December 16, 2024 • 47 mins
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.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Aaron Pete (00:00):
Welcome back to another episode of the Bigger
Than Me podcast.
Here is your host, Aaron.
There's a lot going on inCanadian and American politics
right now.
Finding trusted news sources isvital to staying informed.
I'm speaking with the ChiefPolitical Correspondent for CTV
News.
We explore where we're at inCanadian politics, the impact of
(00:21):
the recent US election, theimportance of questioning power
and navigating the polarizationwe face in our society.
My guest today is VashiCapellos Vashi, there are a few
guests that I think need anintroduction, but just briefly,
would you mind introducingyourself to people who might not
be acquainted with your work?
Vassy Kapelos (00:40):
Sure, hi, aaron, it's so good to see you again.
I'm Vassy Kapelos and I workfor CTV and their chief
political correspondent and hosta bunch of their TV shows and a
nationalist syndicated radioshow as well.
Aaron Pete (00:55):
Contributing to an informed electorate.
I always love being able tospeak with you.
My first question for you iswhere are we in Canadian
politics right now from yourperspective?
Oh, what a great question.
Vassy Kapelos (01:08):
I think we're on the ever-extending precipice of
a federal election.
I was actually saying this theother day to someone.
I can't believe in the past,like two and a half months, how
little discussion I have beenable to have on the show about
policy and how all of the policydebate has really been subsumed
(01:31):
by an overarching narrativeabout whether or not the
government will survive.
And that has taken like a veryspecific posture around the
privilege debate in parliament,which is very wonky but
essentially has taken over thepossibility of legislation being
introduced or debated.
So that's how it specificallyhas manifested.
(01:51):
But from a narrativeperspective it's even more
manifested Like that's what'shappening on the ground, but
otherwise, like every move, evenwhen they do introduce stuff or
when the opposition says stuff,it's all about like jockeying
around an election and aroundwhether the question of whether
or not this government willsurvive and I just it has been
so pronounced over the lastthree months that like that's
(02:15):
the thing I would say aboutwhere we are right now.
It's not where we were a yearago.
It most certainly is on its wayto an election.
I don't know when.
I just know it's before, youknow, in the fall or before of
next year and I don't know ifyou can escape that in the next
number of months.
Aaron Pete (02:33):
Do you think Canadians should be optimistic
about that?
Do you think we should beconcerned that that is the state
of affairs of this governmentright now?
How do you think Canadiansshould digest that information?
Another great question.
Vassy Kapelos (02:46):
I sort of see it a couple of different ways.
I'm not sure I'll preface myquestion and do what I wish
politicians would say to me.
I'm not sure I have the mostdirect way of answering that
question.
I think sort of two things canbe true at the same time.
I think it's unavoidable and Iremember back to the last year
of the Harper government and howmuch in particular, as the
(03:08):
months dwindled down to whenthat election would happen in
2015, that it became verysimilar, like everything was
viewed was in the context of anelection, and so I do feel like
there's a bit of inevitabilityabout 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 nine or10 year mandate, there is
something intrinsically kind ofabout that that becomes about an
(03:32):
election.
So I'm not to, like you know,cry my soup over over something
like that.
I'm not too upset.
I don't think Canadians shouldbe.
However I do.
I do think definitely the factthat, like there's no
legislation, that there's nodebate going on around
legislation, even if thatlegislation was being introduced
with an eye towards a potentialelection, that's not the end of
(03:54):
the world because ultimately,it's with an eye to trying to
gain support from Canadians thatwould ultimately lead you to
win in an election Either way,whatever party you're looking at
.
So I do feel like it's notgreat that they're not doing
stuff that will address theissues that matter to people,
but it's also not true likenothing is happening.
You know, there's still a lotof stuff that has gone on, that
(04:15):
continues to go on.
It's just this weird inertiathat if it persisted, let's say,
for another eight months, likethat's not good, I don't think
Canadians should love that, butif it persists for a bit longer,
I do think it's a normal courseof the cycle.
Aaron Pete (04:31):
Is it better or worse that we now have a
definitive decision for theUnited States election.
So now, is it better that weget to hear kind of the
political parties when anelection does come, we get to
hear kind of the politicalparties, when an election does
come, talk about how they wouldapproach the issues and then
(04:52):
perhaps get their own mandatevoted in to work with the United
States in way A, b or C?
Or would it have been better ifwe had somebody at the helm now
who already had a mandate inthat position, able to kind of
take the lead on this?
Vassy Kapelos (05:04):
Yeah, I think I think I got to get where you're
going at in that.
So, insofar as and we certainlyheard this, I think, from the
conservatives insofar as, like,obviously, given public opinion
polling, I think the last timewe spoke, like things were just
starting to go downhill for theliberals in a in a big way, and
they have stayed there Right,and even amplified over the last
number of months.
So there's this contention thatthe prime minister is
(05:26):
essentially in a politicallyweakened state, like, is he the
best person to navigate this newthreat from, in particular
around the blanket tariffs fromthe incoming president?
I understand that discussion.
I also think, though, like, ifyou look at it on the face of it
, like he does have a mandateright now.
Like he, he was elected freeand fair in the last election
and, yes, public opinion pollsshow that a majority of
(05:47):
Canadians are not happy with thedirection of the country.
They're not happy with him, butultimately, the only formal
expression of that sentiment isa vote, and the last vote that
happened put this prime ministerinto that position.
So I think, until there isanother election and I do
understand the push for one,sure, but like he officially
does have the mandate to kind ofnegotiate on our behalf and
(06:08):
defend Canadian interests, andyou may not agree with the way
he's doing that or you may notalign with what he defines as in
the best interest of Canadiansto the fact that there was a
vote and there will be a vote.
As for what happens when thatvote does occur and the degree
to which what's happening in theUS might impact people's
(06:30):
choices or ultimately what thenext government faces, I think
it's huge.
It feels like a complete channelchanger and not in the way of
distracting, in just thateverything feels different, and
I think primarily because youcan't overstate the potential
impact of what a 25 percenttariff would do to our economy.
(06:51):
I interviewed the premier inyour province, as you have
premier Amy, premiers across thecountry, premier Ford, premier
Smith.
There isn't a premier who doesnot say, if those tariffs are
applied, that their provincialeconomies would enter almost
immediately into a recession.
Like that is an enormous deal.
That is a huge weight thatfaces any politician at any
(07:12):
level in this country, eithernow or coming into power.
I don't know how it doesn'tbecome a massive election issue,
right, like I don't know how itdoesn't at least in part inform
the way in which Canadians vote, like you're going to be
looking at, ok, who can navigatethis, who can handle this and
who's going to get the bestoutcome for Canadians.
So I do feel like it's had abig impact and I do feel like it
(07:35):
will continue to.
Aaron Pete (07:38):
The way I was going with the question is because
everything I've understood and Itry and consume as much
politics and understand theissues to the best of my ability
but it was that Justin Trudeauand the liberal government
actually did a really good jobat negotiating the first time
Trump was in power.
In regards to renegotiatingNAFTA, things happen, and so I
(08:01):
do think if there is an electionnow held in the future, that
actually would benefit, becausethen you can run on.
We've done this before.
Hopefully we can do it again ina good way and deliver for
Canadians.
The challenge for the oppositionleader is that they don't have
that previous experience.
They don't have a track recordto run on, and so there's this
(08:21):
similar isolationism you'veheard from the Conservatives of
like we'll just focus on makingCanada stronger and better and
improving our economy, and so Idon't know how that would go.
But I find it more interestingas a voter to have them both
kind of pitch their solutions,rather than if we had had an
election, say in the fall ofthis year, and had that resolved
(08:42):
.
Then we would be going in andnot knowing if this person
actually does have a good plan.
So I feel like the consequencefor Canada is that we're in a
better position if we have theelection in the next 10 months.
Vassy Kapelos (08:53):
Yeah, maybe that's a good point.
It's so interesting that yousay because I do think that the
Liberals are going to make thatargument and they have right
over the past few weeks, we havesurvived this once, we can
survive it again.
And you make a fair point, likeI think, objectively speaking,
the fact that NAFTA still existsis the primary metric by which
(09:13):
we can judge the success oftheir initial navigation of
Donald Trump's first presidency.
And no recession maybe, yeah,at the time.
It's just the conditions are abit different now, right, both
externally and internally, andexternally, 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.
(09:34):
The threat's on the table butisn't fixed or whatever he is
highlighting in his in histhreat to apply those tariffs
doesn't appease him that he willsort of as arbitrarily as it
feels, apply this 25 percenttariff across the board, and
(09:55):
it's he says he's going to do itJanuary 20th, on day one,
through an executive order.
So, like the time, we don'teven have years to sort of
escape the dramatic impact thatthis would have.
We have just a month and a half.
So I don't know if the argumentwill work in the same way.
You know, I think, like we canall hope as Canadians, that
(10:16):
whomever is leading the churchcan advocate for us and make
sure that our economy escapes arecession.
But I think you make a goodpoint.
Like, either way it's going tobe, it's going to be a part of
he's going to be there for fouryears, so it's going to impart a
real piece of analysis foreveryone deciding how to vote.
Aaron Pete (10:36):
You covered the election very well for Canadians
, for us to understand what wasgoing on.
Did this outcome surprise you?
Was it unexpected?
You obviously visited the US tounderstand and get kind of that
real-world view of what wasgoing on.
Did this outcome surprise you?
Vassy Kapelos (10:55):
I definitely wouldn't say it surprised me.
I feel like I covered the firstTrump win and I remember being
in New York City for that andthe degree to which, like what I
was conveying to like ouraudiences was met with surprise
at the time and that experiencereally like stuck with me, if
that makes sense, in that Ididn't ever want to be part of
(11:18):
sort of like the machine thatthought this could never happen
or whatever, and I thought I wasvery lucky that my employer
this summer really allowed me togo meet people who do support
both candidates at the, both theRNC and the DNC, and get a
sense myself of like what wasdriving their support and the
level of support that they didhold for each of the candidates
(11:41):
and sort of what their sentimentaround an election was for each
of the candidates and sort ofwhat their sentiment around an
election was.
And I remember like that.
The interesting thing is theelection changed so much over
the summer insofar as, like hewas nearly killed Right, he got
that, that assassination attempt.
Then the RNC was just a fewdays later.
