Nuanced. - 180. Vassy Kapelos: Could Trump Tariffs Cause a Recession in Canada?

Episode Date: December 16, 2024

Aaron Pete sits down with Vassy Kapelos, Chief Political Correspondent for CTV News, to tackle pressing topics like Canada's political polarization, the impact of Donald Trump’s tariffs, whether journalists should avoid bias, and the challenges of holding leaders like Justin Trudeau accountable.Send us a textThe "What's Going On?" PodcastThink casual, relatable discussions like you'd overhear in a barbershop....Listen on: Apple Podcasts   SpotifySupport the shownuancedmedia.ca

Welcome back to another episode of the Bigger Than Me podcast. Here is your host, Aaron P. There's a lot going on in Canadian and American politics right now. Finding trusted news sources is vital to staying informed. I'm speaking with the chief political correspondent for CTV News. We explore where we're at in Canadian politics, the impact of the recent U.S. election, the importance of questioning power, and navigating the polarization we face in our society.

My guest today is Vashi Capellos. Vasi, there are a few guests that I think need an introduction, but just briefly, would you mind introducing yourself to people who might not be acquainted with your work? Sure. Hi, Aaron. It's so good to see you again. I'm Vashti Capellos, and I work for CTV and their chief political course, CTV News. I'm their chief political correspondent, and I host a bunch of their TV shows and a national syndicated radio show as well. Contributing to an informed electorate, I always love being able to speak with you. My first question for you is, where are we in Canadian politics right now from your perspective? Oh, what a great question. I think we're on the ever-extending precipice of a federal election. I was actually saying this the other day to someone.

I can't believe in the past like two and a half months how little discussion I have been able to have on the show. about policy and how all of the policy debate has really been subsumed, pardon me, by an overarching narrative about whether or not the government will survive. And that has taken a very specific posture around the privilege debate in Parliament, which is very wonky, but essentially has taken over the possibility of legislation being introduced or debated. So that's how it specifically has manifested, but from a narrative perspective, it's even more manifested. Like, that's what's happening on the ground. But otherwise, like, every move, even when they do introduce stuff or when the opposition says stuff, it's all about, like, jockeying around an election

and around whether, the question of whether or not this government will survive. And I just, it has been so pronounced over the last three months that, like, that's the thing I would say about where we are right now. It's not where we were a year ago. it most certainly is on its way to an election. I don't know when. I just know it's before, before, you know, the fall or in the fall or before it of next year. And I don't know if you can escape that in the next number of months.

Do you think Canadians should be optimistic about that? Do you think we should be concerned that that is the state of affairs of this government right now? How do you think Canadians should digest that information? Another great question. I sort of see it a couple of different ways. I'm not sure, I'll preface my question and do what I wish politicians would say to me, I'm not sure I have the most, like, direct way of answering that question. I think sort of two things can be true at the same time. I think it's unavoidable. And I remember back to the last year of the Harper government and how much, in particular, as the months dwindled down to when that election would happen in 2015, that it became very similar. Like, everything was viewed within the context of an election. And so I do feel like there's a, a bit of inevitability about it, and that is the way our electoral cycle works to a certain degree, particularly at the end of a 10-year mandate, right, or a 9- or 10-year mandate. There is something

intrinsically kind of about that that becomes about an election. So I'm not too, like, you know, cry my soup over something like that. I'm not too upset. I don't think Canadians should be. However, I do think definitely the fact that, like, there's no legislation, that there's no debate going on around legislation, even if that legislation was being introduced with an eye towards a potential election. Like, that's not the end of the world, because ultimately it's with an eye to trying to gain support from Canadians that would ultimately lead you to win in an election. Either way, whatever party you're looking at. So I do feel like it's not great that they're not doing stuff that will address the issues that matter to people. But it's also not true, like

nothing is happening. You know, there's still a lot of stuff that has gone on that continues to go on. It's just this weird inertia that if it persisted, let's say, for another eight months, like, that's not good. I don't think Canadians should love that. But if it persists for a bit longer, I do think it's a normal course of the cycle. Is it better or worse that we now have a definitive decision for the United States election? So now, is it better that we get to hear kind of the political parties when an election does come, talk about how they would approach the issues and then perhaps get their own mandate voted in to work with the United States in way A, B, or C?

