The Agenda with Steve Paikin (Audio) - Can the Liberals Keep Governing Amid Parliamentary Gridlock?

Episode Date: November 22, 2024

The leader of the government in the House of Commons is one of the most important jobs in parliament. It's tricky work, especially in a minority parliament such as the one the Trudeau Liberals govern with at the moment. That's been made tougher due to a procedural stalemate. The post is held by the Liberal member for Burlington, Karina Gould, and she joins Steve Paikin to talk about her role and the government's plans in the coming months.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The more you know, the more you'll grow. At TVO, we know that informed minds lead to great transformations. But we need your support more than ever before. Right now, you can double your impact. Donations made by December 3rd will be matched up to a total of $150,000. Your support helps provide in-depth journalism, documentaries, learning resources and kids programming that help you discover the you you didn't know you could become. Exciting, isn't it? Visit tvo.org slash givingtuesday to make your donation today.

And discover your 2-point TVO. In Parliament, the government House leader has an important job. She's got to stick handle the government's legislative agenda through the House. And when it's a minority Parliament, as we now have, the job is even trickier. The Post is currently held by the Liberal MP for Burlington, Carina Gould, and she joins us now from the nation's capital. It's good to have you back on our program. How are you doing? I'm good. Thanks for having me, Steve. Not at all. Let's just start by looking at the state of play in the House right now.

Is anything at all getting passed these days? Well, some things, actually. So we passed the week before the last constituency week at S16, which is a bill for self-government for the Haida Gwaii Nation. And of course, pharmacare passed in the Senate earlier this month, but the House is kind of stuck in a privilege debate right now, which means that there's, you know, there's a lot of debates happening,

but it's not legislation. Well, okay, do you want to weigh in and give us your take on why everything seems to be stuck right now? There is a procedural motion about documents and it's kind of ground things to a halt. Let's hear your take on it. Yeah, so look, I mean, this is the Conservative Party

of Canada playing procedural games right now. We have actually already submitted almost 29,000 pages of documents with regards to SDTC, which is a former organization that was run by parliament, that was about greening the economy. There were issues with it, and so the government actually wound it down and removed the board members and did a response in response to the Auditor General. But the Conservative Party of Canada has asked Parliament to receive these documents to then send to the RCMP. And now Parliament has an extraordinary power to ask for documents from the government and from any organization.

And we don't disagree with that, where as a government, we feel very strongly that this is not correct, is that these documents are not being used for Parliament's purpose, but rather they're giving them straight to the RCMP. And so this has big implications for the Charter and Canadians' rights, particularly to privacy. It also has implications when it comes to the independent work of the police,

in this case, the RCMP. And it's kind of a backdoor way to get around due process. And both the RCMP commissioner, the auditor general, former deputy commissioner of the RCMP and former law clerks in the House of Commons have all raised concerns with this and said that this is not an appropriate use of parliament's power.

So we have complied in the sense of submitting these documents, but in a way that wouldn't compromise police independence and in a way that protects the Charter Rights of Canadians. And the Conservatives, instead of accepting this, have actually are filibustering their own obstruction motion. So instead of going with the speaker's ruling, which was to send this issue to a parliamentary committee to study it because there's no precedent for parliament

ever asking for documents for a third party before. The conservatives have actually started filibustering and obstructing this and that's where we find ourselves in this kind of continuous filibuster from the conservatives is where we are today. Well, let me play devil's advocate for a second here, which is to say the conservatives are using the tools that are at their disposal to do what opposition parties do, namely, I guess, bring attention to an issue that they find scandalous.

