Speaker 1: Who will ax the tax, build the homes, fix the budget, and stop the crime.

Speaker 2: Why can't we bring it home today? He wants a climate change election. Let's have that election in the right time. We're going to continue to deliver for Canadians.

Speaker 1: Just said he wants a carbon tax election on his plan to quadruple the tax to 61 cents a litre. If so, will he call it today?

Speaker 2: Today, we will see that this House does not have confidence in the leader of the Conservative Party. Mr. Speaker, we have delivered by continuing to deliver.

Speaker 3: It's been a day in the House of Commons where debate has heated or was heated throughout the afternoon. The Prime Minister just survived the first confidence vote of this fall sitting. And another vote is coming up momentarily. It will happen sometime very soon. We'll take you there live when it does. That all happening as the Bloc Québécois issues its own ultimatum to the Liberal government to meet two demands or they will move to work with other opposition parties to force an election. Let's unpack it all. With the front bench here tonight, Saïd Selvam is the Vice President and Practice Lead of Public Affairs at National Public Relations. Jamie Allerton is a Conservative strategist and the founding partner of Canaptis Limited. Former Interim NDP National Director Carl Belanger is with us. He's now the President of Traction Strategies. And next to me here in studio, Joël Denis-Belvance. Ottawa Bureau Chief for La Presse. Hi, everybody. Nice to see you tonight. JD, I'm going to start with you because we kind of thought that we knew how this day would unfold. Sure, we know they're going to survive it. The NDP and the Bloc already signaled. I don't know if we had it in the cards that the leader of the Bloc would come out and say, if you don't do what I want by October 29th, I'm going to be the one to force the election.

Speaker 4: I was expecting Mr. Blanchet to put a date, you know, as to when his demands would be met. And it's, you know, very not far away in terms of timing. The government has about 30 days— A month, basically. About a month to give a royal sanction to two big bills that are, you know, stuck in the process in the House of Commons and in the Senate. So, I'm not sure the government will be able to meet those demands. So, and I think Mr. Blanchet indicated that within the next two weeks, if he doesn't see any movement, the talks that he, you know, mentioned that he would have with other parties to defeat the card may start earlier than October 29th. And I wouldn't be surprised. I wouldn't be surprised if at least the Conservative Party would let the Bloc Québécois lead the way, lead the charge to introduce a non-confidence motion so they would support it, because they know if the Conservatives introduce that motion, the NDP and the Bloc will not support it. So, you will see the Bloc Québécois maybe having a more charging mission, if I may say, in the House of Commons to try to defeat the government in the next few weeks, because I doubt the government will be able to meet the demands that the Bloc Québécois put on the table.

Speaker 3: Yeah, it's fascinating the degree to which their significance in the House has been amplified over the last number of weeks. I just want to play the clip from the leader of the Bloc, and then I'll bring in our other panelists. Let's have a listen to exactly how he described this ultimatum.

Speaker 5: So far, there's been very little discussions. And as you see, there's not so much room for discussion. One thing quite important is that between now and October 29th, we could come to the conclusion that they have not used the time being offered them to successfully go forward with the projects. And then, we could know in one week or three weeks that it has become impossible. And as soon as it becomes impossible, we will know what to do with it.

Speaker 3: Not mincing words there, Jamie. Do you anticipate... I had the Minister of Health say, I had the Minister, the government house leader Karina Gould on earlier. I asked her a number of times in a number of different ways, are you going to acquiesce to these demands, one of which is boosting OAS, expanding on what a boost that already happened for Canadians over 75 to those 65 to 74. She and other members of the government have really hedged on that. They have not seemed particularly enthusiastic at all. Do you really believe that they would let their government, their own government fall over that issue?

Speaker 6: I think at this point, everything's almost like a labor negotiation happening in public mass. Where people are putting things on the table and we'll see ultimately where this lays out. I think when you look at the parliamentary budget officers saying this is a $16 billion price tag, when especially younger Canadians, millennials and younger, already feel like the deck's stacked against them and that boomers are sitting on their million-dollar homes while others are struggling to get out of the market and just make ends meet. The politics of this are actually, I think, far more complicated than perhaps people are letting on. And I think it's ultimately a sad day for Canada that you have the separatist party running the table in Parliament.

