At Issue - Party leaders unveil their platforms — finally

Episode Date: April 25, 2025

At Issue this week: All the major federal parties have finally released their costed platforms, but will they sway voters? What does the path to victory look like for each party on election night? And could some leaders lose their own seats? Rosemary Barton hosts Chantal Hébert, Andrew Coyne and Althia Raj.

On the 80th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz comes an unprecedented exhibition about one of history's darkest moments. Auschwitz, not long ago, not far away, features more than 500 original objects, first-hand accounts and survivor testimonies that tell the powerful story of the Auschwitz concentration camp, its history and legacy, and the underlying conditions that allowed the Holocaust to happen. On now exclusively at Rom. Tickets at Rom.ca. This is a CBC Podcast.

Hey there, I'm Rosemary Barton. This week on At Issue, the podcast edition for Thursday, April 24th. Mr. Carney has the same liberal MPs, same liberal ministers, same liberal platform. We didn't play fiscal tricks with phantom growth and dynamic accounting in order to massage the numbers. At issue tonight, party platforms, the federal parties have finally released

their costed platforms and promptly began to attack their opponents' plans for the country. What's to be made of each party's vision for the country and will they's platforms in any way influence how Canadians vote? I'm Rosemary Barden here to break it all down tonight. Chantelle Bair, Andrew Coyne and Althea Raj. Nice to see you all. I know that these platforms were released late. I know that we don't necessarily think that they're going to make a big difference here but there are lots of Canadians who still haven't voted so I do want to get a general sense of what you made of them. Andrew, why don't I start with you? Well they're late first of all which means that very few people will

see them. As often is the case in elections on some of the biggest issues on defense, on immigration, on housing, on pipelines, they've minimized their differences. They're not exactly the same, but they're close enough that they'd be hard to really either party to either win or lose on those issues. There are similarly varying degrees of fecklessness on the deficits. I mean, the liberals are running extraordinary deficits in the $60 billion, $55 billion range for four years. The Tories deficits are half that size, but some of that difference is made up by basically fantasy revenue projections that may or may not materialize. Mind you, some of the liberal spending cuts are the same thing.

It's just kind of a lot of hand waving about productivity. But neither of them are really taking seriously the fiscal situation, particularly if we're heading into a recession. So to be talking about these kinds of deficits without having even taken that into account is not exactly the kind of responsibility we'd like to see. And the biggest missing issue is growth. We already had a growth crisis in this country before Donald Trump came along. We had declining per capita GDP. We have a really serious need to get growth up short term and long if we're going to resist some of the chaos and anarchy that he's causing in the global economy. We need to get growth up, short term and long, if we're gonna resist some of the chaos and anarchy that he's causing in the global economy. We need to get our growth rate up to be able to withstand that. And there's very little of any kind

of serious growth proposals. There's things that they talk about as boosting growth, like the conservative thing on capital gains tax, but nothing that would really move the needle on a $3 trillion economy very much. So they're late, mostly the same and quite disappointing on some of the biggest issues. What Andrew's talking about there with the Conservatives is they take some things and project growth from doing things like canceling the C-69, what they call the anti-pipeline

bill. How they calculate that, whether you should, I think is up for debate. But that's part of how they get to where they are. Althea, what do you make of what you saw this over the past week or so? Well, in the example that you gave and what's peppered throughout their costing platform is that you're not comparing apples to apples. You're comparing apples to oranges because the conservatives tell you, well, part of the way that we're going to get revenue is we're going to build houses. And for every house that we built that we're going to get revenue is we're going to build houses and for every house that we build, we're going to get a certain amount of money because that's going to generate economic activity and those

construction workers are going to go to Tim Hortons and that person's going to go out shopping at Walmart and here we're going to have more money in government coffers. The liberals don't do that in their platform, so we shouldn't be looking, comparing their numbers to the liberals' numbers because we're not comparing the same thing. That being said, I agree with everything Andrew said. I think that there's not enough emphasis on economic growth and things that would generate economic growth and productivity in the economy. I also think that there is a lack of prudency. There is none of the parties have a kind of rainy day fund saved.

