Host: Tom Clark
Guest Interviews: Bonnie Lysyk, Graham Thomson, Mark Kennedy, Lisa Raitt
Location: Ottawa
On this Sunday, call it an orange Alberta clipper. We look ahead to Tuesday’s provincial election in Alberta and what an NDP breakthrough would mean for the Conservative heartland.
TV ad: All across Canada, hardworking families are benefitting from tax relief.
Plus, the Conservative government will spend $13.5 million of your dollars to advertise the goodies in their pre-election budget. Is that a legitimate use of your tax dollars? We talk to the woman who polices government ads in Ontario.
And, she is in charge of aviation in Canada but what happens when Transport Minister Lisa Raitt joins me for a little ‘Plane Talk”’.
It is Sunday, May the 3rd and from the nation’s capital, I’m Tom Clark. And you are in The West Block.
Well, news coming out this morning from Stephen Harper’s tour of Europe and other places. Here’s Vassy Kapelos.
Vassy Kapelos: Tom we’re in Kuwait the third of three stops on this surprise tour for the prime minister in this part of the world. The focus, of course – the fight against ISIS, announcing $170 million in aid to the region, Harper made stops in Baghdad and northern Iraq, meeting with Canadian troops as well as leaders from the region. His message? One we’ve heard before, but perhaps not quite put this way.
Harper clip: The goal of ISIS is not merely to hold territory. It is to use that territory to launch a global jihad, an orgy of terrorist violence around the world, which is what we have seen in so many countries; acts of brutality and murder, a war waged against everything we hold dear, freedom, democracy and human dignity, a war of enslavement and extermination,
Vassy Kapelos:
Those words likely carefully chosen by the prime minister. Both he and the Conservatives have been polling very well on this issue, no doubt he’s aware of that.
I should also mention, Chief of Defence Staff Tom Lawson told us today that investigations into Sgt. Andrew Doiron’s death are complete and will be made public before the end of the month. Of course, Doiron was killed back in March by Kurdish forces he was helping to train. Lawson says those Kurds likely made a fatal mistake because of fatigue. Tom?
Well back here in Ottawa, here’s the question of the week: government advertising, a necessary tool to educate citizens or a waste of hard-earned taxpayer dollars to benefit the governing party? It’s an issue front and centre following last week’s budget here but let’s kick it off with a West Block Primer:
You’ve probably seen them: TV ads promoting the federal budget and you’re about to see a whole lot more. The government is spending $13.5 million to promote the budget, this month and next, and in the process of course, promote themselves just before the election.
So what else does $13.5 million buy? Well, we could triple the money being spent this year on scholarships for young Aboriginals to attend college or university. It’d pretty much pay for those 10 technical armoured patrol vehicles that the military has been waiting for. Or, it could almost cover the entire budget of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency. And that’s just two months of advertising.
Now, the federal government doesn’t have anything in place to police political ads but Ontario does and their rules actually inspired a private members bill here in Ottawa, but that bill’s not going to go anywhere. But now here for a twist, the provincial Liberals Ontario are trying to loosen the rules and the woman who is in charge of keeping everyone in check on this count is not happy one little bit. And I refer to of course Bonnie Lysyk who is the Auditor General of Ontario.
Thank you so much for being here. Let me ask you this, the changes I understand, that the Ontario government wants to bring into this is, they’re saying that an ad would only be considered partisan if it contained the name, the voice or the image of a member of the government, if there’s a party logo or party colour associated with that party. That, they say, would be taboo. So what’s wrong with that?
Bonnie Lysyk:
You know, we actually use additional criteria to determine whether something is partisan. So, we look at an ad for factual accuracy, for whether or not it’s self-congratulatory, whether or not it criticizes other individuals, whether it re-announces something that’s been announced before, so there are additional criteria that are looked at by the office to determine whether or not something is partisan.
