At Issue - Trudeau goes after Poilievre on foreign interference

Episode Date: October 18, 2024

At Issue this week: Prime Minister Justin Trudeau accuses Conservative Leader Pierre Polievre of playing partisan games with foreign interference as diplomatic issues with India intensify. Growing unrest in Liberal caucus. And is another cabinet shuffle coming?  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. Hello, I'm Rosemary Barton. This week on At Issue, the podcast edition for Thursday, October 17th. At Issue tonight, foreign interference with a partisan punch.

The prime minister uses his appearance at the public inquiry to go after Pierre Poiliev. The leader of the official opposition, who is certainly trying very hard to become prime minister, is choosing to play partisan games with foreign interference. This comes after the RCMP say Indian officials were behind crimes against Canadians, leading to the expulsion of six diplomats. It seems like folks within the Indian government have decided to create violence and unlawfulness in Canada. This week we're asking how is Canada handling these diplomatic issues with India and are our political leaders responding correctly to foreign interference? Chantal Hébert,

Andrew Coyne, Althea Raj join me to talk about that and Liberal MPs calling on the Prime Minister to step down. Good to see you all. I must say, I was, like, starting Monday, was desperate to hear from all of you about how things have unfolded. And especially after yesterday and the Prime Minister's testimony and his sharp criticisms and sharp words for Pierre Poiliev and then the Conservative response.

So maybe let's start there, Chantal, in terms of what you made of what the Prime Minister did yesterday. I thought it was interesting and totally, I guess, unexpected. Not that the notion that there are parliamentarians associated with the Conservative Party, past or present, and parliamentarians, the term is important because it could be senators or MPs or candidates that have had or have brushes with foreign interference. We knew that from the parliamentary committee report that came out last spring.

And, by the way, if seriously we believe that there are attempts at foreign interference in this country, and there certainly are, obviously the Conservatives would be a target, not just to keep them down, as China might have wanted in previous elections, but also to have people on the inside of the inside of public policy going forward. The polls would suggest to anyone who's looking to have some influence from inside that you should target the Conservative Party. So the prime minister saying that was no surprise, but it did put the finger, and he touched the nerve.

And obviously he touched the nerve because he is read and has had intelligence that Pia Puglieva has not wanted to have. And what I found interesting is the initial reaction of the Conservatives saying the prime minister is lying. One, he's under oath. But even if you don't believe that, Justice Ugg, who presides over this commission, has had access to almost as many unredacted documents as the prime minister. So she, in the end, will be the person deciding whether there is a serious mistake on the part of a party leader that doesn't want to know the lay of the land within his own party, not Justin Trudeau. But if she thought that the prime minister was using her commission to lie and smear a own party, not Justin Trudeau. But if she thought that the prime minister was using

her commission to lie and smear a political party, I think we would have had some hints of that in our questioning of the prime minister. So where does that leave Pierre Poiliev then, Andrew, in terms of his position about not getting these security briefings, given what the prime minister said yesterday and what happens next? Well, he certainly left the prime minister an opening. Chantel is right. There are intelligence reports about members of all parties. And I think the first responsibility of any party leader is to clean out in their own party

whatever they want to say about other parties. Now, that being said, I didn't think it looked particularly prime ministerial for the prime minister on the witness stand with such grave issues at stake to take such a nakedly partisan shot and let's not kill ourselves. Politicians are never more partisan than when they're accusing somebody else of playing partisan games. This is, you know, we are under attack here from several fronts. We've got great powers, hostile foreign powers, murdering our citizens on Canadian soil,

infiltrating our parliament, corrupting our politicians, possibly having a hand in deciding who wins our leadership races. The stuff that is coming out is just absolutely scalding. And it's really time for all of the party leaders, the Prime Minister and Mr. Poirier, to be sobering up and getting serious about this. And they show no signs of that. But it's remarkable. The Prime Minister, when it comes to the events within his own party, he and his officials were remarkably able to avoid briefings, to not read memos, to not get memos, to be kept

in the dark conveniently. But when it comes up to mis you know, misdeeds within the Conservative Party, he's remarkably well briefed. So I thought his sudden interest in knowing the granular details of every other party, I think, was interesting. And secondly, he admitted afterwards when he was under questioning that, yeah, he knew the names of some other MPs in his own party and other parties as well, which he hadn't mentioned in that first kind of headline-grabbing outburst. And what has he done about that? He's very concerned, and rightly so, that Mr. Polyever should take hold of events within the Conservative Party.

