The Bridge with Peter Mansbridge - Campaign Day 10: The "Scandal" Word

Episode Date: September 20, 2019

Day 10 of Canada's 2019 Federal Election. | Thank for subscribing and for submitting a rating and review! * TWITTER @petermansbridge | INSTAGRAM @thepetermansbridge ** https://www.thepetermansbridge.com/ *** Producer: Manscorp Media Services

And hello there, it's Peter Mansbridge. This is the bridge for this day 10 of the federal election campaign. A day where once again, billions of dollars, commitments, promises dropped on Canadians from coast to coast to coast by the major political parties, all looking for their vote. All happening with that same bat rock still going on of the story that broke on Wednesday night, 48 hours ago now, that 48-hour critical period, the story that broke on Justin Trudeau. Now, last night we talked about this, and you heard me, some of you heard me kind of hesitate around using the word scandal. So I wanted to explain that, why I was sort of pausing going into the word scandal. I just always find it fascinating, the words that we in the media use,

and I'm as much a culprit of this as anybody, whether it's crisis or scandal or whatever the term may be, and whether it's really appropriate. You know, I remember we used to say constitutional crisis a lot. Well, really, was it a constitutional crisis, or did that just kind of sound good in the headline? So the use of the word scandal on this particular issue, we use scandal a lot. I tell you, it's certainly better than using the gate word. As a result of Watergate, everything seemed to be something gate. I haven't heard that this week. I haven't heard brownface gate or blackface gate. You've heard scandal, though, and you've heard it often. And perhaps it's appropriate.

I mean, it's a major story. It does center around the leadership of the Prime Minister of Canada, the leader of the Liberal Party. So maybe it is a scandal scandal I guess why I was sort of pausing was because I can remember a day when the word scandal especially in Canada seemed to only be associated or at least Canadians seemed to associate scandals

with something that involved money or something that involved money or something that involved sex. Money being stuffed into somebody's pants in an illegal transaction or stolen from government coffers. In many ways, that's what the sponsorship scandal was all about. It was about money. On the sex side of things, we've had those scandals in Canadian government affairs.

You know, some of us are old enough to remember the Munsinger affair in the 1960s when Goethe Munsinger, who was an East German spy working for the Soviets, had infiltrated life on Parliament Hill, had had affairs with Canadian cabinet ministers. And in 1966, when this kind of hit the airwaves, I think it was first with a very candid interview with Gerda Munsinger herself,

who'd been thrown out of the country, but a Toronto Star journalist, Robert Regulier, I think it was, tracked her down in East Germany and got the story, followed up by This Hour Has Seven Days, the great CBC television show. Anyway, it ended in the resignation of a major Canadian political figure in that era, Pierre Savigny. But other ministers of the Diefenbaker era were implicated in all this as well. That was a scandal. That was a sex scandal on Parliament Hill.

Add another 20 years or so, 1985, the Minister of Defence, Robert Coates, had to resign after it was discovered by Neil Macdonald. He was a reporter for the Ottawa Citizen at that time before he joined the CBC. It was discovered that Robert Coates had visited, while he was Minister of Defence, while he was on a, I think a NATO conference representing Canada, had visited a number of strip bars, and at least one had been carrying a briefcase full

of confidential documents. He had to resign. That was considered a sex scandal. So those terms, or that term, scandal, had been used primarily for whether it was a story that impacted Canadians because of its sex angle or because of its money angle. Now scandals seem to be much more frequent and they don't need either one of those two things.

That's what SNC-Lavalin was a scandal. Nobody shied away from using the scandal word there. But people have wondered, well, did it really impact voters? Has it had a lasting impact on voters? Some say no. In fact, most say no, that it hasn't really had that kind of an impact like some of these other scandals had? And was it because there was no element, these other two elements, sex and money? Not that they are the most important thing to be concerned about,

but they seem to have the attention span lengthened when those are involved. And now we have the Trudeau story. I don't think anybody's shying away from using the word scandal. You see it on the front pages of newspapers. I certainly did today as I was flying from Montreal to Fredericton, New Brunswick, where I am for the next couple of days, once again on this cross-country tour

sounding the mood of the nation. Saw the scandal word used a lot, both in English and French newspapers in Montreal this morning. So I guess that's why I was pausing a little bit because I was just thinking traditionally we've used that word that way now we use it for all kinds of different things