And the government's own decision to ultimately wind down that sustainable development organization and move the money elsewhere suggests that you acknowledge there were problems with it. So that's what they're doing. I mean, it's a legitimate form of protest, is it not? Sure, but the speaker's ruling was that this matter should be referred to committee because it's the first time in Canadian history that parliament is asking for documents, not for

its own use, but for the use by a third party. This is something that I think is an egregious abuse of power. And what they ultimately want is to go on a political witch hunt and to exercise their own partisan vendetta. And so, as you mentioned, the government acknowledges that this wasn't a great scenario and that's why the organization was wound down. That's why the board was let go. That's why we are providing the documents. We're just doing so in a way that

protects the Charter rights of Canadians. What the conservatives are asking for, in my opinion, and in the opinion of parliamentary legal experts, is just wrong. And I think one of the reasons why they don't want this to go to committee is because what they would hear from experts is what they're doing is an egregious abuse of power. And in fact, even the current law clerk at committee when asked about this said that he agreed with the concerns that were raised by the auditor general and the RCMP commissioner of the conservative motion. And, you know, I would expect that if the conservatives were in government right now and an opposition party were asking for the same thing, they would actually act in the same way that we

are because I believe it's a government's job and I believe it's the job of all members of parliament and of parliamentarians to protect the rights of Canadians, to respect the independence of our democratic institutions and to respect police independence. What the Conservatives are doing is kind of breaking all three of those things and I think that's completely inappropriate and something that we should all be alarmed about. Now a big part of your job obviously as house leader is to negotiate with your colleagues who represent the other parties in Parliament and I presume those discussions are happening and for whatever reason you all as a group have

yet to be able to find a way out of this. What do you think will get this unstuck? Yeah, I mean, so as you mentioned, I'm having conversations on a regular basis with all of my counterparts. Look, I think when it comes to the Bloc and the NDP, they're quite intimidated by the Conservatives. And so they haven't been able to find the courage to stand up to the Conservatives, because they're frankly intimidated by their bullying tactics. So there's only one party in Parliament right now that is actually standing up for the rights of Canadians

and for democracy in this country, and that's the Liberals. But we are in constant conversation with the opposition parties about how we move forward. And there's an elegant solution from the Speaker of the House, which is to move this to committee so that it can be studied because again, there's no precedent for what the conservatives are asking for. And in fact, the precedent that it sets is quite dangerous for parliamentary democracy in Canada.

Now, I guess I can say this. I've known you for a while and I've known you to always be a person of temperance. And you're not one of these people who sort of flies off the handle and engages in a lot of deeply partisan rhetoric. But I have noticed lately you have described the leader of the opposition as a fraudster and a bully, which is, which kicks it up a notch from what I'm accustomed to hearing from you. So I guess I got to ask, why are you using that language and is it helping to move the ball downfield by using it? Well, look, and I'm using it because it's true, because what we have seen since Mr. Polyev has become leader of the Conservative Party of Canada is a level

of toxicity and, you know, abuse of parliamentary power, as I'm talking about with you right now with regards to this motion of privilege, and a real kind of going after of Canadians. We see this with people, regular citizens who stand up and disagree with him. He goes after them personally, and I don't think that's okay. And what we see in the House of Commons is, you know, just this, you know, it's never a place where, you know, things go smoothly, right? Like that's not how the House of Commons generally operates.

But the level of aggression and bullying that we see by his members of parliament and by him himself is, you know, something that is at a level that I haven't experienced in the last nine years that I've been fortunate to be elected. And then the other thing is that he sells slogans and not solutions, right? He, you know, this most recent thing about the Housing Accelerator Fund, which is a fund to help municipalities build the infrastructure necessary to build more houses, right? He's going after that

and he's going after his own Conservative members of Parliament for standing up for their constituents and standing up for their communities. And I don't think that's right. I think members of Parliament should be allowed always and encouraged always to be advocating on behalf of their communities. And so it's not even that he goes after members in other political parties. He even goes after his own MPs. You know, it's interesting. We had a discussion about this very thing about a week or two ago on this program, and

I asked a surrogate for the Conservative Party why Mr. Poliev conducts himself in the way he does. Let's just put it that way. And her response was, because our supporters love it. They love it when we stick it to you guys, meaning you, the government. And if that's the case, then his approach is not likely to change, which again raises the question, you know, how do we get this parliament to work better together and at the end of the day make stuff happen? And I note that now that the Supply and Confidence Agreement with the NDP is over,

