Transcript Season 4 Episode 32

 WATCH: Full broadcast of The West Block with Tom Clark, guest hosted this week by Eric Sorensen. 

Guest Interviews: Bob Rae, Pierre Poilievre, Scott Clark, Mike Le Couteur

Location: Ottawa

On this Sunday, exactly six months from Election Day, current polls suggest a minority government.  Could the opposition join forces in some way to govern?  We’ll talk to Bob Rae about what to expect from all three parties and their leaders.

Then, Tuesday is Budget Day for the feds.  We know the books will be balanced but at what cost?

And the Mike Duffy trial:  highlights from week two and a look at what’s ahead.

It’s Sunday, April 19^th.  I’m Eric Sorensen in for Tom Clark.  And this is The West Block.

Though today we start in our virtual Centre Block.  Canada is about to play musical chairs in this chamber, only in this election year, 30 more chairs will be added reflecting the growth in our country’s population.

Now, in 2011, the Conservatives won 166 seats.  It was the NDP’s best showing ever at 103; the Liberals, their worst showing, 34; the BQ 4; and the Green 1.  Now redistributing all of that vote with all of the new seats would have given the Conservatives 22 more, 188 overall and a strong majority, and would have left the opposition parties even further behind.  But voter preference has shifted since 2011 so let’s have a look at that.

On that election night, the Conservatives won 40 per cent of the popular vote:  the NDP 31 per cent and the Liberals a shocking 19 per cent.  Now in the most recent Ipsos poll for Global News, look at the change.  It’s much closer: the Conservatives in front but at 33 per cent, the Liberals 31, and the NDP running third at 23.

So what does that mean?  Both 308.com and Laurier University crunch all the recent polls to project seats for each party in the next election.  So we crunched all of their recent numbers and here is what came out.  That big spread the Conservatives had at 188, that drops the seat projection considerably down to 139.  That’s short of 170, the new threshold that Stephen Harper needs for a majority.  The Liberals over here would jump to second with 117 seats, the NDP back to third with 77.  As Laurier’s Barry Kay tells us, the projections are only as accurate as the polls themselves but there has been a consistent pattern:  no majority.

Barry Kay: If an election were held in the near future, I think we’re talking about a minority government and then we can start speculating about what that means because that isn’t necessarily a safe ride for Harper even though he clearly stands number one in terms of seats at the moment but I don’t think he’s within shooting distance of 170.

Joining us now, a man who knows all about the possibilities at play: the Former Ontario NDP Premier and the Former Federal Liberal Leader Bob Rae.  Bob it’s great to have you here.

Bob Rae:

Thank you, Eric.  Good to be with you.

Eric Sorensen:

In the last election, we were looking at all of those numbers a moment ago but interestingly the spread in the last election was a 21 point gap between the Conservatives at the top and the Liberals in third place.  Right now, the polls have just a ten point spread between the three parties:  33 to 23.  What does that tell you about the outcome that’s possible?

Bob Rae:

What those numbers tell me today is that there is everything to play for, for each one of the parties, that all of them can aspire to having a role and possibly winning outright the next election, and I don’t…personally don’t assume any result.  I continue to tell my Liberal party colleagues that we can win but it’s important for us to understand that other parties can win too.

Eric Sorensen:

Now each of the party leaders has some challenges.  For Mr. Harper, some feel you know he’s been around long enough.  For Mr. Trudeau, he has not got enough experience.  And for Mr. Mulcair, some people aren’t ready to vote NDP.  What does each of the leaders have to do to get in the position that you say that each of them is capable of reaching?