Or would it have been better if we had somebody at the helm now who already had a mandate in that position able to kind of take the lead on this? Yeah, I think I got to get where you're going at in that so far as, and we certainly heard this, I think from the conservatives in so far as like, obviously given public opinion, I think the last time we spoke, like, things were just starting to go downhill for the liberals in a big way, and they have stayed there, right? And even amplified over the last number of months. So there's this contention that the prime minister is essentially in a politically weakened state. Like, is he the best person to navigate this new threat from, in particular, around the blanket tariffs from the incoming

president? I understand that discussion. I also think, though, like if you look at it on the face of it, like, he does have a mandate right now. Like, he was elected free and fair in the last election. Yes, public opinion polls show that a majority of Canadians are not happy, but the direction of the country, they're not happy with him. But ultimately, the only formal expression of that sentiment is a vote. And the last vote that happened put this prime minister into that position. So I think until there is another election, and I do understand the push for one, sure, but he officially does have the mandate to kind of negotiate on our behalf and defend Canadian interests. Now, you may not agree with the way he's doing that, or you may not align with what he defines as. in the best interest of Canadians.

But in my view, like, there's a formality to the fact that there was a vote and there will be a vote. As for what happens when that vote does occur and the degree to which what's happening in the U.S. might impact people's choices or ultimately what the next government faces, I think it's huge. It feels like a complete channel changer. And not in the way of distracting in just that, like, everything feels different. And I think primarily because you can't overstate the potential impact of what a 25% tariff would do to our economy. I interviewed the premier in your province as you have Premier EBE, premiers across the country, Premier Ford, Premier Smith. There isn't a Premier who does not say if those tariffs are applied that their provincial economies would enter almost immediately into a recession.

Like that is an enormous deal. That is a huge weight that faces any politician at any level in this country, either now or coming into Pennsylvania. power, I don't know how it doesn't become a massive election issue, right? Like, I don't know how it doesn't, at least in part, inform the way in which Canadians vote. Like, you're going to be looking at, okay, who can navigate this? Who can handle this? And who's going to get the best outcome for Canadians? So I do feel like it's had a, I'm sorry, it's had a big impact. And I do feel like it will continue to. The way I was going with the question is because everything I've understood and I try and

consume as much politics and understand the issues to the best of my ability, but it was that Justin Trudeau and the liberal government actually did a really good job at negotiating the first time Trump was in power in regards to renegotiating NAFTA. That actually went well by, I think, most people's accounts of how things happened. And so I do think if there is an election now held in the future, that actually would benefit because then you can run on, we've done this before, hopefully we can do it again in a good way and deliver for Canadians. The challenge for the opposition leader is that they don't have that previous experience. They don't have a track record to run on.

And so there's this similar isolationism you've heard from the conservatives of like, we'll just focus on making Canada stronger and better and improving our economy. And so I don't know how that would go, but I find it more interesting as a voter to have them both kind of pitch their solutions, rather than if we had have had an election, say, in the fall of this year and had that resolved, then we would be going in and not knowing if this person actually does have a good plan. So I feel like the consequence for Canada is that we're in a better position if we have the election in the next 10 months. Yeah, maybe. It's a good point. It's so interesting that you say, because I do think that the liberals are going to make that argument,

and they have, right, over the past few weeks. Like, we have survived this once. We can survive it again. And you make a fair point. Like, I think objectively speaking, the fact that NAFTA still exists is the primary metric by which we can judge the success of their initial navigation of Donald Trump's first presidency. And no recession, maybe. Yeah, at the time. It's just the conditions are a bit different now, right?

Both externally and internally. And externally, I mean, the threat is not, I'm going to rip up NAFTA. We need to renegotiate it. That's still two years away. Believe me, the threat's on the table, but it's just two years out. Now the threat just feels so much more imminent, right? It's the possibility that, you know, if the quote-unquote border isn't fixed or whatever he is highlighting in his threat to apply those tariffs doesn't appease him that he will sort of as arbitrarily as it feels apply this 25% tariff across the board. And he says he's going to do it January 20th on day one through an executive order. So, like, the time, we don't even have years to sort of escape the dramatic impact that this would have.

We have just a month and a half. So I don't know if the argument will work in the same way. You know, I think, like, we can all hope as Canadians that whomever is leading the charge can advocate for us and make sure that our economy escapes in a recession. But I think you make a good point. Like, either way, it's going to be, it's going to be a part of, of, I don't, he's going to be there, for four years. So it's going to impart a real piece of analysis for everyone deciding how to vote. You covered the election very well for Canadians for us to understand what was going on. Did this outcome surprise you? Was it unexpected? You obviously visited the U.S.

to understand and get kind of that real world view of what was going on. Did this outcome surprise you? I definitely wouldn't say it surprised me. I feel like. I feel like. Like, I covered the first Trump win, and I remember being in New York City for that, and the degree to which, like, what I was conveying to, like, our audiences was met with surprise at the time. And that experience really, like, stuck with me, if that makes sense, in that I didn't ever want to be part of sort of, like, the machine that thought this could never happen or whatever.

