Transcript Season 4 Episode 38

WATCH: Full broadcast of The West Block with Tom Clark, aired May 31, 2015.

Host: Tom Clark

Guest Interviews: Former chief of staff to Brian Mulroney David McLaughlin, Ottawa Citizen parliamentary bureau chief Mark Kennedy, Toronto Star columnist Susan Delacourt, parliamentary secretary to the finance minsiter Andrew Saxton and Liberal MP Scott Brison.

Location: Ottawa

On this Sunday, Justice Minister Peter MacKay leaves politics. We’ll look at why and what this means for the prime minister.

Then, the Conservatives say that they are now thinking about expanding the Canada Pension Plan but on a voluntary basis. A member of the party is here to explain the about-face.

And, you never know exactly what will happen when you put a politician in a plane but we didn’t expect Scott Brison to break out into song. You’ll want to see this one.

It is Sunday, May the 31^st and from the nation’s capital, I’m Tom Clark. And you are in The West Block.

The announcement was made late on Friday, Justice Minister Peter MacKay is leaving politics he says to focus on his young family. And if you had any question as to how significant his departure is, you only had to look at who joined him in front of the cameras: Prime Minister Stephen Harper. The prime minister saying he was there with tremendous pride but also, more than a little bit of sorrow.

Joining me now to take a look at the political impact of all this is David McLaughlin, the former Chief of Staff to Brian Mulroney and an advisor to Conservative governments. Take me inside the conversations that Conservatives across this country have been having this weekend. What have they been saying to each other?

David McLaughlin:

Well, what they’ve been saying is what does this mean for this election this fall? I mean that’s the first thing that comes to mind. I mean wait a second, this was a safe seat in an area that’s now being impinged upon by the Liberals and when you have a family name that all of a sudden moves, all of a sudden that seat gets into play. So right now, Central Nova is in play for the Liberals in that region, so that’s kind of worrisome. The other thing that people are worried about is what does this mean for the future of the party? Is there a sense developing that wait a second, after a decade in power, we have people leaving and now we have, you know we had John Baird, of course Jim Flaherty you know passed – big players. And now you have Peter MacKay, what does this mean? Does this mean we really are a one trick pony in a one you know kind of show, one person government?

Tom Clark:

Well, and that brings up a good question, are there any Progressive Conservatives left in the Conservative Party or is it just a one man party, the Stephen Harper party?

David McLaughlin:

Well, I think over time, it is increasingly become Mr. Harper’s party. Mr. Harper’s brand of conservatism, there’s some reasons for that, Tom. I mean this party when it came together was really formulated on the basis of one thing: unite to defeat the Liberals. And so the way that they defined conservatism at its founding meetings in the constitution, 2003, were pretty bland. It was about bridging differences to bring Conservatives together, not having a sharp form of Conservative philosophy or ideology, so that gave the runway to Mr. Harper provided he won to kind of create and forge this party in his own way, and that’s what he’s done. So, there aren’t the same kinds of and Progressive Conservative elements, at least in highly symbolic terms that used to be there now. But having said that, Mr. MacKay, Peter MacKay certainly represented that perspective and for some, it will be a worrisome.

Tom Clark:

And cast your mind ahead, maybe six months, maybe six years, who knows, is there enough support in the party for a new political life for Peter MacKay to take a run at the top job?

David McLaughlin:

Well, I would think so. It’s in part because of his successful tenure in politics but also because of the way that he’s leaving now. I mean he’s not going to be tagged with whatever happens, you know good, bad or ugly this October, and it’s legitimate that he’s leaving. He’s got a young family. He wants to probably have a bit of space. People get that. And of course, it’s just better not to be around just in case, Tom, something goes wrong. So on that premise, yes, given his name recognition, given the fact that he was a leader of one of the two founding parties that brought together to form this Conservative Party. He’s going to be on everybody’s short list. I’ll be up to him of course to decide what he wants to do.

Tom Clark:

David McLaughlin, always good talking to you. Thanks very much.

David McLaughlin:

My pleasure, Tom.