I assume that's even harder to do anyway. So what's the way forward? Look, I mean, I think part of leadership is, you know, the tone that you use. And you're right, I'm being more aggressive because I think that we need to point out when someone is being inappropriate and when they're using bullying tactics. And you know, Mr. Poliev has always been an aggressive politician, but I'm not sure that that's what you need when you're leading a country and, you know, a G7 country like Canada who has to, you know, also stand up for Canadians on the world stage, but also be an ambassador for Canada on the world stage and who has to actually solve problems. It's easier when you're in opposition because all you have to do is point out,

you know, what you think isn't going well. But at the same time, you know, if he's asking Canadians for their trust in order to govern, he also has to demonstrate that he can, you know, be a states person and actually deliver solutions. And right now, that's not what we see from him. And that's not who he is necessarily either. When it comes to the end of the supply and confidence agreement,

certainly that has caused a big change in this parliament. I think we've been able to deliver really big things for Canadians because of that and provided some stable government over the last three years to Canadians in a time of big global upheaval and challenges in the economy and challenges right around the world. That being said, it just kind of brings us back to a normal minority parliament.

You've been around for a while, Steve, and minority parliaments are kind of messy. You know, there's a lot of negotiation that goes on. And so instead of having one primary interlocutor, I now have three. And, you know, depending on what the issue is, we're able to move forward. I mean, on S-16, I mean, that passed through with unanimous consent on support for Jasper, that passed through with unanimous consent on support for Jasper,

that passed through with unanimous consent. So we are still able to work together to advance files. And I know there are things that matter both to the block, supply management, for example, in the Senate and bill S282 and protecting that in future trade agreements. And so there's collaboration there. Of course, we don't control the independent Senate, but the government is very much committed to seeing that bill become law because we believe in it. We supported that as well. And then with the NDP, you know, we really need to make sure that those programs

that we put in place, like childcare, like dental care, move forward. And the only way that we're going to be able to do that is if we can advance together in parliament. Well, in fact, I'm happy to put on the record that your parliament, the current minority parliament, is actually nudging up against an all-time record in Canada. If you want to find the longest minority parliament that lasted, you've got to go back to William

Lyon Mackenzie King's days, which is the early 1920s, three years, seven months, 20 days. If this parliament lasts until May, you'll break that record. Do you think it can last until May? I think it can. We're certainly operating under the impression that we are going to be lasting until next October. It's tricky to do that, but we're certainly operating with that objective in mind. And as I said, this minority parliament has not necessarily been the norm in terms of the history of Minority Parliaments, but it's been very effective and we've delivered a lot for Canadians through this time. And there's still more to do in order to make sure that those programs and those policies that I know matter to Canadians can actually be delivered in

a meaningful way, dental care being a really important example that we need to keep moving forward on. So lots of negotiation, lots of talking to do, but I am engaged in very constructive conversations with almost all of my opposition counterparts. Let me ask you about the Prime Minister's options at this point because whenever he talks about this, he says he really looks forward to a clarifying election at some point down the road so that he can put his program forward and he can show up, in his view, the leader of the opposition and show how little there is there. That would be the Prime Minister's current view on this.

If things are really bogging down right now, how about having that clarifying election sooner rather than later? What's wrong with doing it sort of almost immediately? Well, I don't think there's a big appetite for Canadians to have an election right now. I mean I think you know they're you know it's going to be important for us to lay out what our future plan is in an election and they think that there is going to be a very clear choice you know between two different visions for this country,

one that is about inclusive growth that wants to help Canadians through these tough times and see opportunity and success, which is our vision for the country. And then there's one that's going to be about cuts and austerity and getting rid of the government programs that Canadians care about. You know, we don't have to look too far into the past when Stephen Harper was Prime Minister for all of the cuts to programs and services that Canadians experienced. And what we hear from Mr. Poliev is that he's probably going to go even further and even deeper. And I think at a time of great global uncertainty, great instability in the economy, what we need is a steady hand at the wheel.