Bob Rae:

Well I think if you just start… you know taking it with Mr. Mulcair, I think the party numbers that he has are pretty good going into an election or going into this pre-election period.  I think the challenge that he faces is the one that every NDP leader faces which is convincing people that you’ve got a chance of winning and that you don’t get marginalized in the course of the next six months.  It’ll be the first time that he’s run an election campaign, as it will for Mr. Trudeau.  You know, I’m always surprised when people say to me, Mr. Trudeau is too young.  I say to them, look he’s in his mid-40’s, he’s a person that has grown up in politics.  He has a lot of political sense but obviously when you come to look at the best for PM numbers, he’s got to convince people that he’s running this time to be the prime minister and that he’s got a policy and team behind him that’s going to allow him to win.  He has the advantage of enormous likeability which is not something to be dismissed if you’re a political leader.  Mr. Harper has the respect of Canadians, certainly a number of Canadians, a significant number of people who say he’d make the best PM.  His challenge is he’s still got to work on the humanity factor.

Eric Sorensen:

And because it’s close and because right now, it looks like it could be a minority, there’s talk of a coalition.  I just want to look for a quick moment at what the current standings are.  You can see the Conservatives in a total of 308 seats, have a 160 so a solid majority, but if you project the seats out plus the 30 new seats, based on the polling right now, that number for the Conservatives comes down to 139.  And if you look second and third place, you add those numbers together, the 117 and the 77.  You put that together in a say coalition or an accord, you could be up to 194 and then you’re talking about a potential majority government.  You have… I mean you’re the person I would most want to ask about the possibility of a Liberal and New Democratic accord of some sort.  Mr. Harper has deemed this almost as anti-democratic.  Is it?

Bob Rae:

Well first of all, you’ve got to hold back on speculating what’s going to happen until you see what the numbers are after an election.  It’s all… this whole debate is very much driven by the numbers:  who gets the most seats, who gets the most popular vote, what is constitutional on the one side, there’s no question that the prime minister under our system, under the British parliamentary system that we’ve been living with all these many years, the prime minister is the person who can command the majority in the House of Commons, beginning and end of story.  That is the Canadian constitution.  That’s our life.  When we were negotiating the accord back in 1985, I asked then senator Eugene Forsey, who at that time was the constitutional guru in the country.  I said is this okay?  He said it’s constitutional in every respect and it’s important to remember that.  Now whether it’s politically possible to do, that obviously depends on a whole bunch of other factors.

Eric Sorensen:

Justin Trudeau this week was asked about the possibility of a coalition and at first he said maybe, maybe not and then the next day, he said this:

Justin Trudeau:  “What I’ve said, what I said during that interview, what I’ve said since for the past three years, is that I am unequivocally opposed to any sort of coalition.”

Eric Sorensen:

So Bob Rae, he obviously felt, Justin Trudeau, that he had to say that.  Why did he have to say that do you think?

Bob Rae:

Well I think that going into an election, I don’t think anybody, Mr. Trudeau or Mr. Mulcair or those two opposition leaders don’t really want to get into the game of talking about what might happen after the election.  What Mr. Harper has tried to do, he’s certainly tried to do it in the last election.  He certainly did it in 2009 when there were the conversations between the three party leaders, Mr. Dion and Mr. Layton to create the coalition and then Mr. Duceppe to support it.  He had a field day with that politically and obviously I think he feels if he can run against a coalition and create a sense that there’s uncertainty on the one side and certainty on other, then he’s going to want to drive that truck.  And I think Mr. Trudeau is trying to say, look no, I don’t want to get into that game and I don’t want to give anybody any way of thinking that there is some other way of defeating Mr. Harper other than voting for the Liberal party.  Now, you know, whether those arguments work with people, whether the media, and you’re part of the game, whether you can be held off for six months and say okay we won’t talk about this until after the election, I don’t know.  But there is a reality and that is that there will not be a coalition before the election.  There certainly was talk over the years about cooperation between the parties in terms of presenting candidates.  There is no prospect of that happening.  The NDP doesn’t want to do it.  The Liberals don’t want to do it.  Not going to happen.  But the question what could happen after an election, that’s another story.

Eric Sorensen:

And I’m sure the media won’t talk about it anymore after today.  Thanks Bob.