Tom Clark:

Well joining me now to unpack the politics of this even further, Parliamentary Bureau Chief for the Ottawa Citizen, Mark Kennedy and Susan Delacourt with the Toronto Star. Good to have you both here. And author I might add as well.

In politics, my measure of how much damage has been created by an event. Take a look at how much damage control is in effect. It seemed to me that on Friday in Nova Scotia, there was a lot of damage control under way. Mark?

Mark Kennedy:

Listen, it’s not often you get the prime minister of Canada pulling up and changing his schedule and flying out east to be there for the announcement, and that’s what happened there. I think we have to stand back and ask ourselves, who’s left? We’ve seen a number of people leave Mr. Harper’s side. You know Mr. Flaherty resigned and then died. Mr. Baird has left. The Progressive Conservative wing of the party is leaving and I look at that and I look at the prime minister and he looks like a lonely man these days as he heads into a campaign.

Susan Delacourt:

In the ads he looks lonely, doesn’t he? Turning out the light all by himself at night.

Tom Clark:

But, you know in the sense I think we’re up now to 28 Conservatives who are not running in the next election. Part of that’s the normal attrition rate that you get over a 10 year period in politics, but Susan has this really become the party of one now? Now that Peter MacKay is gone, if there were any Progressive Conservatives left in that party, but surely their leader or titular leader is gone.

Susan Delacourt:

I think the event is of symbolic significance and sort of seals an impression that I’m sure we’ve all had, which is that that relationship between the old Reform wing and the old Progressive Conservative wing never looked very easy. It didn’t look like it was sort of humming along much as they say and much as the press conference portrayed Harper and MacKay as best friends, but I think this seals the idea that, as Mark said, that old Progressive wing is having some trouble with the way the shape of this government, certainly the old Progressive Conservatives in Ontario, in Toronto, the likes of big cities, you don’t see them anymore, you know a lot of them. And those are the votes that Liberals want by the way. So, I think we all knew that things were not going well with MacKay in many ways. I keep remembering the Duffy diaries. You remember the reference in the Duffy diaries to Peter MacKay telling Mike Duffy that he thought the PMO had double dealt and the scandal that he fell into over the helicopter thing was planted by the PMO or so he alleged. So, I think that told us that that partnership was—

Tom Clark:
Tenuous.

Susan Delacourt:

Very thin anyway.

Mark Kennedy:

And when you look at him, he’s held some senior portfolios but it’s always been hard to get a grasp when how much power, how much influence he had at that cabinet table, and the irony, is that without Peter MacKay and the decision he made back in the fall of 2003, Stephen Harper probably never ever, ever, ever would have been prime minister and we may have had, as we were all predicting back in those days, a dynasty of Paul Martin at the helm.

Tom Clark:

And, you know Susan, you hit on it, I mean the challenge for the Conservatives now is to take those red Tories and make sure they don’t turn into blue Liberals, which could tilt the results of the election dramatically.

Susan Delacourt:

Yeah, I think we pay far too much attention to this whole tension between the NDP and the Liberals and we haven’t been watching closely enough how much Trudeau is after those people who were Paul Martin Liberals. The old Progressive Conservatives who would like a reason to vote Liberal again and did in the ‘90s but have been happy with Harper, but less happy in recent years, and certainly they would be getting a signal from this MacKay resignation too, which stands to profit the Liberals, not so much the NDP.

Tom Clark:

You know Mark, one interesting thing that happened on Friday as we were all trying to figure out and read the tea leaves of the MacKay thing, out comes this announcement that Canada has now gone into negative growth territory in terms of our Gross Domestic Product (GDP) down by 0.6 per cent in GDP. That’s the first time that we dropped since 2011 and need we remind everybody that when you get two of those in a row, it’s called…a recession.

Mark Kennedy:
Yeah. It’s remarkable because I mean the resignation overshadowed all of that. On any other day, that would have been massive news and it still could be massive news in the months ahead because the prime minister is always trying to tell voters, elect me, put me in there because I am the better manager of the economy. But if we go into a campaign in early September with two quarters in which it’s negative growth and we are technically in a recession, it’s horrible news for Stephen Harper. It exposes him as being nothing but a fraud. That’ll be the word that the Opposition uses and I don’t know what he’ll say in response.

