Front Burner - Trudeau and Poilievre face off in Parliament

Episode Date: October 3, 2022

The fall sitting of parliament is in full swing, with Prime Minister Justin Trudeau facing off for the first time against new Opposition Leader Pierre Poilievre. And the hottest topic for debate remains how to deal with the affordability crisis. Today, Power & Politics host Vassy Kapelos is back on the pod to talk about what’s on the agenda in Ottawa, and the shape this new session is taking.

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. Hey, I'm Jamie Poisson. The fall sitting of Canada's Parliament is in session, with a new leader running His Majesty's loyal opposition.

...to survive this from a Prime Minister who burned more jet fuel in one month than 20 average Canadians burn in an entire year. So will the prime minister ground the jet, park the hypocrisy and axe the tax hikes? And a prime minister trying to convince Canadians whose budgets are stretched thin that their government is listening and can help. Like all parliamentarians, we have each heard stories from Canadians who are struggling with the high cost of living, with the inflation that's been caused by the global crisis. That's why we're putting forward concrete measures that are going to help Canadians. So today, Vashie Capello's host of Power and Politics is back, and we're going to talk

about what's on the agenda in Ottawa and the shape this new session is taking. Vashi, hello, hello. Hello, hello. Thank you very much for making the time today. So Parliament resumed. A new leader of the Conservative Party, Pierre Polyev, of course, has spent the better part of a year now campaigning against Justin Trudeau. But they're finally going head to head as leaders of the House now. And maybe you could just start by giving me a sense of how that's going so far.

Like, what's the tenor of the exchanges we've seen between these two in the House? I would say overall, so far, it's been very focused on both parts. And it's been less snippy and more serious than I maybe would have anticipated if this were a few years ago. And I think the reason for that is just because of their exchanges in the past when Polyev was not the leader of the opposition, when he was primarily finance critic or served on committees that were studying various controversies that the government found themselves in or found itself in, they would go back and forth pretty hard at each other. But I would say because it's been so focused on the cost of living crisis, the tenor has been pretty serious and less nippy.

And tell me a little bit more about what's going on, what they're saying to each other when it comes to the cost of living. Well, it's very much being focused on the opposition and the conservatives and the leader of the conservatives, Pierre Polyev, wanting to talk about taxes and how there should be lower taxes or tax cuts, things that amount to tax cuts. He wants to raise those taxes even further. Bigger bite off Canadian paychecks at a time when inflation is at a 40-year high, when students are forced to live in homeless shelters, and when home ownership rates are at the lowest level in a generation. Doesn't he understand that now is the worst time to raise taxes?

Will he cancel those tax hikes? And the government saying, well, this is the package we're introducing, which involves three things, some dental care, a one-time rental payment, and an increase to the GST rebate, and sort of trying to counter the narrative that the Conservatives have put out there, which is that what would really help right now is tax cuts. The Liberals say, no, this package that we've come up with is what's really going to help. But today we're announcing additional targeted new measures that will support the middle class and people working hard to join it. And so everybody's kind of jockeying back and forth and the NDP is in there too, I should say as well, about what would really help people at this moment in time when everybody is facing such an extremely unaffordable life.

Let's talk about that bill that's been put forward by the Liberals to deal with affordability. And let's start with the dental care plan. So tell me like what is actually being introduced there. So first, I think some background context is important. The Liberals and the NDP months and months ago came to a confidence and supply agreement that basically means the Liberals will continue to stay in government or the government will exist as it does because the NDP agrees to support the Liberals on major pieces of legislation, confidence pieces of legislation, we call them, if the Liberals follow through on some things that the NDP have asked them to agree to. So lots of this stuff is very nebulous, like broad, except for one thing that was very specific in the original deal, and that was dental care. And basically, it's co-opted

from the NDP's platform in the last election. It's phased in over three years. And the first year is dental care for kids under 12. And in this case, your parents have to be making a maximum of $90,000. It's kind of a stopgap measure. It's not the full cajudal, whatever you want to call it, that the NDP had envisioned. The liberals call it kind of temporary. It's not the full cajudal, whatever you want to call it, that the NDP had envisioned. The Liberals call it kind of temporary. It's basically you say you've spent a certain amount of money on dental care and there's a maximum amount of money you can get. I think it's 600 and something dollars, depending on how much you make. And what has been the response to that in the House?