I was and I conveyed this on TVat the time like beyond struck
(12:02):
by the degree to which peoplewho are at the RNC were so
incredibly faithful to him as aperson, like forget about his
politics, forget about right,left, republican, democrat, like
they were there for Trump.
They were so motivated and youhad to think at the time how
much of this is like somethingthat's always there and how much
of it was informed by theassassination attempt, the arm
(12:24):
in the air, the whole picture ofit all.
Right, but I did leave that.
And even when you talk topeople it was in Milwaukee Every
cab driver I had, everybody atthe hotel, was telling me
Trump's going to win this thing.
This was when Biden was stillin the race, right, and so I
left and I said even on TV, likeI feel like it would take a
miracle for Trump not to win atthis point.
It felt very much like it wouldtake a miracle for Trump not to
(12:51):
win at this point.
It felt very much like it wasbecause of how motivated his
supporters were, like it feltinevitable.
But then a few days later I'min Chicago and airing a show
from the hotel because Joe Bidenquit and I think like what
happened with that was it wassuch a seismic moment in
politics and in that race and inAmerican political history that
it was impossible not to feellike the ground had shifted
right, just because of how bigof a deal it was.
And so then you go to the DNCnot too long after that and
(13:14):
there's certainly momentum there.
But, as I said, at that timetoo, like the momentum was there
in a big way, there wasenthusiasm that was sorely
lacking for Joe Biden certainly,but you didn't feel as though
there was the same level ofdevotion to the quote-unquote
cause as there was at the RNC.
So ultimately, when you know inthe months that followed the
(13:36):
polls bore out that it was verytight, it made sense.
It didn't seem crazy to me andI think this, you know this
conclusion many people havereached, that the polls were
totally wrong.
I'm sort of a bit of acontrarian on like the polls
were all within the margin oferror.
The margin of error was decided.
It just all went one way.
Ultimately he won things by oneand a half to two percent, which
(13:57):
is within a margin of error.
It's just everywhere thathappened.
So the win was decisive and andwide in scope.
But ultimately it wasn't likeall of a sudden she lost by 20
percent or he won by, by 25percent.
And so I, I, I wasn't shocked.
Um, I guess the only thing thatwas like, quite like, oh, was
the decisive nature of it rightand the degree to which,
(14:18):
particularly a lot of placeswhere they were going to make
lots of gains or gain lots ofground as Democrats like, never
came to fruition and the gainsthat he made in traditionally
Democratic places like Iremember that night, new Jersey
and Virginia, taken way longerthan we thought they would to be
called for the Democrats Like.
That was very like.
I'm not sure I would haveexpected that would to be called
(14:39):
for the Democrats Like that wasvery like.
Aaron Pete (14:39):
I'm not sure I would have expected that.
Okay, I really want to lingeron what you said about being a
part of that machinery andhaving a feeling that your
audience or you were likecouldn't believe the outcome
from 2016.
Because that really doesfascinate me.
I spoke to Steve Paikin and wehad a really interesting
discussion.
The part where him and I I feellike differed pretty
significantly and I laid outthree different arguments for
(15:01):
how I come to this conclusion.
I feel personally that you andthe show you host is the most
unbiased, most open-endedpolitical show.
When I look at CBC or GlobalNews as kind of their anchor
shows, like when I watch yours,I feel like it is unbiased and
willing to go any direction.
(15:22):
The conversation needs to go toinform Canadians, like that's
your panelists, the people youinterview, the voices you hear
from.
I get that energy and StevePaking kind of pointed it back
at me.
Maybe it's my bias that I'mkind of seeing that through my
own tea leaves.
But then the interview we wedid, that's the comments,
hundreds and hundreds ofcomments from people saying you
(15:43):
are one of the last strongjournalists, um, in the
corporate news, that that issupporting these voices and
making sure this is heard.
So like I don't feel like Ilike that's his opinion that I I
might have a bit of bias.
I don't think that bears outwhen I look at the voices and
when I laid out my argument asto who I hear from and how they
frame the discussions in othershows.
(16:03):
That's just my personalperspective.
But when you talk about thismachinery, the only thing when
you talk about the Joe Bidenstuff that makes me think of is
like the Joe Scarborough sharpas a tack, the best I've ever
seen him like a week and a halfbefore the guy resigns like that
.
That builds mistrust betweenthe audience and and the person.
And then he comes out like Ithink it was a week after that
(16:25):
and was like, yeah, I think heneeds to resign, this is the
best path.
Like that change, I think, isso jarring for people.
How do you, how do you approachthat?
How do you, how do you digestthat when you see it happen?
How do you manage that withinyour own world?
Because, as I said, I thinkyou're very good at not letting
your audience become sosurprised by by events well,
(16:46):
that's very kind of.
Vassy Kapelos (16:47):
I appreciate those comments very much.
I I I would say a few things.
I think.
I think I, I can be culpable ofit too.
Like I think, when you raise theexample of joe biden, for, uh,
specifically, um, like therewere moments when I think back
of watching his pressconferences, watching certain
things where you know you wouldbe like, huh, this, this scenes
(17:09):
off, right.
But then I remember I would tryto, like, you know, I'm not
there, so so then I try toconsume what I can from
mainstream and other sourcesabout like, what's really going
on.
And you know, while themainstream sources can be viewed
as dismissive of that, and Ithink that's fair to say, the
(17:31):
like, non-mainstream sourceswere so like next level about it
and it was all memes and Ididn't, I couldn't really
discern in a great way, likewhat was authentic or not.
That I felt like I'm confusedto me, to be honest, until the
debate and I remember the nightof the debate, we did a special
and it was like the second itended.
I think Scott Reed was one ofmy panelists.
(17:52):
I remember him being like it'sdone, it's over, like, and
people were at that point freeand fair to be like.
You know there's no, there's noway you can ignore what you
just saw.
But the fact that it was asstark and as sort of pronounced
as it was that night made methink a little bit about my own
(18:13):
shortcomings and reflect on likehow did I contribute to a world
in which this was the shockthat it was?
I feel like it's a little bitharder only because it is the US
.
So like if this hadn't happenedin Canada, it would be all on me
and I would be like literallylike what?
Where did I go astray?
But even it was a goodopportunity.
(18:34):
I mean, the thing is like we'rejust people doing this job.
No-transcript, because when Iwent to New York and I talked to
(19:09):
Trump supporters there isactually my now husband was my
cameraman and we were liketalking to people on the ground
there and I remember, two daysbefore the election were like
nobody here thinks they're goingto lose.
Nobody thought it.
And and that was the firstindication we had like maybe
this isn't what the consensusview is like, maybe maybe there
(19:31):
is some sort of surprise instore.
And I remember thinking like whyam I so surprised at this point
to have that conveyed to me andit was like a real life lesson
to me.
It's why I really wanted to goto the RNC and I just feel like
there's no substitute fortalking to people and getting
the information firsthandBecause, as I pointed, like when
(19:53):
I tried to figure out the Bidenthing and like where I may have
gone wrong it's very difficultto get straight up stuff Right
and and I know people aredisappointed with mainstream
media and I'm not saying they'rethey're free of any of that
culpability but a lot of thesources that aren't verified,
that aren't sort of that, don'thave some sort of code of ethics
(20:14):
or anything like.
Some of it is very hard to getthrough to like I don't know
what to trust there and so Ilean away from it in certain in
sort of informing exactly what Ipresent to the world, and so
all of that is like I don't knowpart of part of like getting
better at what I do and and,like I said, like I'm not going
to, sometimes I'm going to falldown, like I don't know how to
(20:36):
avoid that except for keeptrying not to.
Aaron Pete (20:38):
Sometimes I'm going to fall down, like I don't know
how to avoid that, except forkeep trying not to the big
takeaway and maybe this is likea silly question but like, how
do you hold on to thatwillingness to like almost
recalibrate during these momentswhen I don't know what I hear,
when I consume kind of like theidea of where media is at?
It's often like everybody'stalking to the same people, so
(20:58):
they kind of get stuck in theirown echo chambers and then these
things surprise them.
How do you keep that humilityto want to recalibrate, like
where does that come from foryou?
Vassy Kapelos (21:10):
It comes from, like, completely inside.
Like I have to say that, youknow, to the credit of all the
networks I've worked at, therehas never been anyone who has
said to me like, do this, dothat, tell it this way, tell it
that way.
So I have complete free will.
So if I'm falling short onsomething, it's on me.
And this has been a real sortof evolution in my career where
(21:34):
it's like, you know, you startout in any job and it's easy to
blame other people, right, it'slike, well, I didn't have the
resources to do that, theydidn't have someone over there,
they didn't, you know, whateverit is, but ultimately, like,
you're the master of your owndestiny.
I really believe I'm luckyenough to be able to say that,
because not everyone is affordedthat kind of opportunity.
And it's really true.
Where I've worked, I feel likeI feel sad that the impression
(21:57):
is so different and I understandwhy it sometimes is.
But like, truly nobody has evertold me you know, you should
have gone harder on Trump, youshould have gone easier on, but
like, like nothing like that.
So if I fell short, it's on meand I mean I think I said this
to you last time like this isn'tjust a job to me, this is the
(22:18):
career I want to have for aslong as this exists.
I'm very proud to do what I doand I I take it very seriously
and I just don't believe mepretending that I'm never going
to make a mistake is going tohelp anybody, right, and so I
have a lot of humility what Icome to, because I feel like I
have no, I mean, there's noother way that I, that I should
(22:39):
be, and so I, I, yeah, I don'treally hesitate, I guess, to to
go to that place because I'mallowed to, I have total free
will to.
That's my job, and I feel likeif I want to be a leader in this
industry, I've got to do thingslike that.
Aaron Pete (22:57):
My next question is what is your job?
If you were to define it byyour own definition, what is
your job?
Vassy Kapelos (23:07):
You inform Canadians about what's happening
in the halls of power thatultimately has an impact on
their lives, and to hold thepeople who occupy those halls
accountable.
Aaron Pete (23:23):
You talk about accountability.
Can you share a moment in aninterview or something where you
felt like you really were ableto hold power accountable, oh?
Vassy Kapelos (23:32):
you just froze.
Sorry, one second again.
Sorry, I don't know what justhappened, but you totally Give
me one second.
Okay, now you're back.
Now you're back.
Your internet connection isunstable.
This is weird.
It's never happened.
I'm so sorry.
No worries, oh, I'm fine, Okay.
