The Bridge with Peter Mansbridge - Campaign Day 37: Modern Convention? Really?

Episode Date: October 17, 2019

Day 37 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

All right, day 37. Can you believe it? Day 37 of the federal election campaign. Monday is voting day. Monday is e-day. Monday is election day. Monday is when we find out what all these numbers really mean. Hi there, Peter Mansbridge here with The Bridge on this day 37. You know, when was it? Last week? Early last week. I talked about how sooner or later we'd get around to this issue about what happens if the vote is so close, the number of seats is so close, and who gets to govern, which party will do what. And I warned you then, this is going to become an issue.

Sooner or later they're going to start talking about that. Well, they've been talking about it pretty much all of this week. And they talked about it again today. So I want to try and clear it up so, at least in your mind, there's no mistake here. I mean, the headline today, at least the headline that I'm seeing on the social media is, Scheer says modern convention means Trudeau must quit

if he doesn't win the most seats. Well, there is no modern convention, and that actually isn't correct. But why would he say that? Well, he would say that because, well, Stephen Harper didn't have the most seats. In 2015, he resigned right away. Paul Martin didn't have the most seats.

He resigned right away in 2006. Pierre Trudeau resigned in 1979. He didn't have the most seats. So I guess, in a sense, in the modern era, there have been examples of where the outgoing prime minister has resigned. But there's no rule, it's not graved in stone anywhere. But the other half of what Andrew Scheer is saying is that the party that has the most seats

must be given the opportunity to govern right away. That's not true either. Nowhere does it say that. Nowhere does any constitutional expert say that. Once the election is over, the Prime Minister of the day, who's still the Prime Minister of the party that called the election, has the right to meet Parliament.

He can go to the Governor-General and say, look, I don't have the most seats, but I want the opportunity to try to govern. And I think I can govern because I have the support of such and such a party. Those are the rules. That's what can happen. It hasn't happened

for almost a century, but it could happen. Now, the two examples that, or a couple of the examples that the Conservatives are using are the Paul Martin 2006 example. But here's what's the matter with the Paul Martin 2006 example. When you pull it up and you look at, well, who won how many seats in 2006? Well, the Liberals under Paul Martin won 103.

The Conservatives won 124, 21 seats more than the Liberals. There was no way Paul Martin was going to try to govern with a gap that large between the Liberals and the Conservatives. And sure enough, he didn't try to govern. The other example that the Conservatives are tossing around now is 1979. But you know, quite frankly, it's the same kind of thing. The Liberals were at 114 seats. The Conservatives under Joe Clark were at 136. 22-seat difference. Pierre Trudeau wasn't going to try to govern with that, even though he teased the idea during the campaign that if it was really close, he might. Now, seven years earlier in 1972,

and there are many ways the 72 election outcome could look awfully similar to the 2019 election outcome in terms of how close things are. But focusing on 1972, the Liberals had 109 seats. The Conservatives, the progressive Conservatives, had 107, a two-seat difference. So there was no question what would happen. Pierre Trudeau would continue governing. He had the right to meet Parliament. He had the most seats, and he was the sitting Prime Minister of the day. Now, if those numbers had been the reverse, if the conservatives had been at 109, sorry, yes, if the conservatives had been at 109

and the liberals had been at 107, what would Pierre Trudeau have done? Well, the history books that are written by those who were close to the situation at that time say he would have tried to govern because the NDP had 31 seats and there was a discussion amongst the NDP and the Liberals. There certainly continued to be one for the next two years. That's how Canada got Petro-Canada. That was the price of NDP support for the Liberals between 72 and 74.

Could have been the price of some kind of arrangement to keep them propped up even though they had fewer seats than the Conservatives. But that one was more likely to have created something like that because there was only a two-seat gap. What will there be this time? Well, we don't know. We don't know who will be on top.

It's really close right now. Right now. But there are still four days to go until people start dropping those little slips of paper in the ballot box. And then we'll find out, right? That's when we'll find out what happens. But it's interesting to listen to the different leaders on this. Justin Trudeau, he won't answer the question

about what would he do if he had fewer seats than the Conservatives, but it was very close, would he try to keep on power? He won't answer that question. He won't answer the question if he'll resign if he doesn't win. And you can hardly blame him. That's not the kind of question you answer when you are the incumbent. You keep your options open. Who knows how it's going to play out on Monday.

Andrew Scheer. Today he's talking, as you see, about the modern convention, what should happen in a tight situation like that. This is the same guy, remember, who two days ago was saying, we're going to win a majority government. We the Conservatives will win a majority government. That's what he was saying. Now, today, he's talking about a tight race. Not sure why he'd go back and forth like that.

