At Issue - Rough week for Trudeau’s Liberals

Episode Date: November 1, 2024

At Issue this week: The Bloc Québécois threatens to take down the Liberals as the party dodges calls for a secret ballot on Trudeau’s leadership. Canada watches closely as Americans get set to pick the next president. Plus, Doug Ford’s plan to send out $200 cheques. Rosemary Barton hosts Chantal Hébert, Andrew Coyne and Althia Raj.

Hey there, I'm Kathleen Goltar and I have a confession to make. I am a true crime fanatic. I devour books and films and most of all true crime podcasts. But sometimes I just want to know more. I want to go deeper. And that's where my podcast Crime Story comes in. Every week I go behind the scenes with the creators of the best in true crime. I chat with the host of Scamanda, Teacher's Pet, Bone Valley, the list goes on. For the insider scoop, find Crime Story in your podcast app. This is a CBC Podcast. Hey there, I'm Rosemary Barton. This week on At Issue, the podcast edition for Thursday, October 31st. State of play. The Liberals are

now being threatened by the bloc to bring them down and force an election. Not only are we ready, but we might be expecting that with enthusiasm. A request for a secret ballot vote in caucus on the prime minister's leadership seems to have gone nowhere fast. No, there's no process in our constitution to give caucus that power. The party did respond to some caucus concerns by launching its first digital ad. The Liberal team is fighting for you. This week we're asking how have the Liberals managed another tough week with unrest in caucus and opposition parties plotting their demise. Chantal Hébert, Andrew Coyne and Althea Raj join me to talk about that. Plus, America is preparing to head to the polls.

What's at stake for Canada in the U.S. election? Chantal, where do you think we're at now, sort of a week after that caucus meeting last week, and some changes and sort of new pressures on the Liberals from the Bloc Québécois? We're almost back to where we were when the House came back in September. The Prime Minister is on shaky ground, but he's determined to stay, and at this point I don't see a process

that will take him out of that chair. The NDP looks like it's going to be supporting the government pretty much into the new year. And the Bloc Québécois has come and gone as a party that held the balance of power. But bottom line, I think the odds of an election this year, in 2024, have gone down this week, despite the Bloc's tough words about, this is it, we're going to pull the plug. Well, they never have sole control of that plug. And I think rather wisely, NDP leader Jagmeet Singh

kind of ended the suspense early on this one. There are, I think by our last count in this bureau, about 13 Liberal MPs who have asked for this secret ballot to happen in caucus, Andrew. But there's no requirement or mechanism to have it. Do you think that the Prime Minister, in both how he's handled this and in the way he responded in the House yesterday to Pierre Poiliev and this ad, have sort of calmed the waters and addressed some of the concerns that caucus has? Maybe for some caucus members. I mean,

you can be bought pretty cheaply if all you have to do is unveil a couple of ads. But it may signal that they're in a little bit more fighting trim than they were. I don't think the odds necessarily have changed that much, so much as just it's been a little, it's more apparent now how little things had changed. The NDP was never going to vote for, you know, turkeys aren't going to vote for the early Christmas. The NDP is not going to bring on an election that they're not ready for anytime soon. And neither are the liberal MPs, in the absence of any clear preferred alternative, going to invite the kind of instability that they would be facing.

I don't say that one side of that argument is right or wrong, but I think it's completely governed by their perceptions of self-interest, as indeed the NDP's choices are. So yeah, we've defaulted to the least interesting result. That's bad for the news business, but it's probably reality of where people's perceptions and realities are. Althea? A few things. I think it's not necessarily over in terms, the ask was not made at caucus, because my understanding is Andrew Bevin, the new campaign director, basically took up the whole time talking about the new strategy. So that ask probably will come. The issue is for a lot of those MPs, what they were asking the prime minister to do, they genuinely thought was like, get him to

reflect about the future of the political party and not just his future, but his future tied to the political party itself. And they genuinely believed that they thought that they could get to him and that he would hear that message. And I think that they, many of them have realized that he was not, he's heard that message before and he's discounted it. And for him, it's about his future and he wants to lead that battle. And so you're either with him or you're not with him. And what does not being with him look like? Are they ready to leave caucus? Some might be, but they would still vote with the government. And most of them still want to run under the Liberal Party banner. So why would they exit his caucus if they still want to be liberals? So that conversation aside, with regards to the Bloc Québécois, I think they

actually hoped that the liberals would negotiate with them because they seemed kind of sad today that the liberals would be willing to have an election rather than give them what they wanted. In that caucus meeting, the prime minister talked about no leaks to the media, but he also talked about how it was important not just have the NDP to rely on. So I think there will be some overtures to the bloc. For the NDP, they need those pharmacare deals done, and there aren't any at the moment. And so until we have money going out the door and people actually getting free contraception, aside from British Columbia where that's provincial, and free diabetes medication, part of their ask at the next election, isn't complete yet.