Aaron Pete (23:48):
You're coming in clear too.
It's great, like it's notcoming in like later.
Vassy Kapelos (23:53):
Okay, it's not like we're a telecommunications
company, it's fine pardon meanything.
Aaron Pete (23:59):
You talk about accountability.
I'm wondering if there's amoment where you held the power
accountable that stood out toyou as a meaningful moment what
do you mean by meaningful?
Vassy Kapelos (24:13):
like something that that I remember or that was
like sort of contentious insome way, or like if I had to,
if I had to form a guess.
Aaron Pete (24:23):
I imagine when people, when politicians, come
on your show, they know whatthey're in for somewhat, they
know that they're going to beasked tough questions and so I
imagine that after thatinterview, decisions are made on
what the reception of that isgoing to be and what decisions
need to be made, and I imaginethat an interview with you can
influence the politicaldiscussion broadly.
(24:45):
I'm just curious as to how theimpact holding power,
accountable can have when you'reable to do it effectively.
Vassy Kapelos (24:54):
It's a good question.
I'm not sure that necessarily Igo in thinking about like sort
of inject, like what will thischange?
What will this do?
I sort of have a bit more of amyopic view in that I.
I'm thinking about okay, whatis it that I really think that
they haven't been transparentabout or they haven't offered
(25:16):
enough detail on, or like theiranswers so far have been very
wanting, if that makes sense.
And so there are like somemoments recently where you know,
for example, I interviewed,right after Trump, the foreign
affairs minister, and I wasasking her about defense
spending because I hadinterviewed Kelly Craft, who was
Trump's ambassador, still closeto the Trump world, and she had
(25:40):
really hurt on the two percentand how we need to speed things
up.
And so I turned to put thequestion to Minister Jolie, like
are you willing to?
And she didn't.
You know, she said stuff butdidn't answer.
I asked again, she said stuff,she didn't answer and anyway, at
the end of that she like kindof went well, I know it's your
strategy to ask a question fourtimes.
(26:01):
I thought that was a prettytelling moment and that sort of
struck me because I actuallythink that is it's not a
strategy.
It's just, if I don't get ananswer, I'm not just going to
move on, and so that was amoment.
And so that was a moment.
And then I also interviewedPremier Danielle Smith recently
and about a lot of thelegislation she had introduced
(26:23):
around gender affirming care,and I had asked her a pretty
pointed series of questionsabout what evidence she had to
support that policymaking.
And again similar thing.
It was like you know, ok well,do you have this evidence?
No, I don't.
Aaron Pete (26:41):
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 shesaid like hundreds, even
thousands.
And then you were like, well,there's a difference.
Vassy Kapelos (26:47):
Yeah, and a lot of her supporters were really
mad at that interview and likereally sort of came at me saying
that I was what was the word?
I got a lot of emails sort ofsaying like I was supportive of
experimenting on kids and stufflike that.
So that had an impact in a way.
Not necessarily like you knowwhat I mean, I don't care.
Like I'm very like confident inthe questions that I ask, but I
(27:10):
sometimes like you just don'tknow.
You know what I mean, howsomething is going to be
interpreted, and so those aretwo things that kind of stick
out to me more recently.
Aaron Pete (27:24):
Interesting Along those same veins.
In preparing for an interview,is it a challenge?
Is the format at all ever achallenge from your perspective,
because there's not enoughspace or time to maybe humanize
the person?
That's something that was veryrewarding in my interview with
Pattity haidu is like we hadsome time to kind of just
humanize, get to know the person, then get into some tough
(27:44):
questions.
Do you, do you reflect on thatat all as a challenge or do you
enjoy the format?
Vassy Kapelos (27:48):
I think you do such a good job.
I think I, I think watchingyour interviews has, uh, like I
I have envy, right, and that youyou do have the time, but you
you handle it so well.
You do a great mix of likegetting to know somebody, which
I do think is certainly likegreat for people who are
watching and then also great forthe person who's being
interviewed.
(28:08):
And then you also ask asubstantive, tougher questions,
which I think is excellent.
Like it's such a great platform.
It's just not the one that I'vebeen bestowed, and I'm pretty
aware of that and and like,honestly, if, maybe, if I had a
different type of job or adifferent opportunity, I too
would enjoy that.
I just don't, like I have 10 to12 minutes and so I can't do
(28:33):
any of the humanizing stuff.
I mean, I can just be in, youknow, I think, look, I'm
hammering hard in those 10minutes, but I'm trying to do it
in a respectful way.
Always, and that's important tome as well I'm not there to
bludgeon anybody, I'm there toactually get some answers, and
so I try to like navigate thatas best I can.
But sure, it would be nice ifit's not the job right now.
Aaron Pete (28:58):
Agreed, I totally understand.
I was just curious about that.
The other one that I wanted toask you about and I actually
asked my producer thisbeforehand, just to try and see
maybe I'm crazy, but do you atall feel like liberals or
left-leaf people on the leftside of the spectrum maybe get,
um, a bit more deference,because it's often coming from a
(29:22):
place of kindness orunderstanding in a way that I
don't think maybe conservativesget that level of deference like
?
The one area that stands out tome as an example is when pierre
pauliev talks about safe supplyand he was like why are you
calling safe supply?
It's not safe supply, it'sdrugs.
Like it's not like I don't knowwhat you think it is, but it's
drugs, drugs.
And I just like in that moment Ijust thought like we do shape
(29:44):
the conversation around wordsand words when you say safe
supply, like who wouldn't beagainst something that's safe,
like it's?
It almost is baked into thewording that we use.
That like you almost start froma better position if you were
arguing safe supply thancriminalizing.
Like the positions areautomatically starting them at a
(30:05):
different place.
I I would say and I was justreflecting on does does that
impact the politicalconversation at all, and I would
just be curious on yourreflections on that.
Do we give more?
Vassy Kapelos (30:18):
such an interesting question.
I'm not sure if I know theanswer, because I think, like I
think in the same token, youknow, if conservatives, let's
say, are using the words harddrugs to describe it like,
neither is like perfectly honest, if that makes sense, condotes
a certain sentiment, andliberals or more progressives
(30:41):
are hoping that the term, as youput it, safe supply, connotes a
different sentiment as well.
I think the in the aggregate, Idon't know.
I think it's worth thinkingabout if, if, if, there's sort
of more deference to certainterms because, like, those are
more associated with theprogressive side of things,
maybe.
But I also think, like in thatdebate for example, it may have
(31:04):
backfired in some circles, right, and I think there is even a
cognizance of that amongliberals, because they were kind
of more gung ho a few years agoabout the idea of, for example,
decriminalization and they, assoon as that became a hot debate
and I think words were employedon both sides to try and again
connote a certain sentiment,they like backed right off the
(31:28):
possibility of it happening inToronto, right?
No-transcript, I'm not sure Iprovide more deference one way
or the other and I don't thinkthat reporter came at it
thinking I'm going to call itsafe supply to make Pierre
Pelliev look bad, if that makessense.
Aaron Pete (31:49):
That's what I mean.
It's almost unintentional.
When you say something like areyou against safe supply, it's
starting the conversation fromare you against things that are
safe?
Vassy Kapelos (31:59):
It starts from a different person If you say like
, are you pro like because like,because you're you're, you know
you.
Are you pro hard drugs?
Right, like, that's the same.
It's sort of the same level ofdishonesty in that it's yes,
they are, but there is like acontrol over the supply in a way
.
But then on the other side,like, is that control just a
(32:20):
fallacy and is it still keepingthat in the system?
Like, I see?
I definitely see where both arecoming from.
Aaron Pete (32:26):
It's one of the more divisive subjects for sure that
doesn't demonstrate, like my,my bias or like I.
So like and tim just got mad atme before this I didn't vote in
the provincial election becauseI got to interview, um, all of
(32:47):
the leaders, because I don't Idon't want to know my bias and
like I don't know either.
Vassy Kapelos (32:53):
Yeah, do you okay ?
Okay, can you elaborate on this?
Yeah, I don't, I don't either.
For the same reason, I justwant a clean conscience.
I mean I and it's it's hard tocome to grips with that because
I believe so much in the abilityto vote and what everyone went
through so that we can beafforded that opportunity piece
(33:22):
of uh, you know every politicianI interview, every piece of
tape that I do like I just wantto be free of any confirmation
of my bias, like I just don'twant to have that hanging over
my head.
And I said I feel, in myexperience, since I have, you
know, embraced that like I feelless, um, encumbered, like it is
, it is, it is being a goodpractice for me, though please
don't take that as me tellinganybody not to vote.
Aaron Pete (33:44):
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 thebenefit of casting a ballot and
like learning that for myself,discovering what my position
might be like.
I do feel like that'sdefinitive until the next
election and I didn't want tocarry that forward where I
either felt like I owed a debtto the other side or that I was
(34:09):
on a team Like I didn't want anyof that in my mind as we moved
forward and you feel like youknew at the end of it who you
would vote for.
Vassy Kapelos (34:15):
No, no, isn't that interesting.
See, this is also somethingpeople don't think of when they
think of political journalists.
They think we're all like wegot a stake in everything.
My experience has been thelonger I do this, the less I
could ever picture beingattached to one ideology.
Aaron Pete (34:32):
I think that's the, that's the challenge so many
people face, right, because yousay you choose Justin Trudeau in
2015 and the world's going tobe X place.
Then we're here today and then,well, did I make a mistake in
2015?
Like that doesn't really makesense because you were voting
your best conscience with theinformation you had at the time.
To say that you made an error,I don't.
(34:53):
I don't think would be correct.
But you see the kind ofpolitical ebbs and flows of the
time and what's like agreeabletoday might not be agreeable
tomorrow.
Vassy Kapelos (35:05):
But I think also in the case of like people like
you and I, I imagine when youinterviewed all the leaders like
you really spent a long timeresearching where the holes were
in each of their arguments,right, and what they hadn't
really answered, and stuff likethat and so when that becomes
all you do, it becomes like Ican be like well, the liberals
are short on this, but theTories are short on this.
(35:25):
So to me that's like the way itis in my head all the time.
So it becomes like very hard toidentify in a way that I might
have 30 years ago.
Aaron Pete (35:34):
The other piece I wanted to ask about and I
reflected on it a bit with UFCfighter who's actually out in uh
Aiemann Zahabi.
Uh, .