so how is this one going? because on Wednesday night, 48 hours ago I told you the first 24 to 48 hours on a story like this are critical in terms of shaping the mood of the country, the impact that it could have, especially on this election. Well, so far, so far, the tracking data that we've seen has not indicated any significant movement in the numbers. In fact, very little movement in the numbers. But I would say that the next little while tonight's tracking that the public media will do and the parties will do themselves may be the determining factor on that. It was interesting today to see that all the parties seemed to move

off the discussion of this topic from their planned remarks. They were talking about promises, commitments, about policy, about the issues that can affect Canadians' lives in the long term. They still ended up talking about the Trudeau story, but it was secondary to them in their planning. And the Liberals, for the first time, clearly moved off with their promise on gun control.

So I would say that if you wake up Monday morning, and this is still a story, then it has dug in and will be impactful through the campaign. If people have somehow moved on, the parties, the questioning, the media, then the worst may be over, barring some new revelation on this story. So I'd keep that all in mind. So here we are, technically at day 10,

but also kind of at the end of week two. Last week, we talked about who was the winner of week one. Not that the winners of week one or week two mean anything. It's the winner of the end game that really means something. But last week, I felt that the winner of week one was Jagmeet Singh. I thought he had a great opening week. Low expectations help, and the expectations had been low. But he didn't stumble, and he made a good impression in a number of places.

So at the end of week two, who's the week two winner? Well, it's not Justin Trudeau. I don't think it's Andrew Scheer either. I think his own some members of his own party were concerned about how he has handled and taken, whether he's properly taken advantage of the opportunity that was given him this week. Elizabeth May is being Elizabeth May.

I think Jagmeet Singh won week two. I think he won it on the strength mainly of the way he reacted to the Trudeau story. It was thoughtful. it was personal. It showed how much the story and the issue connects to him and how he feels it needs to be connecting to all Canadians. So that's where I am at week two. I've got some really good letters on this issue, and we're going to get to them right after this. Hey, welcome back.

As I said, it's mailbag time, and we do have letters. We do get mail a lot here at the bridge. And they're all, you know, really good letters. And often personal. I had a letter the other day from a fellow who's I think in Winnipeg and his mother lives in Victoria and she's 90 and she really wanted to listen to this podcast and other things and so he arranged to get one of his computers in Victoria and he remotely controls it to make the process easier for her to listen and read certain articles she wants to read. And he controls it from Winnipeg,

and she listens in Victoria. Her name's Pearl. Pearl, if you're listening, God love you, and thanks for listening. All right. Let me read a couple of these letters that deal with this Trudeau story, because I think they're really good. This one is from Scott Foisey. I've been thinking a lot, actually, before the revelation around blackface, about humanity and mistakes. We're human, and humans are never perfect.

Everyone has mistakes in their past, and make mistakes as we do our best to do our jobs, manage our families, etc. I sure have. Do you believe that political parties, media, and the general public unfairly blow up past and present mistakes of our politicians? It often feels opportunistic, jumping on a chance to smear the reputation of a leader.

And it's hard to see anything but that with the recent Trudeau revelations. And how far does a good, strong, authentic apology go? I think we've seen both good and bad examples of apologies in recent months. I've gone from confidence in how I'd vote to being uncertain. And frankly, this question is the crux of my deliberation. So there's somebody who's really thinking through this. And, you know, I don't want to, I think you've got to keep thinking through it, Scott. I'm not going to tell you how to think, because I don't know how you should think. But I think you

raise really important questions, partly about the media and the stories they leap on and the stories they pump out every hour and the way they do the stories. Media is not a monolith. Different news organizations handle these things differently. But nevertheless, you raise questions about how the reporting has been on stories like this. And you raise questions about the authenticity of an apology. And I think that's where you really have to make the decision, a personal one.

