News

Get the Flash Player to hear this audio.

• Download the podcast here (right-click, save target as)

The complete podcast transcript appears below

Hi this is Ed Greenspon, editor in chief of the Globe and Mail. Welcome to the Globe Roundtable, the place for the most wide-ranging political discussion of the issues of the day. Well today my two fellow travels from last week are back with us from their world voyages; Jodi White, president of the Public Policy Forum and former chief of staff to Joe Clark and Kim Campbell um along with John Manley, senior counsel of the law firm of McCarthy Tetrault and a former minister of industry, finance, foreign affairs and deputy prime minister and he's also back with us in Canada.

Ed: Welcome the two of you.

Thank you.

Ed: And Doug McArthur is unfortunately unable to join us today but will be back next week. I guess perhaps we'll start with the economy. We always seem to be on the economy although the economy and politics as is inevitable are merging and converging and I guess the big news around now is around the auto industry looking for $25-billion in the United States and something akin to about $3.5-billion in Canada to keep it as a sort of bridge to prosperity. It's on the right track; it's just got sidelined here and needs needs a little small helping hand for a period of time.

Greenspon: Now John does that seem like a reaonsable proposition to you?

John Manley: Well it is special circumstances. I know that it's it's fashionable to say well these people should have known long ago that they had to build smaller cars and they didn't see the market changing and they blew it and and there's truth in that, but I think there's also compelling evidence that the lack of sales right now is not just because the American auto makers have been making the wrong product.

Manley: There are serious credit issues, getting credit consumer credit into inot purchaser's hands and there uh you know there are pretty serious anxiety issues on the part of the public that people are just not buying big things, they're not buying cars, they're also not buying appliances and furniture and houses and a lot of other things.

And um you have to ask yourself whether this is a period of simply creative destruction where a few of these big companies go down, something new and more vigorous comes in its place or is this a case where we really got to try and put the fire out and keep the structure standing, because it will just be impossible to replace it afterwards.

Greenspon: And I take it you're in the latter camp.

Manley: Well I'm not sure that I have enough facts to really know. I would want to be extremely cautious with uh tax payers' money about how you you know if you go in how do you get it out. Are we betting you know the problem with government is not choosing winners or losers; the problem with government is we're never really good at getting rid of the losers.

And this has the smell of uh this was a long time coming and it's finally here, but also there's a lot of jobs at stake here and for um both the U.S. and Canadian economies to shut down one or two of these large automakers would have very very wide ranging affects that will spill over into other sectors and you just don't do that unless you're awfully sure that that's the outcome you're contented to see.

Greenspon: Jodi to you and I guess these are two separate questions. Does this make economic sense and does this make political sense?

Jodi White: Well it's um I don't know if I'll ever have an answer whether it makes economic sense and that is one of those things, so I'd go to the politics first. It's my understanding that there's 300 000 jobs in Canada that depend on the big three, that is including the people that work for the big three and then all of the other jobs coming out of that, and that's an awful lot of people and so I do think that the government's been in a bind and has probably got to do something as John describes, the credit issue in the United States and the huge impact that it's having.

White: But you know there is a lot of frustration with people because they feel that they've been building the right kind of cars and these guys these guys deserve this because some feeling that they haven't been um operating as they should have and I guess I think in some ways I think the companies would say that they've been trying to address a lot of these issues over the last years and I think we've seen that I mean there's both been some cutbacks and some restructuring going on and so they've had some success.

But these are extraordinary circumstances, so I would say the politics is saying the government's got to do something to stop the bleeding I suppose or prevent more. Um, whether it's good economics I'm not sure and I'm not sure if we'll know for a long time and it might not frankly be that the politics will overcome that, but I do think they've got to make sure if they're finding us a continental solution and that seems to be what is in the works is that our ministers from Ontario and Ottawa are heading down, (unclear) Detroit and Washington tomorrow and want to make sure that uh Canada will be very much a part of the solution and that we are sending signals that we want to be part of the solution and that we will do our part and they'll want to make sure that they are sending signals to not penalize Canada in any kind of um uh deal that they do in the United States.

Greenspon: Is that something to be worried about? I mean should be worried that the Untied States support of a bailout might insist on bringing some more production in the United States. As we all know there's been a disproportionate amount of production in Canada relative to population and market sizes. I think about 14 or 15 of the cars are made in Canada. Is that something to worry about?