What has he done? What consequences will anybody within any of these parties face if it is found that they were in fact doing what the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians accuses them of having done. I'm not sure that we will even know the answer to that question, to Andrew's question. A few things. One, it's interesting that so much has been made about the prime minister's words, because I'm not sure that he actually told us anything we didn't already know. If you parse the words, he says,

I have the names of a number of parliamentarians, comma, former parliamentarians, comma, and or candidates in the Conservative Party of Canada who are engaged, comma, or at higher risk of, comma, or for whom there's clear intelligence around foreign interference. I read that because it could be candidates, it could be former parliamentarians, like a former senator in the Conservative caucus that everyone had suspicions was possibly a compromised individual. It could just mean that one person.

Like the statement was so vague that it could mean anything. It was clearly a partisan move drafted for political reasons. No doubt the prime minister, I think we have noticed a tone change starting on Monday with, I am in charge. I am the leader. I am taking, you know, I'm acting the prime minister. I'm taking these decisions for obvious reasons because of the tumultuousness of caucus.

So I think that there were partisan reasons why he did that. But also when you parse his words, it's not clear what he's actually saying. I do think that he has hit a nerve because it is a vulnerability for Mr. Pyapoliev's position that, frankly, he should not have staked a year ago, which suggests that he doesn't have the maturity to want to have the responsibilities of becoming prime minister. Why would you willfully choose ignorance? And his excuse that while he doesn't want to have his hands tied and his lips sealed so that he can't levy all types of accusations in the House, frankly, just doesn't hold water. If you're the prime minister, you should be able to parse information that you have in the back of your head

that colors information that you can use to make decisions, right? Like you should be able to communicate that. And I do wonder if we're going to see a reversal in the conservative leader's stance on that. Chantal, I'm running out of time, but Chantelle. OK, two things. The commission does interviews with the people who go on the witness stand before they go on the witness stand. And some of that transcript is shared. And I found it really curious that in that pre-interview not understand. The prime minister told the commission that this national security advisor had told him something, facts that were explosive, quote, unquote, through those words, about another federal party. Now, explosive is a pretty big word, and it doesn't seem to refer to just the parliamentary report. First question. Second,

this will not be the last time that Piapoliev hears about this, because Justice Ogg's mandate is to look forward to the next election. And I suspect that based on what happened yesterday, she will be recommending that parties and party leaders clean up their own shops by getting the proper security clearance to know the lay of the land within their caucuses. So this won't go away. No matter how much the Conservatives say this wasn't fair and the Prime Minister was playing games. Unless, of course, he does get the security briefing. Just Althea's point quickly, Andrew. It's one thing to talk about existing parliamentarians or whatever, but we still have this large issue of nomination and leadership races which again there is an all-party consensus to do nothing about okay gotta leave it there we're going to talk about the other part of this which althea hinted at uh all of this dissent this

brewing dissent within the liberal caucus the message that i've been getting loud and clear and more and more strongly as time goes by is that it's time for him to go. And I agree. How is the Prime Minister dealing with this unrest? Will they respond to calls to oust the Prime Minister? That's next. At issue, a push for change at the top. Some Liberal MPs are trying to oust the Prime Minister and planning to raise it at caucus next week. At least one MP is speaking publicly.

The message that I've been getting loud and clear and more and more strongly as time goes by is that it's time for him to go and I agree. Today we also heard four cabinet ministers have said they will not run again. How is the Prime Minister responding to all of this? How real is the threat? Let's bring everybody back. Chantal, Andrew and Althea. I'll start with Althea because she broke the story just as this bureau was typing out the words. Althea's story went up before ours. It's a race to the finish line. We didn't curse you though, Althea. How dire is this situation for the prime minister right now? I don't know. There are several groups of MPs in caucus and the numbers have grown. And what has changed is that they're talking to each other in a way that they haven't before.

And they're obviously organizing in a way that they haven't actively before. Whether it amounts to anything, it's really too early to tell. One, because we've reported on this at the very early infancy and to the chagrin of many of the instigators who wanted to see this happen only after the fact. And two, the prime minister doesn't want to go, wants to fight, and is refusing to leave. So it will take a substantial number of caucus members to pressure him to resign. There is no heir apparent waning in the wings, which complicates things slightly because the question of, well, what next isn't really answered. There are several mechanisms that MPs are discussing. They are signing a letter encouraging him or with the

purpose of encouraging him to step down. Some people want to storm the caucus. There are calls for a secret ballot vote at the next caucus meeting. Some people have suggested a press conference. But what they really want is for the prime minister to realize in their view that he cannot win and that he should just step aside so that another leader has possibly a better chance of winning. I don't know. I mean, that seems like a gamble, Andrew, to me, to say this guy's of no use to us, so we'll dump him and we'll figure out who's next and we'll hope the path is easier.