It might have been using the word majority on the weekend. Conservatives don't like to use that word. Remember, Stephen Harper basically banned it from the vocabulary in 2006, 2008. He said, don't use that word. It scares people. It scares people off thinking the conservatives could win a majority. And so he never heard that said in those two elections. 2011, you heard the Tories talking about majority because they were pretty sure they could win a majority

that all their internal polling showed that. And he talked about winning a strong, stable majority government. But earlier he hadn't. And it was like when Andrew Scheer was flipping through the book of do's and don'ts, he seemed to miss that page about don't say majority. He hasn't said it since, or at least I haven't heard him say it since. And then there's Jagmeet Singh, who's gone back and forth on this issue of coalition, non-coalition, and did I mean to say coalition,

or you're interpreting coalition the wrong way, not the same way I am. It's been a bit of a stumble for them for the NDP on that coalition word so it's all very interesting isn't it and it all adds to the sort of drama of these last few days and there are the last few days now

we are into the final moments of the 2019 election campaign. And amazingly, the two leading parties are still in the low 30% range. Like 31, 32%. They go back and forth. One's ahead by a point one day.

The other's ahead by a point the next day. But they're way down there. Keep in mind what happened last time. The Liberals had 39.5% after all the counting was done. Basically 40%. The Conservatives had 32%. They lost. But both of them are above where they are today in most polls.

So it's interesting. The Greens are up. The Greens have lost support during this campaign, but they're double what they were at the end of 2019. The NDP are sort of in the ballpark of where they were, maybe down a point or two from where they were in 2015. The Bloc Québécois is up a little bit from where they were last time.

Not a lot, but a point or two can make a big difference for them on the national number when you make that just the provincial number and go back. So it's going to be fun. It's going to be fun on Monday night. You want to be close to the television, close to the radio, close to the computer on Monday night. I might drop by the CBC on Monday night. I might drop by the CBC on Monday night

and give a few thoughts during the election night program there, so that'll be fun. So, there you go. I got a couple of things I want to talk about yet before we sign off the bridge for this night, and the first one will be, as it always is, the mailbag. All right, got quite a few letters again overnight.

And I thank everybody who wrote in about last night's bridge, especially that moment that you all thought was so genuine, mainly because I don't know how to edit, when my son Will called in with, hoping to talk to me about his new phone. And when he found out we were doing the podcast, he used a certain word that isn't usually used on this program. Anyway, it was nice.

It was nice for Will to join in the program. Will's been great for the bridge. He's been kind of like a senior producer, occasionally coming in and running the controls. And when I'd been out of town and fed in the bridge, he did the mix here in Toronto and arranged to get it out. Okay, a couple of letters here. This one's from Matthew McBurney in Manitoba. I understand but disagree why certain leaders promote the idea that coalitions are un-Canadian or a form of sour grapes, but under our system, they are a viable alternative.

I hate the misinformation that's being put forward by some leaders about the idea around coalitions. Just because you won the plurality does not mean you have the majority of Canadians on your side. Why is Canada so afraid of working together? He goes on a bit, but you know, Matthew's got an interesting point. Let's just assume for a moment. Let's assume that on Monday night, the Conservatives win the election. They have 34% of the vote, and they end up winning. That means 66% of Canadians didn't vote for them.

So what Matthew's raising is if the numbers are close in seats, why shouldn't the 66% get together if they can and form a workable coalition. Or for that matter, if some of that 66% doesn't help out the conservatives, put them over 50%, give them a majority and work together. So Matthew's point is, coalition isn't a four-letter word in more ways than one. Good point. Mr. Lee from Arkham, Ontario writes, would you please elaborate just a little bit on what adverse consequences there might be for a person if you travel to a country in the Middle East and your passport shows that you've been to certain other countries in the Middle East.

Okay, this came up, and I guess Mr. Lee from Markham, Ontario, is raising this issue because last week we talked about this whole dual passport thing and a number of people, myself included, have two passports. I was born in England. I have a British passport. I'm a Canadian citizen. I'm proud of it. I took the oath, sworn in as a Canadian in 1959 in Ottawa and I'm a proud owner of my Canadian citizenship paper,

which is signed by the then Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Ellen Fairclough. That's a famous name in Canadian politics. Why? Because she was the first female cabinet minister in the John Diefenbaker government. Anyway, so I have two passports. And like many journalists who have that opportunity

to have two passports, we're proud of it, especially if we travel a lot. It's a certain benefit. And I'll give you an example of why. When you travel in the Middle East as a journalist, you're covering various stories, especially at times where there's conflict or real tension. It can be a problem traveling from Israel to some Arab countries or vice versa.