Bob Rae:

Eric Sorensen:

And coming up next: a look ahead to Tuesday’s budget.  We’ll hear about the goodies for families in the budget and a former finance insider will tell us why balancing the budget now is bad for the country.

Break

Eric Sorensen:

Welcome back.  The federal government will table its budget on Tuesday and they say it will be balanced, but will that mean winners and losers?  First, our weekly West Block Primer:

Here’s what’s already been announced:  income splitting.  The government pegs the cost at roughly $2 billion a year, a boost to the Universal Child Care Benefit, another $4.4 billion and a doubling of the Child Fitness Tax Credit for about $35 million.  We expect an increase to the contribution limit for tax free savings accounts.  Still unknown, will we see the Adult Fitness Tax Credit promised in 2011.  And what type of investment for infrastructure will there be?

And joining us now from Calgary is Pierre Poilievre, the Minister of Employment and Social Development. Thank you Pierre for being with us.

Pierre Poilievre:

Good to be with you.

Eric Sorensen:

In addition to the items we just looked at, the municipalities want transit infrastructure to the tune of $1 billion a year.  Do you have that kind of money earmarked for anything like that?

Pierre Poilievre:

Well obviously municipalities have already experienced massive increases in their revenue.  That being said, we always want to reduce commute times and improve the quality of life.  We also understand that we need to put dollars directly in the pockets of taxpayers.  They’re the ones who generate economic growth and jobs.  That’s why we instituted the family tax cut and benefits, which you just mentioned that put thousands of dollars in the pockets of every single family that has kids under 18.  So it is a balanced design to build on our low tax plan for jobs and growth.

Eric Sorensen:

The government is planning to balance the budget, first time in several years.  It’s an election year.  Was that a no-brainer or did you give consideration to actually spending more to get the economy moving a little bit faster?

Pierre Poilievre:

Well you know, Justin Trudeau says that budgets balance themselves.  Canadians know that’s not true.  Now that Prime Minister Harper has balanced the budget, he can help families and small businesses balance theirs.  That’s why we lowered taxes for families and put more money in the pockets of parents.  We know that the Liberals and the NDP would take that money away from parents and raise taxes on families.  We won’t allow them to do that and our budget will build on our balanced budget approach, and keep taxes low at the same time.

Eric Sorensen:

On that one item, the so-called income splitting, the critics say, analysts say, first of all, its $2 billion that will mostly benefit families that are well off.  And the critics say, well that seems designed to appeal to voters you can get to come your way and neglects voters that you didn’t think are going to vote for you anyway.

Pierre Poilievre:

Let me talk about the whole package.  The family package…

Eric Sorensen:

Just on the income splitting first.

Pierre Poilievre:

Sure, happy to do that.  The Income Splitting or the Family Tax cut is obviously extremely popular.  It will help two million families with four million adults in it.  It allows a couple to split its income to lower its tax bill by up to $2,000 and brings fairness to families where one spouse has a higher income than the other.  This tax relief will help families.

Eric Sorensen:

Does it benefit the well-off families more though?  Is that a concern that it benefits well-off families more than those like a single parent?

Pierre Poilievre:

Our overall Family Tax Cut and benefits helps overwhelming modest and low income families the most.  We’re putting on average over a thousand dollars in the pockets of a family with kids and we know the Liberals and NDP will take that money from parents and raise taxes on families.

Eric Sorensen:

You mentioned Mr. Trudeau’s name earlier.  I’ve noticed that you and your colleagues are doing that fairly frequently and seldom go after Mr. Mulcair in the same way, even though he is the official Opposition Leader and his policies are even further away perhaps from yours.  What’s the focus on Trudeau?  Is that just an obvious sort of thing that he threatens your party more than say Mulcair does in terms of the voters that would be more apt to come your way?