Tom Clark:
Bonnie Lysyk:
You know, there’s been an excellent working relationship between my office and the people in the ministries and the agencies that we work with, and the experience has been very good. There have been about 7,200 ads approved since the act came into play and that’s for about $400 million in expenditures. The rejection rate has been very low: only one per cent of the ads that have been reviewed by the office were rejected. We have a pre-review process too where we engage in conversations with staff in the communication areas in the government where they kind of bat their ideas by us and you know, we give them our comments before they actually invest money into producing ads that might not meet the test of partisanship.
Tom Clark:
Before I get your take on the changes that the Ontario government wants to bring in, let me ask you sort of a more basic question and that is, why do we need this policing of political ads by governments in power?
Bonnie Lysyk:
Well, I think in this case, it goes back to the history in Ontario where years ago, I guess there were ads running and the Liberal party that was running at the time in Ontario, committed that they would not run such ads. And so they asked the Auditor General’s office whether or not it would be willing to look at ads for partisanship and the actually put the legislation in place requesting my office at the time to do this work because they wanted to ensure that you know, there weren’t inappropriate expenditures for partisan purposes of taxpayer’s dollars.
Tom Clark:
Okay, here’s where the rubber meets the road then. So that very same government that made that pledge in an election and then brought it into law, and has been living that law for some time now says, they want to loosen things up a little bit. Are you prepared to live with that?
Bonnie Lysyk:
You know, I mean, I respect anything that gets passed in the legislature, you know, but I work as an independent officer of the legislature. So, the amendments that are being put forward would actually take away my office’s discretion in approving advertising and hold us to a very narrow definition. A definition that if we approved ads, people could call into question, you know, why is the Auditor General’s office approving those ads and really could affect our credibility and reputation for independence. So my concern is, that ad puts us in a very difficult position and so, I am writing a special report to the legislative assembly that we will be tabling shortly that’ll highlight specifically what our concerns are around the amendments.
Tom Clark:
Because even under these new rules, it seems to me that the government would still be able to produce an ad with happy, smiling people talking about the great things that the government is doing to help them get jobs and even maybe even promote legislation that hasn’t even been passed yet. And does that sort of just take the guts right out of any sense of taking partisanship out of taxpayer funded ads?
Bonnie Lysyk:
Yeah, we have concerns that the changes that are being made will, you know, in the words that we’ve used, our gut, the legislation to the point where you know, our discretion is gone and good criteria can’t be used to determine whether or not those ads are partisan. So, you know, that’s where we’re raising our concerns. I’m raising the concern for my office that this would put us at a difficult position because the definition is so narrow or partisan. Plus, the act refers to the creation of regulations and so you don’t know until legislation is passed, when government creates regulations, what those regulations will say. And, as well, because you know, I represent an independent office, we’re concerned that those regulations would even define further what we can or can’t do and, you know, put us in a situation where people would judge us as not being independent.
Tom Clark:
And I’ll just point out to everybody; this is the only person in the country that is trying to police political advertising. Bonnie Lysyk, the Auditor General of the province of Ontario, thanks very much for being with us.
Bonnie Lysyk:
Well thank you for having me.
Tom Clark:
Well still to come, ‘Plane Talk’ with the transport minister. But first, the Alberta election: it looks like we’ll see a breakthrough for the NDP. Could that help the federal NDP? We’ll unpack those politics coming up next.
Break
Tom Clark:
Welcome back. Cowboy hats, rodeos, and voting PC, is about as Albertan as you can get. Or at least it was. The Progressive Conservative Party has ruled that province for more than four decades but is that about to all come to an end or is this just poling déjà vu all over again?
Joining me now to unpack the politics just days before Albertan’s cast their ballot: Graham Thompson, a columnist with the Edmonton Journal. He joins us from Edmonton. And, joining me here in Ottawa, Mark Kennedy: the Parliamentary Bureau Chief of the Ottawa Citizen. Welcome to you both.
