0:01

I'm Dr. Brian Goldman, host of the CBC

0:03

podcast, The Dose. If the Edmonton Oilers are

0:05

going to come back from down in the

0:08

series to win the Stanley Cup, they need

0:10

a secret weapon named George Mumford. He's

0:12

a sports psychology consultant who has helped

0:14

NBA greats like Michael Jordan and

0:17

Shaquille O'Neal win titles. Let's

0:19

see if he can do the same for Conor McDavid

0:21

and Leon Drycidal. That's on The Dose. You

0:23

can listen to this episode right now. Just

0:26

search for The Dose wherever you get your podcasts. This

0:31

is a CBC podcast. Hey

0:37

there, I'm Rosemary Barton this week on At

0:39

Issue, the podcast edition for Thursday, June 13th.

0:42

Two more federal party leaders

0:45

have now seen the unredacted

0:47

reports suggesting some parliamentarians were

0:49

working with foreign actors. Jagmeet

0:51

Singh is expressing alarm. I

0:54

am more convinced than ever

0:56

of the conclusions of the

0:58

ANZACOP committee and the report

1:01

that some parliamentarians are

1:03

waiting participants in the efforts

1:06

of foreign states. While

1:08

Green Party leader Elizabeth May says she's

1:10

relieved. There is no

1:13

list of MPs

1:15

who have shown disloyalty to Canada.

1:17

This week we're asking what's to

1:19

be made of how federal leaders

1:21

are handling this issue of foreign

1:23

interference and should Pierre Poeliev get

1:25

the clearance for himself. Chantal et

1:27

Bear-Endercoyne and Althea Raj join me

1:30

to talk about that. Plus, how

1:32

are the Conservatives framing their opposition

1:34

to the capital gains tax increase?

1:39

Still talking about this report, of course the

1:41

difference now. Singh and May

1:43

have both seen this unredacted report

1:45

but come to quite different conclusions.

1:49

I wonder what we're supposed to do

1:51

with that, Chantal. What are Canadians who

1:53

are sort of following this supposed to

1:55

make of these different responses?

2:00

at least the government that is leading this

2:02

file because it is the government that is

2:05

showing an absence of leadership. It's allowing

2:07

this debate to go left, right and

2:09

center. There is no

2:11

sense that it's being taken seriously. I

2:14

think people watching from the outside will

2:16

say, well, how can treason, because Mr.

2:18

Singh did use the word, be

2:21

in the eye of the beholder. Both

2:24

of them are experienced parliamentarians.

2:27

They do agree that foreign interference

2:29

is a serious problem and serious

2:31

things are happening. But for

2:34

Canadians to watch the spectacle of

2:36

those two news conferences is

2:39

bound to just generate more

2:41

confusion about whether anyone in parliament

2:43

is serious about this. And

2:46

it's confusing because they can't really go

2:48

too far in what they can say

2:50

either, Andrew. Like they're limited in how

2:52

much they can divulge. So they're giving

2:54

sort of their impressions or their feelings

2:56

about something as opposed to information. Yeah,

2:59

I will say I think Mr. Singh's

3:01

interpretation is a little closer to the

3:03

plain sense of what the committee reported.

3:06

If the committee had meant to say no

3:08

sitting MP did anything

3:11

wittingly, I think they would have

3:13

said so. In fact, the whole

3:15

report talks about wittingly, knowingly, deliberately.

3:19

And the only person they mentioned as a past

3:21

MP was the one person who had gone the

3:23

furthest in terms of actually going to a foreign

3:26

country and trying to meet with a foreign intelligence

3:28

officer. So where Ms. May

3:30

came up with that conclusion, I'm not sure. She's never

3:33

really distinguished herself as a hawk on national security to

3:35

say the least. She's not sure we should be in

3:37

NATO. She thought Han Dong

3:39

had done nothing wrong. He'd had to

3:41

answer for. So I

3:44

was certainly struck by the inconsistency between

3:46

her reading of the report and

3:49

what the committee had actually reported. I think

3:52

Mr. Singh's interpretation certainly rings a lot

3:54

truer in terms of being consistent with

3:56

what the committee actually said. Mr.

