At Issue - Conservatives try to bring down the government

Episode Date: September 20, 2024

At Issue this week: The Conservatives are ready to make their first attempt to topple the government but, so far, have no other party to help them. Liberal MP Pablo Rodriguez resigns from cabinet. And Jagmeet Singh confronts heckling protesters on Parliament Hill. Rosemary Barton hosts Chantal Hébert, Andrew Coyne and Althia Raj.

My name is Graham Isidor. I have a progressive eye disease called keratoconus. Unmaying I'm losing my vision has been hard, but explaining it to other people has been harder. Lately, I've been trying to talk about it. Short Sighted is an attempt to explain what vision loss feels like by exploring how it sounds. By sharing my story, we get into all the things you don't see

about hidden disabilities. Short Sighted, from CBC's Personally, available now. This is a CBC Podcast. Hey, I'm Rosemary Barton. This week on At Issue, the podcast edition for Thursday, September 19th. A test of confidence. The Conservatives are making their first attempt at trying to bring down the government,

but so far have no other party to help them. No, we're not going to play Pierre Poiliev's silly games. I go against the Conservatives on a vote that is only about Pierre Poiliev. Pierre Poiliev fired back. It's time for the Bloc and the NDP to stop boosting carbon taxes and protecting this costly prime minister. So this week we're asking, how will Conservatives manage to win over another party?

Chantal Hébert, Andrew Coyne and Althea Raj join me. Plus, how are the Liberals responding to another by-election loss and one of their top Quebec MPs stepping down. Chantal, let's start with you. So the confidence vote is happening next week, sooner, I think, than people expected, perhaps. But it already seems as though we know what the outcome will be. What did you make of sort of the posturing of the past couple of days? One, it doesn't seem this vote will not pass. Nothing will happen between now and Wednesday that will give Mr. Poitier support for his confidence motion. It's coming up early because the Liberals, who have control over the parliamentary agenda and who have to allocate a

set number of opposition days to the opposition parties to present motions like this, decided rather wisely to do so at the earliest opportunity, before a lot of grievances have piled up on the other two sides, etc. What happened next was quite predictable. I think Mr. Blanchet from the Bloc Québécois never made it a secret that he does not interpret this victory, quite a victory, in La Salle et Mont Verdun, a West Island or West Montreal riding that the Bloc never wins usually, as a cue to help Mr. Poiliev become prime minister, especially with a majority. So, the answer from the Bloc, when the Bloc makes that move, it's going to find a Quebec

issue that people can relate to, to go there. They're not going to make it easier for Pierre Poiliev when every poll here shows that Quebecers, 44 percent, think the worst-case scenario in an election federally would be Pierre Poiliev becoming prime minister, so do the math. As for the NDP, I never believed that the NDP would support anything that would bring down the government before the B.C. election is over at the end of October. I did notice Blanchet say today, though, Andrew, I'm not doing it now, but talk to me in October. Maybe things will change. And I imagine that's his leverage with the government to try and extract more for, in this case, he's asking for more for

seniors. First of all, I agree with Chantal that it was a good move for the Liberals to bring on the vote because they know that all three parties are not going to vote at the same time to bring them down. Not today, not tomorrow, not, I suspect, for a long time to come. We know the Conservatives want to have a vote. At least they say they do. I'm not even sure the Conservatives want to have an election this week. I don't think anybody does. But, you know, they'd like to have one pretty soon. So you have to get the other two parties, the Bloc and the NDP,

to vote together to bring the government down. Well, why would they? When the Bloc is up, the NDP is typically down, and vice versa. The Bloc, as Chantel said, you know, they could take or leave it, if you will, on elections. They'll take an election on their terms. They're not in any great hurry, but they're not afraid of it either. They're basically at more or less the same point in the polls that they've been for several years, 32%, 33% in the polls.

They might win a few more seats if an election were held today, but not a huge upside for them. But they'll buy their time. They'll show a statesmanlike readiness to entertain offers from the liberals. When they feel that they can no longer extract any more, then they might feel they're ready to go. That leaves the NDP. Well, the NDP doesn't want to have an election anytime soon, to say the least. They did not badly in the by-elections, but they're sagging in the polls.

