The Bridge with Peter Mansbridge - Campaign Day 24: Time for My Confession

Episode Date: October 4, 2019

Day 24 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, Peter Mansbridge here with The Bridge. This is day 24 of the federal election campaign. Day 24 already. You know, just 17 more days to go until voting. 17 days, not very long. You're going to start making up your mind here pretty soon. We've got a couple of big events coming up. Monday, the major English language debate.

That is often the decision maker for a lot of people, that debate. So, get ready this weekend. that is often the decision maker for a lot of people, that debate. So get ready this weekend. Clear the decks for your Monday night. You're going to want to watch that one. Now, how are we going to begin this evening? We're going to begin with a confession. I'm going to begin this evening? We're going to begin with a confession. I'm going to confess here. I want to be transparent, totally transparent. I want all of you to know something about I have two passports. That's right. I have two passports.

I have a Canadian passport, and I have a British passport. I was born in Britain, but he gets a British passport because of me. My daughters can have a British passport if they want one. They haven't asked for one yet. But I have a British passport and a Canadian passport, so I have two passports, and I'm proud of it. I'm not shy of it. I talk about it often.

First time I've talked about it on the podcast, maybe the first time I've ever talked about it in public as opposed to just with friends and colleagues. I'm the envy of other journalists who don't have two passports, especially journalists who travel the world. And I'll tell you why. You talk to many journalists

who go to a lot of different places in the world, and they will say they want two different passports. Here's why. Because for journalists, when you travel in certain regions of the world, let's say the Middle East, there are some countries you go into where you don't want to show on your passport that you've been to certain other countries in the Middle East. So you keep one passport for going to certain countries and another passport you use to go to those other countries.

So it's very convenient. Nothing illegal about it, nothing improper about it, but it's helpful when you're a journalist. So I confess I have two passports. You know why I'm raising this. It was a difficult day for Andrew Scheer. The last 24 hours have been difficult since it became clear that, in fact, he's had two passports,

a Canadian passport and an American passport. Now he says he's never been secretive about that, he's never been asked about it. He was asked last night and he said, yeah, I've got two passports, or I had two passports. He hadn't renewed his American passport in the last while, and he was beginning the process, he says, of renouncing his American citizenship. He had a U.S. passport because his father was born in the United States. His mother was born in Canada, and as a result, he had access, as do his two sisters, to being American citizens as well as Canadian citizens. So why is this an issue?

Well, it's kind of an issue because in the past, conservatives, including Andrew Scheer, have criticized other public figures who have had dual citizenship. They did so with Tom Mulcair. They did so with Michael

Jean, the former Governor General. For two. And there were others. So they criticized them, and Andrew Scheer joined in that criticism without ever saying that he, in fact, had two passports. So it appeared to be kind of a conflict. And he was challenged today to explain it, especially at a time when he and his party were running ads

against Justin Trudeau, saying he's not as advertised. A week where Andrew Scheer had issues raised about the dual citizenship and not being up front with it. And questions raised about his job as an insurance person. Still not quite sure how we're supposed to describe what he did in the insurance business for a couple of months before he left it when he was in Saskatchewan. So questions were raised about that part of his background. Now questions raised about his citizenship.

He didn't have a good go in the debate the other night on the TVI network for those who speak French in Canada and those who speak English, who understand French, who watched it as well. It wasn't a great performance. Not because he had trouble with the language, because he's pretty good in French. But he had trouble with some issues. So not a good week for Andrew Scheer.

Topped off on this day with questions about his citizenship nobody doubts that he has Canadian citizenship nobody doubts anymore that he also has access to American citizenship he says he is getting out of it and will renounce that citizenship but the questions were raised and he was on his back foot and being very defensive, as he was most of this week. So when we get around, as we do on Fridays, to Player of the Week, let's just say Andrew Scheer isn't in contention. Not this week.

This is week four of the Player of the Week status. Week one was Jagmeet Singh. Week two was Jagmeet Singh. Mainly based on his performance in handling the whole Justin Trudeau, brownface, blackface photographs this year. And last week, player of the week went to the people, the people of Canada who took part in huge numbers, hundreds of thousands in various demonstrations across the country on the climate issue.

So who is it for week four? Well, as we said, it's not Andrew Scheer. Justin Trudeau had the kind of week that incumbent leaders often have. They're happy to get out of the week even. No big stumbles. An acceptable performance in the debate. Some challenging questions in various scrums during the week.