And I thought I was very lucky that my employer this summer really allowed me to go meet people who do support both candidates at both the RNC and the DNC and get a sense myself of like what was driving their support and the level of support that they did hold for each of the candidates and sort of what their sentiment around an election was. And I remember like the interesting thing is that election changed so much over the summer in so far as like he was nearly killed, right? He got that assassination attempt. Then the RNC was just a few days later. I was, and I conveyed this on TV at the time, like, beyond struck by the degree to which people who are at the RNC were so incredibly faithful to him as a person, like, forget about his politics,

forget about right, left, Republican Democrat. Like, they were there for Trump. They were so motivated. And you had to think at the time how much of this is like something that's always there and how much of it was informed by the assassination attempt, the arm in the air, the whole picture of it all, right? but I did leave that and even when you talk to people it was in Milwaukee every cab driver I had everybody at the hotel

was telling me Trump's gonna win this thing this was when Biden was still in the race right and so I left and I said even on TV like I feel like it would take a miracle for Trump not to win at this point it felt very much

like it was because of how motivated his supporters were like it felt inevitable but then a few days later I'm in Chicago and anchoring the show from a show from the hotel

because Joe Biden quit. And I think, like, what happened with that was it was such a seismic moment in politics and in that race and in American political history that it was impossible not to feel like the ground had shifted, right? Just because of how big of a deal it was. And so then you go to the DNC not too long after that. And there's certainly momentum there. But as I said at that time, too, like, the momentum was there in a big way. There was enthusiasm that was sorely lacking for Joe Biden, certainly. But you didn't feel as though there was the same level of devotion to the quote unquote cause as there was at the RNC. So ultimately when, you know, in the months that followed,

the polls bore out that it was very tight. It made sense. It didn't seem crazy to me. And I think this, you know, this conclusion many people have reached that the polls were totally wrong. I'm sort of a bit of a contrarian on. Like the polls were all within the margin of error. The margin of error was decided, it just all went one way. Ultimately, he won things by one and a half to two percent, which is within a margin of air. It's just everywhere that happened. So the win was decisive and wide in scope, but ultimately, it wasn't like all of a sudden she lost by 20 percent or he won by 25 percent. And so I wasn't shocked. I guess the only thing that was like quite like, oh, was the decisive nature of it, right? And the degree to which particularly a lot of places

where they were going to make lots of gains or gain lots of ground as Democrats like never came to fruition and the gains that he made in traditionally democratic places like I remember that night, New Jersey and Virginia taken way longer than we thought they would

to be called for the Democrats. Like that was very like I'm not sure I would have expected that. Okay. I really want to linger on what you said about being a part of that machinery and having a feeling that your audience or you were like couldn't believe

the outcome from 2016 because that really does fascinating. me. I spoke to Steve Paken and we had a really interesting discussion. The part where him and I feel like differed pretty significantly and I laid out three different arguments for how I come to this conclusion. I feel personally that you and the show you host is the most unbiased, most open-ended political show when I look at CBC or global news as kind of their anchor shows. Like when I watch yours, I feel like it is unbiased and willing to. to go any direction the conversation needs to go to inform Canadians. Like that's your panelists, the people you interview, the voices you hear from. I get that energy and Steve Paking kind of pointed it back at me. Maybe it's my bias that I'm kind of seeing that through my own tea leaves. But then the interview we did, that's the comments, hundreds and hundreds of comments

from people saying you are one of the last strong journalists in the corporate news that is supporting these voices and making sure this is hurt. So like I don't feel like that's his opinion that I might have a bit of bias. I don't think that bears out when I look at the voices and when I laid out my argument as to who I hear from and how they frame the discussions and other shows. That's just my personal perspective. But when you talk about this machinery, the only thing when you talk about the Joe Biden stuff that makes me think of is like the Joe Scarborough, Sharp as Attack, the best I've ever seen him, like a week and a half before the guy resigns. Like, that builds mistrust between the audience and the person. And then he comes out, like, I think it was a week after that and was like, yeah, I think he needs to resign.

This is the best path. Like, that change, I think, is so jarring for people. How do you, how do you approach that? How do you, how do you digest that when you see it happen? How do you manage that within your own world? Because, as I said, I think you're very good at not letting your audience become surprised by events. Well, that's very kind of. I appreciate those comments very much.

I would say a few things. I think I can be culpable of it too. Like I think when you raise the example of Joe Biden for specifically, like there were moments when I think back of watching his press conferences, watching certain things where, you know, you would be like, huh, this seeds off, right? But then I remember I would try to like, you know, I'm not there. So then I try to consume what I can. from mainstream and other sources about, like, what's really going on.