Tom Clark:

And Susan, you know expound on that because it’s that. It’s the MacKay departure. It’s the resumption of the Duffy trial. I mean these next few days, at least the next two weeks, are going to be rather difficult weeks.

Susan Delacourt:

I think we can say for certain that Harper won’t be calling an election early in the next few weeks. I wonder you know I don’t know much the government is responsible for numbers anymore like this, but certainly, you know they’ve been trying to have it both ways. They said all spring and all winter things were too uncertain, they couldn’t do a budget and yet things are bad, but they’re not really bad because that would sort of prove the point that they’re not managing things properly. So they’ve been walking this line anyway, saying keep us in because we can stop bad things from happening in the economy but the economy might have bad things happen to it, and I think they’ve got the second half of that one but they haven’t proven what they’ve done to avert it.

Tom Clark:

Mark, we’ve got less than a minute left, what we’ve seen last week, what we’re liable to see in the next two weeks, is this politically survivable in the sense that Harper is not going to be knocked way off his game? Can he stay on?

Mark Kennedy:

We’re not going to see much of him. Let’s not forget, just as a report comes out here in Ottawa about what has been happening in the Senate, some of whom will have presumably been senators who were appointed by Stephen Harper, where is he going to be? He’s not going to be here in the House answering questions, he’ll be across the pond at a G7 Summit. There’ll be just two or three more weeks until the Parliament breaks down. I suspect he’s probably not going to want to be here very much. There is going to be a major report coming out by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission: a fundamental report that looks at how we repair our relationship with First Nation’s peoples. Will he be anywhere close to that? These are all issues that’ll all get raised. And then, they’ll all go away and we’ll start seeing them at barbeques in July.

Tom Clark:

And I should point out when I say survivable, what I meant was survivable in terms of not losing a percentage or two in the polls because it is still incredibly competitive. We’re going to have to leave it at that point. Susan Delacourt, author and journalist with the Toronto Star. Mark Kennedy, Parliamentary Bureau Chief for the Ottawa Citizen. I thank you both very much for being here, as always.

Mark Kennedy:

Thank you.

Tom Clark:
Still to come, expanding the Canada Pension Plan but should contributions be mandatory or voluntary? We’ll ask the Conservatives to explain their position.

Break

Tom Clark:

Welcome back. Well the announcement came as a surprise to many last week. The Conservative government saying it will study a voluntary expansion of the Canada Pension Plan. The NDP and the Liberals are pushing for a mandatory expansion plan, as are some of the provinces.

Well joining me now to explain the Conservative position on all of this, is Andrew Saxton, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance. And Mr. Saxton, good to have you here, I just want to start off with something and I want to take you back to 2010. Jim Flaherty who was then the finance minister said this about expanding the CPP, “We reject a voluntary plan because that would very much disturb the work of the Canada Pension Plan which operates on a different basis, but the plan can administer a modest phased-in increase on the mandatory side.” That was Jim Flaherty in 2010, what’s changed because you’ve done a complete 180 flip flop on this?

Andrew Saxton:

Well I can tell you what is consistent is that we believe in giving Canadians choice and on a voluntary basis on how they want to save for their future.

Tom Clark:

I get that, but what changed because Jim Flaherty clearly said that is the wrong way to go?

Andrew Saxton:

Well look, we’ve introduced the Tax Free Savings Account, we introduced the pooled Registered Pension Plan and now we’re going to commit to consult with Canadians on a voluntary CPP. We believe that giving Canadians more options on how to save for the future is a good thing. We don’t think that a mandatory CPP increase is where we want to go. That’s where the Liberals and the NDP want to go—

Tom Clark:

And Jim Flaherty.

Andrew Saxton:

Ah, well no, Jim Flaherty—I was with Jim Flaherty at that time, he did not want to go with a mandatory increase in CPP. He was dead set—

Tom Clark:

Well he said, “The plan can administer a modest phased-in increase on the mandatory side”. That’s what Jim Flaherty said.