We were talking about politicsand one area that I just I felt
like I needed that reminder andI'd just be interested in your
take was like he was like I.
I disagree with where justintrudeau has taken us, but I
(35:54):
think he has the best ofintentions and I just wish
somebody would sit down with himand kind of say like, hey, when
you came in, came in, you had aB and C goal.
Those goals have unfortunatelynot been reached.
So we may want to, you may needto pivot now.
You may need to come back tothe Canadian people and say, hey
, I've gotten some things wrong.
I'd like to address A, b and C.
(36:17):
And the challenge that I putback to him was like we don't
really live in a culture wheretaking ownership in politics is
very easy or responded too well.
Usually it's a confession andyou're held accountable for your
failure.
And I think we see a little bitthat with the immigration
decision that they had made tostep back on that.
The Tories then celebrate andsay, hey, see, we've been
(36:38):
calling this out for years.
We know what the truth was thewhole time and they're finally
confessing to it.
And so are you able to humanizethe people behind a lot of these
decision-making elements.
What is that process for you?
Because I think we've become sopolarized on some of these
issues it's hard to remember.
I needed to be reminded thatJustin Trudeau is a leader Like
(37:01):
I'm, a leader within my FirstNation community.
I'm a counselor.
I'm sure there's there'sprobably 20 percent of people
who don't agree with what I'mdoing, whatever direction I'm
taking the community, and soobviously it's larger for him.
But like nobody gets into it toruin the country, like
everybody goes in, perhaps withthe best of intent.
Vassy Kapelos (37:18):
And I think I might have even said this with
you last time like I'm not acynic, like it's weird, but I I
actually I have a lot of respectfor everybody who gets into
this.
It's not easy and I don't thinkthat, you know, there are some
people who are maybe powerhungry, but most of them are
getting into it because theyhope they can have some kind of
impact on the, on the future ofthe country.
(37:38):
And I actually come at it withthat as a backdrop to how I
approach everything.
It's why I mean alongside, likeit's just who I am, like I'm
not going to be a jerk to any ofthem, but I don't think that
absolves them from likequestioning on the policies that
they're pursuing, right, that'swhy I'm not like, are you a bad
person?
I'm not, you know.
(37:58):
Like, is this the right policyto have pursued when you did?
And the question of humility, Ithink, and, like you know,
pivoting and sort ofacknowledging that maybe you had
erred or that the policy youpursued wasn't the right one.
I'm sort of again, they're likea bit of a contrarian in that I
think it depends on themessenger and I think it depends
on whether Canadians believethat the acknowledgement of
(38:23):
wrongdoing is authentic and thatthat person really is coming at
things with humility or humble.
And I think there are someexamples.
I think back to COVID, wheresome premiers were able to do
that very successfully and arestill in their jobs and there
are other premiers who could notand I think the biggest part of
(38:43):
that was they were almost likeforced into the change, the
policy change, because of a lackof popularity and they never
really like, they never reallyfelt it, never felt like they
were comfortable saying I made amistake and you can tell.
I think Canadians are so smartthey can tell in their gut if
someone is being real about thatand I actually think they have
(39:06):
a huge appetite and a hugeability to forgive and move on
if they feel like the apology orthe acknowledgement of
wrongdoing is authentic.
If they don't, it's useless.
Aaron Pete (39:21):
You give me so much hope in the world.
Okay, so right now, who wouldyour goal political interview be
?
I've heard you talk about howyou've invited both Pierre
Poliev and Justin Trudeau on.
If you could this afternoon,who would it be?
Vassy Kapelos (39:38):
Still hoping, both of them.
Yeah, that's why they're stillsaying no to me.
Aaron, yeah, yeah, that's.
And then I gotta say, like,given the degree to which he has
uh taken aim at canada already,I would like to interview the
incoming president.
I mean, how could I not?
I mean, I know that thoseinterviews are very complicated
because of, uh, the way in whichhe sort of governs himself
(40:00):
during them, but I do think,look, if this person is about to
do something that could ruinour economy, like I would like
to know more about why.
And you know, I think there's aton of obvious accountability
that would present itself toFascinating.
Aaron Pete (40:15):
How do you keep your own bias in check?
How do you stay mindful ofthose things during an interview
?
Vassy Kapelos (40:21):
During an interview I guess like it's in
the preparation for one, that'spart of it I try to consume like
everything I can about thesubject that I'm that I'm
interviewing the person on, andthat may be from a variety of
sources, both like primary andanalysis, and I don't limit
myself when it comes to analysis.
(40:42):
I try to read things that youknow might not be instinctual,
and the less instinctual theyare, the more I try to read them
, if that makes sense.
So I think it's more in thepreparation phase of things that
I really tried to check thebias In the interview.
I just treat every single onein the same way, like in the
moment right where I'm like well, how much is this person
(41:02):
answering the question?
It doesn't matter what theirpolitical party is.
I'm like if they're answeringme, then I'm going to keep going
.
If they're not answering me ortheir answers fall short and
they're not directly addressingthe substance of the question,
then I'm going to keep asking,just as I would with anybody.
So I find like it's less of aworry for me in the interview,
it's just in the preparation forit where I'm like figuring out
(41:23):
what angle I want to take orwhat I'm hoping to get out of it
what the line of questioning isgoing to be.
I'm trying to like get as manydifferent viewpoints in that in
that process as possible.
Aaron Pete (41:35):
OK, two more quick questions.
Politics can be deeplypolarizing, and I think it is
right now.
How do you approach coveringpolitical figures who might be
loved by one group andcriticized by another in today's
divided climate?
Vassy Kapelos (41:49):
I hope this doesn't sound vacuous, but I
really hope to just not thinkabout the way they're being
perceived, because I think evenmyself I'm perceived very
differently at different times.
Like, because I think evenmyself, like I'm perceived very
differently at different times.
And if I let what, on Tuesday,one group is saying about me
inform the way I govern myselfon Wednesday, then I'm not
really true to myself, right?
So I just sort of take everyinterview I do, in particular
(42:14):
obviously with politicians, atits own like, based on its own
merits.
And you know, I don't think,for example, if I interviewed
Justin Trudeau today, it wouldhave been different than in 2016
.
Like, I don't care that he wasmore popular then or now.
Like, I'm going to approach itthe exact same way.
Aaron Pete (42:30):
Stepping back from politics for a moment.
Your daily radio show lets youexplore non-political topics.
What have been some of the mostrewarding conversations you've
been able to have there?
Vassy Kapelos (42:40):
Oh, what a great question.
What have been some of the mostrewarding 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 andit's basically a 10-minute
segment in which I solicit thequestions from people listening
over the week.
What is something you heartalked about but you don't
(43:02):
understand?
And it sort of arise from thisidea 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 aton of them about the conflict
in the Middle East right, likeeven serious stuff, because
explanatory stuff can be reallyhelpful in research, right,
obviously.
So I really liked that.
(43:22):
I was like, wow, there's, Ifeel like there's anyway.
Their questions have been socool, like the things that I
have learned about ADHD andadults and kids, about why La
Nina is and what El Nino and LaNina means, like this all over
the map kinds of questions.
And my producer full credit tohim, noah Walker's his name he
finds like the best people, likepeople are so enthusiastically
(43:46):
able to do these segments, likethey love the idea of just 10
minutes of like here's.
You know what the question isand we're just gonna have a
conversation that helps peopleunderstand this concept,
whatever it happens.
I mean, we've had things fromhealth to how does our 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 peopleLike there are so many smart
(44:11):
people in this world that I'mjust every day when we do that
segment, I'm like I walk awayand I'm like, wow, I am like 2%
smarter today because of thisinterview and I and I it was
when I have admitted that Ididn'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 realhighlight over the past few
months.
Aaron Pete (44:27):
Okay, to close it out, One of my favorite comments
from you throughout thisconversation was the respect
that you have for Canadians.
So often Canadians are comingto you with information,
probably submitting questionsvia email, reaching out on
social media.
However they do it, what wouldyou like to say to your audience
if you were able to respond tothem today?
Vassy Kapelos (44:47):
Oh, you're so nice to ask that question.
I thank them from the bottom ofmy heart for consuming the
things that I'm lucky enough toparticipate in and to be able to
do.
I actually like we talked lastnight, I think about the social
media stuff and how people canbe so crazy like.
The majority of people whocontact me or who you know
(45:11):
converse with me on social media, like on Instagram in
particular, or who talk to me inthe street or at a party or
anything, are the nicest, mostlike, eagerly informed people,
and I know what life is like,how busy it gets, and I am so,
so, beyond grateful that peopletake time, including you, out of
your day to watch the stuffthat I pour, and not just me, a
(45:35):
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 tohave people consume that is
honestly like the greatest honorof my life.
Aaron Pete (45:48):
How can people follow along with your work?
Vassy Kapelos (45:51):
Well, if they have TV still the four people
who do you can watch it on TVfive o'clock Eastern, two
o'clock Pacific.
You can catch it live on CTVNews Channel Monday to Thursday,
and question periods on ourmain channel 11 o'clock Eastern
on Sundays, and I think it playsa similar time actually out
(46:11):
West as well, and all of it's onYouTube.
That's the other thing.
Like all my interviews, we putall of the panels and the
interviews up on YouTube andvery shortly after they air, so
you can consume stuff there.
And then the radio show.
If you have an iHeart talkradio station in your city,
which I think most of us, mostof them, most of them do, you
(46:32):
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 canfollow along there.
Or it's all on podcast too,iheartradio.
You go to iHeartPodcast app.
Thank you.
Aaron Pete (46:48):
Amazing.
Thank you so much, Vashti, forsharing your time.
This was so enlightening.
It's always an honor to speakwith you.
As I said, you set theblueprint and I'm doing my best
to learn from it.
I've taken a lot away from thisconversation.
I'm sure others have.
Thank you for the work you doto make sure we're informed and
understand the issues facingCanadians.
Vassy Kapelos (47:06):
My pleasure.
Thank you for hosting me andcongratulations, as I convey to
you on social media, on all yourmassive success.
Like you're interviewing everyhitter, I'm super impressed,
super proud and I appreciate youmaking the time to talk to me
today.
Aaron Pete (47:18):
Thank you so much.
Welcome back to another episode of the Bigger
Than Me podcast.
Here is your host, Aaron.
There's a lot going on inCanadian and American politics
right now.
Finding trusted news sources isvital to staying informed.
