Front Burner - Conservative Leader Erin O’Toole (part two)

Episode Date: May 19, 2021

Would Conservative Leader Erin O’Toole support a union at Amazon? Why isn’t he resonating with younger Canadians? Ahead of a looming federal election, hear more in part two of a wide-ranging interview.

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. Hi, I'm Jamie Poisson. I got to have a long chat with the leader of the Conservative Party of Canada, Aaron O'Toole, this week. The first part of that interview where we talk about how his values square with social conservatives in his party, the vaccine rollout and big tech, that's up on our feed now.

In the second part, we talk about whether he was disappointed when Conservative delegates rejected a motion to put the phrase, climate change is real, into their policy book, and his pitch to combat climate change. I also tried to get a better understanding of what exactly he means when he says he supports unions in Canada. Does that mean backing a potential union at Amazon, for example? a potential union at Amazon, for example. And as we get closer and closer to a possible federal election, why he has trouble getting support from younger Canadians, especially young women. Here's part two of that combo. At your recent conservative convention, delegates voted against putting the phrase climate change is real into party policy. Were you disappointed by that?

Well, that's not what happened. There was a fairly long resolution that had, you know, multiple aspects to tackling climate change. And it was defeated for a range of reasons. We had hundreds of resolutions that were proposed by our grassroots. About 30 or 40 made the final floor of the convention. That was one. We already have climate change and recognition of climate change and commitment to the Paris targets as standing party policy. But certainly because that resolution was hard to understand, it was not the outcome I would have liked coming out of the convention, for sure. Let me, Mr. O'Toole, the only other elements in that climate change resolution

were statements calling on Canadian businesses to do their part and for more support for innovation and green technologies. What's wrong with those? Well, it was prescribing certain policies, you're right, with respect to large emitters, with respect to provinces. What some people thought about that resolution was that it was too prescriptive to come and put into our party policy booklet. It's up for our campaign to come up with ideas that we then run on for Canadians. And because I was already working on our climate change plan, Jamie, I wasn't that concerned about a resolution passing or not passing because I was actually already several months into detailed work

reaching out to stakeholders. We engaged the top climate change modeling firm in the country to work with us on our plan. So while it was the obsession of many people on Twitter in the days after our convention, I had said in my first press conference after it that I was the leader and I was preparing a solid, serious, targeted plan to meet our emission targets. And that's what I launched several weeks later. And I want to talk to you about that plan in just one moment. But just to stay on this for a minute, I imagine a lot of people looking at this, they're going to think you can't unite your party on the existence of climate change, which is frankly not a very controversial issue in this country. Only 7% of Canadians believe this is an unproven theory. What would you say to those people who question your leadership around this?

I would say to them that long before this latest convention, our party has already recognized climate change. In fact, the Paris targets that we're striving to meet were set by the Harper government. And so, you know, some of these internal party policy debates at conventions are hard to put into context. You know, it was a story that came out of a convention that was generally executed well. You know, my speech with the Five Point Canada Recovery Plan to lead us in the economic response and the rebuilding nationally after COVID was well received.

That resolution was a distraction, absolutely. But I don't let distractions deter me from doing the hard work to come up with a plan that will meet our climate change objectives and show canadians that conservatives are going to lead on the environment again like we did back under mr mulrooney i know we have some trust to earn with with people that's why we put our plan out months before an election. It's why I've defended it with people in Western Canada that had questions with us pricing carbon. I received some positive comments from groups that are environmental advocacy groups. And that's what I wanted. I wanted to say, we want to have a solid debate on the various plans, Mr. Trudeau's rising carbon tax, or our approach

of pricing carbon and using the personal low carbon savings account for collaboration. So I think people are going to see that, you know, these little one stories coming out of the convention don't really matter if we put a platform in front of Canadians that's thoughtful, that's comprehensive. And in our case, we've had it modeled by experts. So it's not just political rhetoric. It's something we took months to get right. So let's talk about that plan. When you were running for leader, you opposed carbon tax. You have recently introduced this plan, and at the center of it is a plan to price carbon. And I just want to make sure that we're both on the same page here. My understanding is the money

paid by a person will go into something you're calling a personal low carbon savings account. So for example, each time I pump gas, a bit of money goes into this account. And then I could use that money for a green purchase, like a bus pass or a bike. Is that a fair summary? Well, it depends on the circumstance. It could be used for a purchase towards an EV, if you were commuting from the suburbs, or a high efficiency furnace, a whole range of things that have a positive impact on your carbon footprint. So the personal account allows you to actually know what is your footprint, right? And it allows people to have transparency and ownership over their use of carbon, which

is innovative, but it doesn't send the price, the money to Ottawa. So that's where it's not a tax. And the concern is that small businesses and farmers and others were paying far, far more and couldn't become as competitive with the Trudeau carbon tax. So we've come up with an approach that prices carbon, prices it for the consumer at a third the price of Mr. Trudeau, but has a plan to meet our emissions targets along with what we're doing on EVs, large emitters. We have a very comprehensive package, but the low carbon savings account is one aspect of it. I don't want to get caught up in a kind of circular discussion around semantics here,

but I'm really trying to understand here how this is not a tax. This is something that government is taking from a person, money the government is taking from a person, and then they're redirecting it to something. It really quacks like a tax to me. The government's not taking anything. But you're controlling it. You're taking it. You're not giving people the choice, right?