And we need someone who has the experience to navigate through those stormy times. And particularly with the US electionS. election, you know, we have a prime minister, we have a minister of finance, we have a cabinet that has had a very successful relationship with President-elect Donald Trump. And, you know, I think it's going to be important for Canadians to make that decision as to whether they want

to go with someone who is steady, who has stood up for Canada successfully, and who knows how to manage that relationship and how to protect the Canadian economy and Canadians moving forward, or someone who's pretty reckless and irresponsible, and whose main point during the last negotiations when it came to NAFTA was about giving everything away to the Americans.

So, you know, there's going to be an important choice moving forward and, you know, we're going to trust Canadians to make that choice. It is certainly fair to say that your government, when Donald Trump was in the first time, had a considerable amount of success dealing with that unprecedented challenge, if I can put it that way. It's also true that one of the people in his—I'm not sure if he was a cabinet minister, he might have been a special adviser—said that there's a special place in hell for Justin Trudeau. So you guys certainly had your moments in that relationship.

Why would Canadians be wrong to think that if there's a populist conservative in the White House, maybe what we need in this country is a populist conservative to deal with that challenge slash threat. Well, look, I think whatever decision Canadians make at the poll is the right one that Canadians are going to make, whether it's the outcome that I want or not, I certainly hope it's the outcome that I want, but at the end is the right one that Canadians are going to make, whether it's the outcome that I want or not. I certainly hope it's the outcome that I want. But at the end of the day, I trust Canadians to make the decision that's best for our country. But what I think is really important is that now more than ever, Canadian values are needed here at home

and around the world. And when it comes to standing up for Canada, for our economy, for jobs in Canada, it's this Prime Minister who did that very effectively when President-elect Trump was there the first time. We got a strong renegotiated NAFTA. We had the steel and aluminum tariffs removed. We were able to work constructively on a number of files and a number of issues. And that's something that I know that the prime minister can do again. And what I see with Mr. Polyev is that he is willing to sell Canada down the river at all costs. And that's not something that I think will benefit Canadians or Canadian

jobs. You know, we had a very strong Team Canada approach last time that meant that we strengthened NAFTA for Canada and we have seen unprecedented foreign direct investment in Canada as a result of that and we need someone who's going to protect it. Mr. Poliev calls that investment, you know, like government waste. He doesn't see the benefit in supporting our sectors and our industries and ultimately Canadian jobs. And that's something that I think, you know, for every Canadian worker should be really concerned. And that's, you know, that's why I called him, you know, a fraudster is because he says one thing where he says he supports workers, but when it comes to actually policies and programs, he does the exact opposite that are actually

going to hurt workers, particularly in Ontario in our manufacturing sector. If, you know, Mr. Poliev were to be there, because he just doesn't stand up for Canadian industry and for Canadian jobs, and he would rather give that away to the United States. Well, okay, a couple of things I got to follow up from that answer then. Sell Canadians down the river is pretty tough rhetoric.

Can you give me an example of how you think he has sold Canadians down the river? Well, so when he talks about some of the investments that we have made in the green economy, for example, so in the auto sector in Canada, I mean, whether it's the Ford plant or the GM plant, the massive Stellantis plant. You know what, can I jump in here? Forgive the interruption here, but I happen to have these numbers right here. So let me ask our director, Sheldon Osmond, to bring them up, because it does show your governments and the Ford government's support for electric vehicle investment in Canada. This is over the last four years. Sheldon, bring the numbers up if you would.

Total investment, $52.5 billion. Federal support, about 60% of that. Provincial support, about 40% of that, provincial support, about 40% of that. Those programs are in place. They have brought a significant investment into the country. Are you saying here categorically that you think if you don't win the next election and the Poliev conservatives come in that all of that is at risk? Yes, I am because he has stated that he doesn't believe in these programs and he doesn't believe that this is a good use of government resources.