Very much what you would expect along party lines. So surprise, surprise, a.k.a. no surprise, the NDP is supporting it and very much trying to say this is because of us that this is even happening.

We're proud that we're able to use our power to get something meaningful for Canadians. The Liberals are supportive of it as well and the Conservatives are not. Why aren't the Conservatives?

Well, for a couple of reasons. First of all, the cost associated with it. It's not cheap. The overall dental program, and it's being analyzed by different people, but the parliamentary budget officer says eventually it will cost in the billions. Eventually, it will cost in the billions. And the secondary reason is kind of part and parcel of what some premiers have talked about, which is that there is a real desire to see the government actually invest more money in health care for provinces. So increase the money, the amount of money transferred to provinces for health care, the way in which various premiers have characterized it is like we need to fix that system as it exists before we introduce new money for new programs that don't yet exist i think there is definitely criticism of the conservatives for opposing it as well because i think the ndp has brought up that if you're a member of the house of commons for example you are covered to a certain degree for

your dental care like so many people with private insurance are. MPs get 90% coverage of basic services up to $2,500 annually per family member and 50% coverage of the cost of orthodontics. It's ridiculous that Conservative MPs are planning to vote against giving kids dental care when their leader has had publicly paid dental care for nearly two decades. But at the same time, the Conservatives are not the only ones who have brought up questions about the kind of necessity or feasibility of the dental care program at a time when health care across so many provinces is suffering, and premiers have been calling for an injection of cash from the federal government.

Is my understanding that the other part or another part of this tackling affordability plan has to do with housing, right? It's a one-time payment of 500 bucks for families with incomes below 35,000 or singles with incomes below 20,000. Do I have that right? You definitely have that right. Basically what the Liberals did is they introduced two pieces of legislation. The first one has what you just talked about, and then also dental care. And then the second one has an increase to the GST rebate. The Conservatives are going to support

that one. So it's interesting that it's kind of split into two because they'll support that piece of legislation, but they're against the other one. And this rental top-up is kind of criticized from a bunch of different angles, mostly the same criticism, but different solutions proposed. So everybody says it's not enough, right? I mean, if you just think Toronto, Vancouver, Ottawa, really anywhere in Canada right now, $500 a year is going to make a small dent in how much you pay in rent in a year. Yes, it will help a little bit, but is it enough to make a discernible difference? Probably not. So one side of the criticism is that's not enough, so they should give more. And then the Conservatives are like, oh, but is it enough to make a discernible difference? Probably not. So one side

of the criticism is that's not enough, so they should give more. And then the Conservatives are like, oh, that's not enough, so you should just build more houses and get rid of the gatekeepers. But they're not actually calling for the government to give more, or at least not that I've heard specifically. He says he's going to give people $500 to help with the rent. Well, that works out to $40 a month. In Toronto, that will not even buy you one day's rent. $500 is not even a drop in the bucket. We need to actually counter the inflation, the just inflation that this government has caused, rather than trying to spend more money to make the problem worse. So there is some criticism there. So the Conservatives won't support that piece of

legislation because it includes both of those. But they have said that they will support the GST rebate. So that one for sure will go ahead. The other ones will go ahead too, because it'll have NDP support. All right. Okay. So they'll all go ahead, probably in one way or another. The conservatives, because they're opposing dental and the rent rebate, like, are they offering an alternative affordability plan here? Like, what do they think the government should do to help ease the inflation squeeze that people are feeling? Well, their primary suggestions came through, A, the questioning of the government and around an increase, what they call payroll taxes, really contributions towards employment insurance and CPP, which is the Canada Pension Plan. And then also introducing a

piece of legislation this past week vis-a-vis the new leader of the party, Pierre Palliev, that was aimed at demanding the Liberals stop the increases to the carbon tax for the price on carbon. Every April, it goes up $15. It did the past April. That motion was an opposition motion. It was defeated in the House of Commons, but that didn't stop them from... I mean, basically every question period, which I know everyone listening to was just glued to nonstop this week, and was essentially focused on a back and forth around that question. Add 40 cents a litre to gas taxes right now with 40-year high inflation. Will the government cancel this tax on Canadian energy?