Yeah, the difficulty they have, I think, the rebels, is the hopelessness of the situation. It would be one thing if you thought we can make this change and at least have a fighting chance or there's such necessity. I mean, you look at what happened with the Democrats where Joe Biden said, I'm not going no way, no how. And people waited him out and forced him out. Because why? Well, because there was still a chance to win and they absolutely had to win for the good of the republic. I don't think you can make, frankly, either argument here. The situation isn't nearly as dire for the country and certainly not enough, I think, for the party to make those kinds of decisions. So it's mostly just, can we make anything better by doing this?

We don't have an heir apparent. You know, I just think that's the situation they're facing. It was interesting, there were some rumors that they might get the odd cabinet minister to sign on to this. And instead, what you see are these cabinet ministers saying, we're not going to run again. Oh, no, but it's not the same group, Andrew. You might still get some cabinet ministers. I'm just saying, it's not necessarily, you know, if you could get cabinet ministers on side, that's one thing. But just saying you're going to leave, that's just a...

The optics aren't great, but yeah. Because they will only join when it's a sure thing, right? Because they would be resigning their position. Yeah, for sure. Chantal, you've seen this play before. So how is this different or how might it play out? Actually, there's a lot of it that looks like what I saw before. And I'm going back to when the last time liberals signed a letter to tell a leader to leave, the leader was John Turner.

I can't name you the people who signed that letter or I couldn't have that week because lo and behold, none of them in broad daylight wanted to confess to his or her signature. Yes. And John Turner remained this leader. You do not get rid of a leader by signing a letter, for the record. People who have succeeded, but it requires a bit of a spine, the capacity to walk, were the people in the Canadian Alliance caucus who decided Stockwell, they had to go. What did they do? They went and they sat. They left caucus. They left the party. Now, if those people who are signing letters, those MPs, really, really want to get rid of Justin Trudeau, then they can say they're all going to sit as independent and he's going to be gone tomorrow because he will not have a government that he can sustain.

But short of that, it's becoming a bit of a farce to watch. We're going to give him a letter, then we're going to storm the mics, and then what? It's very difficult to take down any political party leader in the Canadian system because the leader has all the cards, particularly over your nomination, for example. It's even rarer to see it happen to a sitting prime minister. If I'm right, I think it's only happened to two in our history. One was Jean Chrétien, the other was Mackenzie Boal. So it's a really difficult job that they've assigned themselves. I don't see any evidence that anyone is willing to go in front of a camera and say these things or do what Chantal is saying, suddenly form an independent caucus.

Maybe they'll get there, but at this stage, they don't seem to be there. No, I can't see anybody walking out and doing what the group like the Chuck Strahl group did under Stockwell. I don't see that happening. There are more and more people, though, who are being vocal, like Sean Casey has come out and his message changed. You know, we heard from Alexandra Mendez, the Montreal area MP in September, who said, well, all my constituents want him to go. But she said she didn't go as far as Mr. Casey in saying, and I also think he should go. So the thing that has happened and why I think that there wasn't that mobilizing factor after the Toronto St. Paul by-election was because it was the summer and the MPs weren't together.

Now the MPs are together. So they're all talking to each other and they're realizing that they all feel the same way. I shouldn't say all. A lot. A lot of them feel the same way. I don't know if I could say most, but about at least half, I would say, feel the same way. Not a majority yet, though. And so I think once there is a shuffle, you will have angry people because you have people that are sitting on the fence at the moment who do not want to knife the lady because they actually want to have a cabinet position for how many months. I don't know. And so there will be even more angry people. And then maybe they will have the numbers.

But quickly. OK, quickly, Chantal. But at some point, these people are on a clock with no one to lead them to the promised land that they all seem to be dreaming of. At this point the most realistic scenario, and it's a stretch, would be under a new leader or Justin Trudeau to hold the Conservatives down to a minority. And we're not even there. So if they're going to spend the next four or five months that they may have doing this squabbling, let's see if we can kill the leader not knowing who we want next, they have to be assuming that there are strong candidates who want to take the hit in the next

election rather than wait out the election to become the leader of the party and try to pick up the pieces. Well, we know that there pieces. You can see what important questions of principle are involved. Who will give me a job? Who will save my seat? I suspect we'll talk about this next week after the caucus meeting Wednesday. At issue, a possible cabinet shuffle. Four Liberal cabinet ministers are not running in the next election. Fueling speculation, a cabinet shuffle might be on the table. Could that help Justin Trudeau and questions about his leadership? And could it have more impact than

the shuffle last year, which I think everyone would agree was not a roaring success? Chantal Althea and Andrew, I don't know, Andrew, I mean, there has been talk of a shuffle to allow the people, like for instance today, to exit, obviously not to leave government, but to not be in cabinet, not to leave the party, and put some fresh faces in as a way of saying, okay, we do have people that would be interesting in an election. I don't know whether that would have any impact at all at this point. No. No. And not only because of this government is in such dire straits with the public, but just nobody really cares about cabinet anymore. We have 38, 39 cabinet ministers. The average in the OECD is 19. When you get up above 30, they all start to look like ants.