White: Well I would think so. I mean just that figure if you're an American and you're looking at it and you're a politician and you're worrying about jobs and the whole structure of what's happening down there you know we all know that sort of protection of feelings is quite strong in Washington and and that would include in this industry I would think and to say bring some of this home it belongs to us.

So I think these visits are probably very important and the messages that are conveyed through both the embassy and the ministers will be very important. That would be my view on that.

Greenspon: So how do we play that one, John?

Manley: Well and I agree with Jodi that I would worry about it. I always worried about it. You know I was the industry minister for seven years and one thing I would say is that in the industry department I mean I learned the legends of the Chrysler bailout of the 1980s and there was a case where it wasn't quite the same broad-based crisis across the industry that we have today, um largely because it was it was more a product of an economic slowdown; it wasn't it wasn't there was high interest rates, but there wasn't necessarily a credit crisis.

Manley: But, the Chrysler loans both in the U.S. and Canada were fully repaid. At the end of the day um saving Chrysler in the '80s cost the taxpayers nothing and arguably paid the taxpayers very generously because of all the revenue that was that was received both from the companies over the years as well as from the the many employees and suppliers and so on that made their livings out of out of working for Chrysler.

So, was that a good deal? I'd say indisputably it was. But, you know one of the arguments that we had with respect to Chrysler one of the reasons Chrysler's actually production got as high as 20% in Canada with about 10% of its products being sold here um in particular the minivan was made in Canada which turned into its huge success story in the '80s one of the things that happened was that that Canadian government support and Canadian Chrysler dealers' support for their company was disproportionately large compared to what the U.S. and U.S. dealers provided.

And that and that you know I've raised that with Chrysler CEOs many times that Canada was there for Chrysler and we counted on that production being reflected in uh in our numbers.

Greenspon: Let me ask you another political question which is this; you know companies are obviously going to have to come to the table and they're going to have to convince people that they do have uh you know a good business plan for moving forward. Um, but the unions do they have to come to the table? I mean Canada you know we always had a healthcare advantage in in autos; that's since been gone because of the deal with the united autoworkers in the United States, and you're going to ask taxpayers I don't know making 25, 000, 30 000, $40, 000 to put up some risks, some of their tax money for these companies — are the unions going to have to take a haircut too?

White: Oh no well I was just going to say probably I don't know how you don't do it without them. They're a huge part of all of the talks. I take it they're not on the trip tomorrow, but uh they got to be part of the solution and I think in in in a broad sense in Canada in the last number of years uh the unions have played a pretty progressive role in terms of change and restructuring but I'm not sure if I'm the expert on that at all.

Manley: No, I think that's exactly right. We've seen it in other situations you know Stelco and others where uh the unions have come to the table and worked uh worked very responsibly with governments. So you know I mean before the taxpayer takes a haircut you expect that the the creditors as well as the other stakeholders including the unions are going to be at the table recognizing that you know if this is going to be saved everyone's got to play a reasonable part in it.

Greenspon: Okay well let's uh let's move onto um uh a more politically political subject I guess which is the Liberal leadership race which we seem to uh put our toe into every week. Last weekend we had this sort of on spectacle of a discussion among the leadership candidates behind closed doors with representatives of uh of the Liberal party party riding presidents and that sort of people, Michael (unclear) seemed very happy to do it behind closed doors. Bob Rae walked off and refused to participate in that in that particular process (unclear) that I'll all for this let the media in, let the media in.

John, let's start with you; what's that all about?

Manley: I think I think it was I think it was Bob saying I need to get uh Michael Ignatieff out there on the record on as many issues as I can as soon as I can because I think he's accident prone and that's where I'm going to get a chance to try and overtake him, I mean let's remember the last the last go round uh uh Michael Ignatieff who's proud of his knowledge and and experience in in international affairs managed to upset both the Jewish and the Arab communities.

That's the weakness that Bob Rae hopes to exploit but I think the question is was the way he dealt with this on the weekend was it you know was it just a kind of stunt? Was it it's it's not it's not very dignified. It sort of reminds me of things he did when he was the leader of the opposition leader in Ontario. And um I'm not sure that any party holds all of its meetings in public. So it could backfire on him.

Greenspon: How did it look to you, Jodi?

White: Well it got a picture on the front page of the Globe and Mail I believe so perhaps not such a bad stunt if that's what your aim is and I suspect that was what his aim is. I agree with what John said and I think he was looking to make some news that day and the media will cover definitely a story when somebody is trying to champion their rights.