So until that happens, I think the government can continue to govern. I think there's maybe three other things that would have to change before anything would change. One is we have to wait and see what happens in the U.S. election. That is a potential wild card that could affect politics here in a profound way, depending on what happens. We'll discuss that. Secondly, there's a couple of by-elections in the spring, or are supposed to be in the spring. That may give us further information, may affect things, it may be too late by then. And thirdly, the Liberals, if you look at the average

of the polls now, are I think maybe two points ahead of the NDP. If you started seeing polls showing the NDP actually ahead of Liberals, I'm not saying this is going to happen, that might be the sort of thing that would set the cat amongst the pigeons, as it were. Right. Chantal? Yes, except that the NDP is almost level with the liberals because the liberals are way down, not because the NDP is catching up to them. There's no great surge. the liberals are way down, not because the NDP is catching up to them.

If you look at those numbers, and if you look at what happened in BC, which I believe really put a damper on any election fever within that caucus, the BC election basically sent a signal, if the NDP needed it it that they are at risk of losing members in BC in the next election to the Conservatives. So as for the PharmaCare deals, I'm guessing the problem is who's going to be signing those deals? It's not going to be Quebec, it's not going to be Ontario, probably not BC because that's already in the works. So where do you go to sign those deals in a way that is significant electorally

and that is so advanced that the next government, whoever leads it, will not want to just back out of it? Dental care, I think, is fairly safe. The sign-up was really significant. but I don't really see... As for by-elections in the spring, by the spring, it's going to be much too late to change liberal leaders in any scenario. But you could knock on Manitoba's door for one of those pharmacic care deals, even though I think they also offer free contraception, but there's ways around that. I mean, I think that dental care piece is an important one, Althea. It's like

a million people now have signed up. It does also then sort of hurt, or I wonder if it hurts the Liberals' argument in this digital ad that Pierre Poiliev is only going to cut things. He hasn't said what he's going to do, but if there's a million people using a program, it's a lot harder to cut. Well, it's one of the reasons why the Conservatives would rather have an election sooner rather than later, because they don't want Perums to be further entrenched. Also, the polls are obviously in their favour at the moment. The Pharmacare deal, there's a memorandum of understanding with British Columbia. So there's something to build on now that the NDP has formed the government. Unfortunately for the NDP, they weren't able to ride like a Saskatchewan wave,

like Thomas Mulcair tried to ride the Rachel Notley wave back in 2015, and kind of like get people looking at the NDP as the progressive alternative. But I do agree with Andrew, if you have significant, you know, week after week of the NDP leading the liberals, then not just for Mr. Trudeau to look at his own future, but for Jagmeet Singh to think, okay, well, now people are starting to look at me as being prime ministerial material, who cares about the policy, Maybe now is the time. I will just add a little asterisk. There are three opposition days that should the filibuster ends. There's two potential filibuster, the current one and then another privilege motion that would have to be passed just before Christmas.

So three opportunities for the House to say they have no confidence in the government. That's pretty risky. And that's why there's some chatter around here that after a cabinet shuffle, after the US election, there may be some prorogation talk. But I have not heard anybody in the government actually suggest that. No, I haven't either.

Yes, Andrew. Can I just quickly add, I don't think people need to see Jagmeet Singh as prime ministerial material. They just need to see him as their preferred anti-Po either. Yes, Andrew. Can I just quickly add, I don't think people need to see Jagmeet Singh as prime ministerial material. They just need to see him as their preferred anti-Poiev. Yes. And I agree with Chantal, there's certainly been no great surge for the NDP, but that left-of-centre vote is very volatile. It can move back and forth between the parties.

If they start to see him as the better Poiev fighter, then you could get the water flowing to the other end of the bathtub in a hurry if people said okay the liberals that can't do it anymore we need to we need to unite behind the ndp last word yes except that the the the people who want change did not look to the ndp they're all standing in the pierre poilievs column and in quebec they're all rushing to the black quebecois One poll had them over 40%. So it's getting late in the game to suddenly discover that the NDP is the refugee value on this market.

At issue, the U.S. election with days to go until America chooses its next president. It is a close race, and each candidate is presenting a different vision for the country. Under the Trump administration, we're going to take back it is a close race and each candidate is presenting a different vision for the country. Under the Trump administration, we're going to take back what is rightfully ours. We're going to bring it back with smart tariffs. They want a president of the United States who, as I say, will walk into the Oval Office with a to-do list and not an enemies list.

So what would either candidate mean for Canada? Let's bring everybody back to break down the consequences. Chantal, Andrew, and Althea. Andrew, why don't you start us off here? Obviously, there's obvious things that we are worried about, trade, immigration, that kind of stuff. But what do you think Canada should be focused on the most here as we head into the unknown of Tuesday?

