At Issue - Is the GST holiday good for Canada, or good for Trudeau?

Episode Date: November 22, 2024

At Issue this week: Will the government’s plan to send out $250 cheques and implement a GST holiday on some essential goods help Canadians, or is it more about helping the Liberals out of a slump? Plus, employment minister Randy Boissonnault resigns, and Conservative Leader Pierre Poilevre tightens control of caucus. Rosemary Barton hosts Andrew Coyne, Althia Raj and Kelly Cryderman.

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. Hi there, I'm Rosemary Barton. This week on At Issue, the podcast edition for Thursday, November 21st. At GST holiday, the Liberals have announced a two-month pause on the GST on some goods and services, as well as a one-time rebate check of $250. Two months, Canadians are going to get a real break on everything they do.

The NDPs say they will help get this measure through the House while the Conservatives are already attacking it. Today, what we have is a two-month temporary tax trick. This week, we're asking, what will a break from the GST mean for Canadians? How might it help Justin Trudeau's popularity? Andrew Coyne, Althea Raj,

and Kelly Criderman join me to talk about that and more. Plus, what will the resignation of Randy Boissoneau mean for the Liberals? Andrew, I have been wondering all day what you would make of this move, so I'm going to start with you, if that's okay. What do you make of both the policy and the politics? It's embarrassing. You know, if you're going to go out, go out with some dignity and some integrity rather than flinging billions of dollars at the public in hopes that they'll forget why they hate you. This is such bad policy on so many levels. We're going to borrow $6 billion to throw ourselves a party

so that people can move purchases forward and backwards so they can take advantage of this. The biggest recipients, for example, if you dine out at restaurants, the more expensive the meal, the bigger the break you'll get. Well, who's that going to benefit? Is that going to benefit the poorest among us? Is that going to benefit the richest among us? We're going to give a tax break to people on alcohol sales. That's great public policy.

We're going to give a tax break on snack food at a time of rampaging obesity. That's great public policy. It's going to needlessly clutter up an already complicated sales tax regime. We've got about 25 different sales tax regimes in this country, depending on whether it's federally taxed or provincially taxed or not federally taxed or not provincially taxed, and every possible combination of the two. And now we're going to add a bunch of completely arbitrary categories of tax breaks again on top of this, and it's all going to last for two months.

Why? Well, to tee things up for the election, and also I suppose part of this is you have to pass a bill through Parliament so the Conservatives who are now protesting quite rightly at the government's refusal to release documents will be put in an invidious position of why are you blocking this bill that is going to give goodies away to Canadians? This is just so cynical and such dumb public policy. It's hard to believe. All right. Well, let's see if anyone else has a different perspective. Althea, I mean, I'll put on the table that there are Canadians still struggling, even though inflation has gone back to sort of normal areas. And some people might

say, well, this is kind of good timing for me, in spite of all the caveats that Andrew put out there. Well, there's no doubt that it's bad public policy, and Andrew has laid out all the reasons why. But the question is, is it good politics? A lot of the criticism about the Liberals' policies was, well, I'm not included in them. Like, I make too much money, so I can't do the dental care. I don't have children, so the child benefit doesn't apply to me or the child care. Child benefit every month doesn't apply to me either. So here is a much more generous tax break to people who probably don't necessarily need it, but will like to benefit from it.

So there is a recognition that perhaps the Liberals have missed the mark in the past. A lot of the criticisms that they levied against the Ford government in Ontario about their obsession with booze, for example, is now also in their plan. So that's an interesting little tidbit to that. I do think it is interesting in the way that it squeezes the opposition parties. So for the NDP, they're having a challenge trying to distinguish themselves from the Liberals. But the Liberals want to show that they can get stuff done in Parliament and they needed a partner. And so they did, and the NDP deserves credit for this, take much of what the NDP was suggesting. If the Liberals are serious, this will only be a very small reprieve that could just last one day. But it does let Mr. Polyev look like the Grinch who stole Christmas,

who doesn't want Canadians to have these goodies, who is talking on both sides of his mouth. Oh, he's against the carbon tax, but he's not for a GST rebate. So I'm not sure that the politics are that bad. Kelly, what do you think? I think this is gimmicky, like it was called when Aaron O'Toole introduced it in 2021 as conservative leader. And I think that was the criticism then. And I think it's true today that the Liberals have now taken up.