I'm speaking with the ChiefPolitical Correspondent for CTV
News.
We explore where we're at inCanadian politics, the impact of
(00:21):
the recent US election, theimportance of questioning power
and navigating the polarizationwe face in our society.
My guest today is VashiCapellos Vashi, there are a few
guests that I think need anintroduction, but just briefly,
would you mind introducingyourself to people who might not
be acquainted with your work?
Vassy Kapelos (00:40):
Sure, hi, aaron, it's so good to see you again.
I'm Vassy Kapelos and I workfor CTV and their chief
political correspondent and hosta bunch of their TV shows and a
nationalist syndicated radioshow as well.
Aaron Pete (00:55):
Contributing to an informed electorate.
I always love being able tospeak with you.
My first question for you iswhere are we in Canadian
politics right now from yourperspective?
Oh, what a great question.
Vassy Kapelos (01:08):
I think we're on the ever-extending precipice of
a federal election.
I was actually saying this theother day to someone.
I can't believe in the past,like two and a half months, how
little discussion I have beenable to have on the show about
policy and how all of the policydebate has really been subsumed
(01:31):
by an overarching narrativeabout whether or not the
government will survive.
And that has taken like a veryspecific posture around the
privilege debate in parliament,which is very wonky but
essentially has taken over thepossibility of legislation being
introduced or debated.
So that's how it specificallyhas manifested.
(01:51):
But from a narrativeperspective it's even more
manifested Like that's what'shappening on the ground, but
otherwise, like every move, evenwhen they do introduce stuff or
when the opposition says stuff,it's all about like jockeying
around an election and aroundwhether the question of whether
or not this government willsurvive and I just it has been
so pronounced over the lastthree months that like that's
(02:15):
the thing I would say aboutwhere we are right now.
It's not where we were a yearago.
It most certainly is on its wayto an election.
I don't know when.
I just know it's before, youknow, in the fall or before of
next year and I don't know ifyou can escape that in the next
number of months.
Aaron Pete (02:33):
Do you think Canadians should be optimistic
about that?
Do you think we should beconcerned that that is the state
of affairs of this governmentright now?
How do you think Canadiansshould digest that information?
Another great question.
Vassy Kapelos (02:46):
I sort of see it a couple of different ways.
I'm not sure I'll preface myquestion and do what I wish
politicians would say to me.
I'm not sure I have the mostdirect way of answering that
question.
I think sort of two things canbe true at the same time.
I think it's unavoidable and Iremember back to the last year
of the Harper government and howmuch in particular, as the
(03:08):
months dwindled down to whenthat election would happen in
2015, that it became verysimilar, like everything was
viewed was in the context of anelection, and so I do feel like
there's a bit of inevitabilityabout 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 nine or10 year mandate, there is
something intrinsically kind ofabout that that becomes about an
(03:32):
election.
So I'm not to, like you know,cry my soup over over something
like that.
I'm not too upset.
I don't think Canadians shouldbe.
However I do.
I do think definitely the factthat, like there's no
legislation, that there's nodebate going on around
legislation, even if thatlegislation was being introduced
with an eye towards a potentialelection, that's not the end of
(03:54):
the world because ultimately,it's with an eye to trying to
gain support from Canadians thatwould ultimately lead you to
win in an election Either way,whatever party you're looking at
.
So I do feel like it's notgreat that they're not doing
stuff that will address theissues that matter to people,
but it's also not true likenothing is happening.
You know, there's still a lotof stuff that has gone on, that
(04:15):
continues to go on.
It's just this weird inertiathat if it persisted, let's say,
for another eight months, likethat's not good, I don't think
Canadians should love that, butif it persists for a bit longer,
I do think it's a normal courseof the cycle.
Aaron Pete (04:31):
Is it better or worse that we now have a
definitive decision for theUnited States election.
So now, is it better that weget to hear kind of the
political parties when anelection does come, we get to
hear kind of the politicalparties, when an election does
come, talk about how they wouldapproach the issues and then
(04:52):
perhaps get their own mandatevoted in to work with the United
States in way A, b or C?
Or would it have been better ifwe had somebody at the helm now
who already had a mandate inthat position, able to kind of
take the lead on this?
Vassy Kapelos (05:04):
Yeah, I think I think I got to get where you're
going at in that.
So, insofar as and we certainlyheard this, I think, from the
conservatives insofar as, like,obviously, given public opinion
polling, I think the last timewe spoke, like things were just
starting to go downhill for theliberals in a in a big way, and
they have stayed there Right,and even amplified over the last
number of months.
So there's this contention thatthe prime minister is
(05:26):
essentially in a politicallyweakened state, like, is he the
best person to navigate this newthreat from, in particular
around the blanket tariffs fromthe incoming president?
I understand that discussion.
I also think, though, like, ifyou look at it on the face of it
, like he does have a mandateright now.
Like he, he was elected freeand fair in the last election
and, yes, public opinion pollsshow that a majority of
(05:47):
Canadians are not happy with thedirection of the country.
They're not happy with him, butultimately, the only formal
expression of that sentiment isa vote, and the last vote that
happened put this prime ministerinto that position.
So I think, until there isanother election and I do
understand the push for one,sure, but like he officially
does have the mandate to kind ofnegotiate on our behalf and
(06:08):
defend Canadian interests, andyou may not agree with the way
he's doing that or you may notalign with what he defines as in
the best interest of Canadiansto the fact that there was a
vote and there will be a vote.
As for what happens when thatvote does occur and the degree
to which what's happening in theUS might impact people's
(06:30):
choices or ultimately what thenext government faces, I think
it's huge.
It feels like a complete channelchanger and not in the way of
distracting, in just thateverything feels different, and
I think primarily because youcan't overstate the potential
impact of what a 25 percenttariff would do to our economy.
(06:51):
I interviewed the premier inyour province, as you have
premier Amy, premiers across thecountry, premier Ford, premier
Smith.
There isn't a premier who doesnot say, if those tariffs are
applied, that their provincialeconomies would enter almost
immediately into a recession.
Like that is an enormous deal.
That is a huge weight thatfaces any politician at any
(07:12):
level in this country, eithernow or coming into power.
I don't know how it doesn'tbecome a massive election issue,
right, like I don't know how itdoesn't at least in part inform
the way in which Canadians vote, like you're going to be
looking at, ok, who can navigatethis, who can handle this and
who's going to get the bestoutcome for Canadians.
So I do feel like it's had abig impact and I do feel like it
(07:35):
will continue to.
Aaron Pete (07:38):
The way I was going with the question is because
everything I've understood and Itry and consume as much
politics and understand theissues to the best of my ability
but it was that Justin Trudeauand the liberal government
actually did a really good jobat negotiating the first time
Trump was in power.
In regards to renegotiatingNAFTA, things happen, and so I
(08:01):
do think if there is an electionnow held in the future, that
actually would benefit, becausethen you can run on.
We've done this before.
Hopefully we can do it again ina good way and deliver for
Canadians.
The challenge for the oppositionleader is that they don't have
that previous experience.
They don't have a track recordto run on, and so there's this
(08:21):
similar isolationism you'veheard from the Conservatives of
like we'll just focus on makingCanada stronger and better and
improving our economy, and so Idon't know how that would go.
But I find it more interestingas a voter to have them both
kind of pitch their solutions,rather than if we had had an
election, say in the fall ofthis year, and had that resolved
(08:42):
.
Then we would be going in andnot knowing if this person
actually does have a good plan.
So I feel like the consequencefor Canada is that we're in a
better position if we have theelection in the next 10 months.
Vassy Kapelos (08:53):
Yeah, maybe that's a good point.
It's so interesting that yousay because I do think that the
Liberals are going to make thatargument and they have right
over the past few weeks, we havesurvived this once, we can
survive it again.
And you make a fair point, likeI think, objectively speaking,
the fact that NAFTA still existsis the primary metric by which
(09:13):
we can judge the success oftheir initial navigation of
Donald Trump's first presidency.
And no recession maybe, yeah,at the time.
It's just the conditions are abit different now, right, both
externally and internally, andexternally, 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.
(09:34):
The threat's on the table butisn't fixed or whatever he is
highlighting in his in histhreat to apply those tariffs
doesn't appease him that he willsort of as arbitrarily as it
feels, apply this 25 percenttariff across the board, and
(09:55):
it's he says he's going to do itJanuary 20th, on day one,
through an executive order.
So, like the time, we don'teven have years to sort of
escape the dramatic impact thatthis would have.
We have just a month and a half.
So I don't know if the argumentwill work in the same way.
You know, I think, like we canall hope as Canadians, that
(10:16):
whomever is leading the churchcan advocate for us and make
sure that our economy escapes arecession.
But I think you make a goodpoint.
Like, either way it's going tobe, it's going to be a part of
he's going to be there for fouryears, so it's going to impart a
real piece of analysis foreveryone deciding how to vote.
Aaron Pete (10:36):
You covered the election very well for Canadians
, for us to understand what wasgoing on.
Did this outcome surprise you?
Was it unexpected?
You obviously visited the US tounderstand and get kind of that
real-world view of what wasgoing on.
Did this outcome surprise you?
Vassy Kapelos (10:55):
I definitely wouldn't say it surprised me.
I feel like I covered the firstTrump win and I remember being
in New York City for that andthe degree to which, like what I
was conveying to like ouraudiences was met with surprise
at the time and that experiencereally like stuck with me, if
that makes sense, in that Ididn't ever want to be part of
(11:18):
sort of like the machine thatthought this could never happen
or whatever, and I thought I wasvery lucky that my employer
this summer really allowed me togo meet people who do support
both candidates at the, both theRNC and the DNC, and get a
sense myself of like what wasdriving their support and the
level of support that they didhold for each of the candidates
(11:41):
and sort of what their sentimentaround an election was for each
of the candidates and sort ofwhat their sentiment around an
election was.
And I remember like that.
The interesting thing is theelection changed so much over
the summer insofar as, like hewas nearly killed Right, he got
that, that assassination attempt.
Then the RNC was just a fewdays later.
I was and I conveyed this on TVat the time like beyond struck
(12:02):
by the degree to which peoplewho are at the RNC were so
incredibly faithful to him as aperson, like forget about his
politics, forget about right,left, republican, democrat, like
they were there for Trump.
They were so motivated and youhad to think at the time how
much of this is like somethingthat's always there and how much
of it was informed by theassassination attempt, the arm
(12:24):
in the air, the whole picture ofit all.