And, you know, while the mainstream sources can be viewed as dismissive of that, and I think that's fair to say, the, like, non-mainstream sources were so, like, next level about it, and it was all memes, and I couldn't really discern in a great way, like, what was authentic or not, that I felt like I'm confused, to be honest, until the debate. And I remember the night of the debate, we did a special, and it was like the second it ended. I think Scott Reed was one of my panelists. I remember him being like, it's done, it's over. And people were at that point free and fair to be like, you know, there's no way you can ignore what you just saw.

But the fact that it was as stark and as sort of pronounced as it was that night made me think a little bit about my own shortcomings and reflect on like how did. I contribute to a world in which this was the shock that it was. I feel like it's a little bit harder only because it is the U.S. So like if this had happened in Canada, it would be all on me. And I would be like literally like, where did I go astray? But even it was a good opportunity. I mean, the thing is, like, we're just people doing this job, right? And we grew up and we had opinions around us

and we had opinions when we were younger and they've evolved. And, like, you really try as hard as you can to filter all that out. But at the end of the day, like, we're not going to be perfect. And I think it helps a lot if we admit that and talk about moments where we are sort of looking back over our own coverage and thinking, like, did I hit the right note? Did I miss something? And I felt like that in 2016 because when I went to New York and I talked to Trump supporters there is actually my now husband was my cameraman.

And we were, like, talking to people on the ground there. And I remember two days before the election were, like, nobody here thinks they're going to lose. Nobody thought it. And that was the first indication we had, like, maybe this isn't what the consensus view is. Like, maybe there is some sort of surprise in store. And I remember thinking, like, why am I so surprised at this point to have that conveyed to me? And it was, like, a real life lesson to me. It's why I really wanted to go to the RNC.

And I just feel like there's no substitute for talking to people and getting the information firsthand. Because as I pointed, like, when I tried to figure out the Biden thing and, like, where I may have gone wrong, it's very difficult to get straight up stuff, right? And I know people are disappointed with mainstream media, and I'm not saying they're free of any of that culpability. but a lot of the sources that aren't verified, that aren't sort of that don't have some sort of code of ethics or anything, like some of it is very hard to get through too. Like I don't know what to trust there. And so I lean away from it in sort of informing exactly what I present to the world. And so all of that is like, I don't know, part of like getting better at what I do. And like I said, like I'm not going to be, sometimes I'm going to fall down. Like I don't know how to avoid that except for keep trying not to. The big takeaway, and maybe this is like a silly question, but like how do you hold on to that willingness to like almost recalibrate during these moments when, I don't know, what I hear when I consume kind of like the idea of where media is at, it's often like everybody's talking to the same people so they kind of get stuck in their own echo chambers and then these things surprise them. How do you keep that humility to want to recalibrate? Like where? where does that come from for you? It comes from, like, completely inside. Like, I have to say that, you know, to the credit of all the networks I've worked at, there has never been anyone who has said to me, like, do this, do that, tell it this way, tell it that way. So I have

complete free will. So if I'm falling short on something, it's on me. And this has been a real sort of evolution in my career where it's like, you know, you start out in any job and it's easy to blame other people, right? It's like, well, I didn't have the resources to do that. They didn't have someone over there. They didn't, you know, whatever it is. But ultimately, like, you're the master of your own destiny. I really believe I'm lucky enough to be able to say that because not everyone is afforded that kind of opportunity. And it's really true where I've worked. Like, I feel like, I feel sad that the impression is so different. And I understand why it sometimes is. But, like, truly, nobody has ever told me, you know, you should

have gone harder on Trump. You should have gone easier on, but like, like, nothing like that. So if I fell short, it's on me. And I mean, I think I said this to you last. I'm like, this isn't just a job to me. This is the career I want to have for as long as this exists. I'm very proud to do what I do. And I take it very seriously. And I just don't believe me pretending that I'm never going to make a mistake is going to help anybody, right? And so I have a lot of humility what I come to because I feel like I have no I mean there's no other way that I that I should be and so I I yeah I don't really hesitate I guess to to go to that place because I'm allowed to I have total free will to that's my job and I feel like if I want to be a leader in this industry

I've got to do things like that my next question is what is your job if you were to define it by your own definition. What is your job? To inform Canadians about what's happening in the halls of power that ultimately has an impact on their lives and to hold the people who occupy those halls accountable. You talk about accountability. Can you share a moment in an interview or something where you felt like you really were able to hold power accountable. Oh, you just froze. Sorry, one second again.

Sorry, I don't know what just happened, but you totally, give me one second. Okay, now you're back. Now you're back. Perfect. Pardon me, pick. Your internet connection is unstable. This is weird. It's never happened.