But seem to get out of it okay. It's only Friday, a couple days left. But at this point, for the Liberal leader, he'll take it. But it wasn't enough for Player of the Week. So that leaves us once again with Jagmeet Singh, Elizabeth May, or the Bloc leader. Now I challenge you right now. Who's the leader of the Bloc Quebecois? Don't look. Don't Google it.

You're listening. You may be running. You may be bicycling. Maybe in the weight room. Don't look anything up. What's the name of the leader of the Bloc Quebecois? If you said Yves-Francois Blanchet, you were right. That's who's the leader of the Bloc Quebecois.

And you know, quite frankly, he's only running in those seats in Quebec. Not anywhere else in the country. But he's taken his party from a poor, kind of last place position after the last campaign, and he's steadily crept up through the campaign. Already ahead of the People's Party of Canada. That wasn't hard. He was ahead at the beginning for that.

Ahead of the Green Party now, ahead of the NDP, and depending on what poll you read, he's also ahead of the Conservatives. He's in second place in Quebec. That could be a chunk of seats, and it could put the bloc into a position, if there's a minority government, of holding the balance of power.

So while both Singh and May had good weeks, Blanchet had a very good week. Did well in the debate. Most people gave him the win. If not the win, a tie with Trudeau. So there you go. Player of the week for week four. Yves-Francois Blanchet.

And congratulations to those of you who were bang. You had that name without looking it up. That's impressive.

Okay. It's Friday. It's mailbag time. Okay, we're getting the mailbag early because I got a backlog here. It's clear up. You know, I never get to all the letters. Some of you write great letters without questions, but a lot of comments. Occasionally I read one of those, but mostly I'm trying to deal with the questions that come in. Let's deal with this. I like this one

because it's a good question about how the media operates. You may have been thinking about this one yourself. This comes from Richard Sainer. It's from Guelph, Ontario. In fact, I believe Richard told me he comes from a family that first settled in the Guelph-Waterloo area in the mid-1800s. So great immigrants to this country who have been a part of this country for coming on 200 years now.

Richard's question. Well, let me read a little bit of his letter. You shared in the previous podcast how in your radio career you use technology to create a time delay on the tape machine. What amazes me in this Montreal vignette, he's talking about what we talked about last night, where we saw Jagmeet Singh in the Atwater Market in Montreal and being confronted by this guy who was telling him he should cut off his turban.

And if he did that, he'd look more Canadian. And we had a good talk about that last night, and I'm sure many of you thought about that issue and some of you wrote your thoughts to me. What amazes me in this Montreal vignette is the fact, this is Richard speaking again, that the conversation was so clear to us in the audience. So my question to you is, how was this done? Where was the microphone?

Does Jagmeet walk around with a mic recording his every breath? Were technological audio enhancements used for the sound captured by a boom mic? Or was this supposed, or was this a supposed random event? In fact, a staged event. It just doesn't make sense to me. Does such an event raise his profile in that province and across the country? Okay, let me take some of these. I'm both curious and skeptical, says Richard. Okay, you're observant too. And your observations raise questions in your mind. So let me try and handle them for you.

It wasn't a staged event. Okay. Did it raise his profile? I think it raised the profile of an issue that's worthy of being raised across the country. But on the technical end of things, he was wearing a microphone. And the reason he was wearing a microphone

is the same reason that other leaders do the same thing. At the request of the pool, that's the combination of different television networks and radio networks, to try and cut down on the crush, if they can mic the candidate, the leader, and kind of let them walk around and be kind of free of the crush of people around them, if they agree to do that. Now, they don't all agree. They don't always agree. But on that day in the Atwater Market,

Ajagmeet Singh agreed to wear that microphone. And therefore, when he walks around, everything that happens, that he says or is said to him by somebody close enough to be heard, is going to be recorded. So that's what happened there. It's public space, public event. What happened was shared with you,

just as if you'd been there at the Atwater Market. So there's your answer, Richard, and that's how it works. And it doesn't just happen with the NDP. It happens with the other parties as well. Okay, Connor Sharp has this letter. I'm not sure where Connor's from. Try to remember, folks, when you write. Also, let me know where you're writing from.

I love to keep track of kind of a map of where the bridge is being heard and is being used as a podcast by Canadians and others. So far, I think we've hit every province at least once, some many times. We've hit both the east and west coast of the United States. We've been heard, I think it was either Australia or New Zealand, I can't remember, early on. Ireland last week.

