Front Burner - A showdown in Ottawa, and a snap election?

Episode Date: October 21, 2020

The prospect of a snap election has been looming over Ottawa, all because of a fight over the most unlikely of controversies: a new committee. Vassy Kapelos, host of the CBC’s Power and Politics, joins us to talk about how we got here, the latest on the WE affair, and what might happen next.

In the Dragon's Den, a simple pitch can lead to a life-changing connection. Watch new episodes of Dragon's Den free on CBC Gem. Brought to you in part by National Angel Capital Organization, empowering Canada's entrepreneurs through angel investment and industry connections. This is a CBC Podcast. But it will be up to parliamentarians and the opposition to decide whether they want to make this minority parliament work or whether they've lost confidence in this government's ability to manage this pandemic and continue to govern this country during this crisis.

This is not about an election as Mr. Trudeau would like. It's about reasonable questions that he has avoided through the use of prorogation, through the resignation of his finance minister, from hours of delay and obfuscation at committee. What are they really hiding from? Today, a showdown in Ottawa over the weak controversy and pandemic spending that on Tuesday had the capital bracing for a possible election call. Vashie Capello's host of CBC's Power and Politics and very good friend of the pod is here to talk about how a fight over committees, I know, committees, has raised the specter of a possible snap election.

I'm Jamie Poisson and this is Frontburner. Vashi, hello. Hi, Jamie. It's very nice to speak with you. It's so nice to speak with you. Welcome back. We've missed you. Oh, well, thank you so much.

I spent many afternoons with you and Power in Politics and Oli. We switched back and forth between Rafi and CBC. CBC was for me. Rafi was for him. Okay, so the last day that I spoke to you before I went on mat leave, you were on the podcast, and we were joking about whether or not we'd be covering an election when I got back. And I know that this conversation is really par for the course when you're part of a minority government. But today, we certainly spent the whole day talking about the possibility of an election because of a committee. Would you have predicted that? It seems like such a boring thing to call an election about. Yeah, I definitely would not have predicted in any way, shape or form that this would be what prompted the discussion on an election.

I think I incorrectly, if I recall that episode, predicted that there probably wouldn't be an election because of the pandemic. So I also knew that I could very much and would likely be wrong. I think I added that caveat at the time. So good thing I am wrong because we are now talking about the possibility of an election. I still would be shocked if it happens because of this, but it's very much a possibility. Okay. Okay. So I want to understand today how we got here to this possible election call. I know that there are two big things going on here. The unprecedented amount of money this government is spending and the hangover of the WE scandal. And the conservatives have been pushing for more oversight on both of those issues.

They would rather deliver 500 boxes full of spending documents and bog down parliament for months rather than us bring in three boxes of the documents they've been avoiding to give us. And that essentially, you know, correct me if I'm wrong here, but that all came to a head today. And can you take me through how we got here to this game of chicken over a committee? Where do you think we need to start? Sure. I think it's been brewing for a number of days. You could even say a number of weeks. We have to start way back when, if you recall, the government decided to pro-rogue parliament, which essentially means shutting it

down. That means committees no longer function. At the time, committees, which was all the drama over the summer, were looking into the WE controversy. They were looking through documents. They called the prime minister. And when I learned that WE Charity was recommended, I pushed back. I wanted to be satisfied that the proposal that We Charity was recommended, I pushed back. I wanted to be satisfied that the proposal that We Charity deliver the CSSG had been properly scrutinized. The finance minister who then resigned, it was very dramatic. It took place over the summer. And the committees were essentially supposed to continue doing that work. It's a minority government, so committees are not dominated by the governing party as they would be in a majority, which allows them to continue digging into stuff.

And the government can't shut it down unless they prorogue parliament, which is what they did. So the opposition at the time accused them of doing that, though the liberals insisted it wasn't the case, because they didn't want these investigations into the We Charity through committees to continue. In fact, starting a new session of Parliament is about creating sustainable ways to support you moving forward. That has always been our number one focus, and it always will be. So fast forward to now, Parliament resumes, and the Conservatives say, and members of all opposition parties, really, we want to continue these investigations into we, but we are proposing that we create the Anti-Corruption Committee, which will specifically look at only this matter. And it will require you to provide thousands of pages of redacted documents and all the speaking documentation associated with the prime minister, his mother, his brother, etc. So that's what they want to do. The NDP says, OK, wait, let's change this a little bit to make it a bit more palatable to the government and sort of take a broader look. We'll add in all the pandemic spending and all the sort of actions of the government in the pandemic.

