The Bridge with Peter Mansbridge - "Just Watch Me" - Is This The Way You Want To See Leaders Questioned During The Coronavirus Crisis?

Episode Date: April 13, 2020

Some leaders, including Justin Trudeau and Donald Trump, are appearing almost daily during the COVID-19 crisis. Others from countries around the world are appearing a lot less. What's appropriate and what do past crises tell us about past practice?

And hello there, Peter Mansbridge here with the latest edition of the Bridge Daily as we enter week five of the Bridge Going Daily as we deal with this whole COVID-19 coronavirus story and try to bring you something, a different perspective on this issue every day. There's lots out there. You know it from your various newscasts and online stories that you're reading, radio, you name it. There's lots out there.

We're trying to give you something a little different each day to think about. And as we walk through this, it's quite something. Well, it was a holiday weekend. Unlike any other holiday weekend I guess we've ever had, any of us. I hope yours was one that you could relax in and one that you could reach out and talk with friends and family, often from a distance, often in some kind of virtual fashion. I tried, as I do each weekend, not to watch too much news, not to consume too much news, to try and give myself a bit of a break from all this. It's hard to do that at times, but I think I succeeded for the most part this weekend. I had a couple of enjoyable moments watching television.

I got a few laughs out of Saturday Night Live on Saturday night. I loved their takeoff on the Zoom. It seemed very familiar to some of the Zoom conversations I've been in. And I guess especially I loved watching Andrea Bocelli yesterday from Milan. His concert, the great tenor. Singing as he did in a concert inside the Duomo in Milan,

inside and outside. I guess I'll never forget that performance of Amazing Grace that he sang outside. If you haven't seen it, it's easily available online. I'll pull it up. Even if you just watch the last couple of minutes, which is Amazing Grace, it's incredible. You know, it reminded me, you know, somewhat of a different occasion and a different singer, but in that same country,

and not far from Milan, actually. It was in Torino, 2006, at the opening of the Olympic Games, and it was Luciano Pavarotti's final public appearance. He died not long after, I think it was 2007. He was not well. But he sang one of his favorites, and not only his favorite, but our favorite of his, Nessun Dorma. And I was there.

You know, millions, if not billions, saw him give his final public appearance on television because it was the Olympic Games, the opening ceremony, but I was actually there. I was in the audience because I was part of the broadcast team doing that, I think with Brian Williams. And, you know, I had tears in my eyes. I mean, I would have anyway with him singing, with Pavarotti singing, because that's the kind of emotion he used to pull out of you, as the great singers always do.

But we all knew that he was not well, and that this might be the last time we'd see him on stage, holding, as he did, that white handkerchief in his left hand. Signature move on his part. And it was a special, a very special evening, listening to him. And I thought about that again, you know, last night when I was watching Baccella and his version of Amazing Grace.

A couple of things that were, you know, kind of good news in these past few days and including today announcement out of Ottawa, that the Ottawa firm Spartan bioscience has got approval from the health department to sell and market and distribute its testing kit. It's kind of a portable one testing for COVID-19. This is a big kind of breakthrough. It's very portable. And I guess some of one of the ideas is use it in airports and border crossings and things like that. Very small. Test is quick. Get a response almost immediately. This is, you know, I've said

more than a few times that there are a number of things happening here. You know, there's the rush to develop a fast, responsive, accurate testing system. There's the rush to try and find an antiviral that will slow this disease down that you can take once you know you have it. And, of course, there's a rush to discover a vaccine. A vaccine could take a year, two years, at least, when it goes through all the testing and approval process. The antiviral could be much quicker, like much quicker.

And as we've already seen through the announcement today from Spartan Bioscience, they're not the only ones out there, but they are a great Canadian story of innovation. And this is progress. This is progress. These are the kind of things we're looking for, hoping for. A lot of government money sunk into Spartan Bioscience in the last month to help them get to this point. And that's happening elsewhere. with universities and research firms across

the country. So that was good news. It was good news to hear Jason Kenney on the weekend, the premier of Alberta. He's got enough problems facing him right now with, you know, the oil situation and it's COVID-19, but he and his health department had moved quickly on this as soon as they started hearing the stories coming out of China last fall, and they were prepared,

so prepared that once they realized that they are ahead of the curve, maybe that's the wrong term to use, but ahead of the game in terms of their population and the amount of equipment they have and had stockpiled in these last months, that they were able to offer up some of their own, some of their N95 masks and gloves and goggles and ventilators to other provinces, Ontario, Quebec, B.C., all in need of some elements of those.

