On Balance - Vol 9, Num 6

LIBERAL PROMISES AND A CONSERVATIVE BUDGET

GST PROMISES

AT THE TIME OF WRITING, SHEILA COPPS, FORMER Deputy Prime Minister, is campaigning in a byelection. Her decision to resign her Hamilton seat has been roundly criticized for coming too late after her many promises and pledges to quit if the Liberals failed to replace the GST. Amid the confusion and controversy, Copps argued that her promise was an off-the-cuff remark. On the April 26, 1996 "National" she said, "I think that making a fast-lipped comment in an election campaign should not put me in a position to resign." Similarly on the April 25, 1996 "CTV News" she downplayed her promise saying: "I think I should go to purgatory, and not hell."

Ironically, despite the media replaying her initial town-hall meeting reference to quitting, they did not challenge her on the fact that she had made multiple promises to resign during and after the election. Moreover, the Liberals, including Ms. Copps and Prime Minister Chrétien, have repeated their election promise to replace the GST. The National Media Archive has all CBC and CTV national news transcripts from 1988 to the present. We reviewed all statements about replacing the GST made by Mr. Chrétien and Ms. Copps from January 1, 1993 to May 7, 1996 and find this a good opportunity to reprint who said what and when.

Chrétien promises to get rid of GST in 1993

Even before the 1993 federal election campaign and before the Red Book Jean Chrétien had made a pledge to replace the tax. For example, on the January 22, 1993 "CTV News," Lloyd Robertson reported: "Jean Chrétien has confirmed his Liberals will scrap the GST if they win the election coming up this year. But he said in Regina today, the tax would have to be replaced by some other measure and the party is looking at alternatives." Chrétien's statement on CTV that day was: "But the commitment we've made to the public is we want to get rid of the GST. I've always said that the GST will go."

On February 11, 1993, CBC "Prime Time News" confirmed that he had made this promise. Brian Stewart introduced a story on the subject saying: "If there was any doubt that Jean Chrétien might back away from his pledge to get rid of the GST, he pretty much put that to rest today. The Liberal leader said that's a promise he will definitely keep, no ifs, ands, or buts. And Chrétien said voters should toss him out of office if he doesn't get rid of the tax during his first year in power." A clip of Chrétien was provided in which he said: "Our objective is very clear-that the GST be replaced by a system which generates equivalent revenues. There's no misinterpretation there . . . . I say we replace the tax. This is a commitment. You will judge me by that. If the GST is not gone, I will have a tough time, the election after that. It's the only specific promise that I'm making very clear, and it is going, it's gone."

In the same story, Sheila Copps took a swipe at the Tory leadership candidates. In doing so, she made this prophetic statement: "Any pretender to the throne right now has literally been part and parcel of all of his [Mulroney] policies-the GST, the trade agreement. You can change the leader, but you can't change the party's policies." What the media have failed to point out is that apparently the party can also be changed with little shifting of the policies.

Liberal accountability

The most famous commitment, and indeed the most famous promise of the 1993 election campaign, was to eliminate the GST. To be sure, replacing the GST was not the only promise of the 1993 Liberal campaign. The larger issue, and one upon which the Liberals hinged their electoral fortunes, was that their promises would be kept. For example, Chrétien said on the September 15, 1993 "CTV News": It's all written here, so you can come with this book in front of me every week after I'm the prime minister, and say, `Where are you and your promises, Mr. Chrétien?' and we'll do the checking. And I'm telling you that everything that is written there I intend to implement."

As for Sheila Copps, her self-described "loose-lipped" remarks resulted from an October 18, 1993 "CBC Town Hall" program where she responded to a woman asking how the Liberals would be accountable. The woman's question was: "I feel that my question deserves a direct response. Sheila Copps, you mentioned earlier that, if we didn't like what was going on, that it would be written in paper and a year later we would be able to see what had been going on and your accountability-not yours specifically but the party's accountability. What really concerns me is that I feel that the mood in the country is really hopelessness and how are we going to do it, and all of us even tonight or-saying this and saying that. But how are you really going to do this? How are you really going to be accountable?"

Copps responded with her now-famous remark: "I've already said personally and very directly that if the GST is not abolished, I'll resign. I don't know how much clearer you can get. I think you've got to be accountable on the things that you say you're going to do and you have to deliver." In the subsequent replaying of that quote, no one has noted that far from being an of-the-cuff remark, Copps acknowledged that she had previously made the promise, and was simply reaffirming it in this venue. Moreover, the media failed to emphasize that she was very clear on the intent of her promise.

