipping out the West Coast as well. We just make more available in the world. Okay, here's the last question.

You know, obviously you need a partner in Ottawa to make this happen, to move things along, and you've clearly had talks with the current government, and they go up and down, as you said, back and forth. The opposition leader, who, if you believe polls, would be the prime minister tomorrow if there was an election, has often talked about LNG especially and the market in Eastern Europe especially and what Canada could be doing about it. So do you see a partner there? Do you believe it's more than just pre-election talk? Do you believe what Pierre Polyev is saying about the possibilities of LNG?

Well, I haven't seen a specific policy. As you get closer to the election, you'll see it. But I do think the political commentary out of Mr. Polyov is very positive towards such opportunity. I believe very positive in finding more streamlined ways of regulation, which, by the way, the current government has also promised promised in their last budget. It is yet to come forward, but taking out the word they will deliver on that before the end of the year. So, yeah, I see a partner. I see a potential partner, to be quite frank, in any federal government. The issue is, is that what they want to do? But we need them to be a partner. And equally, we need them to be at provincial level as well, right? So it is not just one. And you need, obviously, you need partners on the Indigenous Nation side and local communities. So it is, we work with different governments across North America and different parts of the world. To me, it is about, are you

thinking about this at the global forest level, as opposed to, as I mentioned previously, that beautiful knot in a Canadian maple, right? We have got to look at this more broadly based, Peter. That's the issue. I think anybody that steps back and look at this from a more long-term perspective, any government, virtually any persuasion, sees the benefit of this. And you can tell that because there are governments around the world that are actually using natural gas and more natural gas. And you can find a way when there is a need. The Germans built an LNG import facility in less than a year. Why? Because the Russians said no more gas. We don't want to get to that point. Let's pre-build and pre-prepare for any

crisis that's out there with our friends and make sure we're doing it in such a way that's a win-win here in Canada, sustainably and economically. Are we generally slower off the mark than everyone else on big projects like this, especially as they relate to energy? I don't know about anybody else. Right now, we appear to be slower off the mark than perhaps our biggest, as I said, friend and competitor, our frenemy, the U.S. And I think that's a bit problematic because where is this gas going to come from globally? Much of it's going to come from here. But it is difficult. And we have to admit that whether it is a renewable wind project or solar project, whether it's liquefied natural gas or a highway, it's extremely difficult to

permit anything on the planet these days for the reasons of nimbyism we all know well. And that's where leadership, that's where partnership, that's where compromise comes in. And frankly, that's what we need if we're going to move forward. Let's leave it at that for now, and we'll talk again, see how things are moving forward. I look forward to it. Great.

Thanks very much. We can be best, Peter. Thank you. Take care. Bye-bye. Greg Ebel, the CEO of Enbridge Gas, largest gas company in Canada. Interesting discussion.

I'm sure you may have your thoughts of it on that and the earlier discussion with Janice Stein about the Middle East situation. Comments always welcome. The Mansbridge Podcast at gmail.com. The Mansbridge Podcast at gmail.com. It may end up on your turn on Thursday's show. Tomorrow, big show coming up. Conversation number 11, more butts.

This is a good one. Two segments. One on crisis management. And who better to talk about that than those two guys? So we've been very successful in having our conversations with James Moore, the former Conservative Cabinet Minister, and Gerald Butts, the former Liberal Principal Secretary to the current Prime Minister. So we get them to try and take us behind closed doors and try to do it as best they can in a non-partisan way,

and they're pretty good at doing that. That's tomorrow's conversation. The second segment on that, by the way, will be prompted by one of our listeners who wrote in and said they wanted something about accountability and whether it means anything anymore. So that conversation is there as well. Wednesday, Smoke Mirrors and the Truth with Bruce Anderson.

Thursday, as I said, your turn in the Random Ranter. Friday, It's Good Talk with Chantel and Bruce. That's it for now. I'm Peter Mansbridge. Thanks so much for listening today. Talk to you again, 24 hours.