The unknown. I think the what's fundamentally at stake here, I don't want to overstate this, is the stability of America as a democracy. That's at issue regardless of who wins. If Kamala Harris wins, you are going to see a concerted effort by the Trump campaign, and there's really no doubt about this, to try to call into question the legitimacy of the election, no matter what the results are, I mean, within reason. Maybe even with outside reason. And they have plots afoot, plans afoot,

to try to monkey around with the Electoral College vote, to throw it into the House of Representatives. We have to understand that he and his followers are not bound by the norms and conventions of ordinary politics, and they will step outside it in any way they see fit. Trump is desperate. He needs to stay out of jail. So that's if Harris wins. And so you're looking at weeks of potentially instability and maneuvering and paralysis coming out of that. Hopefully that's

manageable. If Trump wins, you're going to see a much more concerted assault on the rule of law and democratic norms in the United States that will last for years. I don't think he'll succeed in any ambition to try to transform it into dictatorship, but I do think you're looking at a prolonged period of chaos and upheaval as people try to push back on some of his wilder schemes. For example, the idea of deporting 12 million immigrants, legal or illegal, is on its own a policy that has potential for enormous instability and upheaval. When I interviewed Frank McKenna, Canada's former ambassador to the United States, he thought it would be Trump unleashed. That's sort of how he characterized what another Trump mandate would be, Chantal. Yes, to echo what Andrew said, the choice the Americans make on Tuesday at best mean

it won't be business as usual for a number of months. That's the Harris scenario. Or it will not be business as usual for years number of months, that's the Harris scenario, or it will not be business as usual for years, that's the Trump scenario. Now if you are looking to be the prime minister of Canada, be if your name Trudeau or Poiliev, over the next four years, and you have policies that you want to put in place, you want the not business as usual just for a few months. You do not want the Trump result.

Because all of the people that were considered the adults that would normalize the first Trump presidency are basically telling Americans not to vote for him. That's not normal. For those who don't cover politics, that is not how it works. People who work for presidents, prime ministers, ministers stay loyal. They do not go out and say, never vote for this guy that I've seen up close. That's what's happening next door.

And I don't think Pierre Poiliev or Justin Trudeau would be terribly well equipped to deal with this, because it would mean trying to live next to a totally unpredictable administration. And that would suck the oxygen out of the public policy room in favor of trying to manage the day to day of this. Yeah, I mean, all the things that Trump is talking about, certainly tariffs, mass deportation would have a potentially disastrous impact on the economy in the United States, which would inevitably impact us. It would be, I mean, I think Althea just constantly reacting and trying to respond to that stuff. Yeah, I'm going to separate them. So I agree with Andrew,

and I think he said it best when he said norms and conventions and the rule of law, like that's basically what's on the ballot with Donald Trump. Yes, it would be living next to instability all the time. We would also be far less well equipped than we were in 2016 because the people around him have changed and there are less, the people around him were more extreme. And we don't have those links to be able to have a kind of a more normal diplomatic relationship than we would or than the government had than Canada had back in 2016. But I think it's not we shouldn't downplay what that relationship would mean for Canada. Economic insecurity. Are we so economically tied to the United States? What do we renegotiate NAFTA 3.0? What if Donald Trump decides he doesn't want to renegotiate and actually tells Canada that he's

pulling out of the deal? There is a lot of insecurity on that front, a lot of insecurity on the immigration front. What if 100,000 or hundreds of thousands of people show up at our borders? We are definitely not equipped for that. What does it mean for our defense industry, the security of our nation? Even if we ramp up to 2% or we find a mathematical formula to tell the Americans that we are up to 2%, It's not clear that, you know, Donald Trump's administration would help us patrol the Arctic if need be. You know, but that being set aside, it's not going to be smooth sailing with Kamala Harris either.

We're entering an era of increased protectionism in the United States and a lot of the trade irritants could be big challenges ahead, even if she wins. So regardless, I don't think it will be a harder relationship to navigate no matter who is in the White House. Just one is monumentally more difficult. I mean, since 1867, the basic foundation of our reality as a country is we could always assume that the country to our south, the colossus to our south, was a stable, united, democratic country. So we didn't have to worry about it too much.

We'd have little disputes here and there about softwood lumber or tariffs, but we didn't have to fundamentally worry about how stable it was going to be. That is no longer an assumption we can make. There's the potential for things to get very unstable. I mean, we're dealing with sort of chaos theory here where things could really spiral out of control if somebody decides to get violent, for example.

