Note: Transcripts may contain errors. If you wish to re-use all, or part of, a transcript, please contact CBC for permission. Please check the corresponding audio before quoting in print. Copyright © CBC 2019

The Current Transcript for October 15, 2019

Host: Laura Lynch

STORIES FROM THIS EPISODE

Prologue

[Music: Theme]

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE: You can choose a hopeful future. You can choose someone who's going to fight for you. You can choose someone who's in it for you. You can choose me as your future prime minister, the first New Democratic prime minister.

LAURA LYNCH: NDP leader Jagmeet Singh says he's still in it to win it and polls suggest support for his party is on the rise. But just two days ago he said he would absolutely join a coalition government to stop the Conservatives from gaining power. We'll put questions to Jagmeet Singh today one on one. That's first up. After that, the frustration of trying to cast a ballot when you have no fixed address.

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE: You feel like you're watching a good movie and suddenly somebody grab a remote and put a mute and then OK your voice is gone. I mean that's how you feel.

LL: Our documentary on voting while homeless in half an hour. And later we'll take a closer look at the major parties platforms on climate change. I'm Laura Lynch and this is The Current.

[Music: Theme]

'Voting out of fear is a waste of your vote' says Jagmeet Singh, as coalition speculation continues

Guests: Jagmeet Singh

LL: During this federal election campaign we requested interviews with the leaders of all of the major parties. Jagmeet Singh is the leader of the New Democratic Party of Canada and he joins me in our Toronto studio. Hello.

JAGMEET SINGH: Hi there.

LL: On Sunday you said you would do whatever it takes, those are your words to prevent Andrew Scheer's Conservatives from forming the next government and that included the potential of forming a coalition with Justin Trudeau's Liberals, which you said you would absolutely do, again your words. Is that still your position?

JAGMEET SINGH: So I absolutely believe that Canadians should win no matter what happens in the election. So I've made it clear I want to be their prime minister. I want to fight to improve health care investments pharmacare dental care housing crisis tackle climate crisis. But I also know that Canadians will make our choice and if they don't choose me as Prime Minister I'm prepared to do whatever I can to move forward with my priorities that I know are Canadians priorities.

LL: So that means there is a potential that you would negotiate some sort of an arrangement with the Liberals.

JAGMEET SINGH: What I've said before is that I've only ruled out one party I said I would not work with the conservatives so I've always been open to working with others. But I know that Canadians are not limited in their choices while liberals have let them down they don't have to choose liberals while conservatives are going to cut services they don't have to just choose conservatives. They have options in this and there's folks who run and tell them that they don't. I want people to know they do not have to settle for less.

LL: Okay. I just want you to hear a clip of Justin Trudeau on the campaign trail on the subject of vote splitting.

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE: We've seen what the, what happens in places like Ontario. The NDP wasn't able to stop Doug Ford. The NDP wasn't able to stop Stephen Harper. If you want to stop Conservative cuts you have to elect a progressive government, not a progressive opposition.

LL: Alright. Jagmeet Singh you heard what Trudeau had to say, a warning that voting for your party would mean a Conservative government. What do you say?

JAGMEET SINGH: Well he's worried about cuts. Mr. Harper put in place.

LL: Well he's worried about getting a Conservative majority.

JAGMEET SINGH: Because he says that they're going to be in cuts. Well in the healthcare funding area Mr Harper put a plan to cut 30 billion dollars of of health care funding Mr Trudeau implemented it. Families are worse off today because of the cuts that Mr. Trudeau put in place to health care and all the premiers across Canada had a meeting saying that these 30 billion dollars in cuts are going to hurt us. Mr. Trudeau implemented that when families are seeing that they're struggling with the cost of housing. There has not been any massive investment in housing there has in fact been 19 percent less investment in housing than Mr Harper. So Mr. Trudeau talks about being a solution but he's invested 19 percent less as a percentage of GDP than Mr Harper did in housing. So really are people better off. And that's what I hear from people every day they say you know what. We don't have the pharmacare that Liberals have promised for 22 years. We don't actually see the investments in housing that are less than what Mr. Harper the conservative government did. So why would it benefit Canadians to keep on voting for someone who says nice things during a campaign and I I appreciate that he says a lot of nice things. But what he does when he's in government is very different. He does not deliver on the things that families need.

LL: But you're treading a fine line here because there you are criticizing Liberals, but you're still keeping the door open to possibly working with them in government.

JAGMEET SINGH: Well this is the thing, if people want change they need to vote as many new Democrats as possible because New Democrats are going to deliver the change because we're open to doing whatever it takes to deliver. But the difference between us and the Liberals for example is we don't just talk the good talk because we're not in it for the rich and powerful as we've seen Mr. Trudeau when he promised to lower the costs of medication. He met with pharmaceutical industry lobbyists and the insurance lobbyists over eight hundred and seventy five times and then abandoned the promise he's promised to end fossil fuel subsidies but then met with the oil and gas lobbyists over fifteen hundred times in the four years that he was in government and then abandoned that promise. So he makes nice promises when he's campaigning. Then he meets with the powerful lobbyists and abandons those promises and we've got a pattern of behaviour here. The difference is we don't work for those rich and powerful lobbyists we don't rich work for the rich and powerful corporations we work for people.

LL: Do you think that minority government can work with alliances?

JAGMEET SINGH: I think that if you look at Canada's history, a lot of what we're proud of, our health care system, our protection for seniors and our pensions, they were all delivered with NDP members of parliament fighting hard for those things. We would not have universal health care here in Canada if it wasn't for Tommy Douglas who pushed for it at the federal level. So a lot of what we're proud of came when people voted more New Democrats into office and New Democrats pushed for these things and that's why I'm saying, my focus isn't on how to negotiate the next government. My focus is if you want change, if you want someone who's going to fight for you, vote New Democrat because that's what the history of Canada has shown. When there's been more New Democrats elected, we bring in change.

LL: Is Justin Trudeau someone though that you can work with? I mean you've already, you've said in the past, you said in August, after the SNC-Lavalin ethics report that he can't be trusted.

JAGMEET SINGH: Well that's why we need more New Democrats because if he's honest.

LL: Is he someone you can work with though?

JAGMEET SINGH: On his own no. But if there's enough New Democrats elected then we can certainly be able to push forward on investments into a national dental care program, which would provide over 4 million Canadians with dental services provided through a public government insurance program that would lift up people who can't afford that right now. We could certainly do that if we have enough New Democrats are elected. We could work with anyone, but that's the thing, we need as many new Democrats elected as possible to make that happen.

LL: But doesn't that require a certain level of trust and respect between leaders?

JAGMEET SINGH: Well what that requires is if we've got enough New Democrats, we can actually force these things. We can push these things in. And the one thing that I've ruled out is because it's clear that the Conservatives don't campaign in any way that they believe in investing in services and they don't hide it in their plans. So their budget that they've released or their platform that they've released is very clear that they're going to cut investments in infrastructure and public transit and services. So they're not hiding it. What the problem is with Liberals, with Mr. Trudeau he talks a good game, but unless there's New Democrats there to make it happen, it won't happen. So we need more of us to be able to push it.

LL: But there is something about the Liberals that you must like in order to have any faith at all in being able to work with them.