The Honourable Deputy Prime Minister. this tax on Canadian energy. So you've got the Liberals in the NDP saying, OK, we want to target these measures specifically for lower income families, lower to middle income families, but mostly lower income families. And then you have the Conservatives saying, know what you should do is stop these tax hikes. And that would benefit a larger swath of mostly middle income, but really all income people in Canada. And really, the debate is over which will be the most effective, which actually would help the most Canadians or which would help Canadians the most if you get the kind of difference there. So I think fundamentally, they have a very different way of looking at how people can be helped during all of this. And I think ultimately, all of it has limited impact, right? Because the cart has kind of left the horse has left the cart, the cart left the

horse, I don't know which way to say it. But we've been living with high inflation for a really long time. And people have been suffering under a really high cost of living for a really long time. Because a lot of it, not all of it, but a lot of it is driven by really external factors. It's difficult to, I mean, every time you help people be able to have more money, you essentially drive up inflation even more. The degree to which is debatable, right, or differs depending on the amount of money injected in the economy. But every time supply is constrained, which it is right now because of all the craziness in the world, and you increase demand either by cutting taxes or by giving people more money to spend, you basically are driving up inflation. The argument about the targeted support is that it will really help people and the impact on driving up inflation

will be negligible, less maybe perhaps compared to massive amounts of tax cuts for everyone. 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 Couops. What are some of the other big issues you've heard come up in the House since Parliament returned? Well, I think the domestic issue that's, like I said, that everyone's been focusing on is cost of living. But there are other issues out and about, in particular, when it comes to Canada's foreign policy. And the most recent one, which is obviously, you know, dominated headlines right around the world right now, is what happened to Masa Amini in Iran. The U.N. says Amini was with her brother in the capital when she was arrested last week

for what was considered to be an improper hijab or head covering. There are reports she was beaten on the head with a baton. Amini fell into a coma shortly after being arrested and died three days later. Our office has received numerous... And the ensuing protests and the crackdown on those protesters and really what to do about the regime, the IRGC in Iran. There is a big policy cleavage or an apparent policy cleavage between a lot of the parties around this. The Conservatives want the IRGC listed as a terrorist entity. And the government still refuses to list the IRGC, the terrorist organization,

as a terrorist body, allowing it to legally operate here in Canada. Which actually the House of Commons voted in favor of back in 2018, including the Prime Minister himself. That hasn't happened yet. And the Liberals, I mean, I had a couple of interviews on the subject and, you know, they have placed sanctions on the morality police who took Mata Amini into custody. We don't know exactly who. The specifics haven't been released. And they are condemning all of that. But they haven't really provided a specific answer as to why they wouldn't list the IRGC as a terror entity. And just if you combine the Masa Amini whole back and forth with an awful incident with what happened with PS 752, the flight that was shot down with all those Canadians by the IRGC, there's an increasing amount of pressure on the government to do something beyond what it's already announced.

And so far, they have not really provided a ton of concrete reasons as to as to why they would not. And so that has provided, I think, another kind of cleavage, as I said, between especially the conservatives and the liberals. The NDP also has not really explained why it does not support the listing of the IRGC as a terrorist entity. It actually did not vote for the most part. When I look back on the vote in 2018 in favor of it, an MP, their foreign affairs critic, Heather McPherson, says it's mostly because they want to do what's feasible right now what will actually make a difference but uh also couldn't explain why in principle the party doesn't appear to to support the listing of it as a terrorist entity as well i get that the government is lacking in in its communication about why they won't they won't do it but like why might they not do it like what what could be the reasoning

for not well i was yeah i was pretty i interviewed the foreign affairs minister and i have to say i was pretty stumped as to why like i mean i had to ask a bunch of times because there were no they're really like maybe there is a reason but it certainly was not provided i understand you're saying the sanctions are what you're pursuing right now does that mean that it's a hard no to listing the rgc as a terrorist entity especially what's going given what's going pursuing right now, does that mean that it's a hard no to listing the IRGC as a terrorist entity, especially given what's going on right now? Bashi, you've asked me the question many times, and I've given you my answer many times. So I've given you the answer that we're sanctioning Moral Police, we're sanctioning also its leadership, and we will continue to put pressure on the Iranian regime.