When you see somebody apologize, do you believe them? Do you believe they're telling you the truth about how they feel? Or are they just saying what they're saying to get past a problem? Okay, next question. Once again, same topic. John Mullen, Dartmouth, Nova Scotia. In a bizarre way, do you think that this has or will be a gift for Trudeau to take the focus off of SNC,

where he has no hope of turning that issue into a positive, and onto something where he can admit a grievous mistake and turn it into a learning and teaching moment, not only for himself, but for a broader society? Incidentally, Talking to Strangers by Malcolm Gladwell must be mandatory reading by the Trudeau campaign team. That's Gladwell's new book, and anything by Malcolm Gladwell is welcome

and can be a learning experience reading it. The question. Look, this is an awfully expensive way to get off the SNC topic. So certainly that wasn't planned, and you don't suggest it was. You were just wondering in a bizarre way whether it helps. I'm not sure that helps. I don't think you take one and forget the other. I think they both sit there as issues hovering over how

Canadians may feel about the leader of the Liberal Party. Here's one from... There's two here together. I'm going to read them both. Winifred Hunsberger. Not sure where Winifred's writing from. Some of the party leaders responding have indicated that they are shocked by the photos of Trudeau in black brown face. While

some commentators and critics have suggested their response is disingenuous at best, do you think this incident presents an opportunity for public dialogue about systemic racism, privilege and power? That's one.

I want to add to that this one from Jason Dawes Justin Trudeau's blackface scandal is now out there I've heard on some news outlets and pundits that now is not the time to discuss racism in Canada well when should we be discussing it? I think the best time, and a good portion of it, should be on the next televised debate with Mr. Trudeau.

I wouldn't be surprised if he starts off his opening statement with a direct apology to all people of colour in Canada, as well as to the leader of the NDP, Jagmeet Singh, the first person of colour running for Prime Minister. As well, we need to discuss leader of the NDP, Jagmeet Singh, the first person of color running for prime minister. As well, we need to discuss this in the debate, because for the first time, a candidate like Maxime Bernier is participating. It's no question who the People's Party caters to, and their racial leanings should be denounced by all candidates.

We have a province like Quebec with a discriminatory law in Bill 21. That's the religious symbols law. I hope it's discussed. As a visible minority and a voting Canadian, I want this to be addressed. Maybe an across Canada town hall meeting. I'm not sure what the best avenue is. I just don't want it swept under the rug. That's from Jason Doss. Okay, both those questions from Jason and from Winifred are kind of similar in theme, in the sense that do we have a moment here where we should be going deeper on this issue? It's not just about the political story. It's about the story itself, about racism in Canada, about how we see each other, how we feel about each other, how we relate to each other. And I think there is an opportunity here that would be unfortunate if we lose it.

I'm not sure what the venue is. It could be the debate, but you know in the debate it will be discussed in a sort of one-go-around of a question and answer, maybe a second question, but the whole thing would last five or six minutes. There are town halls coming up. The CBC has got agreements from all the party leaders for town halls and they'll be in the next couple of weeks. I think they're going to go one day after the other. That may be an opportunity. But they're separate, right? They're not all on the stage at the same time. The debates that are coming up are. You can bet the French language debates will deal with Bill 21,

and you'll see the fine dance that some of these leaders have to do. I was in Quebec yesterday, and Trudeau's most ardent supporters, and he's got a lot in Quebec, who weren't concerned, the ones I talked to, by this story. You know, Trudeau's most ardent supporters, and he's got a lot in Quebec, who weren't concerned, the ones I talked to, by this story, but are concerned that the Prime Minister is not speaking out loudly enough on Bill 21, that he should intervene, that the federal government should intervene.

They want to hear that. They haven't heard it so far. So I think, you know, this is a really important aspect of life in Canada. It doesn't just apply to new Canadians or Canadians of color who can track their ancestry back to other parts of the world. It relates to our relationship, the non-Indigenous-Indigenous relationship, very much. So how we grapple with this, whether this gives us an opportunity to do that, any opportunity we have to do that is an opportunity that we should find a way to take. That's

my view. All right, it's a Friday night. I hope you all have great plans for the weekend. I'm in Fredericton, as I said, this evening. Tomorrow morning, I'm going to the world-famous Fredericton Farmer's Market because I want to hear people. And boy, that's where they congregate on a Saturday morning in this town. Beautiful day here. Gorgeous weather. Had a lobster roll for lunch. Man, that was terrific. Okay, I hope you have a great weekend.

I'd love to hear from you if you write. No plans for a podcast on Saturday or Sunday unless some major news develops, and if it does, I will put one out. But I'd love to hear from you, so don't be shy about writing. It's themansbridgepodcast at gmail.com, themansbridgepodcast at gmail.com. So this is Peter Mansbridge with The Bridge. Thanks for listening. Thank you.