We still create this very specific committee to look at that. But we'll also rule out the prime minister's mother and brother, we'll just focus on the prime minister. And it won't just be about we, it will be about a whole bunch of other stuff. So that's kind of where we're left now. And then what are the liberals saying about this? We have these two proposals for committee, the one, you know, so-called anti-corruption committee, and then this other slightly different committee proposed by the NDP? How are the liberals responding? Yeah, so there's one version the conservatives want, there's one version the NDP wants, and then the liberals said, well, at the beginning of the week, hey, here's a third option for you to consider. This committee would sort of be like the NDP's committee, but the makeup would be a bit different.

And the chair would be a liberal, which essentially changes what the committee could do. So under the NDP and the Conservatives' proposal, the committees would almost have free reign. I know it sounds kind of technical, but imagine they wanted to hear from the prime minister. They could force him to appear. Right, it wouldn't be an invitation. He would be compelled to come. Right, they'd have like a lot more power. So the liberals kind of dilute the amount of power that the opposition would have, which is, you know, clearly to their advantage.

But also at the same time, from their perspective, allay the uproar over not looking into we and say, OK, you guys can still look into all that stuff and create a special committee. But the makeup will be different. So the powers of that committee will be different, too. Okay. So then how do these competing committee proposals, these three slightly different committees proposals, lead us to a possible non-confidence vote? How the heck did that happen? I know. I feel like that's what everybody's asking themselves who doesn't live and breathe this nerddom. How are we talking about three different committees about, like, gosh knows what, and all of a sudden, like, tomorrow we could be saying we're in an election? What happened was the liberals essentially decided to say, so the conservatives, it gets even more complicated. I'll try to make it simple. The conservatives decide to make their

committee proposal a specific motion on opposition Day. And that motion then would get put to a vote. The liberals say, OK, fine, that's what you want. We're making it a confidence vote. And a matter of confidence, like a vote for confidence in a minority government is always the possible makes for the possibility of an election., right? Because you need a majority of support in order for it to go ahead. If the liberals don't get the support that they need, their government falls and hence you go to an election. So the stakes all of a sudden became crazy high for something that would normally be, you know, an opposition day motion that maybe five people, including you and I in this country, would be, you know, paying close attention to? Is this something that would typically trigger a confidence

vote? Like what normally would trigger a confidence vote? 100% no. Not even close. I have, I don't even know if a committee, like the creation of a committee, has ever been a confidence vote. There's a wide variance of what it could be. Primarily, it's about money. It's about the throne speech. Those are like a budget or the throne speech. That's what would be what we typically expect. This is definitely not normal. So, OK, I want to ask you about some of the reactions here. So the liberals say, OK, if you want to put forward this proposal for this anti-corruption committee, they said to the conservatives, OK, then it's going to be a confidence vote.

How does conservative leader Aaron O'Toole respond to this? Does he want an election? So here's the very wild and entertaining thing. Nobody wants an election. That's what every politician has said in the last 24 hours. We don't want an election. We don't want an election. We don't want an election. That's what every politician has said in the last 24 hours. We don't want an election. We don't want an election. We don't want an election. To make clear that the appointment of a special committee shall not constitute legitimate grounds for calling a general election. But Aaron O'Toole says, I don't have confidence in the government.

But the government says, the liberals say, I don't want an election. But this is so important that, you know, if there isn't confidence in the government, we should go to an election. The leader of the opposition himself admitted earlier today that he does not have confidence in this government to manage the pandemic. And now the opposition parties have a choice. Do they want to make Parliament work and work for Canadians or do they want to vote non-confidence and trigger election? The choice, Mr. Speaker, is theirs. So it's a very confusing scenario. It's hard to tell, I think, actually, even from my perspective as someone who kind of,

you know, really tries to understand what the strategies are, what exactly they are here, like who ends up benefiting. I feel like that's difficult to determine, but it will end up, you know, leading to some creative math, right? If the Bloc says, the Bloc Québécois says that they're also going to support the Conservatives. So do you know, does the NDP vote to support the Liberals and take them over the edge? Or do they abstain and then the Liberals have to rely on independents like Jody Wilson and the Greens and what will they do? So it becomes a game of math very quickly.

Wilson-Raybould and the Greens and what will they do? So it becomes a game of math very quickly. Well, I want to ask you about that because the NDP is like a potential kingmaker here, right? Like they can just make this go away for the liberals pretty quickly by voting, you know, with the liberals essentially here, right? How is Jagmeet Singh responding to this? So in an interesting way in that it's hard to figure out exactly what they plan to do. Mr. Singh, in all his comments over the past few days, has very much directed his criticism to the liberals and criticized and his party has criticized the liberals and the prime minister for making this an issue of confidence. Like, why are we doing this about an election type of thing? I can't imagine how the prime minister of Canada would look those people in their eyes,

people who are afraid and worried, and say, I know you're worried and afraid, but we're going to an election because I don't like a committee. That is outrageous and it is absurd. Let me be very clear. The only way there is an election right now is because the prime minister chooses to have one. They have also been the ones to sort of propose something that is a bit more middle of the road. But they keep talking about wanting to have some kind of conversation or negotiation to avoid a possible confidence vote. At the same time, he won't