It's so temporary. And the lag time to this, too, as someone who used to work in retail, I'm worried about all the returns that retailers will have to deal with up until December 14th. And then what happens in mid-February when this comes off? Do the federal Liberals expect that the goodwill from this will continue on? Or are they thinking that an election will happen within the next two months? That's what makes me wonder. And also on the policy side, this is the opposite of what we should be worrying about as a country right now when we're talking about per capita GDP and that kind of concern in terms of real productivity and those bigger economic issues. This is the foam on top of beer that's not going to be taxed policy.

And I think there will be, trust me, if the NDP wins on this, they win on the fact that they suggested there would be no GST on diapers, which I can completely get behind and makes perfect sense. The problem is this is temporary, and I think a lot of people will see through it and will have concerns that it is just a temporary measure for Christmas. Well, after the temporary measure, that's when your $250 rebate arrives if you make $150,000 or more. Andrew, yeah. Well, will it be temporary or when the time comes, will they be under a lot of pressure to continue it, not least from within their own caucus?

So to echo that last point, you know, the reason why incomes are declining in this country, why per capita GDP has been falling for eight of the last nine quarters is not because the government hasn't been handing out enough goodies. It's because we've got a suite of policies in this country that are retarding productivity, that are holding back investment, that are making it harder to run businesses, that are making it harder for people to earn income, to earn income, to get ahead. So those are the kinds of measures that a government that had any sense would be focusing on.

You know, talk about playing to type. The knock on this government all the way through has been it's much more interested in playing distributional games than in actually enhancing productivity and growing the economy. Well, this just absolutely plays into that same stereotype, I want to call it, but basically the truth. There's two other issues I want to raise. First of all, that other governments do this. Doug Ford is going to do it as well, as he also likely heading into an election. And then the issue of fiscal guardrails. And I'll put both of those to you, Althea.

I don't know where those are located anymore, the fiscal guardrails for this government. Well, they can't afford to do this. They can't afford looking at their last fiscal pan. They absolutely cannot afford to do this. So I guess we will see in the fall economic statement, assuming that we have one. Now, they're not obliged to introduce one, and they're certainly not obliged to introduce it in Parliament if they choose not to, if there's no spending measures tied to it. If all the spending measures are in this bill, for example,

and there's nothing in the fiscal update, then they won't need to, you know, claim that the opposition is holding things up. So, yeah, that's a very, very good question. I don't know. It'll be interesting to see how they justify it. Already you see them backtracking some of their earlier criticism of their own action by saying, well, it's not inflationary. Here they're talking about the checks being sent to everybody. Because in the past, when the conservatives had proposed this, the liberals had said, well, this is outrageous, it's too expensive, and also it will create more inflation.

Ah, but somehow now it won't create more inflation because inflation is down, and therefore, miraculously, inflation doesn't exist anymore. So, I don't know. I don't know if the voters will care, but to Kelly's earlier point, I think the checks tell us when they want the election to happen, which is after April. You're absolutely right. And not before. You're absolutely right that the Ford government has also done it in Ontario,

which will be some hampering of Poyavar's criticism of this, as he doesn't want to get too outside with the Ford government. But in both cases, think about the arrogance of what's is, it's just so important that we remain in power, that we're entitled to basically mess up the country's finances and make hash out of its tax system and do material damage to its economic efficiency, because it's so important that we stay in power. You know, beyond the citizen, just the arrogance of that assumption is extraordinary. Last word to you, Kelly. You know, I think we've seen other provinces hand out the checks.

