Front Burner - Political grab-bag: Palestinian statehood, carbon tax fight

Episode Date: March 21, 2024

This week, the NDP introduced a motion to recognize Palestinian statehood. The negotiations went into the night with last-minute amendments made. Why did it get so messy? What ramifications could we see come out of the passed motion?Plus, a growing number of provincial leaders are pushing for the Liberal government to cut the carbon tax, or to pause the scheduled increase for it in April. What might happen next?Senior writer Aaron Wherry joins us from the CBC’s Parliamentary bureau.For transcripts of Front Burner, please visit: https://www.cbc.ca/radio/frontburner/transcriptsTranscripts of each episode will be made available by the next workday.

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. Today on the show, Aaron Wary, my colleague and Ottawa's senior parliamentary bureau reporter, is here. We're going to split this political conversation in two, starting with a motion introduced this week by the NDP to recognize Palestinian statehood.

Will the prime minister vote today for peace? Why did it get so messy and what are the ramifications of the motion parliament ended up passing? And then the never-ending carbon tax fight, which has seen a few notable updates of late, such as a growing provincial revolt over the upcoming increase. That fight between the provinces and Ottawa has flared up yet again. Next month, the federal government's carbon tax is scheduled to increase. What's going to happen? Who is winning the communication war? All right, let's get into it. aaron hey hey so great to have you uh so before we get to the nd motion, I actually just want to get some clarity on what Canada's position has been in recent years vis-a-vis the recognition of a Palestinian state, because I think it's important context here. So what has our position been?

Yeah, and I'm going to read from it because words matter and the language here is highly specific. The language here is highly specific. So Canada's position is that it recognizes the Palestinian right to self-determination and supports the creation of a sovereign, independent, viable, democratic and territorial contiguous Palestinian state. That has been the longstanding position, not just of this government, but of previous governments. And it broadly aligns with all of our G7 partners. Okay. So when the NDP puts forward this motion to be debated and voted on on Monday, and I should just note, this motion is non-binding. It was non-binding. So it's more symbolic than anything else. But how is that part different from the official position that you just read out to me? Sure. So if you look at the original language of the NDP motion, the motion they put before the House of Commons before it was amended, it's a long motion. It's multi-part. But

the last part says that the House would call on the government to, quote, officially recognize the state of Palestine. And so the distinction there is between, you know, recognizing the possibility of a Palestinian state, accepting the idea of a two-state solution, and actually, you know, officially saying there is a state of Palestine. And that is a step that, you know, as I say, our other G7 partners haven't taken. There's been some musings in the United Kingdom and the United States about potentially taking that step in the future, but no one has quite gone that far. And that's, you know, that would be a pretty significant and arguably potentially provocative move for any country to take at this point, especially, you know, from Canada's perspective, taking it out of step with our other G7 partners. Okay. So this is kind of the centerpiece of the original motion, but just

what else does the original motion have in it? The idea of recognizing Palestinian statehood was really the kind of major sticking point or the kind of primary sticking point. But there are also pieces of it, you know, in terms of funding UNRWA, in terms of arms exports, you know, certain comments about what the situation in the Middle East, what it would recognize, what it wouldn't recognize. It's a long motion. And as we'll get into the amendment that came to it was a long amendment that rewrote a lot of portions of it. But I think if you could sort of boil it down, it's really, you know, so first of all, that issue of Palestinian statehood, and second, the issue of arms permits, export permits, and what Canada is allowing to be sent to Israel.

Right. And so before it was amended, which, as you noted, we're going to get to, it goes to the floor and it's debated. And just give me a sense of how much support the original motion has and who opposed it. And, you know, maybe a little bit about what they said. Yeah. So from the start, obviously, the NDP was supportive. The Bloc Québécois came out fairly quickly and said it would support the motion. The Conservatives were opposed to the motion. Continuing debate, the Honourable Member for Thornhill. Mr. Speaker, despite the many positions of the government of Canada, this motion is not about a ceasefire.

