CPAC - Friday, May 24, 2024 - 08:00 p.m. (ET) - Segment #2

canadians have of the two litres. Because when it comes to things like hiding their true values in order to get elected, kindness and being too extreme, canadians kind of give, and I believe you have the board here, canadians give both pierre poilievre and justin trudeau equal marks. They are not impressed on equal levels on both of them. So what does that mean for the political parties as they try to set up into another campaign? >> It shows that canadians directly pretty smart. Because they are seeing trudeau, who was always practising wedge politics, consistently. But you also have pierre poilievre who occasionally look at these moments where he is kind of a nice guy, he has a sense of humour. But then he quickly retreats back to the guy that we all know which is kind of a nasty, mean guy. And you watch question period and you see both of these people going at each other. You're a white supremacist, your antiabortion, -- >> Michael: you're worse than me. >> And all of that sort of stuff. And it is kind of depressing, frankly. Even those of us watching this stuff, can you not move on from this? So I just think that canadians are bang on, they see it. I don't know what the end result will be. One of the things that I think that if trudeau does lead and there is another -- the liberals get another leader, than that could be a game changer because I don't think people -- they are fed up with trudeau. They are parking votes with conservatives but I'm not certain that pierre poilievre is a shoo-in if there's a new a new liberal leader that can be positive. >> Michael: when you looked at the numbers, it looks like no canadians are really sold on either one very strongly. Although to me, what tweaked in my mind was if the liberal campaign is going to be setting up as pierre poilievre someone you can trust back it's not as if canadians look at trudeau and say you're someone we can trust. What do you make of the numbers and the impact of it? >> To bob's point, one of the things we can make of the numbers is that some of the social programs liberals have ruled out as part of their economic and social vision are things that canadians like. And the concern that pierre poilievre would do away with them is that maybe that sweet spot where if the liberals did have a new leader, that could be the thing that shifts because that new leader can say, hey,, I will protect your national daycare program, I can protect your dental program. And it also means the pressure, not unlike the conversation we had with the military, the pressure will be on mr pierre poilievre to explain and justify why he is going to do away with some of these programs and how he will untangle them. That is a lot harder to do, untangling a big national daycare program, that is hard to cut off without some kind of political repercussion r. >> A couple things jump out to me in the pool. Number 1 is it's time for a change versus reelect the liberals and was 54. For time for a change, reelect liberals was at 17%. That tells me that no matter what just and true domain say about pierre poilievre, people don't want to hear it from him. They might want to hear from someone else but they don't want to hear from him. So scare tactics will be very difficult to convince voters to pay attention to those. The other thing that mr pierre poilievre needs to think about is as stephanie said, he has rebuilt the conservative party. The people who signed up to support the conservative party and who are supporting them in polls now, go beyond the base of his party. They are interested in social programs. Is he prepared to alienate those people? And can he afford to do so and maintain the lofty numbers that he has now? I'm not sure that he can. What people have turned away from mr trudeau, they have not decided that mr pierre poilievre is the guy they want to put faith in. They know that they want a change but I wouldn't call pierre poilievre a beloved figure. But maybe the conservatives are banking on a time for change, that number there which will be a very difficult sentiment to try to change around a decade in. There is a diminishing power a prime minister has the longest he is in office. And stephen harper found this out in 2015. You can promise things and people just stop believing in you and it is beginning to look like they have either tuned out esther trudeau or stop believing him. >> Michael: we will continue to watch, I was appreciate our time together. Thank you for that. [ ]