I'm so sorry. No worries. Oh, I'm fine. Okay. You're coming in clear, too. It's not coming in like low-rater. Okay. It's not like we're a telecommunications company.

It's fine. Pardon me. You talk about accountability. I'm wondering if there's a moment where you held a power accountable that stood out to you as a meaningful moment. What do you mean by meaningful? Like something that I remember or that was like it sort of contentious in some way or like like if I had to if I had to form a guess, I imagine when people when politicians come on your show, they they know what they're in for someone. what? They know that they're going to be asked tough questions. And so I imagine that after that interview, decisions are made on what the reception of that is going to be and what decisions need to be made. And I imagine that an interview with you can influence the political discussion broadly. I'm just curious as to how the impact holding power accountable can have when you're able to do it

effectively. It's a good question. I'm not sure that necessarily I go and think. about like sort of inject like what will this change what will this do I I sort of have a bit more of a myopic view in that I I'm thinking about okay what is it that I really think that they haven't been transparent about or they haven't offered enough detail on or like their answers so far have been very wanting if that makes sense and so there are like some moments recently where, you know, for example, I interviewed right after Trump, the Foreign Affairs Minister, and I was asking her about defense spending because I had interviewed Kelly Kraft, who was Trump's

ambassador, still close to the Trump world, and she had really harked on the 2% and how we need to speed things up. And so I turned and put the question to Minister Jolie, like, are you willing to? And she didn't, you know, she said stuff, but didn't answer. I asked again. She said stuff. She didn't answer. And anyway, at the end of that, she, like, kind of went, well, I know it's your strategy to ask a question four times. I thought that was a pretty telling moment. And that sort of struck me because I actually think that is, it's not a strategy. It's just if I don't get an answer, I'm not just going to move on.

And so that was a moment. And then I also interviewed Premier Danielle Smith recently and about a lot of the legislation she had introduced around gender affirming care. And I had asked her a pretty pointed series of questions about what evidence she had to support that policy making. And again, similar thing, it was like, you know, okay, well, do you have this evidence? No, I don't. Then why are you willing to sort of constrain rights and, you know, et cetera, et cetera, back and forth? That was a huge moment when she said, like, hundreds, even thousands. And then you were like, well, there's a difference.

Yeah. And a lot of her supporters were really mad at that interview and like really sort of came at me saying that I was, what was the word? I got a lot of emails sort of saying like I was supportive of experimenting on kids and stuff like that. So that had an impact in a way not necessarily like, you know what I mean?

I don't care. Like I'm very like confident in the questions that I asked but I sometimes like you just don't know. You know what I mean? How something is going to be interpreted. And so those are two things that kind of stick out to me more recently. Interesting.

Along those same veins in preparing for an interview is it a challenge, is the format at all ever a challenge from your perspective because there's not enough space or time to maybe humanize the person. That's something that was very rewarding in my interview with Patty Heidu is like we had some time to kind of just humanize, get to know the person then get into some tough questions. Do you reflect on that at all as a challenge or do you enjoy the format? I think you do such a good job. I think I think watching your interviews has like,

I have envy, right, in that you do have the time, but you handle it so well. You do a great mix of like getting to know somebody, which I do think is certainly like great for people who are watching and then also great for the person who's being interviewed. And then you also ask my substantive tougher questions, which I think is excellent. Like, it's such a great platform. It's just not the one that I've been bestowed. If it's not very sense. And I'm pretty aware of that. And like, honestly, maybe if I had a different type of job or a different opportunity, I, too, would enjoy that. I just don't. Like, I have 10 to 12 minutes. And so I can't do any of the humanizing stuff. I mean, I can just be, you know, I think, look, I'm hammering hard in those 10 minutes,

but I'm trying to do it in a respectful way, always. And that's important to me as well. I'm not there to bludgeon anybody. I'm there to actually get some answers. And so I tried to, like, navigate that as best I can, but sure, it would be nice if it's just not the job right now. Agreed. I totally understand. I was just curious about that. The other one that I wanted to ask about, and I actually asked my producer this beforehand, just to try and see maybe I'm crazy, but do you at all feel like liberals or left, people on the left side of the spectrum, maybe get a bit more deference because it's often coming from a place of kindness or understanding in a way that I don't think maybe conservatives get that level of deference. Like the one area

that stands out to me as an example is when Pierre Polyev talked about safe supply. And he was like, why are you calling the safe supply? It's not safe supply. It's drugs. Like, it's not, like, I don't know what you think it is, but it's drugs. And I just, like, in that moment, I just thought, like we do shape the conversation around words and words when you say safe supply like who wouldn't be against something that's safe like it's it almost is baked into the wording that we use that like you almost start from a better position if you were arguing safe supply then criminalizing like the positions are automatically starting them at a different place i i would say and i was just reflecting on does that impact the political conversation

at all? And I would just be curious on your reflections on that. Do we give more difference? Such an interesting question. I'm not sure if I know the answer. Because I think in the same token, you know, if conservatives let's say are using the

words hard drugs to describe it, like neither is like perfectly honest, if that makes sense, right? Like, they're hoping their terminology connotes a certain sentiment and liberals are more progressives are hoping that the term, as you put it, safe supply connotes a different sentiment as well. I think the in the aggregate, I don't know.