It has to go into this account. And then it will be dispersed in certain ways that the government says it has been dispersed. I'm just trying to figure out how it's radically different from the Trudeau plan where 90% of the revenues collected from the fuel charge will be returned to individual households in the provinces where the revenues were raised. And the remaining 10% is going to finance grants and energy efficiency projects. The Trudeau plan is also about redistribution, right? So it takes from small businesses, from farmers, and actually redistributes like a tax, like revenue, like an income tax.

That is actually not supposed to be the intention of pricing carbon. That is the real risk of the Trudeau government. They just want increasing, increasing tax revenues. They just want increasing, increasing tax revenues. Wouldn't it be great if people actually saw their carbon footprint, which our low carbon savings account allows you to see that? And when you don't send it to the government, it's not a tax. And I think it's also important to remember this will be available in provinces where they don't already have a plan that meets the Paris targets. provinces where they don't already have a plan that meets the Paris targets. This is an approach that is an alternative option that we think is innovative. But if those provinces come up with something that meets the targets that innovates in their own way, all the power to them. I think

what we have to do is meet our targets, fight climate change, and minimize the impact on jobs and investment. That has to be the goal. I take your point on the current liberal plan. There are some issues. You mentioned farmers. But the way that I understand this plan is that it provides an incentive for people to use less carbon because heavy emitters necessarily wouldn't get the same kind of rebate back. Of course, farmers, that does seem to be an issue. But we're also talking about much wealthier people who have bigger homes and more cars and maybe fly on airplanes more. And so the idea behind this is that if they don't get as much back once a year, that maybe

they will cut back on their emissions. And so I'm just trying to figure out from your plan where the incentive is to cut back here. So if the money that I get from gas I'm pumping goes straight into this account, why would it incentivize me to use less gas? Like I can immediately see that this money back is back in another account. I won't feel like I've lost anything, right? And then I can immediately see that this money is back in another account. I won't feel like I've lost anything, right? And then I can just go and buy something I probably would have bought anyhow, like a bike, like a transit pass. Well, there's a lot there. Let me unpack that.

You know, I had to laugh when Minister Wilkinson tried to say this was incentivizing carbon use. What this is allowing people to do is to see their carbon usage. And here's the kicker. When you then sequester in your low carbon savings account that price, you then have to use it to lower your carbon footprint. And so it's actually engaging more Canadians directly in climate change and our fight against it, because those funds will go to reducing the carbon footprint through a variety of different ways. It will be a green type purchase. That is the one restriction here. And that's for the public good of making sure that people are in the ownership decision themselves to reduce their footprint.

So another criticism of your plan is that the price you put on carbon is much lower than the liberals have put on it. The liberal price on carbon is even being criticized as not ambitious enough. So why do you think that yours is ambitious enough to actually make a difference? We've modeled ours. And so what we've done is we we've set a price that achieves the objectives we need to achieve within the consumer small business sort of uh level of emission so in our national emissions about 60 percent come from the personal level and from transportation driving these, these sorts of things. About 40%, 35%, 40% come from large emitters and industry and that sort of thing. So we came up with a very tailored plan to minimize the impact on the consumer, on the

household who are, you know, if you live in the Vancouver or the GTA, the affordability crisis is huge. So we've tried to recognize how can we make our objectives by not punishing people that are perhaps living at the margins and struggling, but also make sure that we're not ignoring that part of our 60%. You can't meet our Paris targets unless you tackle reducing emissions in that part of our national carbon footprint. So we've done a very strategic approach here to try and get the balance right. Are you committed to legislation that would hold you accountable to those goals? I ask this in part because the Conservatives voted against

the Liberal bill on this at second reading recently. Which bill are you talking about the the net zero bill or i believe it was one that would have put in um uh some sort of accountability mechanism to make sure that along the way you're meeting these goals well it's i we're going to meet these goals jamie that's why we have put out but will you put legislation in to ensure that you're held accountable to these goals? If you become prime minister? Well, democracy is ultimately the big accountability, right? If you make a pledge and you don't make it, I'm not sure what bill you're talking about, whether you're talking net zero or another. We're going to have a made in Canada net zero plan by 2050. we're going to have a made-in-Canada net zero plan by 2050. We're going to meet these targets, and that's my commitment. I'd use a point of comparison. When Mr. Trudeau ran in 2015,

he first said that he would leave carbon pricing to the provinces. He broke that promise. A few years ago, he said he would never increase the price he was using for his carbon tax. He's broken that promise. What I've done is put out a very comprehensive plan that has been modeled independently that shows we will meet our Paris commitments. And you can hold me to that. It's live here on the front burner.