Right, but I did leave that.
And even when you talk topeople it was in Milwaukee Every
cab driver I had, everybody atthe hotel, was telling me
Trump's going to win this thing.
This was when Biden was stillin the race, right, and so I
left and I said even on TV, likeI feel like it would take a
miracle for Trump not to win atthis point.
It felt very much like it wouldtake a miracle for Trump not to
(12:51):
win at this point.
It felt very much like it wasbecause of how motivated his
supporters were, like it feltinevitable.
But then a few days later I'min Chicago and airing a show
from the hotel because Joe Bidenquit and I think like what
happened with that was it wassuch a seismic moment in
politics and in that race and inAmerican political history that
it was impossible not to feellike the ground had shifted
right, just because of how bigof a deal it was.
And so then you go to the DNCnot too long after that and
(13:14):
there's certainly momentum there.
But, as I said, at that timetoo, like the momentum was there
in a big way, there wasenthusiasm that was sorely
lacking for Joe Biden certainly,but you didn't feel as though
there was the same level ofdevotion to the quote-unquote
cause as there was at the RNC.
So ultimately, when you know inthe months that followed the
(13:36):
polls bore out that it was verytight, it made sense.
It didn't seem crazy to me andI think this, you know this
conclusion many people havereached, that the polls were
totally wrong.
I'm sort of a bit of acontrarian on like the polls
were all within the margin oferror.
The margin of error was decided.
It just all went one way.
Ultimately he won things by oneand a half to two percent, which
(13:57):
is within a margin of error.
It's just everywhere thathappened.
So the win was decisive and andwide in scope.
But ultimately it wasn't likeall of a sudden she lost by 20
percent or he won by, by 25percent.
And so I, I, I wasn't shocked.
Um, I guess the only thing thatwas like, quite like, oh, was
the decisive nature of it rightand the degree to which,
(14:18):
particularly a lot of placeswhere they were going to make
lots of gains or gain lots ofground as Democrats like, never
came to fruition and the gainsthat he made in traditionally
Democratic places like Iremember that night, new Jersey
and Virginia, taken way longerthan we thought they would to be
called for the Democrats Like.
That was very like.
I'm not sure I would haveexpected that would to be called
(14:39):
for the Democrats Like that wasvery like.
Aaron Pete (14:39):
I'm not sure I would have expected that.
Okay, I really want to lingeron what you said about being a
part of that machinery andhaving a feeling that your
audience or you were likecouldn't believe the outcome
from 2016.
Because that really doesfascinate me.
I spoke to Steve Paikin and wehad a really interesting
discussion.
The part where him and I I feellike differed pretty
significantly and I laid outthree different arguments for
(15:01):
how I come to this conclusion.
I feel personally that you andthe show you host is the most
unbiased, most open-endedpolitical show.
When I look at CBC or GlobalNews as kind of their anchor
shows, like when I watch yours,I feel like it is unbiased and
willing to go any direction.
(15:22):
The conversation needs to go toinform Canadians, like that's
your panelists, the people youinterview, the voices you hear
from.
I get that energy and StevePaking kind of pointed it back
at me.
Maybe it's my bias that I'mkind of seeing that through my
own tea leaves.
But then the interview we wedid, that's the comments,
hundreds and hundreds ofcomments from people saying you
(15:43):
are one of the last strongjournalists, um, in the
corporate news, that that issupporting these voices and
making sure this is heard.
So like I don't feel like Ilike that's his opinion that I I
might have a bit of bias.
I don't think that bears outwhen I look at the voices and
when I laid out my argument asto who I hear from and how they
frame the discussions in othershows.
(16:03):
That's just my personalperspective.
But when you talk about thismachinery, the only thing when
you talk about the Joe Bidenstuff that makes me think of is
like the Joe Scarborough sharpas a tack, the best I've ever
seen him like a week and a halfbefore the guy resigns like that
.
That builds mistrust betweenthe audience and and the person.
And then he comes out like Ithink it was a week after that
(16:25):
and was like, yeah, I think heneeds to resign, this is the
best path.
Like that change, I think, isso jarring for people.
How do you, how do you approachthat?
How do you, how do you digestthat when you see it happen?
How do you manage that withinyour own world?
Because, as I said, I thinkyou're very good at not letting
your audience become sosurprised by by events well,
(16:46):
that's very kind of.
Vassy Kapelos (16:47):
I appreciate those comments very much.
I I I would say a few things.
I think.
I think I, I can be culpable ofit too.
Like I think, when you raise theexample of joe biden, for, uh,
specifically, um, like therewere moments when I think back
of watching his pressconferences, watching certain
things where you know you wouldbe like, huh, this, this scenes
(17:09):
off, right.
But then I remember I would tryto, like, you know, I'm not
there, so so then I try toconsume what I can from
mainstream and other sourcesabout like, what's really going
on.
And you know, while themainstream sources can be viewed
as dismissive of that, and Ithink that's fair to say, the
(17:31):
like, non-mainstream sourceswere so like next level about it
and it was all memes and Ididn't, I couldn't really
discern in a great way, likewhat was authentic or not.
That I felt like I'm confusedto me, to be honest, until the
debate and I remember the nightof the debate, we did a special
and it was like the second itended.
I think Scott Reed was one ofmy panelists.
(17:52):
I remember him being like it'sdone, it's over, like, and
people were at that point freeand fair to be like.
You know there's no, there's noway you can ignore what you
just saw.
But the fact that it was asstark and as sort of pronounced
as it was that night made methink a little bit about my own
(18:13):
shortcomings and reflect on likehow did I contribute to a world
in which this was the shockthat it was?
I feel like it's a little bitharder only because it is the US
.
So like if this hadn't happenedin Canada, it would be all on me
and I would be like literallylike what?
Where did I go astray?
But even it was a goodopportunity.
(18:34):
I mean, the thing is like we'rejust people doing this job.
No-transcript, because when Iwent to New York and I talked to
(19:09):
Trump supporters there isactually my now husband was my
cameraman and we were liketalking to people on the ground
there and I remember, two daysbefore the election were like
nobody here thinks they're goingto lose.
Nobody thought it.
And and that was the firstindication we had like maybe
this isn't what the consensusview is like, maybe maybe there
(19:31):
is some sort of surprise instore.
And I remember thinking like whyam I so surprised at this point
to have that conveyed to me andit was like a real life lesson
to me.
It's why I really wanted to goto the RNC and I just feel like
there's no substitute fortalking to people and getting
the information firsthandBecause, as I pointed, like when
(19:53):
I tried to figure out the Bidenthing and like where I may have
gone wrong it's very difficultto get straight up stuff Right
and and I know people aredisappointed with mainstream
media and I'm not saying they'rethey're free of any of that
culpability but a lot of thesources that aren't verified,
that aren't sort of that, don'thave some sort of code of ethics
(20:14):
or anything like.
Some of it is very hard to getthrough to like I don't know
what to trust there and so Ilean away from it in certain in
sort of informing exactly what Ipresent to the world, and so
all of that is like I don't knowpart of part of like getting
better at what I do and and,like I said, like I'm not going
to, sometimes I'm going to falldown, like I don't know how to
(20:36):
avoid that except for keeptrying not to.
Aaron Pete (20:38):
Sometimes I'm going to fall down, like I don't know
how to avoid that, except forkeep trying not to the big
takeaway and maybe this is likea silly question but like, how
do you hold on to thatwillingness to like almost
recalibrate during these momentswhen I don't know what I hear,
when I consume kind of like theidea of where media is at?
It's often like everybody'stalking to the same people, so
(20:58):
they kind of get stuck in theirown echo chambers and then these
things surprise them.
How do you keep that humilityto want to recalibrate, like
where does that come from foryou?
Vassy Kapelos (21:10):
It comes from, like, completely inside.
Like I have to say that, youknow, to the credit of all the
networks I've worked at, therehas never been anyone who has
said to me like, do this, dothat, tell it this way, tell it
that way.
So I have complete free will.
So if I'm falling short onsomething, it's on me.
And this has been a real sortof evolution in my career where
(21:34):
it's like, you know, you startout in any job and it's easy to
blame other people, right, it'slike, well, I didn't have the
resources to do that, theydidn't have someone over there,
they didn't, you know, whateverit is, but ultimately, like,
you're the master of your owndestiny.
I really believe I'm luckyenough to be able to say that,
because not everyone is affordedthat kind of opportunity.
And it's really true.
Where I've worked, I feel likeI feel sad that the impression
(21:57):
is so different and I understandwhy it sometimes is.
But like, truly nobody has evertold me you know, you should
have gone harder on Trump, youshould have gone easier on, but
like, like nothing like that.
So if I fell short, it's on meand I mean I think I said this
to you last time like this isn'tjust a job to me, this is the
(22:18):
career I want to have for aslong as this exists.
I'm very proud to do what I doand I I take it very seriously
and I just don't believe mepretending that I'm never going
to make a mistake is going tohelp anybody, right, and so I
have a lot of humility what Icome to, because I feel like I
have no, I mean, there's noother way that I, that I should
(22:39):
be, and so I, I, yeah, I don'treally hesitate, I guess, to to
go to that place because I'mallowed to, I have total free
will to.
That's my job, and I feel likeif I want to be a leader in this
industry, I've got to do thingslike that.
Aaron Pete (22:57):
My next question is what is your job?
If you were to define it byyour own definition, what is
your job?
Vassy Kapelos (23:07):
You inform Canadians about what's happening
in the halls of power thatultimately has an impact on
their lives, and to hold thepeople who occupy those halls
accountable.
Aaron Pete (23:23):
You talk about accountability.
Can you share a moment in aninterview or something where you
felt like you really were ableto hold power accountable, oh?
Vassy Kapelos (23:32):
you just froze.
Sorry, one second again.
Sorry, I don't know what justhappened, but you totally Give
me one second.
Okay, now you're back.
Now you're back.
Your internet connection isunstable.
This is weird.
It's never happened.
I'm so sorry.
No worries, oh, I'm fine, Okay.
Aaron Pete (23:48):
You're coming in clear too.
It's great, like it's notcoming in like later.
Vassy Kapelos (23:53):
Okay, it's not like we're a telecommunications
company, it's fine pardon meanything.
Aaron Pete (23:59):
You talk about accountability.