And Jason Kenney and Alberta, they're doing the Canadian thing, helping other provinces. Cargo jet finally gets in with its first shipment of stuff from China. You know, personal protection equipment. Mainly masks, but not only masks.

They came in, finally on the weekend. Cargo jets being ready to go. All the various different hoops that they had to go through to get going. They went into Shanghai late last week and got back on Saturday and stuff's already been

distributed. And they're ready to go again. So is Air Canada. The two airlines are working cooperatively on that. And then we had Boris Johnson. Out of hospital last night. To Chequers. It's kind of like Harrington Lake is for Justin Trudeau.

Checkers is kind of like that for the Prime Minister of England. So he, you know, from every indication, he was in very difficult shape in hospital. He never went into the ICU. Well, he did go to the ICU, but was never hooked up onto a ventilator. But according to a speech he gave today, a speech from Chequers to the people of Britain, he was in very difficult shape and he's credited individuals with saving his life. Now that's good news for Britain. A lot of other news in Britain is not good

because they're having a hell of a time trying to deal with COVID-19. They weren't prepared. They did some silly things, including Boris Johnson going around shaking hands with people only a few weeks ago. And should we be surprised then that he ended up getting the coronavirus? I guess not.

But he spoke to the people today. And it's interesting, and this is where I'm going on this. It's interesting, this issue of leaders speaking to their people and how often they do that. Because here in Canada, Justin Trudeau, today was the first day he didn't speak to the people. Yesterday and today. He took a break over the holidays.

But he'd spoken every other day, either in front of the house he's staying in in Ottawa or in the House of Commons, where he spoke from on Saturday. But he's decided a daily event of some kind. So has Trump in the U.S. But that's not a common position by leaders from other countries who have made very important speeches, but rarely. Angela Merkel, I think, is only once in the last month.

A speech that received worldwide attention and worldwide audits. It's a great speech. The president of Germany spoke on the weekend. He was good. Same with leaders in Italy, Spain, a number of other countries, but rarely. And it raises the question, who do you want to hear from? You obviously want to hear from the health leaders, health experts in countries. Do you want to hear from political

leaders? Are they helping you get through this? I'd be interested to know what your take is on that. And I raise it because clearly there is a difference. And even when I decided to, I was talking with my old friend Brian Stewart, you may recall, correspondent, foreign correspondent, domestic correspondent. Brian and I worked together in Ottawa and various other places over the years. And he had been in Montreal during the October crisis. He had watched as a young student, as I had, in the early 1960s, during the Cuban Missile Crisis. JFK, John Kennedy, President of the United States,

over those 13 days in October of 1962, the Cuban Missile Crisis spoke how many times? Once. Talk to the American people, and in fact the world, once during that extremely tense 13-day period. But we talked about October 1970 as well. The FLQ crisis. Pierre Trudeau was the prime minister. He spoke, and I checked today, I went through, you know, trying to determine exactly. He spoke twice during that.

That went on for about a month, right? This was a tense situation. The army was in the streets in Quebec and parts of Ontario. A Quebec cabinet minister had been murdered. The British consul, trade consul, based in Montreal, was kidnapped. This was a crisis. The government felt there was an armed insurrection going on. Pierre Trudeau spoke twice.

Once in a speech to the nation, and once in a scrum on Parliament Hill. And I'm going to, you know, you can find that scrum. It's all over the, you know, if you dig into the net, you can find it easily. I found it on the CBC archives, and I thank the CBC archives for having it on there. And I'm going to play just a little bit of it

because it is a remarkable scrum. And you might wonder, is this what, if a leader is going to talk at a time like this of great national importance, is this what a leader should go through, as opposed to a very kind of scripted daily announcements and kind of questions from afar? Is this what should happen?

Because this is a controversial scrum. There's nobody shy here in this interview It's happening on the steps of Parliament, just outside the west door, the centre block of Parliament Hill. And the main questioner that you're going to hear is Tim Rafe. He worked for the CBC. He was a parliamentary correspondent. I remember Tim. I worked with Tim.

Passed away almost 20 years ago now, in the fall of 2000. But Tim was a tough, hard-nosed, hard-edged journalist, and he was not shy about going head-to-head with Pierre Trudeau in the middle of the October crisis, with tanks on the street, armed guards at the corners. You listen to this and think, is this what you want to hear? Is this the kind of interview you'd like to see with leaders,

whether it's the prime minister or a premier or, you know, the president of the United States? All right? You ready? Let me make sure I've got the right control knobs on. Here we go. Now, listen to this. So this is in October of 1970 on the steps of Parliament.