4:00

Singh took back, if you will,

4:02

some of the impression

4:04

that he had left after

4:06

his press conference that his

4:10

office wants us all to know that he did

4:12

not mean to say anything or leave the impression

4:15

that he was saying anything different than what is

4:17

actually in the report. And

4:19

so the whole question about whether or not

4:21

you feel like there are traitors sitting in

4:23

the House of Commons, I actually think it's

4:26

possible that they're both looking

4:28

at the same information and coming

4:30

to different conclusions for

4:34

really not that

4:36

crazy reasons. First of all,

4:38

Ms. May

4:40

said that she wanted to

4:42

know whether or not anybody next to her,

4:44

like sitting in the chamber, was a traitor.

4:46

And after reading the report, she felt that

4:49

no, she did talk about nomination

4:51

races. So you get the impression that for

4:54

her, that is less if you

4:56

are not involved, but you have benefited

4:58

from foreign interference helping you win your

5:00

nomination, that you are unwitting

5:03

or perhaps a beneficiary, but you

5:05

didn't actively participate in this, that

5:07

she wouldn't see that as you're

5:09

being a traitor. And it looks

5:11

like perhaps that was my takeaway from the press conference, that

5:14

maybe Mr. Singh actually felt differently. But

5:16

if you parse the words, the committee in

5:19

its public report said,

5:21

winning and unwitting and

5:24

used the present term. That they could

5:26

have lumped in former MPs and current

5:28

MPs and they both could be right.

5:31

So the problem is

5:33

none of us have seen the report.

5:36

So we don't know. That is the problem.

5:38

That is the central problem. I mean, it's

5:40

possible that there are people, Ms. May left

5:42

the suggestion hanging there that there are senators

5:45

who are currently in the Senate who are

5:47

winning participants because she was very clear that

5:49

she meant, oh, members

5:51

of the House of Commons. Okay. Okay.

5:54

So it makes no sense

5:57

that we are sitting here

5:59

parsing. the thoughts and

6:01

the words parsed by opposition

6:03

leaders on such an issue. It's

6:06

like being, sitting in

6:09

a car that has, is

6:12

self-driven and you're just

6:14

going along for the ride. You don't have a

6:16

clue what the destination is and you

6:18

are not getting any clearer

6:21

context from the government.

6:23

It does not help to go to where

6:25

you will end up. That

6:27

the leader of the

6:29

opposition who stands closest to power

6:32

actually is happy to be

6:34

blind over what

6:37

happened, whether

6:39

his caucus is compromised, whether

6:41

past or present candidates

6:44

maybe, or

6:46

whether the lay of the land in parliament

6:49

should matter to someone who wants to be prime

6:51

minister. You look at all that together and you

6:53

think, who in the

6:56

world are these people who are governing

6:58

or pretending to want to govern this

7:00

country that they engage in

7:02

this game? I don't

7:05

think we've ever done analysis on tea

7:07

leaves that we can't even see.

7:10

Generally you don't like me when I make you do things

7:12

like that, so go ahead, Andrew. We

7:14

should add to that list. The prime minister has been

7:17

sitting on this report for three months and has done

7:19

nothing, said nothing of any note since then. So,

7:22

yeah, leaving this to the

7:24

party leaders, I think the conclusion might be, is

7:26

not necessarily a very good idea. And yet that's

7:28

one of the ideas you keep seeing batted about,

7:30

is if they didn't all have flagrant conflicts

7:33

of interest in dealing with this in

7:35

terms of they may have members of their own parties

7:37

involved that they'd rather not speak about. So

7:40

that's not, it doesn't strike me as a terribly

7:42

good idea, yet we keep punting this back and

7:44

forth now. Leave it to the police. Well,

7:46

the police can't actually deal with this. Leave it to the

7:48

party leaders. Well, they don't seem to want to deal with

7:50

this. Now we're going to

7:52

give it to the public inquiry. Justice

7:55

Murray shows a hug. Well, she's got enough on

7:57

her plate already, which is going to be extremely

7:59

difficult. extraordinarily crowded agenda over the next few months

8:01

and adding this to the ballot may not be

8:03

the best solution and I suspect what's going to

8:05

happen out of this is we're going to keep

8:07

going round and round the mulberry bush and nothing's

8:10

going to get done. So I come

8:12

back to the idea of as unsatisfactory

8:14

a solution as it is of getting the names out.