I'm wondering if there's amoment where you held the power
accountable that stood out toyou as a meaningful moment what
do you mean by meaningful?
Vassy Kapelos (24:13):
like something that that I remember or that was
like sort of contentious insome way, or like if I had to,
if I had to form a guess.
Aaron Pete (24:23):
I imagine when people, when politicians, come
on your show, they know whatthey're in for somewhat, they
know that they're going to beasked tough questions and so I
imagine that after thatinterview, decisions are made on
what the reception of that isgoing to be and what decisions
need to be made, and I imaginethat an interview with you can
influence the politicaldiscussion broadly.
(24:45):
I'm just curious as to how theimpact holding power,
accountable can have when you'reable to do it effectively.
Vassy Kapelos (24:54):
It's a good question.
I'm not sure that necessarily Igo in thinking about like sort
of inject, like what will thischange?
What will this do?
I sort of have a bit more of amyopic view in that I.
I'm thinking about okay, whatis it that I really think that
they haven't been transparentabout or they haven't offered
(25:16):
enough detail on, or like theiranswers so far have been very
wanting, if that makes sense.
And so there are like somemoments recently where you know,
for example, I interviewed,right after Trump, the foreign
affairs minister, and I wasasking her about defense
spending because I hadinterviewed Kelly Craft, who was
Trump's ambassador, still closeto the Trump world, and she had
(25:40):
really hurt on the two percentand how we need to speed things
up.
And so I turned to put thequestion to Minister Jolie, like
are you willing to?
And she didn't.
You know, she said stuff butdidn't answer.
I asked again, she said stuff,she didn't answer and anyway, at
the end of that she like kindof went well, I know it's your
strategy to ask a question fourtimes.
(26:01):
I thought that was a prettytelling moment and that sort of
struck me because I actuallythink that is it's not a
strategy.
It's just, if I don't get ananswer, I'm not just going to
move on, and so that was amoment.
And so that was a moment.
And then I also interviewedPremier Danielle Smith recently
and about a lot of thelegislation she had introduced
(26:23):
around gender affirming care,and I had asked her a pretty
pointed series of questionsabout what evidence she had to
support that policymaking.
And again similar thing.
It was like you know, ok well,do you have this evidence?
No, I don't.
Aaron Pete (26:41):
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 shesaid like hundreds, even
thousands.
And then you were like, well,there's a difference.
Vassy Kapelos (26:47):
Yeah, and a lot of her supporters were really
mad at that interview and likereally sort of came at me saying
that I was what was the word?
I got a lot of emails sort ofsaying like I was supportive of
experimenting on kids and stufflike that.
So that had an impact in a way.
Not necessarily like you knowwhat I mean, I don't care.
Like I'm very like confident inthe questions that I ask, but I
(27:10):
sometimes like you just don'tknow.
You know what I mean, howsomething is going to be
interpreted, and so those aretwo things that kind of stick
out to me more recently.
Aaron Pete (27:24):
Interesting Along those same veins.
In preparing for an interview,is it a challenge?
Is the format at all ever achallenge from your perspective,
because there's not enoughspace or time to maybe humanize
the person?
That's something that was veryrewarding in my interview with
Pattity haidu is like we hadsome time to kind of just
humanize, get to know the person, then get into some tough
(27:44):
questions.
Do you, do you reflect on thatat all as a challenge or do you
enjoy the format?
Vassy Kapelos (27:48):
I think you do such a good job.
I think I, I think watchingyour interviews has, uh, like I
I have envy, right, and that youyou do have the time, but you
you handle it so well.
You do a great mix of likegetting to know somebody, which
I do think is certainly likegreat for people who are
watching and then also great forthe person who's being
interviewed.
(28:08):
And then you also ask asubstantive, tougher questions,
which I think is excellent.
Like it's such a great platform.
It's just not the one that I'vebeen bestowed, and I'm pretty
aware of that and and like,honestly, if, maybe, if I had a
different type of job or adifferent opportunity, I too
would enjoy that.
I just don't, like I have 10 to12 minutes and so I can't do
(28:33):
any of the humanizing stuff.
I mean, I can just be in, youknow, I think, look, I'm
hammering hard in those 10minutes, but I'm trying to do it
in a respectful way.
Always, and that's important tome as well I'm not there to
bludgeon anybody, I'm there toactually get some answers, and
so I try to like navigate thatas best I can.
But sure, it would be nice ifit's not the job right now.
Aaron Pete (28:58):
Agreed, I totally understand.
I was just curious about that.
The other one that I wanted toask you about and I actually
asked my producer thisbeforehand, just to try and see
maybe I'm crazy, but do you atall feel like liberals or
left-leaf people on the leftside of the spectrum maybe get,
um, a bit more deference,because it's often coming from a
(29:22):
place of kindness orunderstanding in a way that I
don't think maybe conservativesget that level of deference like
?
The one area that stands out tome as an example is when pierre
pauliev talks about safe supplyand he was like why are you
calling safe supply?
It's not safe supply, it'sdrugs.
Like it's not like I don't knowwhat you think it is, but it's
drugs, drugs.
And I just like in that moment Ijust thought like we do shape
(29:44):
the conversation around wordsand words when you say safe
supply, like who wouldn't beagainst something that's safe,
like it's?
It almost is baked into thewording that we use.
That like you almost start froma better position if you were
arguing safe supply thancriminalizing.
Like the positions areautomatically starting them at a
(30:05):
different place.
I I would say and I was justreflecting on does does that
impact the politicalconversation at all, and I would
just be curious on yourreflections on that.
Do we give more?
Vassy Kapelos (30:18):
such an interesting question.
I'm not sure if I know theanswer, because I think, like I
think in the same token, youknow, if conservatives, let's
say, are using the words harddrugs to describe it like,
neither is like perfectly honest, if that makes sense, condotes
a certain sentiment, andliberals or more progressives
(30:41):
are hoping that the term, as youput it, safe supply, connotes a
different sentiment as well.
I think the in the aggregate, Idon't know.
I think it's worth thinkingabout if, if, if, there's sort
of more deference to certainterms because, like, those are
more associated with theprogressive side of things,
maybe.
But I also think, like in thatdebate for example, it may have
(31:04):
backfired in some circles, right, and I think there is even a
cognizance of that amongliberals, because they were kind
of more gung ho a few years agoabout the idea of, for example,
decriminalization and they, assoon as that became a hot debate
and I think words were employedon both sides to try and again
connote a certain sentiment,they like backed right off the
(31:28):
possibility of it happening inToronto, right?
No-transcript, I'm not sure Iprovide more deference one way
or the other and I don't thinkthat reporter came at it
thinking I'm going to call itsafe supply to make Pierre
Pelliev look bad, if that makessense.
Aaron Pete (31:49):
That's what I mean.
It's almost unintentional.
When you say something like areyou against safe supply, it's
starting the conversation fromare you against things that are
safe?
Vassy Kapelos (31:59):
It starts from a different person If you say like
, are you pro like because like,because you're you're, you know
you.
Are you pro hard drugs?
Right, like, that's the same.
It's sort of the same level ofdishonesty in that it's yes,
they are, but there is like acontrol over the supply in a way
.
But then on the other side,like, is that control just a
(32:20):
fallacy and is it still keepingthat in the system?
Like, I see?
I definitely see where both arecoming from.
Aaron Pete (32:26):
It's one of the more divisive subjects for sure that
doesn't demonstrate, like my,my bias or like I.
So like and tim just got mad atme before this I didn't vote in
the provincial election becauseI got to interview, um, all of
(32:47):
the leaders, because I don't Idon't want to know my bias and
like I don't know either.
Vassy Kapelos (32:53):
Yeah, do you okay ?
Okay, can you elaborate on this?
Yeah, I don't, I don't either.
For the same reason, I justwant a clean conscience.
I mean I and it's it's hard tocome to grips with that because
I believe so much in the abilityto vote and what everyone went
through so that we can beafforded that opportunity piece
(33:22):
of uh, you know every politicianI interview, every piece of
tape that I do like I just wantto be free of any confirmation
of my bias, like I just don'twant to have that hanging over
my head.
And I said I feel, in myexperience, since I have, you
know, embraced that like I feelless, um, encumbered, like it is
, it is, it is being a goodpractice for me, though please
don't take that as me tellinganybody not to vote.
Aaron Pete (33:44):
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 thebenefit of casting a ballot and
like learning that for myself,discovering what my position
might be like.
I do feel like that'sdefinitive until the next
election and I didn't want tocarry that forward where I
either felt like I owed a debtto the other side or that I was
(34:09):
on a team Like I didn't want anyof that in my mind as we moved
forward and you feel like youknew at the end of it who you
would vote for.
Vassy Kapelos (34:15):
No, no, isn't that interesting.
See, this is also somethingpeople don't think of when they
think of political journalists.
They think we're all like wegot a stake in everything.
My experience has been thelonger I do this, the less I
could ever picture beingattached to one ideology.
Aaron Pete (34:32):
I think that's the, that's the challenge so many
people face, right, because yousay you choose Justin Trudeau in
2015 and the world's going tobe X place.
Then we're here today and then,well, did I make a mistake in
2015?
Like that doesn't really makesense because you were voting
your best conscience with theinformation you had at the time.
To say that you made an error,I don't.
(34:53):
I don't think would be correct.
But you see the kind ofpolitical ebbs and flows of the
time and what's like agreeabletoday might not be agreeable
tomorrow.
Vassy Kapelos (35:05):
But I think also in the case of like people like
you and I, I imagine when youinterviewed all the leaders like
you really spent a long timeresearching where the holes were
in each of their arguments,right, and what they hadn't
really answered, and stuff likethat and so when that becomes
all you do, it becomes like Ican be like well, the liberals
are short on this, but theTories are short on this.
(35:25):
So to me that's like the way itis in my head all the time.
So it becomes like very hard toidentify in a way that I might
have 30 years ago.
Aaron Pete (35:34):
The other piece I wanted to ask about and I
reflected on it a bit with UFCfighter who's actually out in uh
Aiemann Zahabi.
Uh, .
We were talking about politicsand one area that I just I felt
like I needed that reminder andI'd just be interested in your
take was like he was like I.
I disagree with where justintrudeau has taken us, but I
(35:54):
think he has the best ofintentions and I just wish
somebody would sit down with himand kind of say like, hey, when
you came in, came in, you had aB and C goal.