Andrew Saxton:

Well I was Jim Flaherty’s last parliamentary secretary. We had long discussions about this. He did not think a mandatory CPP increase was the way to go because essentially it’s a tax. It’s not just a tax on the employee. It’s also a tax on the employer as well. And the CFIB, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, has said that 53 per cent of their members would have to lay people off if there was a mandatory increase in the CPP because it essentially is a payroll tax.

Tom Clark:

But let me throw another expert at you, Jack Mintz of the University of Calgary, somebody quoted very often by your party. He says, “It’s hard to run on a voluntary basis. It’s why CPP is mandatory”. That’s what Jack Mintz says.

Andrew Saxton:

Well we’ve committed to consult with Canadians to ask them how they want to save for their future. This is one of the options. This is one of the tools in the toolbox that we want to give them in addition to the tax free savings account, in addition to the pooled registered pension plan and we think it’s a good idea to give Canadians a choice on how they want to voluntarily plan for their future, unlike the Liberals and the new Trudeau tax, which would be a mandatory tax.

Tom Clark:

Well okay, we’re talking about your plan here. So, who are you going to consult with?

Andrew Saxton:

We’re going to consult with obviously employee organizations and employers because they’re the ones that are going to be involved in this. So we’re going to go around the country this summer and we’re going to consult with Canadian groups—

Tom Clark:

And who’s we?

Andrew Saxton:

Well it’s going to be my colleagues and myself. We’re going to have roundtables with Canadians and find out from Canadians how they want to plan for their future. We believe in a voluntary system so that they can choose how to plan for their future. Look how popular the Tax Free Savings Account is: 11 million accounts have been opened since 2009. It’s the most popular savings vehicle since RSPs were introduced 60 years ago. So it just shows that Canadians are interested in saving voluntarily for their future. They don’t want to be told what to do and they don’t want to be told that they have to save in a certain fashion.

Tom Clark:

Okay, but when you go out and talk to Canadians, are you going to give them the option of mandatory or you just going to say we’re not even going to talk about mandatory as Jim Flaherty said is the way to go.

Andrew Saxton:

We’re going to consult with Canadians and again, I go back Tom when you say Jim Flaherty said that was the way to go. I was with him. I know he was dead set against a mandatory increase in the CPP.

Tom Clark:
But why did he say this? You’re not denying that he said this?

Andrew Saxton:

Look, all I can say is, as his parliamentary secretary, I spent long days with him and he was dead set against a mandatory increase because essentially it’s a payroll tax. And a payroll tax kills jobs.

Tom Clark:

But you do get something at the other end, right? I mean you’re putting money into the CPP but you are getting money back out when you retire. It’s the whole point of it.

Andrew Saxton:

As an employee, that’s correct; as an employer, no. And the employer is a 50/50 partner in the CPP contribution and that’s where the jobs are at stake. If you’re taking money out of the employers pocket they have to get it from somewhere else. Sixty-nine per cent of employers said that they would have to freeze or cut salaries if a mandatory CPP took place. Fifty-three per cent say they’d actually have to lay people off if that were the case.

Tom Clark:

A lot more to discuss on this but I appreciate you dropping by today, Andrew Saxton, appreciate your time.

Andrew Saxton:

My pleasure Tom. Good to be here.

Tom Clark:

Coming up next, a rather musical Plane Talk with Liberal Finance Critic Scott Brison.

Break

Tom Clark:

Welcome back. Scott Brison, he’s had a very long career in federal politics: 18 years, both as a Progressive Conservative and then as a Liberal. He’s also got a reputation as being one of the wittier personalities on the Hill. What we didn’t know though was that he’s got a musical strain to him as well. Take a look at what happened when we went up for some Plane Talk.

Scott Brison, good to have you on Plane Talk.

Scott Brison:

Delighted to be here with you, Tom.

Tom Clark:

In Plane Talk, I ask a series of very personal questions and we get to know you a little bit. So the first question I have for you is under what circumstances do you lie?

Scott Brison:

Well, sometimes in like a restaurant when you’re being served something’s that’s not so good and you’re asked what do you think of it and it’s no use telling them that it’s not so good or that you’re not that impressed or that the food sucked. You may as well just sort of say it was lovely and pay your bill. You know you don’t complain. I mean you can’t in politics. You can’t, you know—

Tom Clark:

Do you not complain because you’re a politician and you’re afraid everybody’s going to say that Scott Brison is one miserable guy?