Just before we start and to lay the table a little bit, I want to go to the polling aggregator, this company takes all the polls, puts them together. Here’s what they were saying, at least at the end of last week: 41.8 per cent for the NDP, 26 for Wildrose, and the once mighty PC Alberta Party down to 20.7. If you put that into seat projections: 52 NDP, 22 Wildrose, 11 for the PCs.
Graham Thomson, what they’re saying is, that the NDP is going to form a majority government in the socialist worker’s paradise in Alberta come next week.
Graham Thomson:
Tom Clark:
Well, I was just going to say, when you come out with ads saying an NDP government is closer than you think, I mean that’s almost like conceding defeat. You’re saying, we’re about to go down, but Graham very quickly, you’ve sort of enumerated a lot of things that are making for change—political change in Alberta but my gosh, this is the Conservative heartland of Canada. This is almost an apprehended insurrection going on there. Is it just because it’s been 43 or 44 years of one party ruling that province and it’s simply time for a change?
Graham Thomson:
Well, one thing, people in Alberta are a lot more progressive. They are more progressive than you would give them credit for. Last time, 2012, the PCs were under attack from the Wildrose and they went after the Progressive vote. They went after NDP and Liberals, saying to them, look, you’ve got to come to our aid and help out the PCs against a more right wing Wildrose Party and that worked because Alberta is a relatively progressive province. So, I think that what’s playing in favour of the NDP is that Alberta is not some big right wing province without wanting to bring in the Wildrose government or even the PC government again. They are looking at the NDP thinking these guys aren’t that scary. Now having said that—
Tom Clark:
Let me, just—
Graham Thomson:
I was going to say quickly that the PCs have a really good machine to get the vote out on Tuesday, so if people don’t go out and vote, the PCs are very good at getting their vote to go out and cast a ballot.
Tom Clark:
I want to bring Mark Kennedy into this because any time that we see political upheaval of this nature, if it holds, and Graham has sort of put down some markers, just saying, don’t bet the ranch on this one just yet. But what does that tell you about what’s happening? Is there a crossover between what’s happening provincially in Alberta and what could happen federally in Alberta?
Mark Kennedy:
Listen, I think what’s happening here, is that we all need to remind ourselves as Canadians and as political journalists, and as backroom political boys and girls, that change happens and it can happen. I can recall in 1987, when I was a young man, covering a provincial election in Ontario. And David Peterson was treated as a political god. Three years later, in 1990, they tired of him very, very rapidly and what happened? In Ontario, they elected an NDP government in a place that’s for 44 years—I believe it was—had been run by the Tories. These things can happen. I’m not saying it’s necessarily going to happen in Alberta but it happens. There are massive swings that happen from time to time. Think about 1993, here federally when the Conservatives which had had a majority government for two mandates, were reduced to two seats. Count em, two seats. So—
Tom Clark:
So, should the federal Conservatives be worried about what they’re seeing out there?
Mark Kennedy:
That’s a good question. Listen, if the NDP was to form a government or if it was to come close to forming a government, I think what too might want to be worried is the Liberals because it would then give credence to the NDP as they go forward federally and they tell Canadians, both inside Quebec and outside Quebec that they can be treated as a viable alternative.
Tom Clark:
And that of course, has been one of the mantras up here by some strategists saying that we’ve got a polarized politics in this country to a choice between right and left, as opposed to anything in the mushy middle.
Mark Kennedy:
Yeah.
Tom Clark:
Graham, I just want to get back to you for one second and maybe, I promised you I wouldn’t ask you this question, but do you care to make a prediction for Tuesday?
Graham Thomson:
Tom Clark:
And Mark, just because we’ve got it on tape, in five seconds, your prediction?
Mark Kennedy:
Graham Thomson:
Tom Clark:
Graham Thomson:
You’re welcome. Thank you.
Mark Kennedy:
Thank you.
Tom Clark:
Well coming up next, “Plane Talk” with Lisa Raitt. Why becoming prime minister isn’t really on her radar, just yet.