As for Chrétien's commitments, when pressed by Wendy Mesley on the November 7, 1993 "Sunday Report" interview, Copps definitively outlined Chrétien's promise: "Oh, he has quite clearly said that he intends to get rid of the GST. He's also said from the very beginning that in replacing the GST, he's going to find some way to find that revenue. Sixteen billion dollars in revenue can't simply be kissed off, and in that context, he's asked the..."

At this point Mesley interrupted and specifically asked, "But how fundamental a change? Is it just a way of changing the way you collect it?"

Copps' response was clear and unequivocal: "It's not a cosmetic change. I think it's going to be a very fundamental change. It's going to be a change which will hopefully take a lot of the bureaucracy out of the cost to business and the cost to government. When you have a tax that's costing you 50 cents for every dollar you collect, it isn't a tax that makes a lot of sense." Apart from showing considerable ignorance about the cost of collecting the GST (the actual costs are closer to 2 cents per dollar to collect it), at no time during the 1993 election campaign were we told that Copps was overstepping the promise made in the Red Book.

Media repeat Chrétien's caveat

What is interesting about the media's coverage of the GST promise is the addendum to Chrétien's pledge that while replacing the GST they would still bring in the same revenue. For example, on September 15, 1993 Keith Boag said on the "National": "On the thorny question of the GST, the promise to scrap it is still there, but information on what would replace it is still missing." Jean Chrétien was then quoted saying: "And we will collect the $15 billion one way or the other."

This point was also emphasized by Copps during the November 7, 1993 "Sunday Report": "No I think Canadians knew, and we said from the very beginning that you don't just abolish a tax and replace it with nothing. Obviously, we cannot forego $16 billion in revenue without doing something else. So either we create some better tax base by having a stronger economy, or we create another kind of tax that is going to be cheaper to collect and less costly to small business to operate, and I think those are the options that Mr. Anderson's going to be looking at with the cabinet."

That promise was repeated after the election when Jean Chrétien said on the August 9, 1995 CTV News: "We cannot dispense with the revenues. We never said that we didn't need the revenues. We said that this tax, as it is, was not satisfactory and has to be replaced, and it will be replaced."

What is significant about the media's coverage of the GST promise is their inability to recall the number and context of the remarks made by Copps and Chrétien. For example, neither CTV or CBC challenged Copps' characterization of her remarks as a heat-of-the-battle comment. Beyond who said what when, a review of the CBC and CTV newscasts consistently reveals that both Chrétien and Copps repeatedly promised that the GST would go.

Summary of GST Promises

The Liberals, including Ms. Copps and Prime Minister Chrétien, have often repeated their election promise to replace the GST.

Chrétien promised to get rid of the GST in 1993. Even before the 1993 federal election campaign, and before the Red Book there was a pledge by Jean Chrétien to replace the tax.

The media have failed to provide the number and context of promises made by Copps and Chrétien. By neglecting what these politicians said in the past, they allow the Liberals to rewrite history with every soundbite.

He said, she said ...

January 22, 1993 "CTV News"
Jean Chretien
"But the commitment we've made to the public is we want to get rid of the GST. I've always said that the GST will go."

February 11, 1993 CBC "Prime Time News"
Jean Chretien
"Our objective is very clear-that the GST be replaced by a system which generates equivalent revenues. There's no misinterpretation there.... I say we replace the tax. This is a commitment. You will judge me by that. If the GST is not gone, I will have a tough time, the election after that. It's the only specific promise that I'm making very clear, and it is going, it's gone."

February 11, 1993 CBC "Prime Time News"
Sheila Copps
"Any pretender to the throne right now has literally been part and parcel of all of his [Mulroney] policies-the GST, the trade agreement. You can change the leader, but you can't change the party's policies."

September 15, 1993 "CTV News"
Jean Chretien
"It's all written here, so you can come with this book in front of me every week after I'm the prime minister, and say, 'Where are you and your promises, Mr. Chretien?' And we'll do the checking. And I'm telling you that everything that is written there I intend to implement."

September 15, 1993 "National"
Jean Chretien
"And we will collect the $15 billion one way or the other."

October 18, 1993 "CBC Town Hall"
Sheila Copps
"I've already said personally and very directly that if the GST is not abolished, I'll resign. I don't know how much clearer you can get. I think you've got to be accountable on the things that you say you're going to do and you have to deliver.

November 7, 1993 "Sunday Report"
Sheila Copps
"No I think Canadians knew, and we said from the very beginning that you don't just abolish a tax and replace it with nothing. Obviously, we cannot forego $16 billion in revenue without doing somethi ng else . So either we create some better tax base by having a stronger economy, or we create another kind of tax that is going to be cheaper to collect and less costly to small business to operate, and I think those are the options that Mr. Anderson's going to be looking at with the cabinet.