8:16

I don't think that's a solution I think you have

8:19

to do a lot of other things in terms of

8:21

due process, etc But I do think

8:23

nothing's going to happen until you do I think it I

8:25

think that's the only way we're going to start to get

8:27

to the bottom of this because at that point nobody can

8:30

evade it any further. So what kind of

8:32

pressure is on Mr. Pauliev do you think

8:34

Althea at this point given the way that

8:36

everyone else is is getting the information and

8:38

talking about it Well his position

8:40

makes no sense. It really doesn't if

8:44

you are serious about wanting to be

8:46

the prime minister of the country and

8:48

running your party and making sure that

8:50

nobody sitting in your caucus is compromised

8:52

Why wouldn't you want to have access

8:54

to the information that can be available

8:56

to you? This idea that his hands

8:58

are tied behind his back and he won't be able to

9:00

say anything Leave is the impression that

9:03

he's choosing partisan politics over

9:05

actually leading and taking accountability

9:07

for things that he could

9:09

actually change I'm not talking

9:11

about kicking out somebody because the reform

9:13

act ties his hands. That's true But he

9:15

could refuse to sign their nomination paper as

9:17

we talked about this last week There are

9:20

other things he should want to do how

9:22

to guard against foreign interference during the conservatives

9:24

party's last three leadership races I

9:27

think that's a really big question mark and I

9:30

do feel like as you know now mr Blanche

9:32

who had not gotten a security clearance is getting

9:34

a security clearance the leader of the blankey bequat

9:36

and will be reading the report and perhaps he

9:39

will shed a little bit more light between Elizabeth's

9:42

maze version of the reading and Jagmeet Singh's version

9:44

of the reading but the only person now Only

9:47

party leader that refuses to read the reporting

9:49

get the clearance for it is the leader

9:51

of the conservative party That doesn't make any

9:53

sense and I do wonder if that position

9:55

is going to be tenable, but but back

9:57

to Chantal's point the

9:59

government may be doing things legislatively on

10:01

C-70 and other things, but it has

10:04

not helped us understand what we're dealing

10:06

with or help us understand,

10:09

help Canadians understand what we're dealing with here either.

10:12

Yeah, I mean, the public safety minister

10:14

keeps on this tired old line about,

10:16

well, you know, the intelligence

10:18

can be partial or conflicted, etc. That

10:21

was the job of the committee. These people

10:23

are not stooges, they're not bumpkins. These are

10:26

people who've been on this committee for some

10:28

time. They have, in many cases, backgrounds in

10:30

law or law enforcement. So

10:33

to say that all the work

10:35

they did going through 33,000 documents can

10:37

be just waved away because it's uncomfortable for

10:39

the minister to talk about it, I think

10:41

is ridiculous. Last word to you, Chantal, quickly. The

10:45

prime minister, as was already pointed

10:47

out, had this report

10:49

in his hands in March. It has

10:52

thrown Parliament in kind

10:54

of a tailspin mood over the

10:56

past two weeks. And

10:58

yet between March and two weeks

11:00

ago, there has been no

11:02

sign of much of anything happening from

11:05

this report. So is Justin Trudeau's take

11:07

on this the same as Elizabeth May?