JAGMEET SINGH: Well it's not that I like, it's just that at least they they say certain things that seem that they're open, but they don't deliver it without New Democrats. That's a difference. They're not going to deliver anything unless we've got as many New Democrats as possible.

LL: So at last opportunity, before we move on to something else. There are a lot of people who are talking, I know because I've talked to a lot of them about voting strategically and that probably means they're not voting for the NDP. What do you say to them?

JAGMEET SINGH: I say that strategic vote for investments in a universal pharmacare and a national dental care and real action on ending fossil fuel subsidies is New Democrat. If you want change you're not going to get it by voting the status quo. And please never think that you have to settle for less. You do not have to settle between two choices. There are more options out there and there is a clear option if you want someone who's going to take the climate crisis seriously but also understand the housing crisis and the investments in health care that we need and really asking the wealthiest to pay their fair share. We put forward an ultra rich tax or a super wealth tax that's asking those who've got over fortunes of over $20 million to pay their fair share. No one else is prepared to do that. We are.

LL: You were praised for your heartfelt response to Mr. Trudeau's blackface controversy, but some of other observers are puzzled by your stance on Bill-21 in Quebec. What role does the electoral math in Quebec play in your response to the law there?

JAGMEET SINGH: Well I really believe in this this concept that if a majority of people believe in a law, you're not going to be able to build a better society unless you change and win over the hearts and minds of people. And that's what I've been doing in Quebec is the goal is we could change a law, but if 70 percent of people believe it's the right thing to do, they're going to find a way to bring it back. But if we can change the mindset of the people and show them that this is not the way to go forward, that divisive laws aren't good, then we've done something amazing. And what we're seeing in Quebec right now is that our approach my approach of showing people that listen I'm someone that wears a turban and a beard but that believes very firmly in a woman's right to choose that believes in same sex marriage that wants to fight the climate crisis that wants to invest in services that families need like health care people in Quebec are starting to say well maybe maybe this law doesn't make sense. We just heard from one of the leading commentators on one of Marshall's major morning show say you know when I see Jagmeet, I don't see someone who looks different I see someone who shares our values and we're seeing people changing their minds and that's my goal. I want to win over the hearts and minds of people.

LL: But as a federal leader and an aspirational prime minister, shouldn't you be intervening on behalf of those values at this stage in the courts?

JAGMEET SINGH: Absolutely not. There's a court challenge going on and as a lawyer I absolutely don't believe it's the right thing to do. So I've made it clear -

LL: Why not?

JAGMEET SINGH: Well there's a court challenge going on and there should not be.

LL: But you can intervene. If you were Prime Minister you could intervene on behalf of the federal government and state your values and fight that case based on those values that you espouse are important.

JAGMEET SINGH: This court challenge is very important and I think it's important not to have political interference with this court challenge that the people of Quebec are raising. They're raising it in Quebec and there should not be interference. It should go its course, and the courts are designed to be able to respond to challenges based on violations of human rights and I respect the courts to do that. What my job is right now and what I've made very clear is not to interfere with that court case that is going on, that is doing its job, that is people, citizens, are fighting this court, this law is in court. My job is to do whatever I can to use a platform that I have to win over the hearts and minds of people so that this law does not have the support. And we're seeing change. We're seeing actually people in Quebec re-evaluate whether this is something they support or not. And that to me.

LL: T,hat sounds anecdotal more than anything else. I don't see any change in the law happening.

JAGMEET SINGH: Well I think that if you want to change society it's hard work and to change a province that believes, 70 percent of people believe this is the right thing to do, it's going to take some hard work and that is my goal. I want to win over hearts and minds of people I don't think it's enough to fight a law case, a legal case when there's people who believe it's OK to discriminate people based on the way they look. I think it's important to challenge that discrimination and that's what I do every day.

LL: How do you explain your position though to someone in Quebec who's facing unemployment because of their personal faith and their display of that faith?

JAGMEET SINGH: Well I say that there is a court case going on and that court case is important. And I think that politically interference is not what needs to be done. That court case needs to be respected and it's going to challenge this law.

LL: It's almost like you're talking the talk, but not walking the walk.

JAGMEET SINGH: I mean it's kind of hard to say to a person who wears a turban and a beard.

LL: Well that's what I mean, if you're not getting involved in the court case at this point and stating or advocating that and stating that.

JAGMEET SINGH: That might be true if that was the only thing that one could do, but there's so much more that people do to challenge laws that are discriminatory. There's so much more that you can do to challenge societies that believe it's OK to discriminate people. I've lived that my whole life and there weren't laws that said it's okay to make fun of me because of the colour my skin. There weren't laws that said it was OK to be bullied because the way you looked. But that's why we've got a win over the hearts and minds of people to create a place where everyone is celebrated. It takes a lot of work, but being the running to become prime minister of Canada is a powerful way to win over people. People see me on a national platform regularly espousing values that they say you know and that relates to what I believe in. This person seems to relate to me when you've got Mr. Scheer who doesn't believe in a woman's right to choose, who doesn't believe in same sex marriage in his personal beliefs and he would be able to become a teacher in Quebec. Then you start to say well that doesn't really make sense maybe. Maybe there's something wrong with the way we're approaching this and that's working. We're seeing change happen in front of us just in a 30 day period in the campaign. We've already seen change and that to me is inspirational.

LL: OK let's move on to climate change because that's a big issue for a lot of people. Climate scientists Katharine Hayhoe and economist Andrew Leach have examined the major party platforms on climate. They say the NDP plan doesn't explain how they're going to cut Canada's emissions 40 to 50 percent in the next 10 years. Doesn't say how the NDP is going to navigate in that tricky area of provincial jurisdiction where so much about what the plan lies. How do you respond to those criticisms that there's just not enough there.

JAGMEET SINGH: Well we've had other experts say that our plan is the best plan to tackle climate crisis. So there might be a difference of opinion on the plan, but I can tell people my values. I believe passionately that we have to protect our planet. I see young people who instead of being hopeful about the future are afraid and worried. We saw 500,000 young people take to the streets in Montreal and I was in Victoria when it happened. We had thousands of young people in the streets and I want them to know that I will do everything I have in my power at the federal level to fight the climate crisis so we can immediately and our plan end fossil fuel subsidies we can invest in clean and renewable energy. We can tackle the buildings which are one of the largest sources of greenhouse gas emissions by retrofitting our buildings and homes. We can invest in public transit.

LL: Which is a provincial and municipal responsibility. How do you navigate all of these areas? The Liberals have had a rough time dealing with provinces on this.

JAGMEET SINGH: Well we know that there's lots of initiatives that are open and ready for federal investment. In B.C. for example, the major mayors in the lower mainland have all agreed on investments for public transit. They're ready to go and they need a federal partner. We would be a partner with that. There is massive investment we can make in train service that would reduce our emissions between a higher frequency train between Windsor and Quebec. That corridor we can invest in that. We know there's massive investments we can make in Toronto where the city needs investments for a relief line. There is projects across this country where we've not seen. We've seen a lot of nice words again with Mr. Trudeau, but when I met with mayors they say well it's hard to get the funds. I don't know how to access it. We've tried to but they've created all these loopholes and it's hard to actually access the funds that were promised. I've met with mayors of big cities who say the Liberals promised us funding for infrastructure, but we haven't seen it in four years. We can change that. We can be better partners and make sure we invest in public transit. We want to align with the science. I'm a biology major and graduate by background in education. I believe in the evidence. And I want to do everything I can to reduce emissions. We know we've got to keep warming to one point five degrees. We will do everything we can because I care deeply about protecting the future of those young people.