Break
Tom Clark:
Welcome back. Well as you may know, Lisa Raitt is Canada’s Transport Minister and that puts her in charge of aviation in this country, so I knew that “Plane Talk” with her would be, interesting. Take a look.
So, Lisa Raitt Minister of Transport. Welcome.
Lisa Raitt:
Yeah, thank you, Tom.
Tom Clark:
Well, this is what we’re going to be flying in.
Lisa Raitt:
Beautiful.
Tom Clark:
And, if you’ll step over here—now unfortunately, I’ve got to take a few minutes of your time because Transport Canada regulations say that I’ve got to give you a briefing.
Lisa Raitt:
Well, while we’re here, I have a little checklist I can do too while—just go ahead. I’ll do a little Transport Canada ramp check while we’re here.
Tom Clark:
You’re ramp checking me?
Lisa Raitt:
Yeah.
Tom Clark:
Alright, okay. What do you need to see?
Lisa Raitt:
Well, I would like to know whether or not you have your aircraft flight manual here?
Tom Clark:
Ah, yes.
Lisa Raitt:
Good. Cabin attendant’s log?
Tom Clark:
Huh?
Lisa Raitt:
Cabin attendant’s log?
Tom Clark:
Cabin attendants log.
Lisa Raitt:
Certificate of airworthiness?
Tom Clark:
Ah, sure.
Lisa Raitt:
Registration?
Tom Clark:
Yes.
Lisa Raitt:
Journey log book?
Tom Clark:
Yeah, see.
Lisa Raitt:
Awesome.
Tom Clark:
Okay, we’re done?
Lisa Raitt:
Well done. Yes, Tom Clark, we’re done.
Tom Clark:
Lisa Raitt:
Although they will never let me do this in real life at Transport Canada, they are far more in-depth than that, as you know.
Tom Clark:
Lisa Raitt:
Tom starts his plane.
Lisa Raitt:
Starting is good.
Tom Clark:
Lisa Raitt:
Tom Clark:
Gas, I knew I forgot something.
Lisa Raitt:
Oh that’s a, that’s a joke.
Tom Clark:
Rockliffe traffic: Charlie, Gulf, Bravo, X-ray, Papa is rolling 27.
Lisa Raitt:
Oh, up we go.
Tom Clark:
Well, we’re off.
Lisa Raitt:
Wow, just like that. Just don’t fly over Parliament Hill.
Tom Clark:
No, that’s a bad thing to do.
Lisa Raitt:
That’s a very bad thing to do.
Tom Clark:
Yeah, you get to do that once.
Lisa Raitt:
Tom Clark:
What is your greatest guilty pleasure?
Lisa Raitt:
Uhh. So, ah, what is my greatest guilty pleasure? Well, one thing I find in this job is you don’t have a lot of time to yourself which makes a lot of sense and I have two young boys, so I spend a lot of time with them and I love that, treasure that. So, the greatest guilty pleasure right now is a pretty simple thing, is watching a TV show that I like with a nice glass of red wine and not being disturbed for an hour or 44 minutes.
Tom Clark:
Okay, name of the TV show?
Lisa Raitt:
It’s ‘Scandal’.
Tom Clark:
Yeah, but what’s the name of the TV show?
Lisa Raitt:
Tom Clark:
Oh, ‘Scandal’. Okay. Under what circumstances do you lie?
Lisa Raitt:
When I told you I was okay going up in this plane.
Tom Clark:
Lisa Raitt:
Didn’t want to hurt your feelings—
Tom Clark:
Well—
Lisa Raitt:
But I’m okay up here now.
Tom Clark:
I’m very wounded right now, yeah. You weren’t worried before, you should be now.
Lisa Raitt:
Tom Clark:
How difficult has it been for you in politics because you’re a woman?