They've got hardly anybody nominated. They're way behind in the fundraising, so they would like to put it off as long as possible, frankly. Now you might say, well, if the Bloc votes, declines to vote no confidence this time, maybe that gives the NDP a free kick. Except the trouble is you can't really take back a no confidence vote. Once you've said you've lost confidence in the government, you've lost confidence. So unless they're prepared to keep on voting no confidence after this one, then they don't want to get into that. And of course, if they keep on

voting no confidence, at some point, the bloc's going to agree with them and they're into an election they don't want. That's right. They've painted themselves into, they would paint themselves into a bit of a corner doing it that way. Althea, is this just as Monsieur Blanchet described it accurately this week, four cars playing chicken, and that's what we're going to be now for until we get to an election. Yes. In fact, what's been really refreshing, I think, is that you have Yves-François Blanchet, who doesn't usually tend to have that many Anglophone, like, rest of Canada journalists attending his press conferences. And all of a sudden, there's all this interest, and he's like a straight talker who kind of just says it the way it is.

And there I agree with everything Sheltal and Andrew just said. I think there are other reasons at play, too. I think the liberals on the block played their hands wisely. I'm not sure I would say that the NDP necessarily has. I think they overshot in their rhetoric, perhaps because of by-election positioning. But it's really hard to say you've lost confidence in somebody and then come back and say, well, actually, I'm going to vote that I have confidence in them a week later. That's a bit tricky. But I agree with Andrew's point. If they didn't vote with the government now,

when there's actually a pharmacare bill that is about to be passed in the Senate that isn't law yet, how could they ever go back and say, well now we have confidence in the government even though we didn't have confidence in them two weeks ago. I think the Bloc was super smart to come out very quickly. I didn't expect them to come out, you know, a day after the government announced that they were going to allow the Conservative opposition to put forward this non-confidence vote so early. The Bloc came out and basically squeezed the NDP and tried to squeeze the NDP.

Mr. Malsha was very clear in his language, kind of daring the NDP to go back on their words and to stay in their corner. And his whole goal was basically to be the only partner the Liberals could have. And then he would have the Liberals by the juggler, that he'd be able to get things, more things that he wanted. And so far, his negotiations have started pretty slim. He's asking for a few things, supply management bill that is in the Senate that the senators don't like because it ties the hand of a future foreign affairs minister to negotiate away supply management. The tariffs around that threatened the industry here. But that bill got the support of the Liberals and the House of Commons.

The other thing that the bloc wants is a boost, a 10% boost to old age security for seniors that are 65 to 74. The Liberals boosted the pension in budget 2021, but only for those over 74. The Liberals boosted the pension in budget 2021, but only for those over 74. And in order to do that, the government has to agree to allow an opposition MP to bring forward a money bill, which is an incredibly rare thing to do. And that bill has been languishing in the House of Commons since March because the government has refused to do that. So Mr. Blanchet has said, he actually said on CBC, I think I'm going to give them some time, basically a month, and maybe in October I'll defeat them. It's also a very expensive ask, that part of it.

About 10 billion, if I remember correctly. But he's not asking about immigration. He's not asking things that you know the federal government would not give them. Chantal. What's interesting about the ask on pensions is that it's not a Quebec-only bill. That's right. The boost in old-age security would apply across the board to all seniors. But what's also interesting pertaining to cost is that in the House of Commons, the Conservatives supported it along with the NDP. So it's hard to make a case that Mr. Blanchet is asking a Quebec-only big money bill to buy off his support. I think

he acted swiftly this week because he's playing the long game, as opposed to many of the players we're seeing, in the sense that when he does not say quickly that the block is not going to vote for a non-confidence motion, the government will have to take it seriously. Because he will not, the message was I'm not going to play poker on this, but when I do say I'm thinking about supporting this, you're going to have to take me to my word. I also think it's just because he was super confident after Monday, so he's ready to kind of show all that confidence. Just a point on that. Andrew is not wrong about

the bloc being at 30-34, but the way the vote is splitting is really good for the Bloc. And if you look at their numbers in Francophone Quebec, they're poised to take the Liberals off that board in the next election. It could even translate into official opposition for the Bloc. Wow. Andrew? But you don't want to look too eager. You don't want to go when you're ready to go necessarily as when the public's ready to go. You want to look like you've been forced into it.