And to take up one of Althea's points, one of the things we've always been able to assume is that nobody's going to mess with the north of our country because they'd have to deal with the Americans. If the Americans are dealing with their own internal problems, a lot of bets are off in that regard. I don't mean people invading Toronto, but Russia or China or somebody setting up shop in the north, that is absolutely conceivable. 30 seconds, Chantal. So suppose that it's the other result and it's a decisive Harris victory. There will be challenges, but one of the issues that I'm interested in really is the impact of a Democrat in the White House on the climate policy of a conservative government in Canada, because there will be more pressure. And it won't be only on the environmental side,

it will be also on the business case side. Also, by the way, there is a deadline in 2026 for people, the countries in NAFTA, to signal whether they want to renegotiate, bail out, leave. That will be happening, and it's in 2026. At issue, Ontario's rebate checks. Despite a $6 billion deficit, the Ontario government is spending $3 billion to send checks to voters. As part of our fall economic statement, our government will provide every Ontario taxpayer a $200 tax-free rebate.

Instead of holding on to this money like Bonnie Crombie would, we're putting it back into the pockets of taxpayers. Doug Ford says he's not trying to buy votes ahead of the next election. Let's bring in everybody, though, to weigh in. Chantal, Althea, Andrew, Althea. I mean, this is a classic move before you call an election. You find some money that is taxpayers money and you give it back to them so they can feel like you're you're looking out for them. What do you make of it? It's almost like you expected the premier's nose to grow a little with that whopper of a lie.

But it does, I think, beg the question, if he doesn't think that $200 for every Ontarian can be better spent, then why is he bothering collecting it in the first place? If you're going to just give it back to us, then stop taxing us for it. But no, obviously, this is a ploy in light of the likely spring election in Ontario. And the thing is, those things work. And that's why politicians keep doing them. Andrew? It's embarrassing. It should be embarrassing for any large C or small C conservative. These people are not fiscal conservatives. They're not conservatives generally. I agree with Althea. There's any number of different things you could do with that money, including lowering tax rates to improve the province's abysmal productivity, or spending it on high-prioritems like health care, or reducing the province's debt.

The deficit isn't the issue in Ontario. It's the debt, which is now bordering on 40% of GDP, with much worse situations to come in terms of the health care situation, the cost of health care. So not to be battening down the hatches against that. It's indefensible in any number of things, but particularly it's politically cynical and corrupting of the public. It is telling the public easy money is what politics is about, and that's a disgraceful thing for any party, particularly a conservative party, to be advocating. Easy money on

beer and wine in corner stores, which is what... That I support. Which is what we now have, but I know you've got it everywhere in Quebec, Chantal. Yeah, but do you support the 200 million that was spent? Yeah, that's right. Francois Legault is not buying my vote by having beer and wine, which has been there forever. I'm sure Ontario will survive that transition to the 21st century when it comes to the selling of alcohol. But sending checks, yes. We say that it works.

I'm not sure we have proof for that because it's mostly being used in Alberta by conservatives, by the way. It seems to be a very conservative gesture, despite the fact that the Capitol seat. Yes, it's not very conservative. But what that also tells me is Premier Ford really wants to hit the ground running, really wants to have an election campaign. He wants that election campaign before the scheduled date for it. He wants to have it while Justin Trudeau is still around as a punching bag, but also before Pierre Poiliev becomes a liability to his conservatives. And that may, for those of us who cover federal politics, spare us an election federally in winter because Mr. Ford obviously is not going to want those checks to be forgotten. So he's going to want to rush into an election as soon as he can. And when Ontario is going to the polls, I don't believe that we normally hold federal elections. We're thinking February? Is that where we're at? January, February?

I covered an Ontario election that took place at the end of March. So I figure back time that, yes, we survived and the snow did not prevent the campaign from taking place. And Althea, how much is Justin Trudeau and the federal election, to Chantal's point, a factor in Doug Ford's strategy? Oh, absolutely. It's also a factor in Nova Scotia's strategy, in Tim Houston's strategy. It was a factor in Blaine Higgs' strategy. You know, just in terms of the framing of that election, like they it's a gift. You have a prime minister who is so deeply unpopular. I think the last survey I saw, Justin Trudeau was at 60% disapproval rate. And somebody that you can blame everything on, oh, life is too expensive. That's Justin Trudeau's carbon tax. Interest rates,

that's Justin Trudeau. You know, I'm doing my best, but I can't help myself because what's happening in Ottawa, that's no fault of my own. No, it's been a gift. And that's why all the premiers are clamoring to have elections. I agree with Chantel on the election timing. But I also, I think the Liberals are eyeing a late spring election, like a budget election. And so both those two things, unfortunately, for party donors and volunteers, can happen within the same period of time, a few months, or maybe even weeks apart. Okay, I gotta leave it there. Thank you all.

That's At Issue, the Halloween edition for this week. Which presidential candidate do you think would be a better fit for Canada? Let us know what you think. You can send us an email, ask at cbc.ca. You can catch me on various platforms and screens, Sundays at 10 a.m. Eastern. We'll be back in your podcast feeds next week after the American election. Until then, thanks for listening. For more CBC podcasts, go to cbc.ca slash podcasts.