The Bridge with Peter Mansbridge - Can you "Impeach" a Prime Minister?

Episode Date: February 7, 2020

Another wild week in the US and because of it, a "bridge" listener writes to [e-mail] to ask what, if any, process exists to force the resignation of a prime minister? And with the Oscars just days away, more about "1917", with a very personal story to tell.

and hello there I'm Peter Mansbridge this is The Bridge on what has been one loopy week. I mean, really. It's been crazy. A crazy, crazy week. You look, you know, every time you think Canadian politics is nuts, just look south of the border. You know, Monday. Monday was the Iowa caucus.

Remember last week on the bridge? I talked about it. How kind of weird it is to start with that a state that has, you know, one one-hundredth of the population kind of sets the table for the election to come. Well, they didn't even do that. You know, they had their caucus,

their little meetings all around the state. I think it was like 200,000 people took part. Sounds like a lot, but that's nothing. That's nothing when you talk about this isn't going to be a challenge to tabulate those votes. But it was. Here we are all these days later. We still don't know for sure what the hell happened in Iowa.

Did Buttigieg win? Did Sanders win? How bad was Biden's loss? Where was Warren? You know, I mean, it's crazy. It is crazy. But just when you thought it couldn't be crazier than that, you have King Donald.

Jeez. You watch that speech? Speech is at the prayer breakfast. The prayer breakfast. Immediately following the kind of sermon slash speech from one of the guests that talked about you know, love your enemies,

make good, try to talk kind about everybody. And on comes King Donald like in the next breath, with all these ministers sitting around applauding and clapping for him. They love him. And he starts taking shots at his air quotes around the word enemy, whether it's Mitt Romney or whether it's Nancy Pelosi and the things he says,

and then he goes to a speech in the White House in the East Room full of history, that room, and then what does he do? He craps all over everybody again. And then 24 hours after that, he has Lieutenant Colonel or Lieutenant Colonel, as they say in the U.S. Vindman kicked out of the White House, escorted out, gone. He considers him a traitor because he testified in the hearings,

in the impeachment hearings, about that phone call that Trump still calls perfect, even though some of his senators who ended up voting for him said, oh, he'll change his mind. He knows he did wrong. Yeah, right. He really did wrong. Anyway, as I said, it was a wild week. Who knows what the heck will happen next week.

That's not fair. Not much of a contest when it comes to Looney Tunes. The Americans won it all hands down this week. We have our share. We have our share of wins. Don't have to go back far to see some of them. But this week, give it to the Americans.

All right. I got a letter last week in the mailbag. This is unusual to kind of start with the mailbag, but I'm going to start with it because it's a really interesting letter, and it gives me some room. It kind of falls out of the American experience we've been watching, but it puts a Canadian spin on it. So let me find it. Oh, of course.

I have the wrong page up, but I can find it. It just shows how, you know, ambidextrous I am. Is that the word? I'll use my left hand here to pull up this email. Here it is. This comes from Victor Woodhouse.

Short letter. Good question. Good topic. I'm wondering, after listening to the most recent episode of The Bridge, what the mechanism would look like in Canada if we were faced with this similar situation the U.S. is facing. How would we proceed to investigate and possibly remove a prime minister for egregious conduct, if not perhaps criminal?

Love the podcast, or the pod. The pod, Victor calls it. Love the pod. And eagerly wait for each episode. Okay, so Victor, let's tackle your primary question here. Because as I said, I think it's a really good one. Basically, the question is, can we impeach? Is there a process that's similar, that you can actually haul a prime minister out of office,

get him or her and take them out? Well, it is a different system. We don't have that kind of executive branch versus the courts versus the Congress. But there are ways. Interestingly enough, there's not a process like impeachment. But by convention, in other words, the way things have operated in the past, that everybody kind of accepts, starts off with, if the RCMP places somebody under investigation

in the government of Canada, in the Parliament of Canada, whether that's in the House of Commons or the Senate, by convention it has always been that if you are under investigation, you resign. Obviously until that's resolved one way or another, whether you're charged, convicted, or whatever. If you're cleared, you can go back to your job.