"Oh, he [Jean Chretien] has quite clearly said that he intends to get rid of the GST. He's also said from the very beginning that in replacing the GST, he's going to find some way to find that revenue. Sixteen billion dollars in revenue can't simply be kissed off, and in that context, he's asked the...

"It's not a cosmetic change. I think it's going to be a very fundamental change. It's going to be a change which will hopefully take a lot of the bureaucracy out of the cost to business and the cost to government. When you have a tax that's costing you 50 cents for every dollar you collect, it isn't a tax that makes a lot of sense."

August 9, 1995 CTV News
Jean Chretien
"We cannot dispense with the revenues. We never said that we didn't need the revenues. We said that this tax, as it is, was not satisfactory and has to be replaced, and it will be replaced."

April 25, 1996 "CTV News"
Sheila Copps
"I think I should go to purgatory, and not hell."

April 26, 1996 "National"
Sheila Copps
"I think that making a fast-lipped comment in an election campaign should not put me in a position to resign."

On May 7, 1996, the Ontario Conservative government tabled its first budget. This budget comes almost five years to the date after the New Democratic Party's first budget after it took office. The media have labelled both budgets "historical."

The NDP budget was unique because it gave the largest annual increase in the deficit. As Peter Mansbridge commented in introducing a story on the budget on the April 29, 1991 "National": "In fact, Ontario is expecting the biggest annual provincial deficit in Canadian history. Biggest by far-almost $10 billion."

The recent Conservative budget was historic for its tax cuts. Lloyd Robertson's introductory comments on the 1996 Ontario budget on "CTV News" on May 7, went as follows: "Ontario's Conservative government tabled its first budget today, and proposed the biggest provincial tax cuts in more than 50 years."

Both budgets have not only the province in common, but they have both been described as being contrary to conventional wisdom on how to cope with recession. The NDP increased government spending while other provinces and the federal government were decreasing the size of government. More recently, the Conservatives cut spending at the same time as they reduced taxes.

Over the past few years, On Balance has compared the media's reporting of the economic policies of Ontario under the NDP with their reports on those of Alberta. When Mike Harris was elected Ontario premier, the National Media Archive expanded its analysis to examine the treatment Harris received from the media when he was elected compared with that given to the previous Ontario premier, Bob Rae. This issue of On Balance continues that inquiry by comparing television's coverage of Bob Rae's first budget with Mike Harris' first budget. As we shall see, the reporting practices whereby the networks are complimentary of the NDP but critical of the Conservatives continues.

CBC's coverage of NDP budget less critical than its coverage of the Conservative budget

At first glance, the initial reports on the two Ontario budgets appear to be quite comparable, not only to each other, but to most provincial budgets. In each case, the anchor introduced the story and gave the budget highlights. The reporter then expanded those themes and provided each finance minister's descriptions of the budget. Comments from critics of the budget were either peppered throughout the story or were saved for the story's end. This held for both budgets and both networks. The exception was CBC's coverage of the NDP budget. Although CTV in both 1991 and in 1996, and CBC in 1996, offered 6 responses to each budget, in its report of the 1991 NDP budget, CBC offered only three criticisms of it. One of those critics, a poverty activist, argued that the budget did not spend enough. John Clarke of the Ontario Coalition Against Poverty said on the April 29, 1991 "National": "I think really we're dealing with a betrayal of poor people by a government which said they were going to be fundamentally different. They were really going to move to deal with the needs of the poor." The budget's two critics who knocked the document on CBC for spending too much were then-federal Finance Minister Don Mazankowski and economist Leo DeBever.

The CBC was much more thorough in uncovering critics of the Conservative budget than they were in finding people to criticize the NDP budget. On budget day in 1991, CBC ran only one story on the Ontario budget. In contrast, this year there were two stories on the "National" and two on the "Magazine." With that many more stories, the CBC was able to comment much more on the budget. However, no sources were aired saying that the Conservatives should have cut taxes even more. In the first story, Jeffrey Kofman interviewed the leader of the Liberal party who said that the cuts would be negated by increased fees. Lyn McLeod charged: "Welcome to the Mike Harris shell game. We'll give you a 15 percent tax cut, and then we'll take it away piece by piece, user fee by user fee, tuition hike by tuition hike, license fee by license fee."

In the next story, Susan Bonner interviewed a range of people who had a variety of arguments that questioned the logic behind a tax cut, from people saying that the tax savings would be spent paying bills, to a tax specialist who argued that there was no precedent for such a move. Neil Brooks from York University-a favourite source used by CBC to argue for increased taxes-said, "There is absolutely no incidence in the history of economics where a tax cut that has been accompanied by the same amount of government expenditure cuts has resulted in the stimulation of the economy."