You want to present yourself as the soul of reason who just wants to make this parliament work. And yet these other players are playing politics and I'm finally forced, forced to bring this government down. So he doesn't need to do that this week. He sets himself up better for the day when he eventually wants to do it by doing things like this, where he says, look, I supported the government until I could no longer have the option. 30 seconds, Althea. Well, nothing stops Mr. Branche from bringing forward his own non-confidence motion. There are seven of these opposition days. The Conservatives get five. The Bloc and the NDP get one each. The other thing I would just point out is that actually the Bloc and the NDP don't like Pierre Poiliev and they don't want a conservative majority government.

Why would they? Now they can actually negotiate with a minority liberal and try to get stuff that they want. So there is like the actual tangible politics things that are good. They can go back to the electorate and say, see what we got for you, like elect more of us. And that's what both parties want, the NDP and the Bloc. There's the other thing that they actually find Pierre Poiliev and his type of politics despicable, and they don't want to play with them. So these two things are nicely combining, I guess, to not give Mr. Poiliev what he wants.

Very quickly, Chantal. And in the case of the Bloc, it's got more room to maneuver on that score because Quebecers, by and large, are not pining for a Pierre Poiliev government. The situation here is really different. And so the notion that Quebecers are in a hurry to get Pierre Poiliev as prime minister is a non-starter, actually. This like of Poiliev is boosting the BQ numbers these days. It's been a brutal few days for the Liberals.

They lost to Quebec's stronghold in the by-election. Obviously, it would have been nicer to be able to win and hold Verdun, but there's more work to do, and we're going to stay focused on doing it. And now their Quebec lieutenant is stepping down. I have decided to enter the race to become leader of the Quebec Liberal Party. So how's the Liberal Party responding to a challenging week, let's call it that? Can they bounce back? Here to talk more, Chantal, Andrew and Althea. Althea, let's start with you. I mean, Monday seems like a month ago,

but you take Monday on top of this decision by Pablo Rodriguez, which has been an open secret here in Ottawa for some time, it doesn't make for a great week again for the Liberals. No, but they're not related. Pablo Rodriguez has been a Liberal MP since 2004. I mean, it doesn't look like the Liberal government is going to form a government again in the next election. He wants a new challenge.

Completely understandable that he would want to go try to, you know, mount his leadership bid for the Quebec wing of the party. The fact that he's sitting as an independent is actually good for him. It's good for the government. The Liberal Party, federally and provincially, are not actually the same party. So it allows Mr. Poiliev to take different public stance than the federal government might take. The by-election is a big, a a big loss and it should not be underestimated. But the PMO and the party did a really good job at the caucus in Nanaimo last week of

basically lowering expectation from MPs, telling them that they were going to lose, that they should prepare to lose, that even if they lost, the prime minister was not going to go anywhere. So you didn't have that heightened anxiety that we saw after Toronto St. Paul's back in June when they lost another safe liberal stronghold. But it is very concerning that the none of the above vote is going to the Bloc Québécois. Part of that writing did go Bloc, like back in 2008, about half that writing was a Bloc seat for a bit but both parts of that riding went uh ndp orange in 2011 so it is really concerning i think they actually thought they had a chance of winning

because there were people spinning like melania's team is out there and they're gonna like bring this home and then it didn't happen yeah it was close and there was there was i think two or three times where it was tied but it should not tied. But it should not have been close. No, it should not have been close. If you lose this seat, if you lose Toronto-St. Paul's, what's left on the electoral map? And that's what MPs are thinking about. Chantal, Chantal. And it's not only that.