I think it's worth thinking about if if there's sort of more deference to certain terms because like those are more associated with the progressive side of things, maybe. But I also think like in that debate, for example, it may have backfired in some circles, right? And I think there is even a cognizance of that among liberals because they were kind of more gonghing a few years ago about the idea of, for example, decriminalization, and they, as soon as that became a hot debate, and I think words were employed on both sides to try and again connote a certain sentiment, they, like, backed right off the possibility of it happening in Toronto, right? So, yeah, I'm not, I'm not sure if it's necessary, like, maybe there's, I don't think, I don't, I'm

thinking my own experience, like, I'm not sure I provide more deference one way or the other, but, but, but, and I don't think that reporter came at it thinking, like, I'm going to call it safe supply to make Pierre Poliav look bad, if that makes sense. That's what I mean is, like, it's almost unintentional when you say something like, like, are you against safe supply? It's starting the conversation from like, are you against things that are safe? Like, yeah, it starts it from a different person. If you say, like, are you pro, like, because like, because you're, you know, you, are you pro hard drugs? Right. Like, that's the same, it's sort of the same level of dishonesty in

that it's yes they are but there is like a control over the supply in a way but then on the other side like is that control just a fallacy and is it still keeping that in the system like i see i definitely see where both are coming from it's one of the one of the more divisive subjects for sure agreed and i just i think about how to phrase things when i'm speaking with like minister patty had i do and like how to phrase it in a way that doesn't demonstrate like my my bias or like I so like and Tim just got mad at me before this I didn't vote in the provincial election because I got to interview all of the leaders because I don't I don't want to know my bias and like I don't vote either I don't do you okay okay can you elaborate on yeah I don't I don't either for the same reason I just want to clean conscience I mean I it's it's hard to come to grips with that because I believe so much in in voting the ability to vote and what everyone went through so that we can be afforded that opportunity But I really truly, and maybe you can relate to this based on what you said, like, I want to come at every piece of, you know, every politician I interview, every piece of tape that I do. Like, I just want to be free of any confirmation of my bias.

Like, I just don't want to have that hanging over my head. And I feel, in my experience, since I have, you know, embrace that, like, I feel less encumbered. Like it is, it is being a good practice for me, though please don't take that as me telling anybody not to vote. No, I completely agree. It was what I felt called to because I didn't want to put a name. I didn't feel like the benefit of casting a ballot and like learning that for myself, discovering what my position might be. Like I do feel like that's definitive until the next election and I didn't want to carry that forward where I either felt like I owed a debt to the other side, that I was on a T, like, I didn't want any of that in my mind as we moved forward. And I don't- You feel like you knew at the end of it who you would vote for?

No. No. Isn't that interesting? See, this is also something people don't think of when they think of political journalists. They think we're all like, we got a stake in everything. My experience has been the longer I do this, the less I could ever picture being attached to one ideology. I think that's the challenge so many people face, right? because you say you choose Justin Trudeau in 2015 and the world's going to be X place.

Then we're here today and then, well, did I make a mistake in 2015? Like, that doesn't really make sense because you were voting your best conscience with the information you had at the time to say that you made an error. I don't think would be correct. But you see the kind of political ebbs and flows of the time and what's like agreeable today might not be agreeable tomorrow. But I think also in the case of, like, people like you and I, I imagine when you interviewed all the leaders, like, you really spent a long time researching where the holes were in each of their arguments, right? And what they hadn't really answered and stuff like that. And so when that becomes all you do, it becomes very, like, I can be like, well, the liberals are short on this, but the Tories are short on this. Like I, so to me, that's like the way it is in my head all the time.