Speaker 3: It's interesting, Saeed, because, on the one hand, I get what everyone's saying, and particularly the budgetary implications are massive. We had the PBO on the show the other day who said it would threaten these fiscal anchors that were put in place last year. If they just implemented this and did nothing to compensate for it, they would not be able to meet their fiscal anchors. That's the kind of hit the budget would take. And also the politics that Jamie points out about generational fairness in the last budget and how this would be to the opposite. Not that it's not fair. Seniors certainly deserve all that they get. But as far as the political sphere goes, at the same time, if it means their survival, I'm not sure they've really hesitated to write a cheque before.

Speaker 7: Yeah, exactly. And look, the bloc knows the leverage that they have over this government right now. So they are exercising it to the full extent of their abilities. If they're giving them close to a month of a deadline, they know likely that the bills are not going to pass in that short amount of time. So I think what they're essentially doing is demonstrating and flexing their power. They're also trying to get themselves a bit of airtime and a bit of favour with some of the other parties potentially just to demonstrate that they are in a position to vote against the Liberals should that ever come down to it. So I think that Blanchet really realises and understands that, at least I hope so, that you're not able to pass such legislation in such a short period of time or it's very unlikely. I think for the most part, this is just them trying to demonstrate their ability to kind of take on the Liberals and eventually get the favour of the other parties down the line.

Speaker 3: Yeah, I certainly take that point, Carl. I think just because of the place where these bills are, that they've made it as far as they are, there's a chance that they could get this so-called royal recommendation. It won't be easy, but I think there is a world in which that might be able to happen. But like Saeed said, it's not necessarily going to be as simple as something else might be. What do you think of, and if I recall, the day the NDP ripped up the deal, you were on the show saying the bloc would be the power broker now. What do you make of the fact that they are?

Speaker 8: Well, it's a very interesting way to exercise their options because they have two clear demands and a very clear timetable. And in a way, it's going to push the NDP in the corner if those demands aren't met because the NDP doesn't have anything on the table except things that are already in motion. And they just ripped up that agreement. So what more could they get to support the government? And will the government even trust them if they enter in any kind of negotiation? So the bloc leader is being very clever here because it's putting pressure on the Liberals, of course, who are afraid of the election, but also on the NDP, who can't drop their support at this point because the demands are so clear and the timetable is so short for the Bloc Québécois.

Speaker 3: Yeah, good point. The House got wild today, I guess is maybe one way to put it. I'm going to play for all our panelists and our viewers at home. Sort of an exchange that then led to another exchange. I'll let you watch it for yourself. Let's watch the first part.

Speaker 1: The Prime Minister go and inspect this palace in the sky on his recent trip to New York.

Speaker 2: The Right Honourable Prime Minister. Mr. Speaker, engaging with international leaders on fighting climate change, on solving global crises, on standing up unequivocally for you. On Ukraine.

Speaker 3: Okay, then that led to this. Have a listen.

Speaker 2: Speaker, don't worry. On this side of the House, we're used to casual homophobic comments from the other side of the House.

Speaker 9: I'm going to ask the honourable member please to withdraw that comment, start his question again, and let us presume the better natures of all members of Parliament.

Speaker 2: Mr. Speaker, standing up to bullies requires us to call them out on their crap sometimes, and that's what I will do.

Speaker 10: I'll invite the Prime Minister once again to rise on his feet. And thank you.

Speaker 2: Mr. Speaker, I will happily withdraw my comment if the member who suggested that I was sharing a bathtub with Tom Clark stands up, takes responsibility, takes responsibility for his...

Speaker 11: And I'm just asking the Prime Minister to be the better person

Speaker 2: and to please just withdraw the comment and start his question again. I withdraw the comment about defecating. I certainly... Using the word crap. I shouldn't use that. I know crap is unparliamentary, but I will also, Mr. Speaker, when someone says something that is clearly homophobic, not them, I'm not accusing them of homophobia, I'm saying they made a homophobic...

Speaker 12: I appreciate the Prime Minister withdrawing his comment, and the Chair accepts him withdrawing that comment.

Speaker 3: When I said it was a day, JD, it was a day, I wanted to make sure that full clip was aired for all the context that might come out of it. It's a bit confusing, and it's also... I don't know, what does it say to you about what's happening and what's to come?