Greenspon: Yeah, we like a story when we're involved.

White: Yes exactly so um and uh you know it it there was some feeling that he needed to do something with his campaign to sort of really um start off with a little bit of a jolt. I don't know if that's the jolt. The risk of course is that he gets some people within his own party angry because he sort of turned it on the party and and and it it seemed like there had been an agreement in in advance to do this and so that that's um the chance he takes basically in something like that.

Greenspon: Is there a point of principle here? Should um should essentially a leadership debate be going on behind closed doors admittedly though with a wide array of party members or party leaders there?

White: Well I mean the whole leadership campaign is not going to go on that way, so I actually believe parties should be allowed to have private meetings if they set aside so, but you also you know you live by the sword and die by the sword. If you decide to have private meetings and the media are annoyed um they will run with those stories. So there is a danger in it and in today's world where transparency is is the thing and everybody is out there and I don't think there was any ever any suggestion; I mean they're going to have debate etc., but I think he's trying to push for me debate as John says he sees an advantage to himself in that.

So but you know a political party should be allowed to have some private things. It would appear they don't for most of the time these days but I do think that they should be allowed to if they want to.

Manley: Yeah and also I think he runs of the risk of really annoying a lot of those riding presidents and others that were there for that meeting that were expecting to hear from him and and he you know like a lot of them are going to say you know what are we, chopped liver? I mean we all have votes at the convention and none of those reporters do.

So you know you got this is one group of voters and and shouldn't you talk to us and tell us what your plans are for the party? I think he took a huge risk and I think the way to handle it for him would have been to make uh you know make make it an issue, make the holding of the meeting in private an issue both publicly and privately but then take part.

Yeah, which is what Domenic did.

Greenspon: Alright. Well speaking of decorum yesterday we had the re-election of Peter Milliken as the Speaker of the House of Commons after a lot of fluffing around that he would be defeated and a lot of people challenging him for the job I wonder how much stock do you put in the concept of the that the lack of decorum that has been evident to everyone in the House of Commons is the Speaker's responsibility Jodi?

White: I think there was a lot of misreading of what the sensitivity of that role during the talk about changing the speaker. Um, uh I think perhaps some people were interested in the perks of the job etc., more than uh uh the role um it is a very delicate balancing act for the speaker and I think um the the house leaders have a lot to do with the decorum in the house in each party; the government and the opposition side have a lot to do with it.

So even if you go back to the Prime Minister's comments when he called the election saying it was a dysfunctional parliament. He didn't think he could really operate in it, uh I think there are some people who would think that perhaps he should look in the mirror a little bit for some of that, and I don't mean that personally but that over the years both the parties (unclear) and some of his own personal things have not helped either in parliament.

But I mean I I do recall I mean there was a a speaker who tried to rule with an iron hand and his name was John Bosley back in the '80s and he was summarily dismissed from the post in a very ugly and I mean they just trying to um be a schoolmaster in that house is not the way to get it to behave at all, and and the really superb speakers have used a real velvet glove one would have to say in terms of how they handle it and I guess ultimately they decided that Peter Milliken can do that.

White: So it is not he is not going to be able to change the tone of the house, but he with the house leaders working together probably could, and I guess to be fair the government has signaled a change. They have changed house leaders and I think they put someone in who is considered to be uh uh I don't know if the right term is more moderate, but is easier to get along with and uh is not what some would call a red meat kind of guy!

Greenspon: John, you spent a number of years in the house on both sides of uh of the aisle, fortunately for you on the government side more than on the opposition side — what um what can a good speaker do and you know what does a good speaker look like?

Manley: Well the speaker does contribute a great deal to the tone and uh um and a good speaker doesn't I wasn't there when John Bosley was the speaker but I remember it well and in fact he only lasted two years and his demise actually led to this process we have now of the House electing the speaker by secret ballot. And when he left John Fraser was the first speaker chosen that way.

And and Speaker Fraser was I think very good at um taking control of the house. When the speaker stands everybody else's microphones go off. So, right away the show time for the television cameras kind of ends. The cameras go on the speaker, the microphones go off. What you hear is background at best.

And Speaker Fraser was very good at uh standing and being very calm but but you knew when he was turning an evil eye on somebody and you didn't want that to happen, and so he could set the tone. But overall it's the house. The house sets its own tone.