LL: You're opposed to expansion of Trans Mountain pipeline.

JAGMEET SINGH: That's correct.

LL: What would you do if you became prime minister with the pipeline? The government owns it.

JAGMEET SINGH: Right. So I would, the first step is I would not allow for the expansion. I don't believe in that and I've made it really clear I've opposed in the past and I will continue to. And what we can do is make sure we use all of our public dollars towards investing in clean and renewable energy. That's what we need to do.

LL: And that means what getting rid of the company? Does the government need to own a pipeline?

JAGMEET SINGH: Well I don't think that's what we should have done. I don't think it was the right decision. I don't think it was a responsible decision. And so I will make sure we do whatever we can once we're in government, assess the value of the asset and make sure we move ahead in a prudent way. My values are I don't want any of our public dollars going towards fossil fuel infrastructure. We should be spending our public dollars on clean and renewable energy.

LL: We are running out of time. It always goes by so quickly and I need to ask you about another big issue for a lot of Canadians, which is affordability. One of your big ticket items is funding for affordable rental housing units. Why the focus on renters and not buyers?

JAGMEET SINGH: Well we see in jurisdictions where housing is affordable that there is an affordable option for rent. So our plan to build half a million new affordable homes is to build affordable cooperative homes and non market housing so that people can have an affordable rental option. While it's going to take some time to build those homes, We're going to massively invest in build right away. There are people that are just on the edge they need a little extra help and they can't wait a couple of years for us to be able to have those new projects online. And we know that families are struggling. I met a woman who lost her ability to to be able to pay for the place she lived in because thr rent went up and she ended up living, she lives now in the backyard of her friend's house in a tent.

LL: But where does the money come from to build all of these units?

JAGMEET SINGH: The money comes from better choices. This is a conservative spin when they don't think we have money. Last year Mr. Trudeau spent almost $25 billion, $16 billion or $14 billion for the richest corporations to buy corporate jets and limousines in the fall economic statement. $6 billion to wave and forgive corporate loans and $4.5 billion to buy a pipeline. That was almost $25 billion of spending that didn't, a cent of it didn't go to people. I would spend on people, invest on people.

LL: But those are the things already spent. Like I said, you still have to look at the pipeline and whether you're gonna sell it or not. So from the current state of the coppers, where does the money come from?

JAGMEET SINGH: We actually could stop making those decisions to give billions of dollars to billionaires and in addition we're looking at better revenue. We're looking at increasing the wealthiest Canadians, those who have fortunes of over $20 million. If we put a 1 percent tax on that that could raise 70 billion dollars. There's more than enough resources out there.

LL: Parliamentary budget office said that your platform has high uncertainty for its revenue targets though. What do you say to that?

JAGMEET SINGH: I say that it takes courage to tax the wealthiest and we can do that. And it also takes courage to make better choices. The government has money. If they want to choose to do something they run right away to do it. If when it came to Indigenous people who are struggling with water, they couldn't find the money for it. But when they wanted to buy a pipeline they found $4.5 billion. It's a matter of choices. We would make better choices that don't give billions of dollars to the richest and billionaires of Canada. We would make investments in people. And we would also ask the wealthiest to pay their fair share. Something that Mr. Trudeau and certainly not Mr. Scheer aren't ready to do, but we're ready to do it.

LL: Mr. Singh we've got about a minute left and I want to come back to this question of coalition agreement. Whatever you want to call it because you are clearly the target of both the Liberals and the Conservatives right now. And that's maybe a nice position for you to be in. You've got less than a week to go. How do you respond to this idea that voting for the NDP is a wasted vote? I'm going to ask you that again.

JAGMEET SINGH: Yeah I'd say to people that voting out of fear is a waste of your vote. Voting because two parties believe they own your vote is a waste of your vote.

LL: And if it ends up with a Conservative majority, what would you say to that? That's what you don't want.

JAGMEET SINGH: I would say people should vote with their hearts and vote for what they want. If they want change, real change, which puts them first, where we see a government that actually fights for them, vote for New Democrat. We're seeing a massive amount of support coming our way because people know that we're going fight for them. If you want someone who's going to fight for you, New Democrats are going to fight for you.

LL: Mr. Singh, just a few days left. I appreciate you coming in and talking to us today.

JAGMEET SINGH: Thanks so much.

LL: Jagmeet Singh is the leader of the New Democratic Party of Canada. He was in our Toronto studio. Well the CBC News is coming up next. Then, no ID, no address. When you're homeless, voting can be complicated. We'll hear from some Canadian voters without postal codes about feeling left out of the system. I'm Laura Lynch and you're listening to The Current.

[Music]

A Little Voice

Guests: Rafferty Baker

LL: Hello I'm Laura Lynch and you're listening to The Current.

[Music: Theme]

LL: Still to come.

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE 1: Because you don't believe that climate change is real. You need act in a way that's responsible.

VOICE 2: Mr. Scheer nobody can hear you.

VOICE 3: Please God, you don't get a majority this time around because you won't keep your promises.

VOICE 1: From the Rockies to the Bay of Fundy.

LL: There's a lot of noise and a lot of promises, but what are the parties really promising to do when it comes to climate change. We'll wade through the platforms in half an hour. But first, remembering voters who are often forgotten.

[Music]

LL: It's probably fair to say that many Canadians take their right to vote for granted. The biggest hurdle is often just finding the time to get to a polling station. For others though, the obstacles are far greater. For people who are homeless, having no address and often no ID, can make it difficult to exercise their right to vote. The CBC's Rafferty Baker spent time in Vancouver's Downtown Eastside with constituents from whom we don't often hear. This is his documentary, A Little Voice.

SOUNDCLIP

FERNANDO LUARCA: So what I do is I look at it. Let's say today is what? Wednesday. OK so I would, Tuesday? OK. I would put it like that. So I would fold the crease.

RAFFERTY BAKER: Fernando Luarca folds and refolds the schedule of the different free meals he can get in one of the poorest communities in Canada, Vancouver's Downtown Eastside.

FERNANDO LUARCA: So that's how I survived. Just because I don't have the money.

RAFFERTY BAKER: He stands in a room in a shelter run by the Union Gospel Mission or UGM. There are two rows of five bunk beds. It's midday. So all the bedding has been stripped from the blue vinyl covered mattresses.

FERNANDO LUARCA: I've been homeless for three and a half weeks. I do have a couple of jobs. I applied to go back to school.

RAFFERTY BAKER: He tells me he has one full time job and then a bunch of part time gigs: catering, bartending, serving. It's all sorted out on a different schedule he keeps in his wallet.

FERNANDO LUARCA: I am not your typical homeless that you see in the street. There's a lot of people here that's like that. They're just here to do work and be settled. So that's me.

RAFFERTY BAKER: Fernando has lived most of his life in Vancouver, apart from a few years in Edmonton. He moved back to the west coast this year.

FERNANDO LUARCA: Well I can't find any shelter when I arrived here. I have to sleep in the street and this is February of this year. It was cold. I kid you not. I got my fake Louis Vuitton with me. I was sleeping in the snow with no blanket.