So it becomes, like, very hard to identify in a way that I might have 30 years ago. The other piece I wanted to ask about, and I reflected on it a bit with a UFC fighter who's actually out in Quebec, Amon's a hobby, we were talking about politics and one area that I just felt like I needed that reminder and I'd just be interested in your take was like he was like, I disagree with where Justin Trudeau has taken us, but I think he has the best of intentions. And I just wish somebody would sit down with him and kind of say like, hey, when you came in, you had a, B, and C goal. those goals have unfortunately not been reached so we may want to you may need to pivot now you may need to come back to the canadian people and say hey i've gotten some things wrong i'd like to address a b and c and the challenge that i put back to him was like we don't really live in a culture where taking ownership in politics is very easy or um responded to well usually it's a confession and you're held accountable for your failure and i think we see a little bit that with the immigration that they had made to step back on that the tories then celebrate and say hey say see we've been

calling this out for years we know what the truth was the whole time and they're finally confessing to it and so is it are you able to humanize the people behind a lot of these decision-making elements like what is that process for you because i think we've become so polarized on some of these issues it's it's hard to remember like i needed to be reminded that justin trudeau is a leader like I'm a leader within my First Nation community. I'm a counselor. I'm sure there's probably 20% of people who don't agree with what I'm doing, whatever direction I'm taking the community.

And so obviously it's larger for him. But like nobody gets into it to ruin the country. Like everybody goes in perhaps with the best of intent. And I think I might have even said this with you last time. Like I'm not a cynic. Like it's weird. But I actually, I have a lot of respect for everybody who gets into this.

It's not easy. And I don't think that, you know, There are some people who are maybe power hungry, but most of them are getting into it because they hope they can have some kind of impact on the future of the country. And I actually come at it with that as a backdrop to how I approach everything. It's why, I mean, alongside, like, it's just who I am. Like, I'm not going to be a jerk to any of them. But I don't think that absolves them from, like, questioning on the policies that they're pursuing, right? That's why I'm not like, are you a bad person?

I'm just asking them, like, is this the right policy to have pursuing? pursued when you did. And on the question of humility, I think, and like, you know, pivoting and sort of acknowledging that maybe you had erred or that the policy you pursued wasn't the right one, I'm sort of a bit, again, there like a bit of a contrarian in that I think it depends on the messenger. And I think it depends on whether Canadians believe that the, the acknowledgement of wrongdoing is authentic and that that person really is coming at things with humility or humble. And I think there are some examples, I think back to COVID, where some premiers were able to do that very successfully and are still in their jobs. And there are other

premiers who could not. And I think the biggest part of that was they were almost like forced into the change, the policy change, because of a lack of popularity. And they never really, like they never really felt, it never felt like they were comfortable saying I made a mistake. And you can tell. I think Canadians are so smart. They can tell in their gut if someone is being real about that. And I actually think they have a huge appetite and a huge ability to forgive and move on if they feel like the apology or the acknowledgement of wrongdoing is authentic. If they don't, it's useless.

You give me so much hope in the world. Okay. So right now, who would your like goal politically? interview B. I've heard you talk about how you've invited both Pierre Pollyev and Justin Trudeau on. If you could, this afternoon, who would it be? Still hoping. Both of them. Yeah, that's who I'm. They're still saying no to me, Aaron. Yeah. Yeah, them. And then I got to say, like, given the degree to which he has taken aim at Canada already, I would like to interview the incoming president. I mean, how could I not? I mean, I know that those interviews are very complicated

because of the way in which he sort of governs himself during them. But I do think, look, this person is about to do something that could ruin our economy. Like, I would like to know more about why. And, you know, I think there's a ton of obvious accountability that would present itself, too. Fascinating. How do you keep your own bias in check? How do you stay mindful of those things during an interview? During an interview?

I guess, like, it's in the preparation for one. That's part of it. I try to consume like everything I can about the subject that I'm that I'm interviewing the person on. And that may be from a variety of sources, both like primary and analysis. And I don't limit myself when it comes to analysis. I try to read things that, you know, might not be instinctual. And the less instinctual they are, the more I try to read them, if that makes sense. So I think it's more in the preparation phase of things that I really tried to check the bias.

In the interview, I just treat every single one in the same way, like in the moment, right, where I'm like, well, how much is this person answering the question? It doesn't matter what their political party is. I'm like, if they're answering me, then I'm going to keep going. If they're not answering me or their answers fall short and they're not directly addressing the substance of the question that I'm going to keep asking just as I would with anybody. So I find like it's less of a worry for me in the interview. It's just in the preparation for it where I'm like figuring out what angle I want to take or what I'm hoping to get out of it. what the line of questioning is going to be, I'm trying to, like, get as many different viewpoints in that, in that process as possible. Okay, two more quick questions. Politics can be deeply polarizing, and I think it is right now. How do you approach covering political figures who might be loved by one group and criticized by another in today's divided climate? I hope this doesn't sound vacuous, but, like, I really hope to just not think about the way

they're being perceived. Like, because I think even myself, like, I'm perceived very differently at different times. And if I let what on Tuesday one group is saying about me informed the way I govern myself on Wednesday that I'm not really true to myself, right? So I just sort of take every interview I do, in particular, obviously with politicians at its own, like based on its own merits. And, you know, I don't think, for example, if I interviewed Justin Trudeau today, it would have been different than in 2016. Like, I don't care. that he was more popular then or now. Like, it's, I'm going to approach it the exact same way.