And we've seen that happen in the past. But it starts with the, by convention, you resign. And what I find interesting about that is in the U.S., Donald Trump was under investigation by the FBI for a questionable relationship with Russia. He was under investigation. Now, they didn't announce it until months later when it came up as part of the, I think a reporter wrote the story, but as part of the process of the uncovering

of the alleged Russia story, it was clear that he had been under investigation and perhaps still was, perhaps still is, by the FBI. But no calls on him to resign during this investigation. In Canada, if the Prime Minister of the day, let's say, for example, the RCMP start an investigation on the prime minister, Justin Trudeau, for any reason, and it is publicly known that investigation is underway, or if the prime minister himself is told there's an investigation going on,

by convention it's his obligation to resign. That's one way. That's one way a resignation can happen. Governments have cabinet and caucus. Cabinet's the most powerful tool. You know, another 30, 35, sometimes 40 members of a cabinet headed by the prime minister. If they feel the prime minister of the day, that cabinet, has broken the law, has done some egregious act,

one assumes the cabinet has some power to deal with that issue. They could ask in a cabinet meeting for the prime minister to resign. They could demand that he resign. They could all offer, or a significant number of them offer, their own resignations and publicly announce why they were resigning, because they'd lost confidence in the Prime Minister for whatever reason they might need to explain. That would cause a serious kerfuffle. And a likely, although not automatic, resignation of the Prime Minister.

Now, parties in general have some clout. Michael Chong, the Conservative MP who ran for the leadership last time round, I don't think he's announced one way or the other will he will this time. He's probably the most liked and most respected MP on Parliament Hill by all parties. He's a reformer. He believes in reforming Parliament. That things need to happen to make it more in tune with today's world. And a lot of people agree with him on that. But a couple of years ago, he introduced legislation that was of a reformed nature and it dealt with this issue of,

not this particular example, but did raise this issue about how do you get rid of a leader? And what he put through in his act was the ability for parties, MPs, caucuses, to call for a leadership review, which could lead to a new leadership convention. So that's kind of a, it's an important piece of process. It's not really directly relating to this issue of an egregious act, but it might.

It could. It may be the only way. A matter of confidence in the House of Commons in general. You know, like at a time of a budget, there's always a confidence vote. And if the government doesn't win that confidence vote, and there's always a question in minority governments like the one we have now, that a government could fall on the budget, as did Joe Clark in 1979. So you have a confidence vote over the integrity of the prime minister.

I don't know how that would be worded or how the process would even unfold, but I assume there could be a way of doing that. And if all the parties agreed, including the governing party, the government would fall. There'd have to be an election. But I think before it ever got to that point, a prime minister might resign to prevent that from happening. But who knows? But that's one way. That's also a kind of roundabout, long way of going at it.

Now, it seems to me, and in my reading of it, and the people I've talked to in a couple of days since the letter arrived, is the easiest way is if the RCMP were to publicly announce they were investigating somebody, whether it's a cabinet minister or whether it's a prime minister. And if it's either one, they would be obligated by convention to resign until that investigation is over one way or the other. Now, how do I bring this into today's world?

Here's an interesting way of looking at it. The Conservative Leadership Convention. Anybody talking about this? Well, I'm sure if Michael Chong gets in the race, somebody will be talking about it. But the kind of acknowledged leader in the race at the moment, although I see the rumours about John Baird are popping up again, that maybe John Baird, formerly in the Harper cabinet,

is toying with the idea of running. I'm not sure if there's any truth to that, but I've heard it around for the last couple of weeks. Anyway, the acknowledged leader now, and perhaps even if John Baird got in the race, is Peter McKay. Now, we all remember that Peter McKay was the leader of the PC party at the turn of the century. That makes it sound like it was a long time ago. Well, it wasn't. It was like 17, 18 years ago. But in the campaign to become leader of the PC party in 2003,

Peter McKay, who was running for that and eventually won the leadership and then joined together with Stephen Harper from the Canadian Alliance and they made the Conservative Party of Canada and Stephen Harper became the Canadian Alliance, and they made the Conservative Party of Canada, and Stephen Harper became the leader. But Peter McKay, in his 2003 leadership campaign, I hope I haven't lost you here. This is interesting. It's interesting.

It would be interesting if he still feels this way. Here's what he proposed to define the caucus power to review the leader of the party. In a speech on democratic leadership given in Lethbridge, Alberta. Shout out for Lethbridge. I'm going to be there in a couple of weeks. Got a big speech there to teachers in Lethbridge from southwestern Alberta. 2,000 of them.

Looking forward to that. Anyway, I digress. Peter McKay in a leadership campaign speech on democratic leadership in Lethbridge said, quote, therefore I propose should I be elected leader that a vote of two-thirds of the members of my caucus could trigger a leadership review by the party membership. March 6, 2003, he made that. So back then, he was suggesting if two-thirds of the party in a leadership review called for a review, they should get one.

So once again, this is a stretched out long form way of, you know, getting rid of your leader for whatever reason, lack of performance, lack of integrity, lack of whatever. So that's what McKay believed back in 2003. Perhaps he still believes that. I don't know. Now, you've seen other parties from other countries, the Conservative Party in Britain being the one that is most often referred to. That's how they get rid of their leaders. They do it by caucus. That's how they get rid of them. That's how they vote for them.