11:10

And if it is, he should say so. And

11:12

if it isn't, he should say so also. At

11:15

issue, the capital gains tax increase. After

11:18

weeks of refusing to take a position

11:20

on the Liberals' move, the Conservative leader

11:22

was forced to respond by a vote,

11:24

and they voted against it. Focusing

11:27

small businesses during an

11:29

economic growth crisis is

11:32

economic vandalism. So

11:36

how are the Conservatives explaining this move? Let's bring

11:38

everybody back. Chantal, Andrew, and Althea. Althea, start us

11:40

off. After weeks of

11:42

not knowing what they were going to do, this

11:45

is where the Conservatives ended up. And

11:47

the way that they framed the decision was

11:49

pretty interesting as well. What do you

11:51

make of what they did here? I

11:54

don't think it was entirely surprising. This

11:56

is long-standing Conservative Party policy. It's where

11:58

Mr. Pauley have actually... It's

12:00

the point of view he actually believes in. And

12:03

they have been making, or he has been

12:06

making that clarion call for the past three

12:08

weeks telling businesses and

12:10

people who want him to change

12:13

the policy, in any policy frankly, to make the

12:15

case. And then if they convince the public, he

12:17

will side by it. And in a way, that's

12:19

what we saw in the chamber this week. He

12:21

talked about this is a tax on doctors in

12:23

the middle of a doctor shortage. This is a

12:26

tax on food when this is

12:28

not good for our farmers. This is a

12:30

tax on productivity when we have a productivity

12:32

problem. And so I think

12:34

what was even more interesting in the way that

12:36

he framed it, as in like it will affect

12:38

regular people and it will affect people that you

12:40

should care about, is that the

12:43

liberals seem completely unprepared

12:46

for that line of attack. And even

12:48

when there were questions, good questions, the

12:50

conservatives were asking the liberals, if you

12:52

say that this is only going to

12:54

affect a small number of people, then

12:56

make sure that it only affects a

12:58

small number of people. The finance minister

13:00

seemed completely flat footed and could not

13:02

defend her policy. Andrew? Yeah, I

13:05

mean, the liberals thought they

13:07

had him forked. You know, either he

13:09

endorses the policy and therefore

13:11

enrages protections of his base and damages his

13:13

brand as a tax cutter, or

13:15

he fights against it and they can paint him as being

13:17

in favor of the super rich. But that was two months

13:19

ago when the budget came out. And maybe if he'd taken

13:21

the bait on in the first day, maybe they might have

13:24

had him in that regard. But that happened since

13:26

then. The liberal storyline of

13:28

this is only going to affect a handful

13:30

of the super rich is, I think, really

13:32

broken down. It's broken down under both expert

13:34

analysis, it seems to affect a lot

13:36

more than that, and it certainly, if it were true, it's

13:38

hard to understand why there'd be so many farmers and lawyers

13:40

and doctors and small business people who think it's going to

13:43

apply to them. So that,

13:45

say, that storyline's broken down. But then the other

13:48

thing he did on the day was he kind

13:50

of stepped outside the issue. It's not just for

13:52

or against this particular proposal. And in

13:54

fact, you'll notice he did not say he would repeal it

13:56

if he was in office. What

13:58

he instead said is, I'm going to bring in broad-scale tax

14:00

reformer are going to strike a tax force. And

14:02

that actually is the right response, which is the

14:05

policy itself is perfectly sound of let's tax

14:07

capital gains at the same rate as other

14:10

types of income. But

14:12

the larger debate is, should we be taxing income at

14:14

that level generally, or should we be looking for ways

14:16

in which we can cut rates? And he's

14:18

started that discussion off, which I think is much friendlier

14:20

terrain for him. Well, he didn't say it

14:22

would repeal it, because it's going to bring in

14:25

a real huge amount of money, and he's well

14:27

aware of that, too, I'm sure, Chantal. It's

14:30

not only that it's going to bring a lot

14:32

of money federally, it's also going to be

14:34

bringing a lot of money in provincial coffers.

14:37

And a lot of premiers are quietly

14:40

saying, thank you, they

14:43

won't talk about it, but they're certainly not

14:45

going to join a fight against it. I

14:47

think the Conservatives at first expected the measure

14:49

to be in the budget, and

14:51

because they opposed the budget, they

14:53

would have voted against it as part of

14:56

the budget. But if you're going

14:58

to lay a trap, maybe you shouldn't show

15:00

all your cards in

15:03

the lead-up to that trap, that as in, come,

15:05

come, come, come, I'm going to make you fall

15:07

in a trap and give

15:09

you six weeks to figure out

15:12

how to not fall in that

15:14

trap. And that's exactly what the

15:16

government allowed the Conservatives to do.