But I think they're basically saying to us that, one, they don't think that budgets really matter. They don't think people are going to use the platform to vote. And maybe they don't want people to use the platform to vote. I mean, you look back at Mr. Poliev's own announcement, which came after advance voting had finished. And when he announced his platform, own announcement, which came after advanced voting had finished. And when he announced his platform, he also dug up this report that had been written by

kind of a futuristic think tank arm of the government that's supposed to do doomsday scenarios of how public servants can plan for things. And he decided he wanted to talk more about that than his own platform. And I think both the Liberals and the Conservatives want to make make this a leadership issue and they've decided platforms don't matter. Chantal? Okay, where to start? Well, I don't, I'm not going to repeat any of those points. I don't disagree with any of them in any event, but if the Conservatives lose on Monday, at least you will be left with a scrapbook of Pierre Poilier's best shots because 30 pages of platform come with 17 pictures of Pierre Poilier and various incarnations.

And his wife. And his wife, yeah. And yeah, I think five more, but so you will be left at least with a picture book, a scrapbook, a souvenir. But that being said, I understand totally that there were people who were concerned and believed that we should have had those platforms in time for the debates. I'm not one of those persons. Why? Because I believe that what they showed us are roadmaps to nowhere. They just put an X in their box. But to have had debates based on the kinds of numbers

and the work that went into those costed platforms would have been actually misleading and a waste of voters' time. I think if you use either of those as a roadmap to the next four years, then you're on a trip to nowhere. And in part because they paid very little attention to those platforms, but also because they don't know where they will be in three months. The Quebec government brought in a budget, not a platform, a budget a few weeks ago, and now it's off because the Quebec's credit rating has been revived and we may be going into a global recession. I mean, the notion that you should take these

documents and by the way, outside of journalists, no one has mentioned them to me over the past week. And I think that's probably wiser than anything else on the part of voters. Yeah, go ahead, Andrew, then Althea. Okay, look, there's a lot of truth in that. Any prime minister, oftentimes the biggest things they're dealing with are things they never planned for, never predicted. That's true. But platforms can also give you some indication of a party's values, its priorities, what

things it really thinks are important, et cetera. I think the biggest missed opportunity here is for the Conservatives. As long as this election is about leadership, they lose. It's very clear that Paul Ebert does not poll as well as his party does not poll, certainly as well as Mark Carney does. And so it's misdefined to me why, I mean, when you talk about this, Conservatives will complain, well, Mark Carney copied all our policies. That's true to an extent, but if you're trying to

differentiate yourself, if you see it as your goal to differentiate yourself, then your job is to go where the Liberals can't go. Your job is to mark out territory that you think you can win on, that the Liberals can't simply imitate because of problems with their base. Right, but they have done some of that. Just to push back, the canceling the EV tax credit today, making encampments illegal yesterday. But that's on the fringe. Let's be serious. We're not going to win elections on those. No, but that's my point, is that's where we're at at the end of this campaign.

Those are the policy planks they're putting out to differentiate themselves. For example, how hard would it have been for them to actually propose a balanced budget? How hard would it have been for them to propose real significant tax cuts rather than just crowd pleasers? They didn't do that, and as a result, their platforms look much the same, and as a result, people are going to make up their mind on the basis of leadership. Okay. Again, though, I do think there are differences. People may not look at them, but there's no plan to fight climate change in the conservative plan. There is in the

liberal plan. You may not think it's enough, but it is there. Althea? Okay. So I would say I agree with both you and Andrew. I'll be quiet now. There is in the Conservative plan, there is in the Liberal plan. You may not think it's enough, but it is there. Althea. Okay, so I would say I agree with both you and Andrew. I'll be quiet now. I do think, to Sean's point, like taking the fiscal costing aside, I think if the platforms had been released at the outset of the campaign, it would have done the candidates a great deal of service, so they would have had something to talk about at the doors.