Lisa Raitt:
So, it’s a double—I’ve thought a lot about this because of some stuff that I’ve been reading lately about women in politics. It seems that if you put a picture of a woman and picture of a man to kids or to adults and ask them who would you vote for? The women wins—the woman wins in terms of who do you trust and can you trust them, so I think on first glance, we do have an advantage in a sense because are more trustworthy. They think we’re going to advocate—maybe it’s our internal instincts—I don’t quite know what it is. It goes with the psychology but I can tell you that once you get into the politics, I think there’s a low threshold for appetite for a woman not—how do I say it—making mistakes. I think there is an appetite there for if you make a mistake or you do something, you’re far more apt to be criticized, condemned, dragged down than you are a guy, who can role with the punches, I think. And I think that’s the difference that I see and maybe that’s what you seen a lot of women shying away from, the notion of getting involved.
Tom Clark:
Someday, would you like to be prime minister of Canada?
Lisa Raitt:
I don’t think about it that way. And, I know I get this question a lot, right? It’s a tough one. I don’t see that right now. I don’t see it.
Tom Clark:
Are you avoiding my question?
Lisa Raitt:
No, I’m not. I’m not. I’m not. You know why? Because I’m being honest and truthful when I say, I don’t see myself there but you never know what happens in life and you can say absolutes absolutely.
Tom Clark:
I am going to ask you, if you would like to fly this plane?
Lisa Raitt:
I would love to.
Tom Clark:
Okay, so I’m going to take my hands off. The plane is yours.
Lisa Raitt:
Okay, I think that’s enough, Tom.
Tom Clark:
We haven’t gone anywhere.
Lisa Raitt:
I feel we—
Tom Clark:
You’re doing very well.
Lisa Raitt:
Okay.
Tom Clark:
Lisa Raitt:
So now that I have the controls, can I ask the questions?
Tom Clark:
Go ahead.
Lisa Raitt:
Okay. What scares you the most?
Tom Clark:
Being up here with you at the controls of the plane.
Lisa Raitt:
Okay, thank you. Okay, that’s fair enough.
Tom Clark:
I’m being honest.
Lisa Raitt:
What word do you overuse?
Tom Clark:
Oh—that. Oh.
Lisa Raitt:
Oh yeah, you do.
Tom Clark:
Yeah. Oh—
Lisa Raitt:
You’ve got to take the wheel. Like this is really not cool for me.
Tom Clark:
Alright.
Lisa Raitt:
Okay.
Tom Clark:
I got control.
Lisa Raitt:
Thank you.
Tom Clark:
There we go.
Lisa Raitt:
Okay, you do know what you’re doing, Tom Clark.
Tom Clark:
We haven’t landed yet.
Lisa Raitt:
No, I feel good.
Tom Clark:
Lisa Raitt:
We’re lined up.
Tom Clark:
Tom lands the plane.
Lisa Raitt:
Yay.
Tom Clark:
Lisa Raitt:
Of gratitude.
Tom Clark:
Relief I think, wasn’t it?
Lisa Raitt:
No. No, all good. I enjoyed it.
Tom Clark:
Well, finally this morning, there was a study last week that accused the military of allowing a culture that is hostile to women. The findings were largely endorsed by the military leadership but changing a culture is no easy thing, especially when many in the Armed Forces just don’t buy that there’s much of a problem to start with. It’s going to take time, but in the world of unintended consequences, this promise of reform, poses a new dilemma for any women considering a career in the Armed Forces now. Here’s just part of an interview with the general in charge of reform:
Would you be able to look a young woman in the eye and say, don’t worry if you join the military, you’re not going to experience sexual harassment or even assault?
I can’t state that unequivocally but what I can state, is that we are making changes and we are going into the recruiting schools, in fact we’re there next week. We’re going to be—sorry tomorrow, we’re going to be in St. Jean. And, the whole premise is to get the people talking about it so that we can effect change in the mid to long term.
Tom Clark:
The mid to long term? Well not much encouragement for women there. The military might consider treating this more like a mission than an HR problem because that might focus minds a little bit faster.
We’re off to Alberta. We’ll see you there next Sunday. Have a great week.
Comments