We've seen B.C. do it. We've seen Saskatchewan do it. And we even saw this government hand out money to seniors during the pandemic. I think we have to worry in general about governments handing out these types of pre-election goodies and that being public policy. That isn't what is going to get us to a kind of sophisticated, good economic place. At issue, Randy Boissoneau, the Alberta MP, is out of cabinet after allegations of questionable business dealings and misrepresenting his indigenous heritage. It was welcome news for indigenous people right across the country who know the real consequences of pretendingism. The Conservatives have been calling for him to be fired for weeks. True or false,

the Prime Minister should have fired that guy a long time ago. So what's to be made of the resignation should have happened sooner? What does it mean for the Liberal cabinet? Let's bring everyone back. Andrew Althea and Kelly Criderman joins us. Althea, I'll start with you. This did go on a little longer, perhaps, than we expected. And it just seemed to be one thing after another. How did you make of how it was managed?

Like usual with the federal Liberals, the scandal seems to last a lot longer than it probably needed to. From my understanding, it is Mr. Boissoneau, actually, who suggested that he step aside because he wanted to sue his business partner. And, you know, this has been dragging on for maybe even more than a year. They could easily have cut him loose. I think this week we saw liberal MPs within caucus publicly say, Mr. Guastano needs to do a better job of explaining himself. There was a story in the National Post alleging ties from his business partner to somebody that was involved in drug busts. And, you know, these are issues that the public understands. Cocaine, pretending you're Indigenous when you're not Indigenous. So and that's a very sensitive issue for the Liberals.

So it's not surprising that they cast him aside, at least in the short while. It raises a whole bunch of other questions, like how senior cabinet ministers can hold double portfolios and more than one cabinet member, one cabinet minister being in that position at the moment. But it is it is not surprising because they think they can drag things out and survive them. And with Mr. Trudeau's own leadership in question, you know, they try the drag the puck strategy. And so far it has worked. In some cases, it did work. But, you know, Jody Wilson-Raybould and Jane Philpott, it did not. That probably lasted longer than any need to, and this is another case. And I mean, it would seem to me, Kelly, that part of the reason Randy Boissoneau didn't get booted before is because he's from Alberta.

And there's only one other option there, and they like to have someone from Alberta around the cabinet table, And now there is not. And I don't know that that affects anything, but it's certainly not great in terms of decision making and representation. Absolutely. I've been thinking today, like, does it even matter that whether there's a Liberal from Alberta in cabinet anymore? I've honestly been asking that question about whether it's important, whether it's an important voice around the table at this point where you have a government that is hanging on for dear life and is so behind in the polls and whatever polls you see in the rest of the country, it's probably double that in terms of low in Alberta. So I've been wondering about whether that's an issue. There are important things that were going on. Randy Bozina was in

charge of the rebuild for Jasper, which a lot of Albertans are really concerned about. And what gets me is, you know, Randy Bozina was a MP from 2015 to 2019. He wasn't an MP from 2019 to 2021. He had presumably started this company when he wasn't in politics. Why wasn't there a proper vetting of that company done way, way back? You know, a company that was looking for government contracts that did claim to have Indigenous owners. So I'm just wondering why this wasn't caught a long time ago by some kind of vetting process and why it has dragged out to this point where it honestly, it didn't

seem to be on the prime minister's radar at all 48 hours ago. And then suddenly it was. And it is amazing to me always that it gets to this point because a lot of these factors might have been somehow explained or dealt with, but it was the cumulative effect that I think made this in the end. I mean, it does seem like two things sort of precipitated movement. A, the Edmonton police investigation into the partner, as Althea talks about. And I do think that the Indigenous claims are very difficult for the Liberals to explain away. And they were certainly difficult for Randy Boissoneau to explain to, Andrew.

Yeah, well, I guess mere cronyism and conflict of interest wasn't enough. I mean, whether you think he was thrown overboard or, you know, resigned to spend more time with his solicitors, it's a pretty rare thing in this government for a cabinet minister to be removed from cabinet, other than as part of a shuffle where it all gets lost in the shuffle in this case look there's a context here that this government has a a tension for cronyism generally and it goes right to the top with the prime minister whether you're talking about the aga khan thing where he was getting expensive holidays with a for a guy who's getting government before business before government whether you're talking about the me the we charity thing where they gave a gave a bunch of money to an organization that hired his mom whether you're talking about the We Charity thing, where they gave a bunch of money to an organization that hired his mom,