clearly come out and say what he plans to do if, in fact, that confidence vote takes place, which in all likelihood it will. The Bloc have already said we're going to support the concerns. The NDP have not made that clear. And so you're absolutely right. They could be ultimately, as they have a few times in the past, the kingmakers one way or the other. Okay. And I should say you and I, I'm just going to timestamp this conversation because you and I are talking at around 7.45 on Tuesday night. And of course, the vote is supposed to be today, Wednesday. And so it is possible that some sort of agreement was reached with the help of the NDP overnight. They were trying to paint themselves as like the only adults in the room here. So just for everybody listening right now, apologies if you're waking up to an agreement

and there isn't going to be an election after all. But let's continue. No meaning whatsoever. You can just turn this podcast off right now. No, no. But no, please don't because we're turn this podcast off right now. No, no. But no, please don't, because we're getting into some stuff right now. But let's proceed as if it's very possible that there is a no confidence vote today that could send us to an election. And while all of this

discussion about committees has kind of changed the channel on what I would assume the Conservatives hope to be talking about today, which is like the WE scandal. I just want to spend a little bit of time on that with you today. So when the government prorogued in the summer, what questions remained unanswered in that scandal? So there's a couple of things that have resulted from that prorogation that specifically the opposition is focused on. The first is what happened the day that the government prorogued parliament, and that is this massive document dump. So committees, ethics and finance had asked for kind of a laundry list of lots of the communication, for example, that took place between people in the prime minister's

office and people at WE. Because remember, one of the allegations that was being made was that there was almost like a too cozy relationship and that there had sort of been special favor placed on WE. So do these documents, for example, support that thesis or that accusation? There's a lot of redactions throughout the documents. And so a big part of what they're asking for is an end to those redactions, right? So unredacted documents, and there are thousands and thousands and thousands of pages of them. So that's certainly one big thing that the opposition wants to look at. There are also questions around certain ministers' conduct, especially, for example, the minister in charge of this program, Minister Chagger, and whether the timeline she

initially produced was the real one, because certain documents that have already been delivered show that there is some sort of dispute over some of the evidence that she put forward or how forthcoming she was. And finally, there's questions about the program itself, right? Like it was, you know, $900 million allotted to it. Where did that money end up going? Some ministers had said that it would be directed to other student programming. Did it? What do you do for students who kind of were at a disadvantage

because they couldn't do something like this over the summer? So those questions are part of what, you know, are still to be uncovered to a certain degree as well. In the Dragon's Den, a simple pitch can lead to a life-changing connection. Watch new episodes of Dragon's Den free on CBC Gem. Brought to you in part by National Angel Capital Organization, empowering Canada's entrepreneurs through angel investment and industry connections. Hi, it's Ramit Sethi here. You may have seen my money show on Netflix.

I've been talking about money for 20 years. I've talked to millions of people and I have some startling numbers to share with you. Did you know that of the people I speak to, 50% of them do not know their own household income? That's not a typo, 50%. That's because money is confusing. In my new book and podcast, Money for Couples, I help you and your partner create a financial vision together. To listen to this podcast, just search for Money for Couples. When the government prorogued Parliament, a lot of people accused them of doing that, as you mentioned earlier, to kill the We Story. And is it your sense that this committee brinksmanship is part of the same strategy now?

That's a really good question. I mean, certainly that's what the accusation from the opposition is, right? They don't want the truth to come out. This cover-up is becoming quite desperate. And I think it's understandable to sort of ask the question of the government, like, if you really do have nothing to hide, why are you making this into such a big deal? Yeah, why not let them create this committee, this anti-corruption committee, like, go for it? Yeah, and what the government will say, and I've, you know, interviewed many ministers about this and asked them that question is, the version that the Conservatives have put forward would

take up way too much time. It would monopolize the government, the public service and ministers, and therefore take away from their ability to deliver what Canadians need during the pandemic and to focus on the pandemic. So that's what the government says. The opposition doesn't believe that. And they continue to say this looks like you have something to hide. Like by making such a big stink about it, it seems like there is something to unearth. Now, we don't know if that's the case. I think that's important to note. But the optics of it are certainly, I think, what fuels the opposition kind of talking about this more and more. I suppose I would flip this question to, if I could ask you

this, from the Conservatives' perspective, why do they say they need this special committee to investigate we and other government spending during the pandemic? Why can't they just use the existing committees that they have, the Finance Committee, the Ethics Committee? We have all sorts of committees. That's a very good question. And it seems that the drama of the past few weeks, if you could call it that, certainly plays into the argument that they're putting forth. At least I'm not saying that the argument is right or wrong. What we saw take place in several of those committees was the Liberals filibustering, which basically means kind of blabbing about things that have nothing to do with the subject at hand in order to take up time and prolong, you know, whatever action is trying to be taken.