Greenspon: And and not just in the chamber also in committees?

Manley: In the chamber, in committees, in interpersonal relations and the key people that that uh determine this on the government side it's the ministers; how they deal with the questions that they're given and the kinds of responses they give and uh on the opposition side really it's the whip and the and the uh the house leader that have a great deal of influence over tonality and these people have they have access to certain powers. If they want to discipline members who are uh too rambunctious in the house, um you know on the opposition side the house leader just simply has to say you're not getting any questions.

You're not getting on your feet. The whip doesn't have to let me them go on parliamentary delegations and doesn't have to give them the committees that they want. There are ways to discipline better behaviour if that's what you want.

Greenspon: This is the way Ron Wilson is coaching the Toronto Maple Leafs actually.

Manley: Well you know it is a little bit like uh like a team sport and I think there's been a tendency to think well we need a few enforcers uh in the house as well, the ones that can really take people on. But you know I never I saw I saw lots of this and there were people when we were in opposition let me give you an example; Doug Young would make ministers shake before they took questions. But he didn't do it by shouting and screaming and threatening to scratch their faces off, he just was very hard hitting and direct in the way he put his questions. Far more effective than some of the nonsense we see.

I think we've had we've been suffering for the last while of a lack of skills both on the other the opposition side in putting questions, on the government side in answering questions in a decorous fashion.

Greenspon: I think it's interesting and and and I wonder I must say I wonder Jodi if there's something just inherently chippy and mean spirited about minority parliaments in particular and how that would bump up against I think the fact that people now with the kinds of economic times we have are going to expect a lot more sobriety from and seriousness from the House of Commons.

White: Yeah I think the government knows that and sees that and is thinking about that. And I think for instance the uh the last parliament with the minority government and it was the first time the conservatives were in I mean they found that a lot of their answers were simply to blame the Liberals for everything and they used that as tactic and that may have been because they didn't know the answers etc.

But I do think you have to start operating like a government and they won't get away with as much as that at this time. It's now their own record for the last two and half years they got to answer for.

Greenspon: And and and do you think that will play out at all. We're already seeing a small an issue, it's a big issue around parliamentary budget officer and uh and uh his role and his independence what the government's trying to guide him. Do you think we're already seeing this (unclear) for the kind of I don't know battle over control of uh of the house?

White: Well there is a battle with the parliamentary budget officer. I don't know it's the battle more with the library of parliament because the legislation is very strange and he in fact is listed as an officer of the library of parliament. So he seems to have the library more angry with him than he has MPs and things. I mean he is there to try to help parliamentarians uh get through economic data and figure out what's being told to them and how to analyze it etc., and I think in fact that was a good idea and has the potential for doing a lot of help within parliament.

But just how far he pushes he role uh is is part of what is being debated at the moment and perhaps a little bit misunderstood I think. I mean there are some who fear this is an Americanization that we're trying to put on top of parliament that in fact won't work.

I'm not sure of that. I think in fact the research side for all parliamentarians and that his is role for all of them — to provide higher quality of research and help on the economic side and that could only be good in fact if it's ---

Greenspon: ... an assumption that the figures that come from the government and from the Department of Finance or somehow or another politicized?

White: Well yes I mean parliament's whole role the role for the opposition is to hold the government to account on the economics it's presenting. That is their role in parliament and yet in many ways you can say for the last 20 years um opposition of all stripes have not been doing that for one of the I mean they now sort of accept the estimates and deem them acceptable and some of it was they got stuff they couldn't figure what it was anyway in reading it. And so if a new parliamentary budget officer can help all of parliament, but obviously opposition a lot in doing its role that's got to be good for us.

But that again does suddenly I mean you could almost say so why would a government do that and bring that in because of course it was the Harper government that introduced this new position. So it's very early stages with this new position.

Greenspon: We'll see how it goes. We've all seen the Harper government at times can bring in measures that decides it doesn't like latter such as a fixed election date. So uh so perhaps they thought better of it I don't know and to John's point um you know it also speaks I guess for the need for parliamentarians to develop their skills set, particularly in times like this if they're going to do their job and hold government to account.

White: Yes, absolutely.

Greenspon: Now you two have done your job and held everyone to account as always. So I thank you both very much for joining us on the Globe Roundtable this week and I look forward to talking with you next week and uh and uh Doug's return to the fray.

White: Great, thanks.

Manley: That's Ed.