Scott Brison:

That’s exactly it. That’s exactly it.

Tom Clark:

Okay, so you’re not sparing the feelings of the chef, you’re protecting yourself.

Scott Brison:

Yeah, it’s totally self-interest for that. Total self-interest and when I’m out of politics someday, I tell you, I am going to blast these. I’m keeping a list of bad meals and I’m going to go back to those restaurants.

Tom Clark:

If you had a time machine, what period in history would you go back to or forward to?

Scott Brison:

I think going back; I think that the ‘20s and ‘30s would have been remarkable, if you go back to the roaring ‘20s and sort of that whole Gatsby-esque period and what a place like New York must have been like.

Tom Clark:

You were living as an openly gay MP, how tough was that for you in elected politics to come out and live that way?

Scott Brison:

I think for me, it was tougher staying in, in a sense. I mean I never hid it and I just didn’t talk about it. If anybody asked, I would tell them. I feel really lucky Tom because I’m part of a generation that has seen such advancement in social progress in Canada.

Tom Clark:

Do you think that being gay matters any more in Canadian politics?

Scott Brison:

I don’t know. I think it matters to some but it’s pretty impressive when you think that we have two premiers now. I think one of the things about politicians who are openly gay is I think there is a sense that there’s an honesty there that if you’re able to be as direct and honest about that, that that speaks a certain amount to your capacity to be honest and direct in other areas.

Tom Clark:

Who’s your biggest hero in real life?

Scott Brison:

Living hero today?

Tom Clark:

Yeah.

Scott Brison:

I’d have to say my partner, Maxime St. Pierre. He’s made me a better person in so many ways and he is the most honest person and the most direct person I know.

Tom Clark:

On the very off chance that sometime in the future, you end up being the minister of transport, you’re in charge of aviation. Do you want to fly the plane?

Scott Brison:

Right now?

Tom Clark:

Sort of you know, learning on the job, but yeah. But you’ve got to put your feet on the pedals.

Scott Brison:

Really. Really, so I can give it a little gas.

Tom Clark:

No. No, I didn’t say that. You can put—these pedals aren’t gas pedals.

Scott Brison:

Oh. Oh.

Tom Clark:

Okay, so you’re now flying the plane. As a matter of fact, here, I’ll show you a few little tricks here.

Scott Brison:

Holy cow, I feel like Dustin Hoffman on Rain Man. I’m a very good driver. Okay, this is cool. This is cool. Holy cow, I’m steering. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay, now why are we going up so high?

Tom Clark:
Well, I’ll show you something now. If you want to go up… No. No. Come with me. You go up like that.

Scott Brison:

Okay.

Tom Clark:

Then if you want to go down.

Scott Brison:

Tom Clark:

You see?

Scott Brison:

Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

Tom Clark:

So that’s how it works.

Scott Brison:

Tom Clark:

Politics doesn’t last forever, so when it is over for you, whenever that day arrives, what do you want to do next?

Scott Brison:

A bush pilot.

Tom Clark:

Yeah, well next on the list?

Scott Brison:

I’d probably go back to business. I might also go into country music singing. That’s another—

Tom Clark:

Thanks for the warning.

Scott Brison:

Tom Clark:

You’re doing this while I’m trying to land the plane?

Scott Brison:

You like Conway Twitty?

Tom Clark:
Well, sure. At this stage, I’m going to say yes to everything.

Scott Brison:

Impressive.

Tom Clark:

One piece. We are back in one piece.

Scott Brison:

That was great. That was terrific and no ice cold Camembert.

Tom Clark:

Scott Brison:

I’m always in awe of you. That was great, Tom. I enjoyed that immensely. Why don’t we just skip Question Period and go again?

Tom Clark:

I’m good for that.

Scott Brison:

Yeah. Great.

Tom Clark:

I’m good for that.

Well that is our show for this week. Thanks very much for joining us. I’m Tom Clark. We’ll see you back here next Sunday for another edition of The West Block.