Stepping back from politics for a moment, your daily radio show lets you explore non-political topics. What have been some of the most rewarding conversations you've been able to have there? Oh, what a great question. So I'm still loving it, beyond, actually. And we've instituted like some more regular segments, including one that has quickly become my favorite. It's called The Explainer. I do it every Wednesday.

And it's basically a 10-minute segment in which, I solicit the questions from people listening over the week. What is something you hear talked about, but you don't understand? And it sort of arise from this idea that, like, I like listening to podcasts like that sometimes where I'm like, oh, I don't really understand. Like, for example, I consumed a ton of them about the conflict in the Middle East, right? Like, even serious stuff because explanatory stuff can be really helpful in research, right? Obviously.

So I really like that. I was like, wow, I feel like there's, anyway, their questions have been. So cool. Like the things that I have learned about ADHD and adults and kids about why La Nina is and what El Nino and La Nino means. Like this all over the map kinds of questions. And my producer, full credit to him, Noah Walker's his name. He finds like the best people. Like people are so enthusiastically able to do these segments. Like they love the idea of just 10 minutes of like, here's, you know what the question is. And we're just going to have a conversation that helps people understand this concept. whatever it happened. I mean, we've had things from health to, how does a roller coaster work? Why is there a turbulence? Can it kill you? Like, just you name it, right? Nothing's off limits. And he finds the best people. Like, there are so many smart people in this world that I'm just, every day when we do that, that segment, I'm like, I walk away and I'm like, wow, I am like 2% smarter today because of this interview. And I, and I was, when I have admitted that I didn't really

understand turbulence, like, I don't know, but it was great. It ends up being really helpful. So that's, That's been a real highlight over the past few months. Okay. To close it out, one of my favorite comments from you throughout this conversation was the respect that you have for Canadians. So often, Canadians are coming to you with information, probably submitting questions via email, reaching out on social media, however they do it. What would you like to say to your audience if you were able to respond to them today?

Oh, you're so nice to ask that question. I thank them from the bottom of my heart for consuming the things that I'm lucky enough to participate in and to be able to do. I actually, like, we talked last time I think about the social media stuff and how people can be so crazy. Like, the majority of people who contact me or who, you know, converse with me on social media, like on Instagram in particular, or who talk to me in the street or at a party or anything are the nicest, most like eagerly informed people.

And I know what life is like, how busy it gets. And I am so, so beyond grateful that people take time, including you, out of your day, to watch the stuff that I pour. And not just me, a whole team of people, we pour our hearts into it. We don't always get it right, like I said, but we truly, truly try so hard every day. And to have people consume that is honestly like the greatest honor of my life. How can people follow along with your work? Well, if they have TV still, the four people who do, you can watch it on TV, 5 o'clock Eastern, 2 o'clock Pacific. You can catch it live on CTV news channel, Monday to Thursday, and question periods on our main channel, 11 o'clock Eastern on Sundays.

And I think it plays a similar time, actually, at West as well. And all of it's on YouTube. That's the other thing. Like all my interviews, we put all of the panels and the interviews up on YouTube. And very shortly after they air, so you consume stuff there. And then the radio show, if you have an IHeart talk radio station in your city, which I think most of us, most of them, most of them do. You can catch my show at 12 o'clock from 12 to 2 wherever you live. So it's 12 to 2 in Vancouver.

It's 12 to 2 in Toronto, whatever. Yeah. So you can follow along there. Or it's all on a podcast too, IHeart Radio. You go to the IHeart podcast app. Thank you. Amazing. Thank you so much, Vashti, for sharing your time.

This was so enlightening. It's always an honor to speak with you. As I said, you set the blueprint, and I'm doing my best to learn from it. I've taken a lot away from this conversation. I'm sure others have. Thank you for the work you do to make sure we're informed and understand the issues facing Canadians. My pleasure. Thank you for hosting me.

And congratulations, as I conveyed you on social media on all your massive success. Like, you're interviewing every heavy hitter. I'm super impressed, super proud, and I appreciate you making the time to talk to me today. Thank you so much. Thank you so much for watching. If you enjoyed this, please consider liking, commenting, and subscribing and telling a friend about it. One of our goals right now is to reach 10,000 subscribers, so please consider hitting that subscribe button.