This motion is about rewarding Hamas for their massacre. And then there was this, you know, kind of emerging split on the Liberal side. You know, about a dozen Liberal MPs had sort the liberal on the liberal side the you know about a dozen liberal MPs had sort of gone on the record as saying they were inclined to support the motion it's hard to know exactly how many would have ended up voting for it it's safe to assume it would have been a significant number and the government you know initially was actually it was hard to tell exactly what they were going to do Melanie Jolieolie, the foreign affairs minister, stood up in the House of Commons and spoke to the motion and took part in debate and didn't really kind of categorically say one

way or the other where the government was going to go. She did say that the government had issues, certain issues with the motion. And we knew that the Liberals and the NDP were in talks, specifically the Liberal government and the NDP were in talks about some kind of amendment to the motion to sort of find some kind of compromise that everyone can agree to. But for a while, for most of the afternoon, the sense was that those talks had kind of broken off and that, you know, the feeling was that this motion was probably headed for defeat. And the people who were against it, so the conservatives and quite a few members of the Liberal Party, why were they against it? Like, what was their reasoning? Yeah, so I think there were kind of two issues. One was, again, this issue of Palestinian statehood and whether Parliament and effectively the federal government should change Canadian foreign policy with a motion in the House of Commons like this and should change it at this point. And then a more broader concern was

sort of a feeling that the motion was tilted against Israel or wasn't evenly balanced. This motion is stirring up some division in the Liberal caucus. Some say they will vote for it. Others, like Quebec Liberal MP Anthony Housefather, call the motion a huge slap in the face. Mr. Speaker, Canada should be standing with Israel. Canada should be defending the right of Israel to fight back against a terrorist organization.

And we should not be passing motions that make the terrorist organization equivalent to a democratic state a terrorist organization. And we should not be passing motions that make the terrorist organization equivalent to a democratic state. Thank you. And those were sort of the two kind of larger, you know, complaints about the motion or the two issues that were kind of, the motion was running up against, I guess.

Okay. So then really at the last minute, there was this announcement that this deal is made between the liberals and the NDP to amend the original motion. And you and I were messaging back and forth about this on Gchat. And give me the Kohl's notes about what happened. Yeah. So, you know, usually motions like this aren't quite so dramatic in the House of Commons, right? If there are negotiations, they happen quick and they're resolved and it goes to

a vote or it doesn't and it passes or fails. And in this case, you know, in part because the House of Commons was, the proceedings were somewhat delayed because there were tributes to Brian Mulroney, the late Brian Mulroney that day. And so the debate stretched into the evening. And then really, as you say, you know, moments before this was supposed to come to a vote, the Liberal House leader comes into the House and says, I'd like to table the following amendment, and reads out this very long amendment, you know, detailing multiple changes to the original motion. The speaker asks whether Heather McPherson, the NDP foreign affairs critic who originally tabled the motion, agreed with that. She said yes, but there was immediate sort of complaints that this was being tabled at the last

minute, that the House didn't have time to review it, that MPs didn't have a chance to look at what they were going to be voting on. A couple of Liberal MPs and the Conservatives were upset that they were kind of caught off guard by this. It was a very last minute change. And that's not something that usually happens in the House of Commons. Yeah. And it does end up passing, right? 204 to 117. And I just, I want to start by asking you, the NDP, they amend this original motion. There have been criticisms that they basically acquiesced to like a watered down version of what they wanted, version of what they wanted, including on the question of Palestinian statehood, which basically just became what Canada's position already was. And just to be clear, did the NDP get anything new

out of this past motion? Even if it's symbolic, were they able to push forward what they wanted to accomplish at all here? Yeah. so the NDP argument is, look, they would have liked what they originally tabled, but they were listening to, you know, Palestinian Canadians, they were listening to people who had concerns about what's going on in the Middle East, people who wanted to see Parliament or the government move on certain issues. And the feeling was that moving forward with a motion that didn't acknowledge Palestinian statehood was worth it if it made some movement on some other things. And the movement that they can point to on a couple fronts, I guess, you know, first of all, there is a commitment to continue funding UNRWA. This support simply cannot wait.

Now, amid dire warnings of famine, a move by Canada. UNRWA forms the backbone of the humanitarian response in Gaza and in the region because of its networks, because of its presence and its history on the ground. And there are some acknowledgments of, you know, the international courts and other issues. And then there is this other clause, which was rewritten, which ended up saying that the federal government would, quote, cease the further authorization and transfer of arms exports to Israel to ensure compliance with Canada's arms export regime. So that language is narrower than what was originally proposed, but it's arguably further than we knew or that we knew the government had gone or that the Liberal government had publicly gone so far.