whether you're talking about all the other things that have been going on more lately, the Arrive Can scandal, which you have this incestuous contracting relationship, or the scientific, I should say the Sustainable Development Technology Corporation. It's one thing after another. So in the middle of all that context, to have a cabinet minister who remained a director and a 50% owner of this company, even after it had received a government contract, I'm not saying there was any involvement on that. But, you know, the requirements for cabinet ministers is not just that you obey the law,

it's that you conduct your affairs in a way that withstands the closest scrutiny. He clearly didn't do that. He clearly had not done that way before we discovered whatever was going on with his claims to, or non-claims to being indigenous or not. It all seems to be very murky. But way before this, this was maybe the final straw. But why should it have waited until then? Why did it take this long?

Why did he have to have so many multiple entanglements and so many problems surrounding him before he finally became so toxic that they decided they couldn't have him in cabinet anymore, it kind of speaks volumes as to how they got into all these other troubles as well. They just don't take it seriously. Mary Ng is still a cabinet minister having given a contract to a friend. That was supposed to be a resigning offense not so long ago. Last word to you, Althea, and I guess on whether you think this affects the timing of a cabinet shuffle that we are still expecting, that is still going to happen at some point.

I'm not sure, but Anina Anand, the Treasury Board president, who's also the transport minister, seemed to visibly express frustration that she has too much work on her plate at the moment. So perhaps I would say that, you know, this was going to become an issue that was going to dominate the House of Commons. The Commons has been stuck in a filibuster on Sustainable Development Technology Canada, the organization that Andrew just referenced. And the Conservatives paused and they stopped talking about their sub-amendment so that they could move on and start debate for three hours on a topic that was somewhat tangentially related so they could talk about Randy Boissoneau's case. And they did that basically until Wednesday afternoon after the announcement that Mr. Boissoneau had left. So, you know, they felt that there was blood in the water and they were ready to go

and deviate from what they've been talking about for almost the past six weeks. And so the government would have had to sustain an obscene amount of time being capital, being wasted defending Mr. Boissoneau when caucus wasn't ready for it. And the other thing I will say is in Alberta, there's only one other MP, and that MP has basically asked the prime minister to reconsider his leadership. So perhaps to your point, that is why Mr. Boissoneau remained as long as he did. I do think they think it's important to have a voice from Alberta. At issue Pierre Poiliev's caucus management, a Hadjouk and Adab report suggests some MPs

are frustrated by the level of discipline being enforced, saying the party staffers keep a close eye on them and the messages they're delivering. The Liberals have used this to attack Poiliev. Liberal MPs are free to speak their minds and voice their opinions, even when we have disagreements. That was astonishing to the members of the Conservative Party because they're not allowed to do that. So what could these reports tell us about Poiliev's leadership style? Can we learn anything about what kind of prime minister he might be? Let's bring everybody back. Andrew, Althea and Kelly. Kelly, why don't you start us off? I will say some of this seems to me just sort of how you do your job as a leader in caucus. Some of it

might be a little bit further off, you know, if people are recording you because you're just talking to a reporter in the hall or they're noting that you've been seen with someone, those things are maybe a little more unusual. Yes. And I think, you know, while they're noting that you've been seen with someone, those things are maybe a little more unusual. Yes. And I think, you know, while they're not in government and while they're so ahead in the polls, this isn't going to lead to great dissent in the conservative caucus. But, you know, conservatives are restive and it might not be for till months from now or it might not be till years from now. But at some point, being kept on a short leash will catch up with with some of those caucus members. And there will be more dissent on that. And it will come at a time when they don't feel like they're winning as much as they are now. I will. I find it fascinating also right now that so much scrutiny is on Pierre Polyev, almost like he is a leader in waiting already.