Because it's important to me. I talked with my 14-year-old daughter about climate change. 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 rights for workers. You've bemoaned the decline of private sector union membership. You said that you don't want this nation to be a nation of Uber drivers,

which some people were surprised about because it sounded a bit like the NDP. Coming out of the pandemic, I'd like to know what specifically you were going to do for workers. Would you support unionization at Amazon warehouses? Well, it's interesting. I've heard people say you sound like the NDP. I don't think the NDPs stand up for working people anymore. They look to just be part of debates on Twitter. They weren't there to fight for steel workers and aluminum workers over the unfair tariffs by the US or the bad outcomes in NAFTA. I will be. And look, if there are private sector organizations or plants, we have a process of

unionization in Canada. It's a fairly open process. And I've said I will not bring back bills that we'd had in the past about changing the manner of voting. People have that democratic right. I respect that. And I've talked about growing up in the suburbs of Toronto. My dad worked at General Motors. I saw the impact that unions have standing up for their workers. And I value that.

So would you support a unionization effort at places like Amazon? Well, that's up to the workers. But yes or no, would you support it? If the workers came out tomorrow and they said, we want to start a union, does Aaron O'Toole, leader of the Conservative Party, say, I'm behind you? That is their democratic right and their decision. And in fact, in the past, we had some legislation that some had concerns would make it harder to have a vote towards forming a union. We had bills when we were in government. I've made the commitment to not bring those bills or bills like them forward. We have a fairly transparent process for a union drive.

That is in the workers' hands. And if management wants to avoid a unionization drive, they better listen to the concerns of their workers. My biggest concern, Amy, has been in recent years, we've seen a lot of jobs leave, many to outsourcing, to contracting in China and things like that. And it has hurt our workers. And if you actually look, Chinese aluminum, for example, is seven times more carbon intense than the aluminum made in Saguenay, Quebec or in Kinemat, BC. So not only are our workers paying the price, or in Kinemat, B.C. So not only are our workers paying the price,

countries like China don't adhere to environmental safeguards. There's a genocide happening against the Uyghur minority Muslim population in Xinjiang. So we have to realize that we should not allow bad actor countries to game global environmental laws, trade laws, human rights laws, and at the detriment of our workers. So I do think that there's going to be a bit of a realignment globally on how trade is conducted between, say, the democratic world and authoritarian regimes. And I think the more we can have domestic capacity, the more we can show support for Canadian workers. That's what I'm trying to do.

The Liberals have put a $15 minimum wage for federally regulated jobs in their latest budget. Do you support it? Sure. Look, that is virtue signaling because there are virtually no jobs federally that aren't already at that rate. And the Liberals know this, right? And the minimum wage issue for services and things like that in retail, those are provincial decisions. So it's very easy for the federal government to make that claim. I would love to hear from Minister Freeland or someone in the government, how many people will that impact?

Would you support a higher minimum wage in the provinces? I understand it's not under federal jurisdiction, but would you support it? That's the province's decision. But would you support it on principle? It is a provincial decision, but let me say this. On principle, on principle. It is a provincial decision, but let me say this. I think people need to have the ability to provide for their kids and to have a good standard of living. What we really need to do in Canada is to embrace the nobility of work. You know, the other parties, you know, the Liberals, the NDP, the Green, they're almost all the same on many issues and they support a universal basic income. I really want to make sure that working people aren't disincentivized from working. new Canadians that come and that are working in the service industry or as PSWs,

I have such tremendous respect for people that work hard. And I feel they deserve that respect, but also the ability to provide for their family. So I want to grow the opportunity for people to work. I want to see wages going up. But I'm not someone that will interfere in provincial areas, especially in the last few years, we've seen national unity issues in the country. I want to work to sort of bring those things together, but I will fight for working people because I don't think they've had a voice in recent years.

I was going to ask you about sick pay, but I think you're probably going to say the same thing about provincial jurisdiction. So I guess I'll move on to the end of this conversation, because I know you don't have a ton of time left. I'd love to talk to you about whether you think you can beat Justin Trudeau and the liberals in an imminent election. And so the latest polling from Abacus Data on Monday shows the conservatives and liberals neck and neck, both the polling, but the polling on you as leader isn't as favorable. You had a positive impression for 18% of those polls and negative for 35%, neutral for the rest. And according to Angus Reid last month, your favorability really suffers as people get younger, especially among younger women. Many of those people, I will note, are listening to this podcast right now.