And the differences between the political parties would have been more stark, because we started off with the parties proposing a middle-class tax cut. Then they started talking about home-building plans that were very similar. Then they talked about defense plans that were very similar. And so we didn't have a discussion about, well, do Canadians want to have referendums every time the government wants to increase tax revenue? Do we want to have a stronger climate action or do we think that we should be going in

a completely different direction? I think the differences between the parties' offering would have been much starker. And I do think that there, I agree with Andrew on the values thing, I don't think platforms don't matter. I think they do give an indication of how you would govern, even if we don't believe any of your math. Okay, Chantal? Yeah, but it wasn't platforms I was objecting to.

I think we knew what those platforms were. It's the custom platform exercise. I don't think we did know what the platforms were because the conservatives announced stuff in their platform that they hadn't talked to Canadians about before. Well, yes, but it was mostly material on the side. I mean, I'm happy to know that the conservatives think that the civil service should be filled

with people who don't have more than high school education, that we're wasting talent by having people with diplomas in the civil service. But that is not a very central point. It's more kind of a vote getter to go to your brand. Look, both of them, but in particular the conservative platform, was more of a political advertisement than a platform and a seriously costed one and should be treated as such. I don't believe that that document would have made the campaign more serious and more grounded if it had been presented before. And when you're proud of a platform and you've had two years to think that you're

going to become the government, you want to spend at least half an hour answering real questions about it, which did not happen. So don't ask me to have a serious conversation about something unserious. And again, it suggests that they were locked into their initial plan when they were up 25 points in the polls, which would be to run a front runner campaign. And maybe they thought they could get through the campaign without releasing a platform. But suddenly they're in a very different campaign and it looks like they drafted this thing between flights. The biggest thing in this election is who's gonna stand up

to President Trump. You know, why vote for new Democrats in this election? I'll tell you why. Because when we have power, we use it for you. Because this election comes down to one word, one word only, change, change. At issue, the path to victory with less than a week till election day, the parties are making their final pitches to Canadians and hitting some key battlegrounds to do it. So what does a path

to victory look like for each party and what do they need to do to make this a successful election for them? Let's bring everybody back. Chantel, Andrew Althea, Chantal, how about let's start with you. I mean, I've included Jagmeet Singh. Jagmeet Singh and Yves-François Blanchet are pretty clear that they are not winning the election even publicly. I don't think de Blok ever wanted to win. No, no, no. But Chimzabal has really put that to rest.

But both of them are in some amount of trouble. And why am I saying that? Because they're spending the last days of the campaign basically trying to defend territory that they owned as a result of the last election. So clearly they're trying to limit losses. That's particularly but not exclusively true of the NDP. I believe that the liberals believe that they're spending the next few days hunting a majority rather than a victory, that they are in a good position to win, but they would really like to win big enough to have a majority.

So they are on the offensive. And I think that the conservatives, I have a harder time to follow their path because to have a rally in Saskatoon for Pierre Poiliev in the dying days of the campaign sounds odd in the sense that normally the conservatives, if they're going to win, do not need to be trying to get support in Saskatchewan, which they usually win. So I think they are trying to make gains at the expense of the NDP and BC, but I'm not sure that their game plan reflects a winning campaign at this point, especially not with this notion that possibly, and I'm not sure I believe that, Pierre Pelliev's own writing is in fleek. That's never a good sign, those end of campaign stories. Well, I think the Conservatives had not been to Saskatchewan, so they were just kind of going to tick that box.

But I take your point. And Althea, you're in Winnipeg, where Mr. Kearney will be later, which I think speaks to what Chantal is saying about trying to pick off seats. Yeah, I mean, basically there's two scenarios at the end of the week. You're either like trying to protect the furniture or you're in aggressive mode and what we're seeing is the NDP and the Conservatives are trying to protect their seats and even if they're, like I know last night, the Conservative leader was in a writing that they were hoping Sean Fraser loses, the Liberal's former cabinet minister. But I think Mr. Pauly was really there to try to protect Rick Perkins, for example,

try to protect some of the seats that they already have in Nova Scotia. So even though the specific riding where they may be holding their event, I may not actually tell you the exact story. I think it's the region that they're going and why they're going there. I don't remember being on a conservative campaign