You know, again, and I sound a little bit like a broken record and I'm trying to keep everything innovative here and I'm not trying to not trying to wear down the clock, but I really have to ask all our honorable colleagues around the table. And so the opposition, both opposition parties use that as evidence or a reason, justification, whatever you want to call it, for saying we need one special committee to look at it. Now, the liberals, I just really want to quickly say that the liberals would say that the conservatives want to do this to further exploit the issue, to kind of make it a bit of a witch hunt that is aimed purely at partisan activities. That's the argument the liberals have put forward.

The conservatives disagree clearly. Earlier in this conversation, you mentioned that nobody wants an election or everybody is saying they say that they don't want election, which is the question I have for you, because, you know, the liberals, do they not want an election? Because I'm guessing that you have to be pretty confident about how you do an election to force one over whether or not there can be a new committee, right? Yeah, I think that's a really good point. I mean, there's a couple of ways to look at it. I feel like if you take a step back and you, you know, quote unquote, ignore that we're in this awful portion of this never ending pandemic, is this probably one of the more opportune times? And I don't mean this in a facetious way, but a more opportune times for

the Liberals, given the pandemic is, you know, forefront for many voters and most Canadians feel they've done a pretty good job. Could it get a lot worse when, you know, more spending has to happen, there's more accountability and time goes on and people are even worse off because of the pandemic? Yes, it definitely could. So from like a purely political strategy view, like a strategic view, this might be as good a time as any for the Liberals. At the same time, I've talked to a number of cabinet ministers and a number of MPs, some, most of them, I would say, located in Ontario, and only because they're the ones who come to Ottawa more. So I'll see them more frequently.

And I've asked them about that. And there is a huge hesitancy among, you know, rank and file MPs to go to an election. They don't think there's any appetite. They don't feel safe campaigning. They've said that to me. It's a pretty precarious time across most of the country. Right. And you're talking about Ontario kids can't go out for Halloween, right? Yeah. That's what I said to the minister today. I'm like, how are you going to have an election when the prime minister admitted that he's not even going to send his kids out for Halloween, because that's what Ottawa Public Health is saying. It's because we're thinking about all those peoples, those that lost their jobs and is looking for another one.

We need to have the capacity to keep working for Keynes. Like, it's just hard to imagine. And I know that even politically, there's a lot of pushback within the Liberal caucus about it. So, you know, I don't think that really anybody does want it. I think they all acknowledge that it would be very difficult. I do think, though, underneath it, there's a bit of, yeah, OK, for the Liberals, this probably is as good a time as any.

I don't think the calculation is the same for opposition parties for different reasons. Right. Aaron O'Toole just became the leader. You know, they have they have some money in the bank, but they certainly could be in a better position if more Canadians were familiar with him a number of months from now. The NDP has no money and very little money. months from now, the NDP has no money and very little money. And so the prospect of an election for them is, you know, they say that they're ready to fight one, but it wouldn't be good. Okay, so I know that you hate predictions. But if I forced you to predict right now, what do you think is going to happen today? Are we going to be talking again? Are we going to be talking again tomorrow about heading to the polls? Yes or no?

I really don't like doing this because as I add this caveat every time, I feel like I predict anything. I'm usually wrong. No, I don't think we will be. I don't think we will be. But stranger things have happened. And I just feel like the math is such a crazy part of this. Like, what if some liberals don't show up to vote? What if some NDP don't?

You know, there's a lot of things that can impact those numbers. So it could be a weird turn of events. But just like in my heart, I definitely do not think, oh, my gosh, these words are going to haunt me. I don't think so. Okay. That's perfect. Vaji, thank you so much. It's a pleasure as always to catch up with you. Thanks, Jamie. Other than your last question,

you're the best. Thanks. Yeah, I'm sorry for that last question. But you know, we'll talk to you, if we don't talk to you tomorrow, we'll talk to you real soon. Can't wait. Thanks, Jamie. all right so before we go today an update on a high-profile trial that's become a flashpoint in the conversation about race and police brutality in Canada. Yesterday, an Ottawa police officer, Daniel Monsian, was found not guilty of manslaughter and assault charges in the 2016 death of Abdirahman Abdi. Abdi was a Somali-Canadian man with a mental illness, and he was arrested after police were called to a coffee shop about a disturbance. Officers struck him with a baton and pepper sprayed him, and surveillance footage appears to show Montian and another officer punching and kicking him. Abdi had a

heart attack and later died in hospital. On Tuesday, the judge in the trial said that the Crown hadn't proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Montian caused Abdi's death, and that the use of force was justified. That's all for today. I'm Jamie Poisson. Thanks so much for listening to Frontburner.