So it's great. The worldwide audience of the Bridge. Coming to you live from Stratford, Ontario, reaching around the globe, the Bridge is heard everywhere. Alright, Connor, your question.

Throughout the show so far, you've spoken about how important it is that voters engage with local representatives, candidates. However, I feel that often votes are cast for on the basis of party, not on account of a voter's trust in a local candidate. I worry that this approach may limit the diversity of views that may actually be elected and the amount of direct accountability representatives have. Have you ever considered whether a political system without formal political parties might better represent voters' interests? Wow, that's a big question. I mean, think of that. We elect 338 people from across the country.

They don't represent any particular party. They all arrive in Ottawa, and somehow we're going to find a way of governing the country with this group? Maybe. Maybe that would work. It also could produce chaos. But I like your question because I think it is an issue for a lot of Canadians who tend to think only either party or leader when they vote. And that kind of cuts out all the hard work that's being put in

by the local candidates who have their own issues that they think are really important. And while they tow a party line on a policy platform, you can tell pretty easily what's really important for them. And so that's why I think these local candidates' meetings are important. It's important when people come and knock on your door looking for your support, or at least there to try and explain why they're running, that you want to listen and you want to ask questions and you want to understand who that person is.

And you want to take a good look at those candidates to see it. It's kind of a meld of the one extreme you're suggesting to no parties to what we have now. It's somewhere kind of in the middle when you're looking at those individual local candidates and listening to what they have to say and giving some real thought for the decision you're going to make. Because it's entirely possible that you may be thinking one way on party, and when you watch the candidates themselves,

you may end up thinking another way in terms of how you're going to vote locally. So, it's a good question, and it is, you know, I'm going to think about it some more this weekend on how this could work, where everybody kind of arrives in Ottawa having been elected, but they don't stand for any one common platform with other people, others of that 338, who are running for the same, you the same party under the old way. It's interesting. Let's all think about that one.

That's a question from Sarah McDonald. This is one of those letters that's really not a question. It's kind of, it's some thoughts all strung together, and I find this one interesting too. My question ties together two themes that you touched on this week, the ballot question and how Canadians feel about our identity or our image. If the ballot question will be, do you like Justin Trudeau as Prime Minister? And the answer ends up being, no, we're tired of him.

Let's go with Andrew Scheer. How can that then be reconciled with an image of Canada being an open and welcoming society, progressive in its views on climate change, feminism, and so on. If our prime minister will then be pro-life and climate indifferent. That's how you describe Andrew Scheer. Perhaps if Scheer is elected, then my view of what Canada thinks of itself is wrong. But I have to believe that the majority of people would like a leader that looks to the future rather than one trying to backtrack to the good old days. Or would his election actually force us to look at ourselves in the mirror rather than just patting ourselves on the back if Trudeau wins again and ignoring some fairly significant flaws in our national fabric? You know the ones.

Your thoughts? That's a great, that's a, it's a, you know, I was going to say, it's a great question. It's a great comment, really, about where we're at, what elections are kind of all about, and in particular this one. Now, obviously, there are other options one has here, especially if we're heading towards, as the polls would suggest,

a minority government. It doesn't mean that's what will end up happening. But if there's a minority government, there's a lot of other potential in this, in a result, depending on who backs the minority, who backs that party that's asked to form government. Anyway, Sarah, I'm going to put that one aside too and think about it, and I'm also going to look for what people may have to say about that. Here's one from Jeffrey Oliver in St. John's, Newfoundland.

If you haven't been to Newfoundland, you got to go. You know, this country is, for all the problems we have in Canada, and we love to talk about our problems, we often don't highlight what a great place it is. Because you can go to anywhere in this country and find yourself looking at spectacular scenery,

meeting fantastic people, understanding how diverse we are as a nation in terms of everything from our resources to our people, to our food, to our culture, you name it. We got it all. So I single out Newfoundland for today, but I could single out anywhere but Newfoundland, man. It's something else. So I know it's hard for, it's kind of like the North, the Arctic.