RAFFERTY BAKER: Fernando is between shifts. He's carrying pretty much everything he needs in a small shoulder bag. He has a neat appearance with a vest and black collared shirt, exactly what you'd expect a waiter to wear. But then he reveals his secret.

FERNANDO LUARCA: I'm wearing my black belt, my black shoes because I have to go bartend later and then what you don't see is I'm wearing three different clothes underneath. I have actually three pairs of pants. OK I'm going to show you. Alright.

RAFFERTY BAKER: He rolls up a pant leg to show me the blue jeans underneath the black slacks. They're tucked into a second pair of socks he's wearing.

FERNANDO LUARCA: So this got to be my jeans just in case. And I also have my pyjama just in case I'm going to be late tonight. That is my pyjama right there.

RAFFERTY BAKER: And sure enough you can see a pair of loose off white pyjama pants peeking out, clothes he can quickly swap around depending on which job he's doing. You would never know to look at it.

FERNANDO LUARCA: So I'm layered up. And also that doesn't make it easier for me to carry, instead of carrying a coat, I am fully dressed. This is my armour.

RAFFERTY BAKER: Fernando says living in the Downtown Eastside has made him care more about politics. He'd like to see the conditions get better for the people living here, which during an election means finding a candidate that hits the right note on the issues that mean the most to him.

FERNANDO LUARCA: I would go with the economy. I'm also looking for the way that we handle that environment.

RAFFERTY BAKER: Fernando is 53 years old. He moved to Canada from the Philippines when he was 14. He's a Canadian citizen but in his entire life he's never actually cast a ballot.

I wanted to vote for a long time. It's just that the question of I.D. because I go there and they wanted a picture I.D. a very specific picture I.D. You tried to vote. I many many times yes probably every single year. As municipal provincial and federal election I have tried every time though he says he's being turned away and then they look at you and most of the time most of the time actually 98 percent when you go to polling station. They're not really nice when they tell you that you cannot vote because they think that you are a because I cannot produce any papers proving that I am a Canadian citizen. I mean so be it. Every single time I should say I'm going to be added so every single family at the polling station or even go there they said Oh you name to stand here. How come you didn't do this. What they what they don't know is that I did try.

He says each time it's embarrassing and frustrating like he's being silenced.

You're watching a good movie on Saturday. Somebody grab a remote and put a mute. And that's OK. Your voice is gone. I mean that's how you feel.

About two blocks from the shelter there's a spot that's become a flashpoint in Vancouver. Dozens of homeless people have been living in tents and Oppenheimer Park Police and city officials warn about safety issues here. But today it's sunny and people are smiling. A few people are having a drink in front of one of the tents. There's a basketball game going on in the corner of the park. That's. Why. The blue one. By the little tree a small two person tents pitched on worn out grass with patches of weeds and exposed soil.

Amy House is giving me a tour. I got this plastic.

Amy is wearing sporty black sunglasses propped up on her head and a black synthetic down jacket with her left arm tucked away inside. She opens the front flap to show me the inside of her tent.

Brand new sleeping bag. It's called bathed in the dim blue light filtering through the plastic.

Oh it's really hard with one arm. I was just going to. I just noticed that you're in a sleigh. Yeah. Boy what happened. I fell down. Yeah. I fractured my eye socket. And.

Crickets. Three places. Is 50 years old. She tells me she's a tree and Scottish descent. She doesn't want to talk about her early life. But when she was about 25. Things went sideways for her.

I said You stupid things. We used to steal brand new cars. I stole a police car. I can go on and on. I was just horrible.

Amy came to the Downtown Eastside 16 years ago. She says she doesn't do drugs anymore and avoids people who do.

I wouldn't hang around them. I know people that do drugs. And it's like hi bye. You know I don't stay and chitchat because they're high. They're on a different level than me. You know lots of fighting two people get to know each other off and like I said my cell phone. My backpack my medication and she had her I.D. stolen.

Even so Amy has managed to vote a few times since she moved to Vancouver. She knows how to cast a ballot without I.D.. Service providers like shelters and soup kitchens in the neighbourhood can fill out at gas stations for guests giving them an address to take to the polls. GM does it for dozens if not a couple hundred people each election.

Yeah I did that when I first when I lost my I.D. but now Amy almost regrets voting in the past.

She's losing trust in the people that get elected. I don't like liars so I don't really know if I'm going to hold or not you know because. They say something.

And they just bullshit.

Yeah. Come on over here maybe and the.

Back at the new GM shelter. Richard VANDER WALL is preparing to start a six month drug and alcohol program. If I hadn't been drinking so much Scott long black hair tied back in a ponytail essentially he hasn't shaved in a few days but a little more than a goatee has grown in. There's some light perspiration on his face though he's in short sleeves and it's not especially warm in the room.

I was I was in the tent until the city discovered my spot and I was uprooted on. I would've been in the bush in the middle of the bush near Jericho Beach ball places right.

Jericho Beach is a popular spot in an affluent part of town. It's about six or seven kilometres west of the downtown east side as the crow flies. Richard lived there in his tent for the better part of a year. He says it kept him far enough away from the temptations of the Downtown Eastside.

There was relative safety. I can sleep undisturbed.

SAGAL Like Richard is a survivor of the Sixties Scoop when Indigenous children were taken away from their families and put into foster care or adopted out. He was taken from his Cree community in northern Alberta when he was just 4.

It was less than ideal but you know what. Looking back it wasn't horrific. I never experienced hunger day.

RAFFERTY BAKER: But Richard got into alcohol and pot. Soon he turned to methamphetamine. And then there were the run ins with the justice system.

RICHARD: A lot of crime until 2003 I committed robbery when I went back in 2003. But I'm proud to say that I've been out of the judicial system he says.

RAFFERTY BAKER: Until now casting a ballot has never been a priority for Richard. He says he was too busy enjoying the party.

RICHARD: Cocaine. I use to crystal meth.

RAFFERTY BAKER: And he had his doubts about the whole democratic system.

RICHARD: Why does it matter. I kind of was kind of thinking what difference does one boat actually make.

RAFFERTY BAKER: But then as time went on I started to realize something wow. Only certain segments of this population are voting. Therefore.

What. Why is nothing changing.

So his feelings about his role in society are evolving. It all began a couple of years ago.

I was part of a tent city. It was at that point my life. I realized hey here I am on the fringes of society. But I do have a voice. It reminded me you know. We live in democracy one person one vote. At the end it all gets us to constituents that actually own the country.

So the ones that do have a say if it is one person one vote that's huge. Lunch has just finished at the UGL. There are a few stragglers in the dining hall but it's mostly cleared out and staff are cleaning up.

RAFFERTY BAKER: I sit down with Aggie Johnson in a small office off to the side where it's a little bit quieter.

AGGIE JOHNSON: I just don't have a lot of faith. In my vote getting through.

RAFFERTY BAKER: She's got leftovers from her meal filling up a small disposable cup on the table in front of her and she's balanced a little bun on top. Aggie tells me it was too spicy for her taste so she's bringing it to a friend.

I heard someone else complaining about that today not complaining. No no. Stating the facts.

She lives in an SRO Single Room Occupancy nearby. Aggie has voted in recent elections but I wouldn't call her participation all that enthusiastic.

I just voted what everyone else was holding down here.