Sir, what is it with all these men with guns around here? Haven't you noticed? Yeah, I've noticed them. I wonder why you people decided to have them. What's your worry? I'm not worried, but you seem to be. You're not worried. What's your... I'm not worried. I'm worried about living in a town that's full of people with guns running around in it. Are you? Have they done anything to you? Have they pushed you pushed you around anything they've pushed around friends of mine yeah what were your friends doing trying to take pictures of them aha is that against the law no not at all doesn't it

worry you having a town that you've got to resort to this kind of thing no it doesn't worry me i think it's natural that if people are being abducted, that they be protected against such abduction. What would you do if a Quebec minister, another Quebec minister were abducted, or a federal minister? But isn't that one of the... Is your position that you should give in to the seven demands of the FMQ? Not at all. My position is completely the opposite. What is your position? my position is completely the opposite what is your position my position is you don't give in to any of them all right

but you don't protect yourselves against their possibility of blackmail well how can you protect everybody that it's going to be a possible target without a much bigger military force without putting somebody on everybody in the country turning it into almost a police state so what do you suggest that would protect nobody how can you protect them all well you can't protect them all but are there for arguing that you can't you shouldn't protect any well that's right that's your position right all right so pierre laporte wasn't protected and he was abducted if you had hindsight would you not have preferred to protect him and mr cross well i'd say second guessing is

pretty easy but you can't do it but i'm asking you the first guess now no because it's impossible it would have been impossible to protect uh cabinet ministers of the provincial government or diplomats i would suspect so with all the diplomats are in this country oh we got a big army you're going to use it up pretty fast what this rate? What do you mean at this rate? What, six and seven? I wonder if I could interpolate something here. You seem to be thinking, in your statement in the House this morning, you seem to be saying that you thought the press had been less than responsible in its coverage of the

story so far. Could you elaborate on that? No, less than responsible. I was suggesting that I should perhaps use a bit more restraint, which you're not doing now. You're going to make a big news item of this, I'm sure. Well, with great respect, it is a big news item. Yeah, but the main thing that the FLQ is trying to gain from this

is a hell of a lot of publicity for the movement. Recognition. Yeah, and I'm suggesting that the more recognition you give to them, the greater their victory is, and I'm not interested in giving them a victory. Well, there's a proposition that perhaps it is, would be wise to use less inflammatory terms than bandits, when you talk about a bunch of people who have the lives of two men in their hands. You don't think they're bandits?

Well, regardless of what I think, I don't think I'd be inclined to wave a red flag in their face if they held two of my friends or colleagues with guns at their heads. Well, first of all, I didn't call them bandits. I call the people who were in jail now bandits who had been tried before the law and condemned to a prison term. And I said that you people should stop calling them political prisoners. They're not political prisoners. They're outlaws. They're criminal prisoners.

They're not political prisoners. And they're bandits. That's why they're in jail. But with your army troops, you seem to be combating them as almost as though it is a war. And if it is a war, does anything that they say have validity? Don't be silly. We're not combating them as a war, but we're using some of the army as peace agents in order that the police be more free to do their job as policemen

and not spend their time guarding your friends against some form of kidnapping. You suggested, you said earlier that that you would you protect them in this way but you have said before that this kind of violence what you're fighting here the kind of violence of the FLQ can lead to a police state. Sure, that's what you're complaining about isn't it? Well yes but surely that that decision is yours not the FLQ's. Yeah but That's what you're complaining about, isn't it? Well, yes, but surely that decision is yours, not the FLQ's. Yeah, but I've asked you what your own logic is. It's to let them abduct anybody and not give any protection to anyone. Call off the police. That seems to be your

position. Not call off the police. Surely the police's job is to catch people who break the law. Yeah, but not to give protection to those citizens who might be blackmailed for one reason or another. Which must be half the population of the country in one way or another. My life, I explain

it badly, I think. But what you're talking about, to me, is choices. And my choice is to live in a society that is free and democratic, which means that you don't have people with guns running around in it. And one of the things I have to give up for that choice is the fact that people like you may be kidnapped.

Sure. Sir, if you had to write... But this isn't my choice, obviously. You know, I think it's more important to get rid of those who are committing violence against the total society and those who are trying to run the government through a parallel power by establishing their authority by kidnapping and blackmail. And I think it's our duty as a government to protect government officials and important people in our society against being used as tools in this blackmail.