Speaker 4: Well, first of all, I think the Speaker of the House has lost control. I think his authority has been contested by all parties, and you could see that even the Speaker cannot control the Liberals now, so it's a bit of the kind of nature of the House of Commons. But the comments that the Speaker wanted the Prime Minister to withdraw was not the crap thing that he talked about, it was the other comment about homophobic. And then Mr. Fergus, the Speaker didn't call Mr. Trudeau to withdraw those comments. And remember, the Speaker expelled Mr. Pierre Poilier for calling the Prime Minister a wacko in the spring, so he didn't use the same rule, the same criteria, to apply to the Prime Minister. I was expecting Mr. Fergus to expel at one point the Prime Minister, because he was not complying with his orders. So it just shows that the House of Commons is becoming more and more dysfunctional, and it might be in the interest of Canadians to have an election this fall.

Speaker 3: Is it reflective, Jamie, do you think of the moment in time as well, like the sort of heightened possibility of an election and what it imparts on the rhetoric?

Speaker 6: Yeah, I think that's definitely part of it, actually. I think there's really kind of a loss of respect amongst the parties for their colleagues. If Michelle Obama said, when they go low, we go high, well, they're actually all rolling around in the sewer right now and are happy to be mucking it up in this figurative crap. So I think when you look at what's going on in the House of Commons, I think it's clear that they really don't have to respect for each other. What I heard in that clip was the Prime Minister having to withdraw his remarks for using unparliamentary language. The other part of what was allegedly said, not clear to me what was actually said in that audio clip. And I will note that it's often one of the liberal tactics when deflecting on when they're under attack is to accuse someone of homophobia, racism, or something of the like as a way to try and change the channel. It's really not clear to me what was said in the House of Commons today.

Speaker 3: Yeah, I wasn't entirely clear either, Saeed. I think there was a part in which Mr. Polyev was sort of flagging what he thought was the flagrant use of taxpayer money in the condo that was being referenced, including description of a bathtub. And then there was a comment made, and even other MPs were asked about it after, can you discern exactly what was said? Obviously, the way in which it was interpreted by the Prime Minister implied that he was in a bathtub with Tom Clarke is what he said. But that specific thing is not audible, to be fair, to at least what I watched and I was able to recount. Bigger picture, Saeed, what does this say to you?

Speaker 7: Yeah, and look, hard to tell exactly what was said, but what it shows is just the degradation of what was said. And I think that's something that we're going to see in a political discourse in the House of Commons. And I think what it may highlight is when we enter into an election cycle, whenever that may be, this could unfortunately play out in a lot more of an aggressive fashion. We've seen with the Liberals specifically that they are very interested in positioning the Prime Minister as somebody who stands up to bullies, as somebody who is very responsive. So ratcheting up the rhetoric, I think, is something we're going to see a lot more of. But the personal insults that we're going to see in the House of Commons is something that takes the eyes off the ball, which is the issues that Canadians are facing. So from a voter and from a Canadian viewer perspective, you know, it doesn't help anyone to have this type of discourse, especially in the House of Commons, a place that we are supposed to hold to high standard and set an example for people in terms of conduct amongst each other

Speaker 3: across the country. I think it's also, just final note to you, Carl, like reflective of there is a level of personal animosity right now, particularly between the two, the official opposition and the Liberals, but the Prime Minister and the leader of the Conservatives too, that like it bleeds through. It has bled through before in the incident that JD was referring to, but like it continues to bleed through. I don't think that's going to stop anytime soon, particularly as we get closer to an election.

Speaker 8: It's broader than that, though. Like we saw Jagmeet Singh last week almost go toe-to-toe in the House with Pierre Poiliev. And that's partly because, you know, we've entered this point in this life, the life of this Parliament, the full monty and political silly season, ever since Jagmeet Singh dropped the agreement, the Supply and Confidence Agreement, is the signal that we are very close to an election. We don't know when it's going to be. There's instability. And then, you know, it's everybody running for their life right now. And yet the results that we've seen today and we've seen the past few weeks, and let me tell you one thing, it's not over. It's going to be like that for quite some time.

Speaker 3: Yeah, sums it up for sure. Thanks, everyone. Really appreciate the discussion on our front bench tonight. Saeed Zalvam, Christelle Fullerton, Carl Belanger, and Joëlle Denis-Bellevent.