And just to spend a bit more time on the arms export thing, I am a little confused because there have been reports that this is something that Canada essentially stopped doing back in January. And is that true? because it's not quite clear what the federal policy has been or how it's been sort of put into action. The federal government at first said we have approved no export permits since October 7th. Subsequent reporting said there are these permits or these requests to export armored patrol vehicles and other non-lethal equipment. You know, the example was given of night vision goggles. You know, the than the fact that export permits haven't been granted, it's not quite clear what lines the government was drawing.

And coming out of this motion, it seems like the federal government is now ready to draw a clearer line. We're still sort of waiting for an explanation. But the Toronto Star reported yesterday that Foreign Affairs Minister Melanie Jolie had made this comment that, yes, what's in the motion is what's going to be our policy. And again, because these are kind of, you get into the questions of lethal or non-lethal, there's a fair bit of parsing that has to happen. But it does seem like the Liberal government, because of this motion, has drawn a firmer

line at this point. 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. So that is basically what happened this week around this NDP motion that was put forward. And I think now what I'm hoping we can do, Erin, is take a bit of a 180, like a real turn, and talk about the never-ending debate over the carbon tax. A growing number of provincial leaders are pushing for the liberal government to cut the tax or to pause the scheduled increase for it. The increase is due to come up in April. the scheduled increase for it. The increase is due to come up in April. So far, it's New Brunswick,

PEI, Saskatchewan, Alberta, Ontario, Nova Scotia, and Newfoundland and Labrador. So across the political spectrum here. And why have we been hearing so much about this issue from the premiers lately? So I think a couple things. One is, you know, the conservative, the federal conservative leader, Pierre Polyev, continues to double, triple down on his opposition to this. We're not going to put up with it anymore. We as common sense conservatives are saying no to Trudeau's 23% April Fool's Day increase. We are saying spike the hike until we common sense conservatives can ax the tax. The good news is... The fact that the tax increases every year on April 1st means it's going to come up every March, that this is going to be an issue. And I think with the federal liberals down in the polls,

the liberals, the federal liberals down in the polls, it has become, I think, very easy for provincial premiers and even some opposition leaders, liberal leaders in a couple provinces. It's become very easy for them to say, yeah, yeah, the federal government should pause the carbon tax or scrap the carbon tax because, you know, even though there is this rebate attached to it, and we'll get more into that in a bit, the carbon tax because, you know, even though there is this rebate attached to it, and we'll get more into that in a bit, the carbon tax has become kind of an easy scapegoat for, you know, larger concerns about the cost of living and the cost of groceries and the cost of other things. Yeah.

And so one of the premiers really at the forefront of this, I think it's fair to say, is Saskatchewan Premier Scott Moe. And he said in January that the province would stop charging the carbon tax on natural gas. I'm just wondering though, so are you still planning to not pay the rest of the carbon tax? Yeah, we're not paying. No, we're not paying on... Effective January the 1st, SaskEnergy will stop collecting and submitting the carbon tax on natural gas. Moe has now said that he's not giving the feds the money that the province owes on this for the month of January. And it was due February 29th.

And this is a big development because they're essentially defying the law here, right? Yeah, this really is a provincial government breaking federal law. The federal law says, you know, not only is the carbon tax supposed to be charged, but the government or the provincial government or the regulator or whoever is collecting the charge is supposed to remit that payment to the federal government. And the government in Saskatchewan has now openly defied that. This is fairly unprecedented territory. The idea of a provincial government openly saying, you know, we're just not going to follow the law is a pretty remarkable development. What kind of precedents are people worried about this setting, like

specifically? Well, I mean, it's really the precedent of laws being optional. You know, it's hard to put it any other way. You know, where exactly does this end, right? Like, you know, a government, a provincial government, a provincial political party, whatever can, you know, has real options if they disagree with the law, right? They can appeal to the courts. They can campaign against it. They can, you know, try to convince voters in their province and other provinces to vote against the federal party that sponsors the law. You know, they can they have options. And if if we're getting into a place where provincial governments are just going to decide, you know, never mind democratic rule of law means we're just not going to pay attention to the law. We're just not going to follow the law.