Pierre Poilievre:

Well Justin Trudeau, when he says that budgets balance themselves he really reveals that he’s out of touch with everyday families who have to balance their family budgets.  They know that requires discipline and focus, the same way as our government has been disciplined and focused.  We have a balanced budget now.  We’ve lowered taxes.  Justin Trudeau and the Liberals would run massive deficits and raise taxes on families.  That’s really the choice that Canadians face in the next election.

Eric Sorensen:

Pierre Poilievre, thank you.

And joining us now is the Former Deputy Finance Minister Scott Clark.  Thank you for joining us now.

Scott Clark:

Thank you for having me.

Eric Sorensen:

Mr. Poilievre says putting thousands of dollars into the pockets of Canadians, some pockets more than others.

Scott Clark:

Well he’s right, I mean this government has lowered taxes since it’s been in power but that doesn’t constitute good tax policy just simply lowering taxes and I think your point is right.  He’s lowered taxes for very specific groups of taxpayers and he mentioned the income splitting and he says very popular and I’m sure among the 15 per cent of families will get it, it is very popular.  And I think giving tax credits to families for children who are in sports or taking violin lessons, I’m sure they’re very happy as well even though it remains to be seen why that needs to be subsidized.  And I think one of the outstanding commitments to give an adult fitness tax credit, well I’m not sure why adults need a fitness tax credit to go out and exercise but I’m sure all those who are already members will be very happy that they’re now going to get a little bit of a subsidy.  The point is it’s not good tax policy.  It hasn’t contributed to economic growth.  Not in the least.  Not in the least.

Eric Sorensen:

They may have polled on some of those things.  At the same time, the big message is a balanced budget and I can remember budget after budget when the Chretien Liberals were doing it, they sure put that up front that you know for the seventh year in a row, first time since confederation another balanced budget. This is a real political winner for them to say that.  If I’m the average voter, I like it that my government is keeping its books in check.

Scott Clark:

I think it’s true.  I think now most Canadians believe that the word deficit and the word debt are terrible, terrible things and unfortunately that’s not always the case but that’s political reality, and the political message from this government is we are going to eliminate the deficit.  That’s been their political message for years and years.  It’s to me, almost been an obsessive compulsive disorder that the only thing that matters in public finance is to eliminate a deficit.  Now they’ve never had a surplus in the seven years that they’ve been in power.  Debt has gone up by $150 billion whereas under the Liberals, it actually declined by $90 million.  And so, Mr. Poilievre said well we now have a balanced budget.  Well we’re waiting until next Tuesday to see whether we believe how they get to that balanced budget because as you know Eric, everything changed this last March because they’re still committed to eliminate that deficit despite everything.

Eric Sorensen:

Well let’s look at the numbers as they were a year ago and then moving forward.  And what it shows is… if we can bring those up, is that they had a $6.4 billion surplus and a contingency fund.  Much smaller by November and then look what Mr. Oliver said in January:  I’m not precluding the use of the contingency fund. How do you see how they are working with the numbers to get this balanced budget?

Scott Clark:

Well you know, that presentation really indicates the situation, right?  Because the message of the government hasn’t changed:  we will eliminate the deficit.  And that is despite the fact that oil prices are now running around $50 dollars a barrel.  In November when Minister Oliver had his update, they were $80 dollars a barrel and that’s the month just after the prime minister made all his tax announcements which we know cost a fair amount of money.  So we have the commitment to the tax cuts, lower oil prices, lower economic growth, lower growth in nominal income which is important, and yet they’re still going to balance the budget.  So the way I look at it is they will show it balanced.  They will use the contingency reserve. They will have some asset sales and we know about the GM sale.  I’m not sure how much there will be in that.  There probably will be some other what we used to call in the trade “accounting changes”.  There may be some other options that they’ll put in place but they will definitely show a balanced budget.  Is it credible?  Well I don’t know.

Eric Sorensen:

Well that’s the question. You know forecasting oil, it could be $50, it could be $90, what are you looking for in that budget that will tell you it’s a credible budget or not?