This, like Toronto-St. Paul's, was won by election, which allowed the party to pour enormous amounts of resources in what would have been considered a few years ago safe liberal seats where you put no extra resources. And despite having put all those resources, ministers on the ground, boots from Ottawa and from everywhere on the ground, they still could not keep it. One. Two, I don't think the Liberals totally understand that what this confirms, and the polls do show that, is that since Toronto-St. Paul, they have lost Quebec. Their situation has become marginally worse. They were behind everywhere but not in Quebec until the beginning of the summer, and now they are well behind the block across Quebec and that basically means they have nowhere

else to look to. I'll give you my theory as to why they lost Quebec. I think over the summer Quebecers realized that the Liberals had lost the rest of Canada and on that basis since Pierre Poilievre is not at this point attracting very many votes in Quebec, they decided to turn to, you know, go back behind the barricades. And that would be the Bloc Québécois. So that tells me that the only way for the Liberals to come back up in Quebec is to come back up outside Quebec. Which I don't know how they do at this point. But, Andrew, you... Well, I'll say, first of all, it's not just La Salle-Mèvredon.

In Elmwood-Transcona, the Liberal candidate got 4.8% of the vote. I believe I'm correct in saying that's the third worst result for a governing party in a by-election in the history of Canada. There's only been two worse. So that's not encouraging either. And so I've been delving into the numbers a little bit. You can't find a governing party that's been this far behind. They're now an average of 20 points behind in the polls for this long.

They've been 15 to 20 points back for more than a year. With this little time left before the election, you can't find that until, unless you go back to the last days of Brian Mulroney or the last days of Louis Saint Laurent before the Diefenberger sweep in 58. So neither of those augurs well for the governing party. In other words, to come back from this, they'd have to do something that's never been done in Canadian history before, under a leader who is now underwater in terms of the approval ratings by 39 points. To take up Chantal's point about them losing the last Bastion in Quebec, that's also perhaps the last argument for Justin Trudeau staying on is that he can save the furniture in Quebec. He's not even going to do that.

You know, on balance, I've been one of those who've argued that, well, maybe it's better to lose with the guy you have rather than somebody new. At some point, the argument can flip that anything would be better than this. Yeah, if you're going to get wiped out, then the argument flips. Quickly, Chantal. Yes, but I think what's also happening, and it goes back to what Althea was saying about the name, is that people who want to be liberal leaders, his successor, are now thinking maybe it's

better to let him sink. Because if we're going to take a sinking ship, you know the Liberal Party, they're not big on second chances. I think that is also what is shoring up Mr. Trudeau, despite all the evidence that his ship is sinking.

But what do they do if he decides to go in spite of them? I think the party will be asking to stay on, but he's not necessarily the kind of guy who puts the team before himself. Last quick word, Althea. I'm not sure that the party will be asking him to stay on if he decides he wants to go. I think a lot of caucus, I would venture to say the majority of caucus, would like him to make that decision on his own accord. They feel like they are helpless.

They're not, but they feel that they are helpless in shoving him out the door. And none of the internal caucus members, the cabinet ministers who do want the job, are actively pushing him out. So that is not helping the backbench MPs who want to see the leader I saw somebody it might have been one of your stories out the anonymous source doing a Nancy Pelosi and saying he's got to make up his mind quick whether he's gonna stay or go after he's just said I'm staying heckled by protesters on Parliament Hill Jagmeet Singh chose to turn and confront them

was it you or not if it was me I'd admit it would you say that I didn't see nothing it wasn't me was. Was it you or not? If it was me, I'd admit it. What'd you say then? I didn't say nothing. It wasn't me. It was a gentleman behind me, I guess. Who is it then? I have no idea who it was, buddy. My word. You sure it's not you? No. 100%. You're a coward. You're not going to say it's my face.