15:18

Now, over that period, there

15:21

has been a debate over this

15:23

measure that the Liberals have

15:25

not necessarily won. Opinion is split

15:27

on this. So the issue is, who

15:30

cares the most about this measure? And

15:32

if you know anything about taxes, those

15:34

who will pay or fear that they

15:36

will pay that tax are much more

15:38

likely to go vote because they're

15:40

angry than the people who don't care because

15:43

it doesn't apply to them. And

15:45

I'm not sure that the Canadians

15:47

really believe, especially coming from this

15:49

government with the kind of brand

15:51

that it has, trendy,

15:53

downtown-ish, nice socks, that they see

15:56

them as

15:58

fighting a class war. for the little

16:00

guy from the porch of

16:03

wherever they are. It

16:05

seems to me like an

16:08

operation where the government ended up

16:10

looking one, fake, two, over

16:12

the top in its approach, and

16:15

three, playing games with governance rather

16:18

than governing. Well,

16:20

and their chief spokesman on this,

16:22

Krista Freeland, I have

16:24

to say is not a particularly persuasive spokesman.

16:26

That speech she gave on Sunday where

16:29

she said, you know, what kind of country you

16:31

want to live in? Do you want to live

16:33

in gated communities where you're hiding from the wrath

16:35

of the populace, et cetera, et cetera? It

16:37

was pretty widely mocked even by people, I

16:40

think, who were sympathetic to the issue. So

16:43

I think that's part of the problem as well. 20 seconds to

16:45

you, Althea. It's just strange that

16:47

they haven't invested, really, a lot of capital

16:49

in trying to convince people on the value

16:51

of their policy. And I understand what some

16:53

of the changes is a little bit hard

16:55

to explain. But if what they're

16:57

trying to say is we are an empathetic country,

16:59

we want to make sure that there are social

17:01

services for more people, and this is the way

17:04

we're going to do it, some of the criticism

17:06

against the bill, like if you're selling

17:08

in cottage, for example, and you

17:10

get this one time in your

17:13

lifetime windfall, the government doesn't

17:15

seem to at all care

17:17

about some of the criticisms that have emerged.

17:19

And a lot of the people who are

17:21

affected, some of them are probably not at

17:23

all going to be affected, but think they're

17:26

going to be affected. The government has invested

17:28

no capital in trying to either fix the

17:30

problem or assuage their concerns. At

17:33

issue, a by-election showdown in

17:35

the writing of Toronto's St.

17:37

Paul, Liberal candidate Leslie Church

17:39

versus Conservative Don Stewart. We're

17:42

working very hard to make sure that we win this by-election.

17:46

It's seen as a test of support

17:48

for the Liberals in a stronghold, while

17:50

polls show low support for the party.

17:53

Polls come up and down and all

17:55

around, and I believe in the man,

17:57

and I believe in Leslie Church. So

18:00

how important is this by-election for the Liberals

18:02

and the Prime Minister's future? Chantal, Andrew, and

18:04

Althea. Andrew, you sent me a note a

18:06

few weeks back saying, boy, there's a whole

18:08

bunch of Conservative signs out and not a

18:11

lot of Liberal ones. What

18:13

do you think has to happen here? I mean,

18:15

obviously the Liberals need to win because it is

18:17

a stronghold, but how big a deal do you think it

18:19

is? Well, you know, by-elections are

18:21

predictors unless they aren't. You

18:24

know, I think it was a year or two ago, there was

18:26

several by-elections with Liberals did

18:28

Grether Well in, and we all said, oh, well,

18:30

you know, maybe they're doing better than we expected,

18:32

they've got more motivated voters, what have you. And

18:34

that was shortly before, you know, the Tories opened

18:36

up a 15, 20-point lead on them. This

18:39

is a riding which has

18:41

been Liberal for 30 years or so. It's

18:44

the kind of riding that used to be accessible

18:46

to the right Tory candidate, but hasn't

18:48

been for a long time, even when Stephen Harper was

18:50

winning majorities or a majority. So

18:53

if they were to lose this time, and, you

18:55

know, the pollsters that I've seen say it still

18:57

looks like a narrow Liberal win, but even a

18:59

narrow Liberal win would not be great. If they

19:01

were to lose it, that would suggest a whole

19:03

lot of ridings, not unlike

19:05

this riding, would be open and available and accessible

19:07

to Tories in a way they haven't been for

19:10

a long time. Chantal? Sure.