Bonner even provided a pollster who argued that there was a conflict in public opinion regarding this issue. Jane Armstrong of Environics said, "Well, when we ask people, `What are you going to do with the money you're going to get?' we find that 55 percent say they're going to save the tax cut, another 37 percent say they're actually going to spend it."

One of the more curious sources of economic wisdom during the magazine portion of the news came from Linda McQuaig, the author of Shooting the Hippo: Death by Deficit and Other Canadian Myths. Although the CBC correctly identified her as a writer they also labelled her an economic analyst. On the dustcover of her latest book, she is described as "an influential journalist," but no credentials are provided, either there or in the text of the book. To say that McQuaig is an economic analyst is akin to describing someone who took a first aid course as a medical practitioner.

Harris budget "risky"

CTV's coverage of the Conservative budget was similar to CBC's in that both networks asked pollsters and opposition members for their opinions. What was also remarkably similar was the description by both networks of the budget as a "gamble." This moniker is particularly noteworthy because the NDP budget was never described in these terms, and certainly was not criticized by the journalists themselves. Interestingly, however, the only people who described the Conservative budget as risky were journalists. For example, Peter Murphy ended his "CTV News" report on May 7, 1996 by saying: "No other province has done what Ontario is doing, certainly not on this scale-cutting taxes and spending. It's a gamble, and if it doesn't work, critics say, Ontario will be forced to make even deeper cuts to spending and services to achieve its goal of balancing the budget by the year 2000."

CBC played the risk factor much more prominently in their news cast than did CTV. Peter Mansbridge opened the night's news saying: "People in Ontario got what they voted for today-a major tax cut, to be phased in over three years. It came in the budget, the first budget for Ontario's conservative government and a risky economic experiment." In the second story, Susan Bonner emphasized the budget's riskiness twice. First, she said, "This tax policy specialist says tax cuts are risky at best, but coupled with already announced cuts of eight billion dollars . . . " On the clip that viewers saw, the economist never did, in fact, say that tax cuts are risky. Later in her report, Bonner added: "And polls indicate another risk in this budget: while a majority of people in Ontario say they favour tax cuts, an even greater majority say they'd forfeit the tax cuts if the government would maintain the money for schools and hospitals." Again, it was Bonner who provided the "risk" inter-pretation. The statements and evidence she offered to back up her analysis did not necessarily imply any risk.

The "Magazine" portion of the program also played on the risk theme. Hana Gartner's headline for the "Magazine" was: "Ontario's Tax Gamble: Why Other Provinces Should Take Note. Will it Work?" In her introduction of the first story, Gartner again conjured up the idea of risk by speaking about the gamble the Ontario government was taking: "Does more money in your pocket equal more consumer spending? That's Harris economics and Ontario's gamble. Will it work?"

An even more troubling depiction of the budget came from Gartner in the promotion for the May 7, 1996 "Magazine" during that evening's "National." In it, the gamble analogy was absent, but it was replaced by a statement that was neither backed up on the clip itself, nor later in the "Magazine": "And later on our Magazine . . . . In the '80s, it was described as Reaganomics and dismissed as voodoo economics. Now Mike Harris is trying it in Ontario."

On May 9, two days after the Conservative budget was released, there were no stories on CBC directly dealing with Ontario. However, that province's budget was described in a story about the Quebec budget. Tom Kennedy described the Conservative budget as "draconian" twice when comparing it to the Quebec budget.

Clearly, CBC television news has not treated the NDP deficit increases in the same light as the Conservative cuts and deficit reduction plans. From the amount of attention paid to the 1996 budget, to the number of sources decrying it, to the comments made by journalists themselves, there is a definite lack of balance in the coverage of NDP and Conservative policies in Ontario.

Summary of NDP and Conservative Ontario Budgets

The CBC's coverage of the NDP budget was less critical than their coverage of the Conservative budget. The CBC was much more thorough in uncovering critics of the Conservative budget than they were in finding critics of the NDP's budget. On budget day in 1991, the CBC ran only one story on the Ontario budget. In contrast, this year it ran two stories on the "National" and two on the "Magazine" portion of the program.

Both networks were similar in their description of the budget as a "gamble." This description is particularly noteworthy because the NDP budget was never described in these terms and certainly was not criticized as such by journalists. However, journalists were the only people who described the Conservative budget as risky.

Methodology

The reports examined in this study were based on CBC "National" and "CTV News" reports on Ontario's budget nights on April 29, 1991, and on May 7, 1996.

Further information or details on the coding design and methods may be obtained by contacting the National Media Archive.