She's 61 years old and very soft spoken. You can tell he doesn't share Richards new sense of empowerment but she does want to be heard. Okay another way I look at the government is they're supposed to be like parents and we are like your family.

And I just wish they would listen to us. Peggy really doesn't feel safe in her neighbourhood.

RAFFERTY BAKER: On East Hastings Street. The sidewalks on some blocks fill up with people hanging out or selling their wares household items like soap cheese and bicycle is stuff they've bought traded or stolen. And then there's the drugs. There's little effort to hide the buying selling or using weed. I feel like I wish I could take the streets back. To the people.

AGGIE JOHNSON: And I'm not saying that the people who do drugs are not. This is I wish it was a safe. The city really needs to make this this area safe for everyone. I want our streets back. I want to be able to walk down Hastings like I did years ago and maybe you would see the odd person. You know. Drinking trying to do drugs. But now it's so overwhelming and it's sad.

But eggy isn't sure if voting in the federal election will help much with that. She's a little suspicious a bit of a trust issue and she's worried that even if she does choose to cast a ballot she might have a problem.

I'm not even sure what I have right here right now. I try not to bring it when I lose my dialogue a lot more stuff gets stolen.

That stumbling block is something that profoundly bothers Vancouver lawyer Jim quail.

The problem is there are already many obstacles to homeless people voting coming from the socio economic status of all kinds of other circumstances health reasons other obstacles. Why on earth. Canada has placed another obstacle in the way of these people voting is beyond me. But anyway they did it.

RAFFERTY BAKER: A little more than a decade ago Stephen Harper's Conservative government brought in Bill C. 31. It was an amendment to the Canada Elections Act. It was aimed at protecting against electoral fraud and mistakes. It required that voters provide I.D. in order to cast a ballot. People without I.D. which is often the case for the homeless can still vote. They just need someone or an organization to vote for them. Jim Quayle was working at the B.C. Public Interest Advocacy Centre in 2008 when he found three plaintiffs and launched a charter challenge.

JIM QUAYLE: We got things rolling and we challenged that saying this was interfering with people's charter right to vote. So this this was a knock down drag out fight all the way and went on and on and on and on.

RAFFERTY BAKER: It was a complex two year case for the fledgling non-profit legal team. In 2010 the B.C. Supreme Court had its decision. Jim got a copy of the 138 page ruling and read it alone. Sitting at his desk.

JIM QUAYLE: And what I think every lawyer does you turn to the last page first to the decision that the bottom line is.

And so I sort of hold my breath and looked and it did not go the way that we had hoped.

RAFFERTY BAKER: Jim and his clients lost the voter I.D. law was upheld. Jim moved on from the public advocacy firm not long after that his clients appealed the case to the B.C. Supreme Court of Appeal with another lawyer and they lost there as well. They applied to have the Supreme Court of Canada hear the case but Canada's top court declined. For Jim it feels a little bit like unfinished business. He believes there's no good evidence that the type of voter fraud. The law was meant to prevent is a problem he would have to fall on people in a different province to try to challenge the law if he had a magic wand or say if Jim was the government of Canada. He knows exactly what he'd do with the law.

JIM QUAYLE: I would amend the Canada Elections Act, so that a person who doesn't have any other way of proving that they're entitled to vote can attend the polling place and swear a declaration solemn statutory declaration confirming who they are where they live and their citizenship. And then they're given a ballot and they get to cast a vote. That's what I would do.

RAFFERTY BAKER: Something tells me Jim won't get his hands on a magic wand before this election. Fernando and others in his position will need to come up with the documents to take to the polls.

FERNANDO LUARCA: Do you think that's a first thing in your head. Oh gosh I'll get an idea so I can vote. No that's not priority for them. The priority is getting and getting off the rain and get a shelter over their head.

AMY: They had free coffee in. A. Little to eat tuna. For. For voting.

RAFFERTY BAKER: For Amy it's not complicated. She's cast a ballot without I.D. and she has fond memories of it.

AMY: She went with friends they got a free ride and even a meal for their effort like their employees they will go get people they know they'll give them bus tickets. And this just in and out like it just. Doesn't even take. Five minutes. You know when you're done. And then they'll have salad tools and pop.

The first person that comes out and promises that you know water will be tested on a regular basis and fresh clean water will be provided on our reserves. You got my vote. Definitely.

RAFFERTY BAKER: Staff at the GM shelter have volunteered to help Richard get his documents in order and make sure he knows how to vote. At 48 years old he's entering unfamiliar territory and he can hardly wait.

RICHARD: That's the exciting part. Don't know what to expect. You know I used to be polling stations here as far as as far as I understand right of some sort. I think it's exciting. For example I know my dear now right. I'm right this time last year haven't getting a jeep for the first time in home and it was probably almost ten years. And when I had a bazooka in my head because I instantly I felt like Damn I'm a citizen now. I feel like a citizen right so it's kind of the same thing casting a ballot. Never Born in my life before. Knowing that somehow some way that ballot is I'm hoping is making helping make a difference right. Feeling a citizen, part of the citenzry whereas I felt like I lived in obscurity for years.

AGGIE JOHNSON: I wish there was more programs like people helping people.

RAFFERTY BAKER: And Aggie despite her belief that the government doesn't listen. It seems to me that over the course of our conversation she starts coming around to the idea of casting a ballot.

AGGIE JOHNSON: I'm not sure but I think I will try to vote here. I just want to learn more about the system and not be more knowledgeable.

RAFFERTY BAKER: But she doesn't think marking her ballot will ultimately make much difference.

AGGIE JOHNSON: I don't really have. I don't feel like I'm a big part of this. Very very small. I really feel like I'm very small. I wish I could make a difference. Maybe I could plan to care. About making it but yeah I don't really feel very significant right now.

RAFFERTY BAKER: For Fernando to avoid his past failures at the polls he's working to get a passport to serve as one of his pieces of I.D.

FERNANDO LUARCA: Everything is completed. All I didn't need now is money. $75 for the processing fee and also the photo, which is that's I'm just waiting for a pay date. That will be the next one.

RAFFERTY BAKER: $75. That's a big investment for someone in Fernando's shoes, but he's eager to make it.

FERNANDO LUARCA: Well this election I hope that I get a little voice to contribute. I'll be able to vote. I'll be able to make my my choice. There's empowerment to that because it's very important to be heard.

LL: We've been listening to the documentary, A Little Voice. It was produced by the CB's Rafferty Baker and The Current's documentary editor, Joan Webber. Well we are just days away from going to the polls and coming up this week on The Current, we have two special documentaries for you. Profiles of both of the frontrunners in this election race. On Thursday, The Current's Alison Masemann will bring us the story of Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau from those who know him best. In this excerpt, we hear how his friend Terry DiMonte first got to know a young Trudeau.

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE 1: Brand new from the Franklin electric, it's called made it up in your head.

VOICE 2: Terry DiMonte sits behind a mic, just as he has done most every weekday morning for the past three decades. He's a well-known rock radio guy with CHOM FM in Montreal. Terry DiMonte's work attire includes a comfortable sweatshirt and sock feet.

VOICE 1: Time for the 8::45 beer.

VOICE 2: It's not beer. It's Coke Zero, necessary fuel for a guy who's up before the sun rises. It was the late 1980s when DiMonte had an unlikely encounter with a stranger in a bar, one which led to his first meeting with a young Justin Trudeau. DiMonte remembers spotting a man watching him.