in the last week where we went to Saskatchewan or Alberta Alberta frankly. So to me it's interesting that they're... Stephen Harper at the end. Well at the end because he had a Calgary seed. But I mean like in terms of actual campaigning. No I don't remember that. No because they believe they had won and they spent a week going around in circles in their

own territory. They lost. Yeah I'm not sure that's what's happening here, but Althea, yeah. Yeah, no, I don't think so. So, the pathway for Mr. Polyev to win is to do a lot better than expected in Atlantic Canada, to pick up a ton of seats in the GTA. Without that, there's no hope. And to do three-way races in British Columbia. The Liberals are hoping to win Blanc-Bébé-Quastit in Quebec. They're hoping to do even better than they're currently doing in the GTA.

They're hoping to have a foothold, and I think that's why the rally in Saskatchewan tonight for Mr. Poliap. They're hoping to have a foothold in Saskatchewan and to have a greater foothold in Alberta so that they have legitimacy when they talk about Western issues. I think that's really important to them and frankly, it's probably important to the country so that you're not feeling like there's one part of the country that's completely excluded from the government in the conversation. And then in British Columbia, there is a ton of potential seats

that could flip, especially because the NDP is very competitive in British Columbia still. And so you have progressives who are not sure who to vote for, whether they're voting liberal in some writing or new Democrat in others, and conservatives could win them. Andrew? The weird thing is, if you look at the public polls, there really has been some narrowing. I think the average now is in the sort of 3 to 5 percent range, whereas before it was in 8 or even 10 percent.

And yet, if you look at the betting markets on this, the chances of a liberal victory, a liberal majority even, have been going up. And I think the way you square those two is that they're running out of time. I do think since the conservative was subtle on this pure kind of change message, they've gotten a sisk from Donald Trump having faded to some extent from the view, although he popped up again yesterday. But the sort of change message seems to have resonated a little bit with some small number of voters.

Perhaps if the election were another two or three weeks longer, they might have more of a chance. At this point, I think the best they can hope for is to hold the liberals to a minority. But yeah, when you see Pierre Pauillave in Saskatoon in the last week of a campaign, it doesn't augur well. I think some of the liberal hopes, at one point in the polls you could say they looked like they were going to get up to maybe 40 seats in the West, which would be the best they had done certainly since 1968, maybe going back to the 50s. It's probably not going to be that anymore, but when you see people like Preston Manning

trying to claim if the liberals are elected, means you're gonna give a huge boost to Western separatism I think that's hard to square with with you know improved numbers for the liberals across the West basically they're looking at over 40% of the vote in BC maybe as much as 30% of the vote in Alberta which would be unheard of for a long time so you know from a national unity perspective that's better but but I think I think the question is going to be whether it's majority or minority. We're going to take a short break here. But when we come back, we'll look at some concerns over some party leaders' writings, whether they're really in jeopardy. That's next.

I heard the bell from the bike, but I don't hear a bell. This round's not over. This fight's not over. We're here fighting. This election's not over. At issue, leaders' writings. With election day approaching, the parties are trying to lock down their strongholds, with the Conservatives deploying some extra resources to Pierre Poilieff's writing of Carleton in the Ottawa area, and Jagmeet Singh has pushed back on questions about his own future. So, how secure are the leaders' writings writings and what would that loss mean for each

party? Let's bring everyone back. Chantal, Andrew, and Althea. Chantal, I'm going to start with you because you alluded to it. You said you don't buy that Piropolyev's writing is in jeopardy. I would say it's possible that the margin slims, but I'm not sure that I buy that he's going to, he's in any real danger there. Give me your thoughts. There's a lot of psychological warfare going on at the end of a campaign. There sure is. To have a story on the front of the Globe and Mail that says that your leaders writing is in play when it should be a safe seat is a hit on the conservative campaign. That being said, yes there are reasons why Mr. Poitier might have more trouble than usual. One of those is his support for the convoy, very unpopular in Ottawa, but also the sense