It's hard for a lot of Canadians to get there because it's kind of like out there. But man, it's worth it when you get there. So give it a try. Anyway, Jeffrey writes, My question is regarding the face-to-face interviews on CBC. I think this is a great format and that it's interesting to watch the leaders' reactions and responses to being asked difficult questions by someone not in a town hall format,

but of a potential voter sitting one meter away, putting the pressure on. I'm curious about your takeaway. Did any leaders stand out in their performance? Look, I love the format. You know, I was involved the first time we used the face-to-face format, and it was after the 2015 election. It was about, I think, three months in. I think we used the 100-day mark of the Trudeau government. And we pitched the, you know, usually there was around a year end, and usually around year end you do the traditional sit-down interview, which over the years have resulted in fewer and fewer interesting moments

or news value. So we wanted to come up with a different idea, and the idea that we came up with was this face-to-face idea, where we would put in, in that case, we brought in 10 people from across the country who had particular issues and concerns that were important to them, and said, okay, we're going to put you in the Prime Minister's office on Parliament Hill. You'll get five minutes alone. I think it was actually 10 minutes in that case. 10 minutes alone with the Prime Minister. All he will know is your first name and the issue.

Not the details of it, but the issue generally, you know, the economy, immigration, Indigenous affairs, whatever the issue might be. That's all he'll know about you. You sit down and away you go. It's your time. Nobody's going to be there telling you what to say or do. And you listen to him and you challenge him or you agree with him or whatever happens, happens.

So we did that. And, you know, it worked. It worked it was you know it was very popular now for him it was easy because he'd only been there 100 days and he could say well you know i agree with you and something has to happen there and this is what we're hoping to do in this mandate a little different this week now you got to deliver on what you've done if you're the prime minister. Or you've got to deliver, if you're one of the opposing leaders, on how you're going to do it. You can't just say, oh, well, they were wrong. We would have done this. Well, how are you going to do it? So there was some of that all this week.

How do I think the leaders did? Let me tell you. Good for them that they did it. You know, I remember when Trudeau did that first one, I couldn't think of any other prime minister who would ever have agreed to doing that. None of them. Not his father, not Brian Mulroney, not Jean Chrétien, nobody.

None of the other ones that I've covered. And here, they all agreed there was only one leader who turned down the invitation, and that was Maxime Bernier. It wasn't offered to Blanchet, the Bloc Quebecois, because he's not a national leader. But it was offered to all the others, and Bernier turned it down. Tried to scramble in, I think, after turning it down, and it passed by, and he'd already seen a couple.

Tried to get in, I think. I'm not sure how the CBC ended up dealing with that, but it was too late to reset it all up for them. Anyway, so I, you know, more power to the leaders that they agreed to do it. And perhaps it'll be the kind of format that ends up being used at other times in the future,

because I think it's worthy and it gives the people the opportunity, puts them on an equal level as they are on an equal level with the elected officials of the country, their elected officials. Okay, there are a bunch of other letters. I'm not going to get to them, but generally I'll tell you what they're about. They're about the media. There's some things in them that just, you know, simply aren't true, but the general issue about that is raised is what I think of how the media has performed in this campaign. It's really interesting asking me that question as somebody who's been in the media for elections back to 1972 and was very defensive about the way the media performed and always thought we did a great job.

But now I'm looking at it from kind of a different space, and there are days where I'm frustrated by what I see. I'm frustrated by some of the questions I hear asked at the different daily scrums with the leaders, and I'm frustrated at times with the decisions that are made about what is news on a campaign, just like you are, just like many of you are. You're concerned about this disconnect you think exists

between what happens in the bubble of the campaign, between the reporters and the leaders, and what's really happening on the ground. And when days like this one go by, and the leaders, and what's really happening on the ground. And when days like this one go by, you know, really, our dual passports, is that really like a big deal? Is that a big deal for you and your family right now if you're worried about climate change

or you're worried about how are you going to pay for your kids going to school or you're worried about your grandparents' health care costs? But I was certainly concerned for the media, including me. I led this podcast tonight on that issue. So I hear your frustrations, and I share some of them. I don't share all of them, and I don't join the crowd that leaps on every rumor

that blows past on Twitter or Facebook, either about the leaders or about some of the journalists, because many of them come out of the sewer that social media can become at times. So I won't repeat them. Anyway, that's it. I've gone on, oh my gosh, half an hour. I'm sorry. But it's Friday, and we've got a couple of days to recover.

Of course, the bridge comes back if something big happens on the weekend. But it will definitely be back Monday. I haven't decided whether it'll be before the debate or after because, as you know, I don't want to jump into the debate and kind of claim that I can say who won or who lost. I don't want to do that. But anyway, let's see what happens on Monday

all I can tell you for sure is there will be a bridge and like you I'll be watching closely to see what happens on the debate itself so listen have a great weekend and thanks for listening to The Bridge I'm Peter Mansbridge And thanks for listening to The Bridge. I'm Peter Mansbridge.