And the problem is you're not detained necessarily, but you can be held up at the border and put through endless interrogations as to why were you there, what were you doing, who did you see, what was the story you were doing, where are your scripts, what video do you have with you, all these things. So having two passports, you keep one for your entries into Israel and your exits from Israel stamped, and you keep the other one

for in and out of certain Arab countries. And that makes it a lot easier getting in and out of certain Arab countries. And that makes it a lot easier getting in and out. Because it's when, say, in an Arab country, they see Israel in the passport, they go, okay, you go over and join that line, we have a number of questions for you. And the same goes on the Israeli side. That's what I was referring to.

Nikki Watkinson. She writes from... Oh, she's living in Alberta now. She's originally from Thunder Bay. She's recently settled in Calgary. She writes a very long letter, and it's a very interesting letter on a number of fronts, but I'm just going to read one point that she makes.

Because it's a good point, and it's not a question. It's a comment, and I think it's worthy of us all thinking about it. As I mentioned, I'm in the younger group of voters, and I find that we could maybe have the biggest impact on election turnouts. However, I find that people my age either don't vote because they don't research or they feel their vote doesn't matter. Or I find voters my age don't do their own research and are extremely influenced by their parents' vote.

Do you think if the younger voters took the time to even just read the party's websites and the handful of policies they are proposing, that young voters would realize that maybe what matters to them isn't actually in line with that of their parents? Do you think that parents are taking advantage of their kids by not encouraging them to make informed decisions and just using their kids to help rally more numbers for who they favor. Personally, I know that 30 years between my parents and I means that different things matter to me than them and that we are the future of this country.

So young voters should be helping shape the country in a time that is so significant. I voted over the weekend as I will be away at work on election day. And in line in front of me was a young girl and her two parents. And as she was going to vote, her parents said, make sure you vote for who we discussed. That to me felt wrong. I know that my vote was, like, insignificant based on the area I live, but it's still my choice and my right. No loyalty to my parents should affect that. Nikki, I don't think anybody could say it better than you did. A vote is a vote.

If you've got the right to vote, you've got the right to determine how you use that vote. And the proper way to use that right, to exercise that right, is to do some research. You touched all the bases, Nikki. And I thank you for sharing it. I've got one more thing to talk about before we go. So stick with me. Okay.

Tomorrow night, my documentary is on, the way you see it. Remember, I traveled the country during the life of this campaign, my documentary is on, The Way You See It. Remember, I traveled the country during the life of this campaign, traveled to many different parts of the country, talking to Canadians, letting them tell me what was on their mind about the election, about issues, about politicians, you name it. And tomorrow night for an hour on CBC, we're going to run the documentary.

And once again, it's called The Way You See It. Not the way I see it. Not the way the producers see it. Not the way the parties see it. But the way you see it. It's your election. So let me give you the times for the documentary, because I'd love you to see it.

And it's available in a number of different ways. But these are the main ways. Tomorrow night, 9 p.m. on CBC television. Okay? 9 o'clock tomorrow night on CBC television. 10 o'clock Eastern on CBC News Network tomorrow night. So that's like 7 o'clock on the West Coast. You know the drill here.

Saturday, 8 o'clock on the west coast you know the drill here Saturday 8 o'clock eastern on News Network and Sunday 8 o'clock eastern on News Network so there are at least four different opportunities to see the way you see it and I hope you get a chance to use one of them or of course

set your PBR now because tomorrow night and I hope you get a chance to use one of them or, of course, set your PBR. Now, because tomorrow night I'm involved, like throughout tomorrow during the day, in promoting this documentary on various radio and television shows, I'm not going to have a chance to do the podcast unless somehow there's some big, huge, breaking story in the middle of the campaign and I'll find a way to do it. But the odds are I won't be doing the bridge tomorrow night. But I'll probably do a bridge, I will do a bridge,

on Sunday night, on election eve. I'll do something. Some kind of final thoughts on the campaign itself. So keep a lookout for that. No bridge tomorrow night. I'll post something on Twitter to show you that I'm not doing it. But Sunday night there will be something. And I'll try and get it out early Sunday night so you can be thinking about it before Monday comes along. I won't be making any predictions. Everybody asks me who's going to win. I was in a board meeting today and a couple of other meetings. Everybody wants to know, well, who's going

to win? Like I know, I don't know. And I wouldn't believe anybody else if they tell you who's going to win. It just simply is too close. There's too many things that can happen in these final few days. And in a way, that's pretty exciting because it's your decision now. All right, this is the bridge for, what did we say, day 37 of the election campaign. I'm Peter Mansbridge. Thank you for listening.

Thank you for listening.