And they've done it more than once, and that's how Bojo's the leader now. Okay? So look, I love the question, and it is interesting for all the focus we've made about what's going on south of the border and all the discussions about whether or not they know what they're doing. At least they have a process.

Didn't work here. At least it didn't work as far as the people who wanted to bring down Trump. It worked very well according to the people who wanted to keep Trump. But they have a process. Flawed as it may be, they have a process. I don't think we do. I don't think we do. Anyway, there you go.

Victor Woodhouse, that's the answer to your question. Victor also had a question about the name of the music we use to bridge the bridge in the middle, and that music is coming up in a few seconds. And all I can tell you, Victor, is I found it on the free music section on the internet. And I recorded it and kept it. And I can't find it anymore in its original form, so I can't tell you what the name is. But we're making it famous here at the bridge, right? Just as we will make famous the letter chosen from the mailbag this week, which comes up right after this. Well, well, well.

That's probably the first time I've done that. It took me like 10 seconds to figure out where the right button was to get the music. But eventually it came along. And you say, hey, make an edit, Peter. Just tighten it up. Well, you know, I'd like to if I knew how to make an edit. I don't. I'm still stunned that I can even get this far doing this podcast all by myself.

And when Willie, my son, is not around, there's nobody to make an edit. Willie is third year University of Toronto this year. We're going to the hockey game tonight, the Leafs. Leafs-Ducks. Leafs are going to just show how great they are tonight. Two new players from L.A. after the trade from the Kings. New backup goalie. New fourth-line winger. Hey, man.

Plan the parade. Plan the parade. You know what happens in this town. Okay. Letters. Got some great letters this week, but I'm going to highlight this one, which is going to come as a total shock to the letter writer. Remember a couple of weeks ago I did my first and so far only movie review on the bridge.

Because I went to see 1917, a movie that I really, really enjoyed. And if you want to know why, you should go back a couple of podcasts and listen to my review. If you didn't hear it then. Anyway, I invited people to write, and I've received lots of notes, lots of emails, a couple of phone calls from people who felt pretty much the same way. Then I got an email this week from my sister. Now, you think, like, sister, she could, like, pick up the phone, call me, pop over to the house, tell me?

No. She wanted to be official. She was going to write, like those of you who write themansbridgepodcast at gmail.com. Did I say that clearly? themansbridgepodcast at gmail.com. Well, my sister Wendy, talk about a couple of boomer names, right?

Peter and Wendy. What do you think we were named after? Anyway, she writes. I was about to read Victor's email all over again. Here's what Wendy wrote. Watch that amazing movie. It's 1917. Kept thinking of those who never returned

and were left on the ground or in the waterways. Those able to be loaded on a stretcher and make it back to Folkestone. Folkestone is right near Dover on the English coast, on the English Channel. And Folkestone had the big Canadian Army Hospital at it. A lot of Canadians who were wounded in the First World War went to Folkestone. Including our grandfather.

And that's what Wendy's writing about. Next morning, I looked up the family photos. There was a picture of our grandfather with the walking stick, his right leg unable to bear weight. No date that I can find. I think it was 1917 as well. The grandfather had been at Vimy Ridge. He got wounded at Vimy.

And off he went to Folkestone, where they worked on him. Met a nurse, ended up getting married, and then my father was born. So it's a long story. Nevertheless, that's not what Wendy's talking about. She's talking about the picture. And it's that picture, which I use on my Instagram post this week to promote this week's The Bridge.

Anyway, she goes on. Did it ever return to normal? She's talking about his right leg. Wish I knew. One of my very first patients, this is my sister talking again. She was a nurse, my sister Wendy. One of my very first patients in St. Thomas in the fall of 1966 was an amazing man named George Dingman.

He and his family owned and ran newspapers, including the St. Thomas Times Journal. He was a World War I veteran whose leg dressing I cleansed and changed for weeks. This is in 1966 she's doing that. He had been wounded in 1917. Shrapnel from 1917. Still inside the leg. 49 years later. And every so often, it would drain and become infected.

Act up, as he called it. He never complained. Act up. My 50-year-old wound acts up. Shot in the bloodiest of conflicts, World War I. Just a terrible, at times senseless conflict, where millions were wounded, millions died. But that letter and the story of that man from St. Thomas,

who never complained, even when his 50-year-old injury would act up. So thank you, Wendy. Thank you for sending that. And thank all of you for listening this week. As I said at the beginning, it's been a wild week, a crazy one. Hope you've enjoyed the bridge this week. We'll be back, looking for you in seven days. Thank you.