Those goals have unfortunatelynot been reached.
So we may want to, you may needto pivot now.
You may need to come back tothe Canadian people and say, hey
, I've gotten some things wrong.
I'd like to address A, b and C.
(36:17):
And the challenge that I putback to him was like we don't
really live in a culture wheretaking ownership in politics is
very easy or responded too well.
Usually it's a confession andyou're held accountable for your
failure.
And I think we see a little bitthat with the immigration
decision that they had made tostep back on that.
The Tories then celebrate andsay, hey, see, we've been
(36:38):
calling this out for years.
We know what the truth was thewhole time and they're finally
confessing to it.
And so are you able to humanizethe people behind a lot of these
decision-making elements.
What is that process for you?
Because I think we've become sopolarized on some of these
issues it's hard to remember.
I needed to be reminded thatJustin Trudeau is a leader Like
(37:01):
I'm, a leader within my FirstNation community.
I'm a counselor.
I'm sure there's there'sprobably 20 percent of people
who don't agree with what I'mdoing, whatever direction I'm
taking the community, and soobviously it's larger for him.
But like nobody gets into it toruin the country, like
everybody goes in, perhaps withthe best of intent.
Vassy Kapelos (37:18):
And I think I might have even said this with
you last time like I'm not acynic, like it's weird, but I I
actually I have a lot of respectfor everybody who gets into
this.
It's not easy and I don't thinkthat, you know, there are some
people who are maybe powerhungry, but most of them are
getting into it because theyhope they can have some kind of
impact on the, on the future ofthe country.
(37:38):
And I actually come at it withthat as a backdrop to how I
approach everything.
It's why I mean alongside, likeit's just who I am, like I'm
not going to be a jerk to any ofthem, but I don't think that
absolves them from likequestioning on the policies that
they're pursuing, right, that'swhy I'm not like, are you a bad
person?
I'm not, you know.
(37:58):
Like, is this the right policyto have pursued when you did?
And the question of humility, Ithink, and, like you know,
pivoting and sort ofacknowledging that maybe you had
erred or that the policy youpursued wasn't the right one.
I'm sort of again, they're likea bit of a contrarian in that I
think it depends on themessenger and I think it depends
on whether Canadians believethat the acknowledgement of
(38:23):
wrongdoing is authentic and thatthat person really is coming at
things with humility or humble.
And I think there are someexamples.
I think back to COVID, wheresome premiers were able to do
that very successfully and arestill in their jobs and there
are other premiers who could notand I think the biggest part of
(38:43):
that was they were almost likeforced into the change, the
policy change, because of a lackof popularity and they never
really like, they never reallyfelt it, never felt like they
were comfortable saying I made amistake and you can tell.
I think Canadians are so smartthey can tell in their gut if
someone is being real about thatand I actually think they have
(39:06):
a huge appetite and a hugeability to forgive and move on
if they feel like the apology orthe acknowledgement of
wrongdoing is authentic.
If they don't, it's useless.
Aaron Pete (39:21):
You give me so much hope in the world.
Okay, so right now, who wouldyour goal political interview be
?
I've heard you talk about howyou've invited both Pierre
Poliev and Justin Trudeau on.
If you could this afternoon,who would it be?
Vassy Kapelos (39:38):
Still hoping, both of them.
Yeah, that's why they're stillsaying no to me.
Aaron, yeah, yeah, that's.
And then I gotta say, like,given the degree to which he has
uh taken aim at canada already,I would like to interview the
incoming president.
I mean, how could I not?
I mean, I know that thoseinterviews are very complicated
because of, uh, the way in whichhe sort of governs himself
(40:00):
during them, but I do think,look, if this person is about to
do something that could ruinour economy, like I would like
to know more about why.
And you know, I think there's aton of obvious accountability
that would present itself toFascinating.
Aaron Pete (40:15):
How do you keep your own bias in check?
How do you stay mindful ofthose things during an interview
?
Vassy Kapelos (40:21):
During an interview I guess like it's in
the preparation for one, that'spart of it I try to consume like
everything I can about thesubject that I'm that I'm
interviewing the person on, andthat may be from a variety of
sources, both like primary andanalysis, and I don't limit
myself when it comes to analysis.
(40:42):
I try to read things that youknow might not be instinctual,
and the less instinctual theyare, the more I try to read them
, if that makes sense.
So I think it's more in thepreparation phase of things that
I really tried to check thebias In the interview.
I just treat every single onein the same way, like in the
moment right where I'm like well, how much is this person
(41:02):
answering the question?
It doesn't matter what theirpolitical party is.
I'm like if they're answeringme, then I'm going to keep going
.
If they're not answering me ortheir answers fall short and
they're not directly addressingthe substance of the question,
then I'm going to keep asking,just as I would with anybody.
So I find like it's less of aworry for me in the interview,
it's just in the preparation forit where I'm like figuring out
(41:23):
what angle I want to take orwhat I'm hoping to get out of it
what the line of questioning isgoing to be.
I'm trying to like get as manydifferent viewpoints in that in
that process as possible.
Aaron Pete (41:35):
OK, two more quick questions.
Politics can be deeplypolarizing, and I think it is
right now.
How do you approach coveringpolitical figures who might be
loved by one group andcriticized by another in today's
divided climate?
Vassy Kapelos (41:49):
I hope this doesn't sound vacuous, but I
really hope to just not thinkabout the way they're being
perceived, because I think evenmyself I'm perceived very
differently at different times.
Like, because I think evenmyself, like I'm perceived very
differently at different times.
And if I let what, on Tuesday,one group is saying about me
inform the way I govern myselfon Wednesday, then I'm not
really true to myself, right?
So I just sort of take everyinterview I do, in particular
(42:14):
obviously with politicians, atits own like, based on its own
merits.
And you know, I don't think,for example, if I interviewed
Justin Trudeau today, it wouldhave been different than in 2016
.
Like, I don't care that he wasmore popular then or now.
Like, I'm going to approach itthe exact same way.
Aaron Pete (42:30):
Stepping back from politics for a moment.
Your daily radio show lets youexplore non-political topics.
What have been some of the mostrewarding conversations you've
been able to have there?
Vassy Kapelos (42:40):
Oh, what a great question.
What have been some of the mostrewarding 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 andit's basically a 10-minute
segment in which I solicit thequestions from people listening
over the week.
What is something you heartalked about but you don't
(43:02):
understand?
And it sort of arise from thisidea 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 aton of them about the conflict
in the Middle East right, likeeven serious stuff, because
explanatory stuff can be reallyhelpful in research, right,
obviously.
So I really liked that.
(43:22):
I was like, wow, there's, Ifeel like there's anyway.
Their questions have been socool, like the things that I
have learned about ADHD andadults and kids, about why La
Nina is and what El Nino and LaNina means, like this all over
the map kinds of questions.
And my producer full credit tohim, noah Walker's his name he
finds like the best people, likepeople are so enthusiastically
(43:46):
able to do these segments, likethey love the idea of just 10
minutes of like here's.
You know what the question isand we're just gonna have a
conversation that helps peopleunderstand this concept,
whatever it happens.
I mean, we've had things fromhealth to how does our 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 peopleLike there are so many smart
(44:11):
people in this world that I'mjust every day when we do that
segment, I'm like I walk awayand I'm like, wow, I am like 2%
smarter today because of thisinterview and I and I it was
when I have admitted that Ididn'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 realhighlight over the past few
months.
Aaron Pete (44:27):
Okay, to close it out, One of my favorite comments
from you throughout thisconversation was the respect
that you have for Canadians.
So often Canadians are comingto you with information,
probably submitting questionsvia email, reaching out on
social media.
However they do it, what wouldyou like to say to your audience
if you were able to respond tothem today?
Vassy Kapelos (44:47):
Oh, you're so nice to ask that question.
I thank them from the bottom ofmy heart for consuming the
things that I'm lucky enough toparticipate in and to be able to
do.
I actually like we talked lastnight, I think about the social
media stuff and how people canbe so crazy like.
The majority of people whocontact me or who you know
(45:11):
converse with me on social media, like on Instagram in
particular, or who talk to me inthe street or at a party or
anything, are the nicest, mostlike, eagerly informed people,
and I know what life is like,how busy it gets, and I am so,
so, beyond grateful that peopletake time, including you, out of
your day to watch the stuffthat I pour, and not just me, a
(45:35):
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 tohave people consume that is
honestly like the greatest honorof my life.
Aaron Pete (45:48):
How can people follow along with your work?
Vassy Kapelos (45:51):
Well, if they have TV still the four people
who do you can watch it on TVfive o'clock Eastern, two
o'clock Pacific.
You can catch it live on CTVNews Channel Monday to Thursday,
and question periods on ourmain channel 11 o'clock Eastern
on Sundays, and I think it playsa similar time actually out
(46:11):
West as well, and all of it's onYouTube.
That's the other thing.
Like all my interviews, we putall of the panels and the
interviews up on YouTube andvery shortly after they air, so
you can consume stuff there.
And then the radio show.
If you have an iHeart talkradio station in your city,
which I think most of us, mostof them, most of them do, you
(46:32):
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 canfollow along there.
Or it's all on podcast too,iheartradio.
You go to iHeartPodcast app.
Thank you.
Aaron Pete (46:48):
Amazing.
Thank you so much, Vashti, forsharing your time.
This was so enlightening.
It's always an honor to speakwith you.
As I said, you set theblueprint and I'm doing my best
to learn from it.
I've taken a lot away from thisconversation.
I'm sure others have.
Thank you for the work you doto make sure we're informed and
understand the issues facingCanadians.
Vassy Kapelos (47:06):
My pleasure.
Thank you for hosting me andcongratulations, as I convey to
you on social media, on all yourmassive success.
Like you're interviewing everyhitter, I'm super impressed,
super proud and I appreciate youmaking the time to talk to me
today.
Aaron Pete (47:18):
Thank you so much.
Popular Podcasts
Cold Case Files: Miami
Joyce Sapp, 76; Bryan Herrera, 16; and Laurance Webb, 32—three Miami residents whose lives were stolen in brutal, unsolved homicides. Cold Case Files: Miami follows award‑winning radio host and City of Miami Police reserve officer Enrique Santos as he partners with the department’s Cold Case Homicide Unit, determined family members, and the advocates who spend their lives fighting for justice for the victims who can no longer fight for themselves.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.