That's thousands of jobs, Steve. That's not just the direct jobs in Ontario. Those are the indirect jobs in the auto sector and adjacent sectors. And so, you know, if you are a worker in the auto sector, if you are a worker in manufacturing in Ontario, I think that he is putting your jobs at risk because he doesn't believe in government support for these industries. And, you know, this is an example of where, you know, the federal and Ontario government have

worked really well together to bring these investments to Ontario, to bring these jobs to Ontario. And we need to have a government that is going to stand up and fight for these jobs, whether it's in trade negotiations or whether it's with regards to the transition to the green economy. And he says he doesn't believe in that either.

So this, I think think is a really important point for folks in Ontario about our economy to protect it and we need a government that's going to do just that. I know you're not the Foreign Affairs Minister but I do want to ask you a question about that because it has been so prevalent in the headlines over the last little while, the expulsion of six Indian diplomats over foreign interference, some very tough protests, particularly in the province of Ontario on the Indian sick file. Does your government have a plan to reduce what appears to be significant foreign interference

in our elections, in our nomination meetings, in our internal party politics, to prevent a further destabilizing of domestic affairs here. Yeah, well first of all, let me just say that regardless of your faith, you should be able to practice it without fear and in complete safety. And I think, you know think we were all completely disappointed and shocked by what we saw a couple of weeks ago. It was unprecedented for the RCMP to come out and say so clearly on Thanksgiving Monday that they had indications that there was foreign interference

by the government of India in crime and in number of other areas in our country. And I think that is a really important step that the RCMP decided to take. And they obviously felt so strongly about it that they said it publicly. To my knowledge, that's not happened before. But this is something that is very, very serious. And of course, our government is responding accordingly, you know, whether it was with the work that we're doing in our elections to protect them. And of course, there's an inquiry going on right now with regards to that, and we will respond to that appropriately.

But also, you know, in terms of briefing the other political leaders on what is going on, you know, the Prime Minister has been very clear that this is something that's important. And every single leader of an opposition party, except for the Conservative Party of Canada, has gotten their security clearance and gotten the briefing so that they can be informed, advised, and understand how to protect Canadians

from this foreign interference. And for some reason, the leader of the Conservative Party of Canada has refused to get his security clearance because he would rather keep his head in the sand than understand what is actually happening with regards to foreign interference, particularly with regards to Indian foreign interference in Canada. is just not acceptable. If you are going to ask Canadians for the trust to lead them, you should have the conviction to want to know what's going on so that you can do that appropriately.

But instead, he's refused to get this clearance, hasn't said why, one can only speculate that he just doesn't want to know what's going on. And I think that's completely inappropriate and quite frankly, you know, undeserving of the trust of Canadians if you're not willing to understand what's happening with regards to the security of Canadians. I'm keeping an eye on the clock for you because I understand you have other duties that you've got to get to. So let me ask you one last question.

And it's not going to be whether you think Justin Trudeau ought to lead the liberals into the next election. You're part of his leadership team. So I'm going to assume the answer to that is yes. Here's the question I'm going to ask you. We just really saw a quite fascinating election in the United States for president. The Democratic Party did everything

it could to point out how unfit Donald Trump was to be president, what a threat to democracy he was, and what he might likely do with programs that Democrats thought were important to keep around. And yet the American people did what they did. They not only made him president, they gave him the majority of votes, which I think a lot of people were surprised by. I am seeing echoes in what you've told me here today and in what others have said from your party, calling Pierre Poliev unfit, calling him a bully, calling him a threat to democracy,

calling him a threat to slash and burn programs. I guess the question is, are you reconsidering that strategy or approach, given that we just saw it was employed down south and it didn't work? Look, I mean, we're not in an election right now. I mean, right now we are in government and I think it's important for us to demonstrate what we are doing as a government and what the alternative would look like. I think during an election, it's really important that it's about the two visions,

or it's about our vision that we are putting forward to Canadians and how that contrasts with the other political parties. Right now, you know, my job is to clearly demonstrate what is different about us as a government versus what is different about the opposition and what they are saying. But elections are always about the future. They're always about put forward that plan and that vision for the future for Canadians so that they can make an informed choice. That is the government's house leader, Corina Gould, the MP for Burlington. And we thank you very much for joining us tonight here on TVO. Be well. Thanks so much, Steve. You too.