that some conservatives, including his own platform, that he would make deep cuts or cuts to the civil service, which in Ottawa is always a sensitive issue. And the fact that the Liberals have actually spent some energy on going door to door in his writing. That being said, if Mr. Poirier was losing this election, if that happens on Monday, it may be the best thing that could happen to him is to lose his seat, rather than go back to the House of Commons, where I do not believe his party would forgive a defeat on the heels of a 20-point lead. Jokmeet Singh, I think, is in real trouble. But I think what I just said about if you're doing very poorly on Monday, maybe you should be happy to lose your seat because your party

is going to make you lose your leadership. That applies to Juckmeet Singh also. Althea, what are your thoughts on where the leaders are and throw in Elizabeth May and Jonathan Pedneau if you want as well. Well, I'm told that actually Elizabeth May's writing is in trouble, that the Liberals believe that it's a possible pick up. So I guess you can add her to the list. Jonathan Pennaux, he's in Outremont. I don't think he's gonna be winning that seat.

That would be quite the shock. I agree with Chantar about the hidden blessing thing, but I don't agree if it's a minority liberal government, because I do think that Pierre Poilier has such a control on the current base of the Conservative Party and this is not like when Aaron O'Toole lost or when Thomas Mulcair lost where the party's base felt these leaders and these platforms did not represent who we were.

Mr. Poiliev had such a huge mandate from the Conservative base and the people that he brought into the Conservative base and I think some of the things that we've seen him lean into in the last two weeks are going to help him if he wants to stay to win a pretty strong mandate from the membership to continue to prosecute the case against the Liberals and to have a second go at it. I think it will be his decision whether or not he wants to step down. If it's a majority government, though, I absolutely agree it is a hidden blessing if he loses his seat because of a fresh start and frankly gives the party a fresh start too to decide what direction that

they want to go in. We're not mentioning Mr. Carney because his I mean I'm not I'm told his seat is not in jeopardy or and there's no issues here I'm not and I'm certainly not saying Mr. Poliev is in jeopardy either only that there are reports that there is some anxiety around it. Andrew? It's just on, Carney. It's a shame that he didn't run in Edmonton riding he was reportedly looking at. It was a bigger risk, but it might have pulled it off and would have been a very interesting signal to send.

So he's played it safe. He's home free. That's fine. On Mr. Poliev, I mean, I've talked to Tories and said there's no way he's going to lose that riding. But oftentimes, you know, you get a better read on things by what the parties are doing than what they're saying. And if they're, if they are indeed, you know, transferring workers into that writing from elsewhere, they're at least worried about it. I agree with Chantel, oftentimes people play PsyOps with this stuff, but people playing PsyOps

appear to be other conservatives, which is also interesting. And when you see, maybe I'm making too much of this, but when you see, you know, Tim Houston, the Nova Scotia premier, suddenly popping up with what sure looks like a campaign video. I think there's a lot of movement going on in turmoil within the conservative ranks right now. You know, whether his position is in any peril if he loses, I don't know. The interesting thing will be to see what happens at the first caucus meeting after the election, because of course, under the Reform Act, you're supposed to have a vote on whether to give yourself the power to remove the leader.

And that will be an early test, I guess, as to how much trouble he might actually be in. But I think I agree if it's only a minority, he's got a fighting chance. Okay. But all of this still yet to be determined, of course. Thank you. And for the people listening to the podcast or watching on Saturday, I will tell you that it's Chantel's birthday.

Happy birthday, Chantel. Happy birthday. Time to say. Thank you. That is at issue for this week. What do you think of the party's platforms? Is that helping you decide who to vote for? Let us know.

You can send us an email at ask at cbc.ca. You can catch me on Rosemary Barton Live, Sundays at 10 a. Let us know. You can send us an email at ask at cbc.ca. You can catch me on Rosemary Barton Live Sundays at 10 a.m. Eastern. We'll be back in your podcast feeds next week. Actually, we'll talk to you all on Monday and then on Tuesday to digest some of the results. Thanks for listening. For more CBC podcasts, go to cbc.ca slash podcasts.