And not just on this topic, but on many topics, on Greenpeace protesters being outside his house this week. That to me speaks like everybody is treating him like there's already a there is already power to be held by him. And that is that is a fascinating part of it. I mean, I know conservative MPs who would like to be able to talk more, would like to have opportunities to be on TV, would like to be doing more interviews, like who have things to say and at this stage aren't allowed to say them. And I don't know if that's just because they're playing things safe or if that will change if they form government, Andrew, and if that's even problematic at all. No, it won't change once they've gone government. You know, there may be an extra element in this of Tory paranoia where they're not even allowed to fraternize with anybody. But the general thing of message discipline, as it's called,

is common to all the parties. The notion that liberal MPs are free to speak their mind is laughable. Try saying anything that deviates from the party line on, say, abortion and see where you get to in that party. So we've allowed all of these party leaders to exercise all of this control. And frankly, we in the media sometimes take our part in enforcing party discipline. If anybody actually speaks their mind or represents their constituents the way they were elected to do, we run off and say, oh, it's a failure to enforce party discipline. We should not be participating in that. We should not be normalizing or ratifying this.

This is extremely unusual. These are the people we elected to represent us. To be a member of the Parliament of Canada used to be a position of some prestige and influence in this country, and we've allowed them to turn into basically serfs of the leader in a way that is highly unusual amongst the democracies. Do you think for one second that a member of the German Bundestag would put up with this kind of behavior, being treated like basically children, or a member of the French National Assembly, or a member of the British Parliament? It is unique to Canada in the degree to which we've allowed it to take hold, where they cannot vote the way they like, they cannot speak the way they like, they can't debate except to read out

speeches that have been written for them. Basically, their job is to stand up and sit down when they're told and to show at all times undying devotion to the leader. It is not democratic and we should not be normalizing it or praising it or upholding it in any way. I forgot that this is one of Andrew's things, that this is one of the things you care about. Yeah, you care about it. And I appreciate the impassioned plea. What do you think, Althea, about what it says about Pierre Poiliev? You know, besides all the things that Andrew said about how limiting it is for people who are elected by Canadians, what does it say about his leadership?

I have a few things to say. First of all, MPs are shackling themselves. It is up to them to unshackle themselves. That's true. I will say, as someone who, both in the Conservative caucus and in the Liberal caucus, the leadership has told their MPs not to talk to me several times. I will say that the quote-unquote boys in short pants are watching and are watching all over the city to see if MPs are talking to journalists,

if they're talking to other MPs. The Conservatives are, I'm sorry, Andrew, but the Conservatives are far more restricted in what they can do than the Liberals. The Conservatives are not allowed to do shows like on the CBC, for example. They are monitored. All of their comments are monitored and they are told not to say anything, even on issues like labor issues, because they don't want to deviate from the leader, even if the leader may not have a position. So they cannot voice their own individual position. That is not the same thing in the Liberal caucus. But they are very worried about leaks. And at the moment, everybody believes that they will get into cabinet. So they're towing the party line. And once they discover, like we have seen on the Liberal side,

that no, lo and behold, you did not get into cabinet, the leaks will start coming. So I'm not super worried. But for a party that wraps itself around the freedom agenda, it is really frustrating for those MPs to not be able to say what they'd like to say in the House of Commons, in public, in committee, to have to repeat parroted talking points in order to have a question approved in question period. But to my earlier point, they are the ones who are abiding by these rules. If they were opposed to it, they could fight them. Andrew, you can have like 15 seconds because I saw your face and then I'm going to wrap it up. It just came off a story a few weeks ago where liberals were creeping around the back stairs, not daring to raise their voice above a whisper in case the party leadership got wind of what they were talking about. They're deathly afraid of the leader.

So, yeah, on selected issues, they might be allowed off, you know, to stray from the party line, but it's so rare and so unusual. Yeah, I will say there were like two or three that came out and did interviews on TV. But, yes, not the majority of the dissenters, that's for sure. Thank you all for being here so much. I appreciate it. That's at issue for this week. What would a break from the GST mean for you? Let us know. Remember, you can catch The National on our YouTube and CBC Gem, and you can catch me on Rosemary Barton Live Sundays at 10 a.m. Eastern. And listen, we're also getting ready for our annual year-end discussion

where you get to decide what's at issue. So the best way to do that, send your political questions to thenationalatcbc.ca and we'll pick the best ones. I'm Rosemary Barton. Thanks for listening. For more CBC Podcasts, go to cbc.ca slash podcasts.