>>> Time for a look at what else happened in politics on friday. >>> Workers at the canada border services agency have voted to approve a strike mandate. One that could happen as early as june which could result in significant delays for canadians trying to cross the border. The group that represents the cbsa roughly 9000 members, said workers are looking for fair wages, flexible remote work, options and equitable retirement benefits among other demands. In a statement, the treasury board says it is fully committed to reaching a fair and reasonable agreement for employees. But they also note that 90% of frontline workers are considered essential. Meaning, they would be required to work even during a strike. >>> The conservative party is saying no to kevin vuong, the independent mp was dropped as a liberal candidate in 2021. He told the canadian press he had asked pierre poilievre to join the conservative team. He has voted several times with the opposition conservatives. But a party spokesperson tells us that the party is not considering welcoming him into the conservative caucus. >> They must immediately halt its offensive. And any other action in the area which may inflict on the palestinian group in gaza, issues that could bring about the physical destruction. >> Michael: that was the ruling delivered by the international court of justice. Looking into the israel offensive into gaza. In addition to the stop and fighting, the court is calling on israel to reopen the crossing for humanitarian aid and is calling on hamas to release all remaining israeli hostages. Rulings from the court are legally binding but the icj does not have any mechanism with which to enforce them. Israel has already rejected the ruling. [ ] >>> For summary action to the ruling, we are now joined by canada's ambassador to the un, bob rae. Ambassador, thank you for taking your time. >> It's a pleasure michael, at to talk to you. >> Michael: the prime minister says that the ruling today is essentially binding and that canada expects everyone to comply with them. But is that just lip service? Because they have no real way of enforcing the ruling. >> That is one of the central dilemmas of international law. It goes back a long way, it goes back a couple hundred years. So the enforcement mechanisms are much less clear and international law than they are if you run a red light. And that is one of the problems that we have. But the prime minister did make it clear that he feels that he considers the decisions to be binding and we do consider them to be binding and binding on us. We do not think we can pick and choose which things we like and which things we don't like. Fundamentally, we have to look at a court which has been established for several decades. It is been supported by countries around the world, including russia, the united states and other countries. And we see no reason not to indicate our strong support for the court. At the same time, we have to remember that this is not only directed towards israel, is directed towards hamas. It says hamas should release the hostages. We have been saying that since october 7th. For us, we now find out that hamas has taken hostages which were not real like people, they were dead bodies and they brought them back to gaza and kept them, pretending that they were people who could be traded for their own prisoners in israeli jails. So mean the conduct here is atrocious and we need to understand that if there is a cease-fire negotiation, which could be this weekend, we hope that it succeeds, we hope we cannot avoid the level of civilian loss of life that we have seen. But none of us should be under any illusions that this is easy. But we are supportive of what we can do and what we must do to protect civilian life and understand that even in the worst conflicts, there are rules. >> Michael: so what can canada do? If it is binding on all, including israel, hamas and canada, what can this country effectively due to exert pressure to make sure that this ruling is actually followed? >> Look at what we have done. We have made it clear that we consider hamas to be a terrorist organization. We have issued sanctions against the leadership of the country

and placed every form of economic limitation we can on their conduct. That is what we can do from this vantage point. We have also made it clear to israel that we will not be supportive -- we are not supportive of continuing carrying out a war in gaza which has an intolerable effect on human life and civilian infrastructure. And that is not something we can say we are quite happy with. We are not happy with it. And we think it poses a real problem for israel as much as it poses a problem for the innocent civilians were living in gaza. And this is not a new notion. Yes countries can defend themselves, yes, they have rights under international law. If your country has been invaded, you can respond. They are wars of self defence. But even a war of self defence has to follow the basic requirements of international law with respect to the protection of civilians. >> Michael: it is been suggested that canada pursuing arms embargo against israel. Also put sanctions on the war cabinet. At what point would that be possible, is that ever possible? >> We have already indicated and there's a lot of talk about arms embargoes with respect israel. Canada is not a major military supplier for israel. Not at all. And we never have been. But we have made it clear that we will not be supplying weaponry that we think will potentially be used in the conflict directly in gaza. At the same time, we have said that we believe that because israel has the right to self defence, if there is material that, for example,, allows the iron dome to work and we're not going to withhold that from israel. So we are trying to walk a path that we think is principled and practical. We want to maintain an open dialogue with the government of israel about why we think it is important for certain rules to be observed and what is in the interest of israel to be thinking through more carefully, the need for a two state solution. Ironically, one that benjamin netanyahu talked about himself in 2009. So we need to understand that the creation of an effective palestinian state is in the interest of the people of israel as much as it is in the interest of the palestinian. >> Michael: is that even possible though? Given what we are witnessing right now, given just how violent it has become, as a two state solution even a real possibility? >> Germany and france managed to talk to each other after the second world war and that was pretty disruptive. No one should assume that wars a permanent condition of the human species. It is a terrible thing and it is very destructive and has horrendous impact on people. And their families and the human community. But don't say that it is impossible for countries to talk to each other when a war is over r the challenge of this war is that it is a war that dramatically affects civilians. And then the case of hamas, it is a war being carried out by a terrorist organization. And they are deliberately going after civilians. And there's a difference between going after civilians deliberately and the fact that in a war, people are killed. But the issue here in gaza is, I think the court has made its ruling. The negotiations that have been underway for a substantial period of time are all about how do we protect human life and how do we ensure that the rules of war are observed? And that is something we consistently have to do. >> Michael: I wonder how you feel then, because israel and annoy you know this, is already rejected the ruling. A number of the israeli war cabinet, he said his countries essentially obliged to continue fighting. He also says that israel will follow international law and try to avoid harming civilians. What do you make of that response? And here you are saying, that canada is trying to walk a fine line here. But when israel clearly says it rejects the ruling, what is your reaction? >> My reaction is to say we all have to follow the rules. And my second reaction is to say, israel has had several discussions with hamas in the last four months about a cease-fire.

Copyright protected and owned by broadcaster. Your licence is limited to private, internal, non-commercial use. All reproduction, broadcast, transmission or other use of this work is strictly prohibited.

Transcripts