That's what's up. The video has raised concerns over parliamentary safety, with many MPs saying the situation is getting worse. So what do we make of the video? What does it say about the security of our elected officials, Chantal, Andrew and Althea? I should say there have been a group of protesters sort of sitting in front of the West Block since Parliament returned and they've been yelling and doing things that protesters do. Following an MP is a little unusual. But Andrew, what did you make of how Singh responded, I guess, and how that unfolded? Well, first of all, I think the security people would very much prefer that party leaders and MPs

did not take it upon themselves to confront protesters. It's not a smart move from that standpoint, and frankly, we're playing with borrowed time. I think a lot of people are very worried that there's so many cranks out there nowadays that one of them is going to take a shot at somebody. And so it's very worrisome. That being said, from a purely political standpoint, I think a lot of people thought it looked pretty good on him. You know, the knock against Mr. Singh has been that he's been sort of pushed around

and looked a bit weak. You hate to say it this way. You wish politics was more above this. but people sometimes look at these things and go, okay, I'll look at you a little differently now. Remember Justin Trudeau in the boxing match? He probably would not have been prime minister today if he hadn't knocked a guy out in the ring. So now, that being said, he then ruined it, that moment of you know authenticity by going online and

bragging about it and using it to make political points against the Conservatives and they're probably fundraising on it for all I know at that point I think a lot of people go okay so this was just another stage show and you're just as phony as the rest yeah so tell what's in there so Jack Mead Singh is human and a politician yeah I don't know of any politician who wouldn't have used it in a video afterwards, especially if you're trying to fundraise and change your brand to someone who is more assertive and not just Justin Trudeau's yes man. I understand the security concerns. I think they are totally well founded. but I also think that politicians bear a responsibility.

It's not necessary to think that one party or another put those protesters up to whatever they were screaming at Jagmeet Singh or anybody else. Calling yourself a liar or a sellout or go down the list only makes it more acceptable to do the unacceptable. It is unacceptable to be heckling MPs, calling them corrupt. At some point, of course, some of them will react, But it's also that, I don't know, it's, if you don't set the tone in the House of Commons, don't be surprised if it's trashy outside. Yeah, I mean, it was, to your point, Chantal and Althea, weigh in, please. It was a very human moment. I mean, you could see, like, it was just Mr. Singh had had enough. The fact that he fundraised over it after is another thing. But you get why someone

would respond that way, I think. You can kind of relate to it. Yeah, Althea. Well, I wouldn't respond that way, but I'm not Jagmeet Singh. I think there's a lot of things happening at the same time. One, there's a lot of hate that has been directed to MPs, especially MPs from minority backgrounds. Mr. Singh has gotten a lot of it online and now we see in person. The tone in the chamber has changed. The Liberals have decided to take a much more aggressive tone. The debates and the words coming out of MPs and ministers' mouths are really upping the ante. It used to be that we tried to

disagree on policy. Now we're basically dehumanizing our political opponents. That has certainly had an impact. I also do think that Andrew is right about this macho image that the leaders are trying to portray, whether it was Justin Trudeau back in, I don't remember when it was, 2012, 2013. He was being accused of being an effeminate male, and he wanted to show that he could basically fight Patrick Brazzo and be masculine. And you see Mr. Poiliev has done the same thing with his makeover, pumping iron, getting rid of the glasses. He looks more like a jock, less like a nerd. Mr. Singh is a mixed martial arts expert. But you can see from that video, he's pumping off his chest. He's also had trouble getting male voters to come to the NDP side. We've seen that with the loss of blue-collar workers, for example, with the NDP support.

So I do think that there is a, whether it's conscious or unconscious, there is definitely a strategy to try to get male voters back. And it certainly didn't help that apparently, they do this a lot, the NDP, with those viral moments. And I guess it suits an emotional need and a political need as well. Okay. I've got to leave it there.

I suspect we'll talk about tone and rhetoric more because it's heading in a particular direction. I think we can all agree. Okay. Thanks, everybody. That is an issue of the podcast for this week. What do you think about Jagmeet Singh's confrontation? Do you think security for MPs is a concern? Let us know. You can send us an email at ask at cbc.ca.

And remember, you can always catch me on Sundays on TV or screens at 10 a.m. Eastern. I'm Rosemary Barton. Thanks for listening. For more CBC podcasts, go to cbc.ca slash podcasts.