Where, you know, where does that end exactly? Premier Moe would somehow decide that he's above the law. No one is above the law in Canada. We live in a state of law. It's not a dictatorship. And no one is above the law. If Premier Scott Moe decides that he wants to start breaking laws and not respecting federal laws,

then measures will have to be taken. So I know everybody calls it a tax, but it's not actually a tax because it's supposed to be revenue neutral and you're supposed to get money back. What do we know about where the rebates leave most people? Right. So this is this has become the crux of a fair bit of debate. that on a straight fiscal issue of how much you pay in carbon tax and how much you pay in additional costs created by the carbon tax and how much you get back from the rebates, that the vast majority of families come out ahead. And it's actually mostly people at the higher incomes who don't come out ahead because people with higher incomes tend to generate, tend to use,

uh, tend to use and burn more fossil fuels. So, uh, the, the straight rebate calculation, it's fairly cut and dry that, that, you know, uh, you know, I believe the figure the federal government uses is eight out of 10 Canadian families or households, uh, come out ahead. Right. But the, the conservatives certainly say that it's not revenue neutral. And why do they say that? Like, what's their reasoning? Right. So there is this other PBO report. So the first report the PBO did looked at straightforwardly the fiscal impact. Do you pay more or do you get more from the rebate? And that came out to this calculation that you're more, you're further ahead with the rebate. But then the PBO did a second report that said, okay, let's consider both the fiscal impact and the economic impact of the carbon tax.

And because it's a carbon tax, it has a negative economic cost. It acts as a, you know, a drag on economic growth. And they took that economic cost and then they distributed that across households and they said okay when you consider both the fiscal impact and the economic impact then most families don't come out ahead and so the conservatives point to this report and say aha see it's not you know most people don't come out ahead the all the talk about the rebate is now moot. And, you know, this gets into kind of a larger discussion because as people have pointed out, the PBO reporting on the economic costs had some pretty significant kind of omissions or things it didn't consider. So first of all, it didn't consider the benefits of reducing emissions. And second of all, it didn't compare the carbon tax to any other

policy that would reduce emissions. And so, you know, yes, you can look at it and say, the carbon tax has a negative economic impact. Therefore, it's bad policy. But then the next question becomes, well, what are you going to do instead and how would the carbon tax compare to that policy because unless you're assuming that we we don't need to reduce emissions and that there will be no negative consequences from uh from not reducing emissions then it's not clear what that pbo report amounts to and the pbo himself has come out and said look not reducing emissions is going to have a cost. Other policies are going to have to have a cost.

He himself has kind of come out and said that he's frustrated with the way his reporting is being used. Now, that would necessarily or might suggest that maybe the PBO should go back and do another report. But in the meantime, we kind of have this conflict over this report. This conflict aside, which can get quite detailed, do you even think that people totally get that they're getting money back here,

that they actually are getting a rebate? There is, I think, a significant communication challenge. So first of all, we know from polling that not everyone realizes they get these checks or they get these payments. Whenever the carbon tax is in the news, we get flooded with all sorts of comments saying, I don't get the rebates. Spoiler alert, they actually probably do, or at least they should. Part of that you can trace to the fact that uh well the federal government can call it whatever it wants like it's currently calling it a canada carbon rebate when banks deposit the money in your account uh they can call it whatever they want and so they can you know sometimes it just shows up on your bank uh statement is like federal payment yeah and it's not obvious what that's

for yeah i remember when we got ours i remember remember trying to ask me, what is this? And I cover this all the time. So, so there's, so there's first, there's a communications issue. I think there's also kind of a psychological issue of even if you are getting the rebate, uh, even if you know you're getting the rebate, you know, do people then, uh, understand or believe that they're getting more in the rebate than they're paying out, right? Because the payment in a lot of cases is very explicit. Do you think there's anything the Liberals could have done differently here that might have changed the outcome? You know, to a certain extent, I think it was almost easy to conclude that this fight had been fought and won by the Liberals. You know, you go back to the last election and even the federal conservatives were running on a policy of pricing carbon. held onto government after 2019. They held onto government after 2021. I don't know that there

was a magical solution that would have necessarily made this policy more palatable, but I do think, you know, if this policy dies, the postmortem analysis is inevitably going to say, did they sell it well enough? Were they out and in making enough of a case to the public? Were they out and in making enough of a case to the public? Were they stressing this policy to the public enough? It's the communications and the advertising for it that I think people are going to kind of come back and question. All right. Aaron, thanks very much for coming and doing this conversation with us. It was great. Always good to have you. Thank you.

Anytime. All right, that's all for today. I'm Jamie Poisson. Thanks so much for listening. Talk to you tomorrow.