Scott Clark:

Well let me just give you an example.  In November of last year and end of March of last year with the budget, the Finance Department used its traditional methodology for forecasting oil prices, which is they didn’t forecast them.  They simply said we’ll base our budget projection on assuming oil prices will remain constant.  So in March it was a $100 dollars.  In November it was $80.  Mr. Oliver will change that methodology and he will assume a rising oil price for the rest of this year and for the outgoing year.  So that’s… he will use a change of forecast methodology to help him balance the budget for sure.

Eric Sorensen:

Alright, Scott Clark, thank you for joining us.

Scott Clark:

Pleasure to be here.

Eric Sorensen:

Still to come:  the Mike Duffy trial.  Even the judge says it could go on for a very long time.  Highlights of week two, next.

Break

Eric Sorensen:

And welcome back.  Week two of the trial for suspended Senator Mike Duffy and our Mike Le Couteur has been covering that trial for Global News and it seems like in the first week, it was all about the loose rules, and it might be hard to pin a criminal wrongdoing on Mr. Duffy.  What about week two?

Mike Le Couteur:

Well if this was a boxing match, Eric you’d have to score the first week or the first round for the defence because they showed that those rules were so loose.  Now we’re seeing gains and body blows being made by the Crown here.  And of course, they’re showing that no matter how loose those rules were Mike Duffy, in their opinion, knew how to get around them. I think the prime example is that makeup artist charge.  In 2009, he tried to submit an invoice for $300 dollars to have his makeup done for his senate portrait.  That was refused by the Senate.  They said that is not a Senate expense.  2010 he submitted another invoice but this time it was for makeup for himself and Prime Minister Harper, but he was very careful.  He told the makeup artist to invoice Maple Ridge Media, that company that was run by his buddy Gerry Donohue and that one went through.  So what the Crown is trying to do here is say he knew where he could and couldn’t manoeuvre and very carefully manoeuvred around the rules and that’s the basis of their contention here in their whole case, is that no matter how loose the rules were, Duffy knew how to make his way around them and then eventually get the money out.

Eric Sorensen:

It is taking some time for some of these witnesses to kind of lay all of that out and the judge, pretty unusual for him to be speaking in public as he was walking down the sidewalk, but he answered a question saying this could go on much longer.  What are the implications for a trial that spills into many more days, possibly weeks?

Mike Le Couteur:

I would say maybe not unusual but it’s shocking that a judge would even talk to reporters on the way out.  I mean talk about the implications, the Conservative government and everybody really thought this was going to be wrapped up by June, mid-June and then you know they’d have the summer BBQ circuit to sort of really let this simmer out.  And then get out on a hustings in the fall and really people would forget about this.  We know how schedules go in courts.  This could spill into the fall.  If we’re having this play out in the fall, it would actually be the defence’s portion.  You could have Duffy on the stand in the middle of an election campaign and I don’t think anybody in the Conservative government wants to see that.

Eric Sorensen:

Boy that would be amazing.  Looking ahead then, what are we watching for in the short term?

Mike Le Couteur:

In the short term, we’re expecting Gerry Donohue, the person who did run that so-called slush fund in the Crown’s point of view.  He should take the stand.  He will not be here in court in Ottawa.  He is having health issues so he’ll be testifying by Skype or video link but that is where we’ll really get into the nuts and bolts of exactly how this so-called Shell Company or the Crown contends slush fund was being run because he was the one who was cutting all the cheques.

Eric Sorensen:

Well you said it was like a boxing match.  In some ways, this is the preliminary round and we’re going to get into the feature card when you have some of the big names from the PMO start appearing.  Alright, thanks Mike.

Mike Le Couteur:

Exactly, thank you.

Eric Sorensen:

And that is our show for today.  We’re always eager to hear from you.  You can find us online at www.thewestblock.ca.  You can also reach us on Twitter and Facebook.  And so the House is back tomorrow and Tom Clark will be back as well, in this chair next week.  I’m Eric Sorensen, thanks for watching.