VOICE 1: And when the bar was closing he came over and he said you know you're just a giant pain in my side. And I thought well I don't know what that's all about. And he explained to me that he was an RCMP guy who was protecting the Trudeau children and that he drove them to school every day and that the kids had control of the radio and that they had to listen to CHOM every day and he wasn't a big rock music fan. And we chuckled about it and a couple of days later, the phone rang at the station and it was Justin.

LL: A teenage Trudeau was calling in hopes of scoring movie tickets and it would be the beginning of a friendship with DiMonte. Tune in Thursday to hear Alison Masemann's entire documentary. And tomorrow, The Current's Julie Chrysler has a profile of Andrew Scheer, who was political from a very young age. This excerpt begins with Scheer describing his experience in high school.

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE 1: If you brought up the subject of say you know a balanced budget or tax bracket creep or you know some of the things that were issues back in 94-95, I very quickly realize that you were the only one talking. And I realized I was theodd person to have that kind of level of interest in it.

VOICE 2: There's evidence of this in Scheer's high school yearbook. One section named students who are most likely to do things. There's the kid who's most likely to eat poutine for breakfast. There's the one who's most likely to become a famous rock star and Andrew Scheer, most likely to lead the reform party. On a different page there's a small photo of Scheer in his graduation gown. The blurb beside it includes the line, "Long Live Preston." Manning presumably. And the last line is "Reform."

LL: You can hear Julie Crysler's entire documentary on Andrew Scheer tomorrow on The Current. Coming up in our next half hour, carbon pricing, emission targets, green incentives, the parties are making lots of climate promises, but are they realistic? Will they make a difference? Two experts help answer those questions in about 90 seconds. I'm Laura Lynch and you are listening to The Current.

[Music]

Climate policy experts look at the federal parties’ promises and how they stack up

LL: I'm Laura Lynch and you're listening to The Current.

SOUNDCLIP

[Music]

VOICE 1: This plan is the most comprehensive environmental platform ever put forward by a political party in Canada.

VOICE 2: We have done more than any government in the history of this country and we recognize there is much more to do.

VOICE 3: We cannot continue to pretend that we are in a status quo world where significant changes aren't coming.

VOICE 4: When it comes to energy in Canada and energy around the world, we have to get off of all forms of carbon. That's the future.

LL: Bold promises, ambitious targets, but not always a lot of detail. In this election, it's clear the politicians recognize that climate change is a top concern for voters. But climate policy proposals can be complicated and difficult to compare. So I'm joined now by two independent experts on climate policy. They've been looking through the various platforms and are here to help make sense of them. Mark Jaccard is a Professor of Sustainable Energy at Simon Fraser University. He's also a contributor to the U.N. International Panel on Climate Change. And Kathryn Harrison is a professor of political science at the University of British Columbia. She is the author of Passing the Buck: Federalism and Canadian Environmental Policy. And they are both in our Vancouver studio. Good morning.

KATHRYN HARRISON: Good morning.

MARK JACCARD: Good morning.

LL: Thanks to both of you getting for coming in so early. Mark let's start with the Liberal platform. Can you quickly sum up what the key promises are that they're making?

MARK JACCARD: Well the the promises are to go beyond the efforts that they've made over the last four years and those efforts involve putting a price on carbon so we now have a nationwide price on carbon which experts will tell you is is a very important policy, but they've also brought in regulations a regulation to phase out all coal plants in the country by 2030. They're bringing in a clean fuel standard and methane regulations which are also very important. And now in the in the fur or of the election campaign they've also gotten into a competition with Greens and NDP to offer lots of. And even with conservatives to offer lots of subsidies to pay us to or help us to insulate a home better or switch it away from natural gas to electricity or to buy an electric vehicle. Experts will tell you that subsidy programs aren't as important so I put a lot of credence when looking at the different policies of the parties. I look at how much there are either regulations and or emissions pricing. And the Liberals have made some advances in that over the last four years. There's more to do, but that would be my assessment of their policy.

LL: And Kathryn what concerns do you have about the Liberal climate plan as it's laid out?

KATHRYN HARRISON: Well I do agree with Mark that they have made some really important steps forward. We've had 15 years of governments that promise voluntary measures than 15 years of governments that said they were going to price carbon or regulate. And this is the first government that's actually done that. My concern is that to a large degree they're still promising a business as usual economy saying that the the economy and the environment go hand in hand. Not really signalling the kinds of changes that are needed to the Canadian economy and society and at the limit of purchasing and building a new pipeline that will expand Canada's economic reliance on the oil industry in the name of you know making money from oil production in order to fund the transition away from oil.

LL: OK. I just want to play a clip now out of Justin Trudeau, Liberal leader, defending the climate plan and his record. Listen to this.

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE: We have moved forward on a broad range of significant and meaningful actions over the past four years, whether it's banning single use plastics, whether it's massive incentives for zero emission vehicles, whether it's phasing out coal, whether it's protecting larger areas of our land and marine ecosystems or whether it's putting a price on pollution right across the country.

LL: Okay Mark, what do you make of the criticism that even though the Liberals have done things, as you've said, it doesn't go far enough fast enough.

MARK JACCARD: Yeah well I would agree with what Kathryn said, but I would qualify it and because you know you mentioned I'm on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and I'm on the policy chapter and if you look around the world, Canada would be one of the leading jurisdictions in the world over the last four years and the reason is that climate policy is really difficult. For those regulations in pricing that we're talking about, the voters don't reward you for that. And so you'll find governments anywhere even if they're what I would call fairly climate sincere if they're putting in those policies I'm quite happy. Whether those policies will actually achieve the full target they might have set let's say Canada's targets set in Paris in 2015 is not as big a concern for me. It's are they doing things that really can be part of a global movement because it has to be a global solution. So just talking about the coal phase out that Justin Trudeau mentioned that's that's monumental. The major growth in greenhouse gas emissions around the planet is going to be and is in the developing world. Coal plants and through more and more gasoline and diesel trucks and cars. So you want to see richer countries like Canada making initiatives like the like phasing out coal and then trying to go global with that in something called a powering past coal initiative. So that's sort of what I'm looking at is how you can do your local action does it actually hit targets I don't really care so much. I'm interested in how it can be globalized because we need global action to solve this.

LL: But against that, the movement on coal, there's as Kathryn brought up this pipeline issue. The NDP is criticizing and liberals saying they bought a pipeline and that undercuts anything the Liberals are trying to do on climate change. Mark, how fair is that criticism?

MARK JACCARD: Yeah I think Kathryn and I might, there's lots we would agree on, but we might disagree on that one. I actually, whether or not Canada, whether or not the Federal Government of Canada has to make trade-offs to try to get a national effort to reduce greenhouse gases. To me it really doesn't matter if they've if they're also still doing things that might support a region in the country that is still producing oil and so that oil pipeline may or may not lead to increased production. It could. It will lead to better prices for Alberta oil. And if I look at global oil markets which is something I do work on a fair bit holding back your production in Canada would have very little effect. The American production in oil has virtually doubled in the last decade or so. And there's so much potential to produce oil. So it's more important that we work on on our transportation initiatives. And I don't think the Liberals are doing enough there. Quebec and British Columbia their provincial governments are putting in zero emission vehicle mandates that has a big effect in Canada and hopefully globally and I'd like to see the federal Liberals do that too.