That's our goal. So I did start asking Brad to a number of people who study it. Yeah, who study it. And they said, essentially, it could be because of the sheer magnitude of it that often people have been conscripted to serve. And that would mean applying sanctions

to all those people and then having to enforce it. So maybe for people who are connected to the regime in some way who already live here or who might be coming here, it basically the magnitude of what it would involve is, it's difficult, right? So if it's hard to enforce, then like is the impact of it somewhat lessened? And do you have to kind of hold off on doing something like that? That could be the case. The government has not really specifically said that yet though. And then the other,

the flip side of it is that the United States under Donald Trump listed as a terrorist entity. And there was sort of some discussion that maybe Joe Biden, President Biden would, would lift that and in order to sort of foster some goodwill with the nuclear talks that are going on right now, but he didn't do that. So it's still listed as the terrorist entity

in the United States, and somehow their sanctioned regime has figured out a way to deal with it. We can kind of surmise and try and figure it out, but really it's for the government to justify, not for us. There's one more significant government decision I just want to touch on with you quickly. That's the government move to lift all COVID-19 measures at the border that went into effect this weekend. So no more mandatory masks on planes and trains, no more mandatory arrive can app, no more vaccination requirements or testing or anything like that. And so do you see political motivations or perhaps political implications with this move?

I think there are definitely implications. I understand why concerns are raised where the politics of the motivation is involved. But again, I'm not sure, you know, that's for the politicians to bandy back and forth. I think the implications are definitely political. And here's why during Pierre Palliev's leadership campaign, freedom, right? Who can forget freedom, freedom, freedom, nonstop talk about freedom. So much of that was motivated by this idea of, you know, big lockdowns, vaccine mandates. drew a lot of people, new members to the party or new or people who maybe haven't voted in past leadership conventions because of that. So that became a big point of distinction between the prime minister and the liberals and the conservatives and Pierre Polyev. And it served Pierre Polyev well during the leadership campaign, whether it would have continued to

in a more general electoral sense and how it impacted the liberals and Justin Trudeau. I think like that's a whole other discussion. What it does though now is take that off the table politically, right? So whereas it was a real back and forth, like I said, a real issue of distinction between the two parties, now it's kind of like faded into the background and it becomes a lot less so. And so I think that kind of reframes to a certain degree or refocuses things on cost of living and affordability, because that was another big theme during the leadership campaign that was really dominant. Once you take away the politics of mandates and the politics of vaccines, unfortunately, as sad as it is to say. I think it sharpens the focus back on affordability and back on cost of living. And that remains the biggest cleavage between the two parties. And that is where the next months of the House of Commons, the next months of

campaigning, all of that stuff is going to focus. So I think the biggest implication is that just removes it from the political discourse. I just want to come back to something you said earlier when we were talking about the tenor in the House of Commons right now, and you were talking about how it's not as snippy as you thought it might have been, you know, like it's more serious. Do you think it's because of the moment,

or do you think we're seeing a turn here from polya i think it's a combination of both to be honest so first i'll say like uh definitely it's it's a moment right this is not really the time to be sniping non-stop back and forth at each other or highlighting all your differences all the time in a really negative way when people are genuinely genuinely suffering i think there is as much as there's disdain for politicians out there i think there is a real genuine acknowledgement of that from everybody i speak to in all of the different political parties i really do believe that i hope that leaves people listening with a bit of optimism for our future at the same time i think and this is from talking with a bit of optimism for our future. At the same time,

I think, and this is from talking to a number of Conservatives, many of whom are close to the new leader, there is an acknowledgement, just like there is in anyone who becomes leader, that this is a point in time in which new swaths of Canadians, so groups of people who were not familiar with the Conservative leadership race, who are not familiar with Pierre Pelletier, are going to be paying attention to a larger degree. And he realizes and his team realizes that they have to make the most of that. And so they're cognizant of it. Doesn't mean this whole like pivot narrative, oh, we're going to become moderate, we're going to become soft spoke, like none of that is going to happen. But you're going to hear a lot less, for example, as we have about Bitcoin, about cryptocurrency, about firing the Bank of Canada, all the things that drew the headlines at the outset of a leadership campaign, but are likely to put off certain constituencies

of Canadians have very much receded into the background and replaced with just sort of like a dogmatic persistence on affordability and the cost of living. And the Liberals have definitely, you know, tried to and do certainly focus on the more controversial things he said, but they're trying to move away from those things as a broader swath of people who might vote for him are paying attention, basically. All right. Thank you. Thank you for this.

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