No, you don't agree to this, but I'm sure that once again with hindsight, you would have probably found it preferable if Mr. Cross and Mr. Laporte had been protected from kidnapping, which they weren't, because the steps we're taking now weren't taken. But even with your hindsight, I don't see how you can deny that. No, I still go back to the choice that you have to make in the kind of society that you live in. There's a lot of bleeding hearts around who just don't like to see people with helmets and guns. All I can say is go on and bleed.

But it's more important to keep law and order in this society than to be worried about weak-kneed people who don't like the looks of a soldier. At any cost? At any cost? How far would you go with that? How far would you extend that? Well, just watch me. At reducing civil liberties? To that extent? To what extent? Well, if you extend this and you say, okay, you're going to do anything to protect them, does this include wiretapping, reducing other civil liberties in some ways?

Yes, I think the society must take every means at its disposal to defend itself against the emergence of a parallel power which defies the elected power in this country, and I think that goes to any distance. So long as there is a power in here which is challenging the elected representative of the people, I think that power must be stopped. And I think it's only, I repeat, weak-kneed, bleeding hearts who are afraid to take these measures.

Excuse me, sir. You have been largely silent on this whole case, and understandably so. If you had anything to address to the abductors at this point, what would it be? I think Mr. Boissat stated the position yesterday and I repeated in the House, with which we agree completely. There's only one thing now that we're prepared to talk to them about. It's a way in which Mr. Cross and Mr. Laporte can be effectively released. This mechanism has to be dealt with first and foremost. A remarkable, remarkable scrum on the steps of the Parliament buildings that was done obviously just before it was determined that Pierre Laporte had been murdered. James Cross was eventually released. Now, it was a remarkable scrum, mostly between Pierre Trudeau and Tim Rafe. There was another reporter who talked occasionally in there,

but for the most part, it was a back and forth, one-on-one, Tim Rafe, Pierre Trudeau. And it was a real back and forth. And the issue that came up was, was Rafe giving too much of his personal opinion in the interview. Well, you certainly heard what he thought or what he said he thought because his questions and his comments provoked incredible answers from Pierre Trudeau, including the famous, just watch me, when Rafe prodded, how far would you go? So it was a remarkable interview. And obviously the situation is considerably different than what we're witnessing now, other than the fact that it's a national crisis. We're in a national crisis now. That was a national crisis. We're in a national crisis now. That was a national crisis.

And that was a prodding of the Prime Minister of Canada, pushing him, well, about as far as you could push somebody, to try and determine answers on the way things were unfolding at that moment. So I guess my question to you, is that the kind of thing you want to see now? Or are you happy with the daily kind of scripted, well, not really scripted. I mean, there are questions there, but it's not like that.

Right? It's not like that at all. So which is a better way of moving information? And does the very fact that it's every day, and the way we're getting it now, kind of take away from moments like that? I'm not sure myself. You know, I really am not sure.

I do know that that moment will live forever in the annals of Canadian broadcast history. I'm not sure we've seen one like that so far in this story. Could be wrong, but I don't think anything like that has happened. Anyway, something for you to think about, and if you have comments on it, don't be shy. The Mansbridge Podcast at gmail.com. The Mansbridge Podcast

at gmail.com. And once again, the incredible CBC archives. There's so much stuff in there that you can find about our history and the, you know,

the Trudeau speech from the October crisis is there. It's nothing like that, but it's there. You can find it, as you can find lots and lots and lots of other elements of our history at different times, at difficult times and at happier times. Anyway, that brings the Monday night edition to a close. We have some interesting things coming up during the week,

including on Wednesday, I'm hoping to do an interview where somebody is going to talk about the future. I know there's two big questions that most people have on their minds. When is this going to end? And what's it going to be like when it does end? We're going to focus on that second one on Wednesday and talk about whether that's even possible, to have any idea what it's going to be like when it ends. But I'm looking forward to that conversation,

as I hope you will as well. Anyway, thanks again for tuning in today, and thank you for all those who have been writing. And there have been lots of new letters came in over the weekend. And lots of playing of the podcast going back a couple of weeks. Numbers over the weekend were quite remarkable, so that's great. I'm glad you're finding it of some interest. So that's all we've got for today.

I'm Peter Mansbridge. This has been the Bridge Daily. We'll talk to you again in 24 hours. you