It's a ridiculous size for a decision-making body. They've had to create that kind of size of cabinet. They've had to create all kinds of meaningless titles, which they give to non-entities who are never heard from again. So the notion that rearranging this is suddenly going to put a shiny new face in the government and get everyone excited about it when they don't really have meaningful responsibilities, I just think it's fantasy land. This has been true for many years and decades, but it's been particularly true under this government that announced that cabinet

government was back, which has introduced the innovation that ministers don't even get to choose their own chiefs of staff anymore. Which, you know, they tried that with one minister in Boris Johnson government in Britain, and he quit in disgust and said no self-respecting minister would accept to have the prime minister choosing his staff for them. Ministers in our system don't have a lot of self-respect. I have heard, and maybe you've heard this too, Althea, I have heard that the Liberals could take this as an opportunity that would delight Andrew and just reduce the size of cabinet.

Cut it in half, I'll be excited. Because then also you would not maybe bring in new faces and maybe, I don't know. I don't know the strategy, but I have heard that idea out there as well. Well, it would save taxpayers money. It would help solve the crisis of so many men wanting to be in cabinet at the moment and not actually having a lot of room at the cabinet table to have all these men. So maybe. I do think I don't I agree that the cabinet shuffle will not affect like the Liberal Party's chances.

But I think caucus members believe that being in cabinet will either help their re-election chances or help their employment chances after they possibly lose their seat or they're not there anymore. So I do think there's still lots of people who do want to be in cabinet and there will be a lot of unhappy people as soon as that shuffle takes place. And at the moment, it is the largest carrot stick that is keeping a lot of MPs who otherwise would be joining the instigators in line because they think that they're in line for promotion. But who would want to be promoted for like two minutes? I don't know. What is the benefit of that, Chantal? I don't know.

Or let's cut the size of the cabinet and make more people angry. Yes. So, yeah, right. I think from today's news about four ministers who are not re-offering, we should take for granted that the cabinet shuffle is in the offing. Possibly not tomorrow, but closer to just after the U.S. election. But that is, and there will be a cabinet shuffle. That's what happens before an election, one way or another. There were no surprises, I'm guessing, in the PMO about who is not running. Some of those ministers had told the prime minister back in the summer, or his staff, that they were not re-offering. One wants to run for mayor of Sherbrooke, is my understanding, and that's been known for a while. So all of that

being said, if you're going to have a shuffle and you want it to make a big impression, you're going to have to make some pretty fundamental moves. The last time I saw fundamental moves was Brian Mulroney bringing in Lucien Bouchard from the outside or Jean Chrétien recruiting Pierre Pizirou and Stéphane Zion after the referendum. So yes, if the prime minister is

going to bring Mark Carney into cabinet, I'm sure that it will have shock value. I wouldn't put any money on that at all. It's a different scenario when you're like 20 points below. No, no, no, no, no. I'm not saying don't all go into this won't happen. I'm using this as a baseline for what would be a cabinet shuffle that actually catches the eye of Canadians. Anything below that is kind of happening in the bubble and nobody really cares. Well, I do think there's like a vulnerability that could be addressed. Like a lot of people are very angry with the foreign affairs minister, Mgani on both sides of the issue in the middle east so will she get shuffled out the next one will make people happy by changing the government's policy messaging

will certainly have to change if that's the case and then on like do they keep christie freeland in her position or not and maybe depending on what happens in the u.s election you know that is a pivot that's easier to happen. But a lot of people do think the liberals have gone too far to the left and that they could use someone who's more center center right in that position. And that would give them an opening to do that. Just to be clear, I don't think Mark Carney would take that. I don't even think he'd take the offer. I know it wasn't a real thing.

He already has a liberal party job. That's right. OK. OK. We'll talk about it again. I'm not in Mark Carney's mind, but that is where my bar is for an impulsive cabinet trouble. So noted for when it happens. That is at issue for a very busy week.

Do you think the government is handling foreign interference properly? Do you think that Pierre Poiliev should get a security briefing to know more about what's happening or potentially happening inside his own party? Let us know. You can send us an email, ask at cbc.ca. And remember, you can catch me on Rosemary Barton Live. That's Sundays at 10 a.m. Eastern on any kind of screen you like to watch. We'll be back in your podcast feeds next week. Thanks for listening, friends.