And why do you think you haven't been able to break through with them? Well, I'm glad I'm on your podcast. I'm very glad you're here too. So thank you again. But why do you think you haven't been able to break through with them? There's one word, COVID. My first speech, Jamie, at 1.30 in the morning when I won the leadership was to an empty room. My second big speech for our convention was to an empty room. At that one, my kids and my wife couldn't even be in the room. I speak to a handful of audiovisual people. I'm on Zoom. I can't travel. My first month, I caught COVID. So, you know, everybody is overcoming some adversity in this year.

We're all tired of it. We're all frustrated by the third wave. I think the more people get a chance to hear what I'm bringing, the fact that I'm a kid from the suburbs of Toronto, served in the military, worked in the private sector, have always given back through my charitable work as a Rotarian, as a member of the Legion. I'm a regular person, and I think I have a beer or coffee with. I would love to do that with more Canadians. I think it would change the numbers. But I'm going to put forward what I think our country needs to make sure that we recover

a jobs plan, an accountability plan after the ethical scandals. I want a national mental health action plan. I've worked on mental health since I left the military for many years. It's a passion for me. A plan to be more ready for self-sufficiency and vaccines and other things, and a plan to get our spending back into control over the next decade. That's our Canada recovery plan. I think I've got some ideas for our future. Okay, Mr. Atul, before you go, can I ask you one more question about the budget? Sure. Okay, thank you. So the Liberals have just

delivered a giant budget, as you know, there was a lot promised in this budget for a lot of people. So for example, younger people got a national child care program. Older people got a 10% boost to maximum old age security benefits. On the flip side, this budget didn't really raise taxes, right? So save for a luxury tax and a tax on big tech. And it was dropped at a time in history where there's really not a lot of talk about austerity right now because people have been hurting. There's a whole economic school of thought that also says we don't need to worry as much about deficits. So how do you beat that right now? And do you believe that there's still a case for the traditional conservative approach

of limiting spending, cutting taxes, and reducing regulation? I think people know, the vast majority of Canadians know, that it was important in a pandemic to help people. In fact, Conservatives supported that. There was always going to be a massive deficit in this pandemic. But those same people know we have to get the spending under control in the future. We have interest rates that are historic low levels. If they go up by even a couple more points, the spending in the budget Ms. Freeland brought forward puts healthcare at risk, puts old age security at risk. So what we're planning is not

austerity, but as a plan over a course of 10 years, if we can get people back to work, over a course of 10 years, if we can get people back to work, get our economy moving, including all aspects, including the energy sector, natural resources, our manufacturing base in Ontario, we need people working. And that way we can tackle some of the risks of the overspending. The world has not changed. You can't run $100 billion deficits forever and it not impact your future. It will either mean massive tax increases or massive reductions to services. And Canadians don't want that. So that's why our plan is balanced. Mr. Trudeau is looking at home equity taxes. They're looking at a lot of things. They're not going to run on those things,

but that's because they have no control to the spending. And I think Canadians know after the pandemic, we need to help people, but let's get things gradually back under control. And that's what we're pledging. And final question, you really think that you could do that without cutting services or raising taxes?

You know, I remember, you know, back in the 90s, when everyone was so worried about the deficit, they sort of, they canned a national child care program. At that time, we were seeing a debt to GDP ratio that we're in the ballpark of now. And what Paul Martin at the time, ironically a liberal, said that it will affect the country's prosperity in the long term. And I think that is still the case. If we can get the economy booming back, there are some savings that some groups of Canadians have accumulated in this pandemic. Other Canadians are further behind. So we really need to make sure that we raise all boats. And I think that's done through employment, through getting the economy firing in all parts of our economy. Then I think it is very easy to tackle this over the course of

a decade. And we will present a plan to Canadians to do that. And sure, it goes beyond a mandate. But because the amount is so high, and because we want to help people in the short term, there is no austerity cuts, there are no rapid plans. We're being very open with people that it would take a decade to get that fiscal situation back under control. Okay. Well, I know you have to go, but I do hope that you'll come back on to talk about that more, especially when you have more details to your current plan. Aaron O'Toole, thank you so much for this conversation. I'm really appreciative.

Thank you, Jamie. It's been great to be on the front burner. Thank you very much. All right, so some vaccine news before we go today. Canada's National Advisory Committee on Immunization, or NASI, now recommends that children 12 and up be given both doses of the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine. This follows Health Canada's review and approval of Pfizer's clinical trial involving over 2,200 adolescents. That study found the vaccine to be 100% effective in the 12 to 15 age group. Some provinces like Alberta and Manitoba have already opened up bookings for this group.

That's it for today. Thanks so much for listening to FrontBurner. Talk to you tomorrow.