19:13

A very close result for

19:15

the Liberals or a defeat would bring

19:19

a major hit to Liberal morale.

19:22

I don't know if it would end

19:24

Justin Trudeau's leadership, but it would

19:27

certainly encourage some MPs to think

19:29

about alternative plans for the future,

19:32

as in, do I really want to go to the

19:34

slaughterhouse in a general

19:36

election? Now, if the Liberals expected anything

19:38

great to be coming from this by-election,

19:41

they probably wouldn't have picked a date when most

19:43

of the country is getting ready to disappear

19:46

for July 1st. I mean,

19:48

June 24th is

19:50

about as late in the season as

19:52

you can do it without burying it

19:54

in the dark days of summer. So

19:57

I think they see this as

19:59

the last... of a bad run. I suspect

20:03

the consequences if they don't do decently

20:07

well enough could be

20:10

dire for a party moron. Althea?

20:14

I think if they lose the writing, Justin

20:17

Trudeau will have to give serious

20:19

thought to leaving. There will

20:22

be people calling him and telling him that

20:24

he should leave. I think caucus members, I

20:26

don't think, I know, caucus members, will

20:30

start to mobilize whether there's enough

20:32

of them. I don't think that

20:34

that is still the case, but we

20:37

will see. It will be the first

20:39

sign that really some

20:41

of them who are kind of resigned to the fact

20:44

that they think they're going to lose in the next

20:46

election now will think, okay, well, it's not

20:48

going to be 60 or 70 that survive.

20:50

It will be like maybe 30, maybe 25. Because if you

20:52

recall, St. Paul's is a writing

20:57

that actually Carol Embedit kept in

20:59

2011 when Michael Ignatieff had his

21:01

disastrous election. So she was a

21:04

force in the writing. She was a medical doctor.

21:07

She delivered a lot of babies. Her practice

21:09

was just outside the writing, but she

21:11

was very well known. And Leslie Church

21:13

doesn't have the roots

21:16

in the writing. But because

21:18

it has become such a,

21:21

if he cannot win this, then what can

21:23

he win? That's the narrative that has set

21:25

in. It is very important for liberals to

21:27

win it. On the other side, I've heard

21:29

that conservatives who have knocked on doors are

21:31

hearing basically people are not

21:33

enthralled at all with Pierre Paulieff. They think

21:35

he's mean. They think he's partisan, but will

21:38

they hold their nose and vote for him

21:40

anyways? Or will those former liberals stay home,

21:42

much like in 2011, and cause some surprising

21:45

results? I don't

21:47

know. There may be lessons, frankly, for both

21:50

political leaders no matter what happens on the

21:52

24th. This is a writing that is home

21:54

to the fifth largest Jewish community

21:56

based on election. Canada.

22:00

counting. And based on that,

22:03

these are motivated voters who could make the

22:06

difference. And if they do come out to

22:08

vote based on how they feel today, they're

22:10

going to give a leg up

22:12

to the conservatives. I agree that Piaplu

22:14

Yev is not the typical

22:17

candidate that this riding would be

22:19

drawn to. But in

22:21

this instance, if it's going to

22:23

be a tight race, the Jewish community could make

22:25

a difference to the outcome. A lot of

22:27

doctors and lawyers too, so the Catholicians might

22:29

be in play as well. There you go.

22:31

There you go. Okay. Thank you all. Appreciate what

22:33

we meant. We might talk about the by-election again,

22:35

but thank you all for doing it for our

22:37

first kick today and this week. Appreciate it. That

22:42

is At Issue, the podcast edition for this

22:44

week. Do you think party leaders should read

22:46

those briefings on foreign interference? How big a

22:48

deal is that to you? You can let

22:50

us know. Send us an email at

22:53

ask at cbc.ca. Remember, you

22:55

can also catch me live

22:57

on Sunday mornings at 10 a.m. Eastern

22:59

on that show called Rosemary Barton live.

23:01

We'll be back in your podcast feeds

23:04

next week. Thanks for listening.