LL: Kathryn, Mark suggests you may have some disagreement on that point.

KATHRYN HARRISON: Yeah I think we do. For a few reasons. The first is that the federal government's own estimate is that building the Trans Mountain pipeline would significantly increase emissions in Canada. I think the figure was 13 to 15 million tons per year now. That may or may not happen but that's the estimate that's on the table and that's important at a time when we don't yet have a plan to meet our own international target. A second concern I have is that Canada is one of the countries that's especially vulnerable economically as other countries in the world start taking seriously their commitment to address climate change because the oil that we're exporting is relatively expensive it's relatively carbon intensive so it there's reason to believe that we will become uncompetitive very quickly. And the final reason is that in the same way that addressing global greenhouse gas emissions is a collective action problem. So too is reducing expansion of fossil fuel production and right now we've got a situation where countries all around the world are hoping that their fossil fuels their oil their coal will be the last to grow to go. And so we're we're overproducing continuing to develop new reserves of fossil fuels even as those same countries are saying that we're committed to reducing global fossil fuel consumption.

LL: Okay. The other criticism of the Liberal approach to climate change comes from the Conservatives. I just want you to listen to their leader Andrew Scheer.

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE: As an environmental policy, the carbon tax is by every possible measure and projection, a failure of epic proportions. It makes virtually no contribution to the global fight against climate change and it only makes life more expensive for Canadian families and small businesses.

LL: Alright, I just want to get both of you to respond to that. Mark?

MARK JACCARD: Yeah. If I got in a room, the 100 leading climate policy experts in the world, they would all agree that that statement is nonsense. Sorry to say it. I hate to say that about a Canadian political leader, but it's just not true. As I said at the outset, the way you reduce greenhouse gases is you either put a price on it or you regulate things like electricity generation vehicles how buildings and so on and actually putting a price on it is the most economically efficient way to to reduce greenhouse gases. So putting a carbon tax or something that Quebec has cap and trade and that Ontario had until Doug Ford took it away linked up with California and what Europe has and those by putting a price on it it's the cheapest way to reduce greenhouse gases and so a conservative politician and would should support that kind of policy and conservative politicians right of centre politicians around the world have supported carbon pricing. So this just seems like a politically, an effort to win votes in maybe suburban swing ridings. That's the best I can make of it.

LL: Kathryn?

KATHRYN HARRISON: Absolutely. There is very strong agreement that carbon taxes do work and there's a growing body of peer reviewed research looking at British Columbia's own carbon tax. That's been in place for over a decade. In addition to what Mark said about the evidence is out there that the statement is incorrect. It's quite troubling to me that the leader of a major political party in Canada would say such a thing because it flies in the face of widely accepted science and social science. And I think it's intentionally misleading that carbon pricing doesn't work and also in ignoring the dividends that are associated with the federal carbon tax in four and potentially five provinces if the Liberals are re-elected which will return more money to 80 percent of households than they are paying in carbon price.

LL: Okay so we heard Andrew Scheer say what the Conservatives don't want to do. Here is Andrew Scheer saying what they should do, which is better technology, not taxes.

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE: We will implement green investment standards that require polluters whose emissions exceed strict limits to invest in emissions reduction technology, specific to their industry. We will set this limit at 40 kilotons per year that's 10 kilotons stricter than the Liberals output based system. Under the Conservative plan, it will not be free to pollute. And unlike the Liberal scheme there will be no sweetheart deals for anybody.

LL: Okay Mark, what about this idea to make big emitters that invest in green technology?

MARK JACCARD: Right. So if you put a price on emissions, which we now have in Canada, that incentivizes everybody to acquire cleaner technology and it also incentivizes innovation by firms that are whether they're selling a technology like a heat pump to a residential household or to industry. I mean what when I looked at Andrew Scheer's plan he says innovation instead of taxes. And that's quite funny because the one is a public policy of government to cause the other the innovations don't happen if you don't have the pricing or the regulation. Then what he says is he's going to eliminate the regulations on industry it's called, it has a name called an output based pricing system for large industry that the Liberals have put in which is to put in a carbon price and incentivise innovation and he's going to remove that. And when he said it was you know 40 kiloton plant size, he still doesn't tell us what the regulation will be. And what I've seen.

LL: And you mean how he's going to force them to adhere to that?

MARK JACCARD: Well exactly. He doesn't tell us how he's going to enforce it get them to adhere to it. And and we're in the past when politicians have said that I'm going to remove a regulation and a pricing system and I'll replace that with something that I'm not yet willing to tell you about. But it will cause all these wonderful things the history, whether you're looking at past Liberal governments under Jean Chretien or Stephen Harper or even Brian Mulroney is that they then have not implemented anything and so I think the best approach is to assume if someone says I'm going to remove a regulation and replace it with something mysterious later is that they're not going to put in anything.

LL: Alright. There are two parties that are promising deeper cuts to emissions. Let's start with the NDP. Earlier in the program today I spoke with the NDP leader Jagmeet Singh. What do you see Kathryn as the strengths and weaknesses of the NDP plan?

KATHRYN HARRISON: I think the the strengths are that they are initiating conversations signalling the larger scale of changes that are needed in Canadians society and the Canadian economy. They're talking about a pretty massive scale of retrofit of existing buildings they're talking about more rapidly shifting our transportation system to zero carbon particularly transit. They are talking about transition for workers in communities who are dependent on fossil fuels. And I think those are those are very important things to signal particularly because for three decades now we have had Canadian governments promising Canadians that they can have their cake and eat it too. We can do our Paul part to solve climate change without really making much change in our lives. So I think those are the strengths that the weaknesses are a lack of detail with respect to how they're going to accomplish some of these things moving towards zero carbon transit where that's nominally an area of provincial rather than federal jurisdiction. Similarly for retrofitting housing stock so they too are turning to spending tools and being pretty quiet on their plans for regulation and carbon pricing other than maintaining the national carbon price.

LL: Okay let's look at one of the signature promises that the NDP's Jagmeet Singh has been making. Take a listen to this.

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE: To get to the point we have no use. We're not burning or fracking, we're not using any carbon for energy for fuel. What we need to do is invest heavily in clean and renewable energy and that means ending fossil fuel subsidies and we're going do that immediately. On day one of a New Democrat government we end fossil fuel subsidies.

LL: Mark what impact would ending fossil fuel subsidies that quickly have on emissions?

MARK JACCARD: So this is something I'm working on an Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and there's a lot of dispute about what's a subsidy and how large it is. So we have this narrative in Canada right now among some that the fossil fuel subsidies or whatever it is 3 billion a year or something like that I don't come up with numbers nearly that high. And also the big subsidies that affect demand in the world are the consumer subsidies in countries like Venezuela and OPEC countries where the gasoline price is really low. If you talk about removing production subsidies that one could argue exist in Canada I don't see it having very much effect at all. But what the NDP is saying is they're going to take that money. What. However much it is and spend it to subsidize things like housing stock retrofits electric vehicles and so on and I think those policies can have some effect. And so you know when I'm fine that they want to do that but again as I said earlier you have to they have to be specific about what kind of regulations and emissions pricing they're going to do because government subsidies this thing everything we buy you know retrofitting your house getting a vehicle how you're going to heat your house. These things are huge amounts of expenditures across the economy and so government can't buy its way there. It's going to have to have those regulations and pricing.

LL: Alright. Let's move over to the Greens then. Kathryn how does the Green plan compare with the others we've been discussing?

KATHRYN HARRISON: Well the Greens target is extremely ambitious, to reduce Canada's emissions to 60 percent below 2005 levels by 2030. So that compares to the Paris Agreement target that Canada signed on to of minus 30 percent. That would require really very radical actions. And I think what the Green Plan the Greens plan is doing is the same kinds of things that the NDP are calling for but faster and more ambitious so phasing out sale of internal combustion motor vehicles by 2030 shifting fully to clean transit sooner retrofitting buildings sooner. The one thing that I think stands out different from the the NDP plan is a commitment to phase out production of bitumen sometime between 2030 and 2035. And you know that's the first time to my knowledge that a Canadian political party has included a commitment of that sort in their platform. It's not one that is popular in fossil fuel producing provinces, not least Alberta.

LL: Okay. Well let's listen to Elizabeth May talk of defending her plan and she's actually saying that addressing climate change is actually an opportunity.

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE: We'll have millions of jobs created in retrofitting all our buildings for energy efficiency in building that east, west and north electricity grid and turning over and shutting down fossil fuels and turning on the sun, the wind, the tides. tje strea,s. We can be 100 percent renewable energy by 2030.

LL: Mark Jaccard what do you think of that? Does the Green program adequately plan for that level of economic transition that would need to happen?

MARK JACCARD: Well so like Kathryn I think I do support the fact that the Greens and the NDP are really trying to force the narrative into come on, we have to do a major transformation of our economy in a fairly short time period. And also talk about where are the economic opportunities when we do that. And so I I I'm I'm I'm happy with that. It makes sense to me even from an economic point of view. But putting the economic lens on it as well you can only go to certain speed because let's say, say you're trying to reduce emissions 80 percent in 10 years. Well they're saying 60 percent. That means that furnaces, vehicles that might have been bought just a couple of years ago and could last 15-20 years would have to be replaced. So you're actually spending a lot of money to get rid of what we economists call capital stocks, such as buildings technologies equipment before their useful life is over and that's a huge hit to your economy. So there is a constraint to how fast you move, but I have to say I'm trying to coach that in the terms that humanity does need to move fast and I'm glad they're talking about that and thinking about the economic opportunities when you do that.

LL: OK well because the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has been warning we could see dangerous effects if the world warms above 1.5 Degrees Celsius from pre-industrial levels. So again Mark, are you seeing proposals from any of the parties that that would actually avoid that?

MARK JACCARD: Yes I mean I would argue that the Liberals, NDP and Greens have policies, are proposing proposing in the case of the NDP and Greens policies that are what we call scalable. It simply means you can you've got the pricing and regulations so you can turn those up to go faster. But when we just talk about what Canada's doing we can't solve the global problems so our policy should be really triggered on how we're part of a global movement. That's why I talk about the powering past coal initiative of the federal Liberals. And I want to hear federal parties talking about Canada joining up with other countries to put carbon tariffs in. And I haven't heard nearly enough of that. In other words enough to talk about what do we do in our country that can then be part of a global effort. Because Canada cutting its emissions this is where the conservatives are right. If we just do that and we're not trying to be part of a global movement we're not going to have much effect. At the same time I reject what I've heard from Conservatives saying oh therefore we should do nothing because we're so small. It's how do you leverage yourself.

LL: Well Kathryn then are we having the conversation that we need to have about preventing the worst effects of climate change?

KATHRYN HARRISON: I think we're already seeing very negative effects of climate change. One of the things we don't talk very much about in Canada. particularly because we have this argument that we're small and we're only one and a half percent of global emissions, is how disproportionately we're contributing to global emissions as Canadians. We are among the highest per capita emissions in the world even as a country even as a small country we're already contributing in the top 10 of global emitters. So I think there isn't enough discussion about our particular responsibility to show leadership to act early to demonstrate willingness to make deep reductions in our own emissions before we can ask countries where large numbers of people don't even have electricity yet that they need to reduce their emissions or forego economic development. And I think we need to start having a conversation about powering past oil, starting with heavy oil, which is going to be the first oil to go when global consumption of fossil fuels declines.

LL: Alright. I thank both of you for your input. You've given voters a lot to think about and we'll perhaps check back with you after the campaign and see who gets elected and where they're going to go with this. Thank you to both of you.

KATHRYN HARRISON: You're very welcome.

MARK JACCARD: You're welcome.

LL: Mark Jaccard is a professor of sustainable energy at Simon Fraser University and a contributor to the U.N. International Panel on Climate Change. Kathryn Harrison is a professor of political science at the University of British Columbia and the author of Passing the Buck: Federalism and Canadian Environmental Policy. They were in our Vancouver studio. That is our program for today. Stay tuned to Radio One for Q. Sir Elton John joins Tom Power to talk about why he's saying goodbye to life on the road. And we were just talking about climate change because it actually is on the agenda this election and that's thanks to people like Wallace Smith Broecker from Columbia University. He popularized the term global warning warming when he wrote a paper about it in 1975. But even before that he was sounding the alarm when most scientists were talking about an approaching cooling trend maybe even an ice age. Mr. Broecker died last February at the age of 87. And just days before he died he lived streamed a video message urging his colleagues to come up with a more extreme solution to the climate crisis. Here he is talking to the late Barbara Frum on As It Happens in April of 1975. I'm Laura Lynch. Thank you for listening to The Current.

SOUNDCLIP

BARBARA FRUM: Dr. Broecker I think every single scientist climatologist we've spoken to on this program for the past year has been forecasting a cooling trend and you're saying quite the opposite. Are the people who've been forecasting cooling wrong?

WALLACE SMITH BROECKER: I think so and I think we're due for another one of these warmings, natural warmings in the next 20 or 30 years.

BARBARA FRUM: How warm is a warming?

WALLACE SMITH BROECKER: Well the range of these variations has been about plus or minus 1 degrees centigrade for the global average, but in the northern parts of the world it's been somewhat larger in the polar regions.

BARBARA FRUM: But you don't think the warming effect is going to come off as drastically then?

WALLACE SMITH BROECKER: The CO2 warming trend, which is accelerating all the time because we're burning more and more fuel every year. We'll take over and we'll push this before the end of the century or very early in the next century beyond the limits of our natural experience. In other words, the climate of the world will be somewhat warmer than it's been even at the peak of the natural cycles during the past thousand years or so. And of course it's just going to continue getting ever warmer as we produce ever more amounts of CO2 until we transfer it to some other means of developing our energy than chemical fuels.

BARBARA FRUM: Is this more than just of academic interest? Is this a debate that's important to sort out?

WALLACE SMITH BROECKER: Possibly, it could be terribly important. We're blasting into the atmosphere in a very short time scale an enormous amount of CO2. And at this stage we know something about CO2 and we know something about natural climate fluctuations and I guess what I've done is for the first time put them together and say if we take into account just these two effects and make the best possible prediction of what's going to happen in the next 20 or 30 years, you must conclude that the present cooling is going to turn around and be replaced by a rather dramatic warming.

[Music: Theme]

Oct 15, 2019 episode transcript

Social Sharing

More from this episode