The Bridge with Peter Mansbridge - SMT - What Can Charles Learn in Three Days?

Episode Date: May 18, 2022

Bruce joins us from Edinburgh, Scotland on the topic of Charles and Camilla's visit to Canada.  What can the heir to the throne do to gain affection from Canadians at a time when the future of the monarchy is very much on the minds of many?  Plus how the tragic and horrific Buffalo story has injected itself into the Conservative leadership campaign.

And hello there, Peter Mansbridge here. You're just moments away from the next episode of Smoke, Mirrors and the Truth with Bruce Anderson. And from beautiful downtown Stratford, I'm Peter Mansbridge, and we're connecting with Bruce, who's still in Scotland, but he's in Edinburgh, Scotland. Beautiful city. Much bigger than Dornick. So he's back in real Scottish civilization right now. And perhaps in the perfect place to go with our first topic for today on Smoke, Mirrors, and the Truth. And that is Charles and Camilla are in Canada.

As you know, they arrived yesterday. They're on a three-day visit. So, you know, like it's a quick visit. They're doing a little Newfoundland and Labrador, a little Ottawa, a little up north. So they'll get a glimpse. They'll get an understanding of Canada. And I'm sure for some people, it's going to be something

they'll get pretty excited about. Although Charles hasn't really drawn crowds, big crowds in past visits. I remember the first visit I saw him in was 1970 in Churchill, Manitoba. He had a good crowd there. As big a crowd as you can get in Churchill. I mean, it was a big deal.

The Queen was there as well, and the Duke, and Princess Anne. I think that was it, the four of them on that particular trip. But he's been back many times in between. And obviously, the Queen's the one who gets the big crowds. Charles got big crowds right after the marriage to diana saw him in newfoundland back in 83 or 84 when that happened when that visit happened but of late in the last few years not not a lot of excitement around a Charles visit. So the issue becomes at a time when Charles is taking over more and more of the roles of the queen, who is limited to where she can go and what she can do,

in preparation for when, as heir to the throne, he becomes king, including king of Canada, unless something happens on that front in terms of Canada's relationship to the monarchy. The question becomes, what can he do to attract more affection, if you want to put it that way? Does he and Camillo, do they need to be thinking of that? So that's my question to you, sir, as somebody who has advised major figures in the past on what they need to do to gain affection of some sort, whether they're politicians or what have you. What would you say to this couple as they spend a quick trip in Canada?

Well, I think they've got a really tough challenge ahead of them, Peter. I think that for a couple of reasons. I mean, certainly in the last several months, maybe the last year or so, we've seen some visits by members of the royal family to some parts of the Commonwealth. And you get the sense that the effort is to try to reinforce those relationships with those Commonwealth countries, understanding that at some point in time, the Queen is going to pass. And then the question of what do we need the monarchy for in some of those places will become more relevant maybe debated a little bit more um and that has been the case obviously in some in some countries and i think

jamaica has decided that it doesn't want to have the queen as the head of state any longer and i don't think that canada is on the verge of having a Republican debate like that. But on the other hand, I don't think there's much anticipation of the monarchy achieving new relevance in our lives when Prince Charles becomes King Charles. I don't think that Charles has done very much in the last decade or so to prepare people for what would be good for them with him as king. There's no narrative about him anymore because I think in part, he decided that there shouldn't be. It was almost as though he realized that he'd become a polarizing figure because of the nature of his relationship with Diana and also just the way that he was kind of viewed in the public eye over years before that and so the most that we've heard about him in recent years i think has been um that he had strong opinions but he understands that he should soften those opinions if he's going to become the monarch.

And that he believes in shrinking the size of the payroll of the royal family. And, you know, I think both of those ideas might be right. But taken together, they add up to a situation where he's a smaller story coming to a country that more probably than ever before just isn't sure what the relevance of the monarchy is for Canada. far-fetched an idea as that sounds you don't really get that prince charles thinks about his trip to canada and says i better get some advice on what you know what i should do when i'm there and what i should say and we'll see in the coming days whether or not it looks like he he got some advice and whether the advice was good but i think the questions that are not going to be said publicly, but exist in the minds of Canadians are, what do they do for us, the royal family, not the queen? I think there's so much respect for the queen, as we talked about before. But what does the royal family as an institution do for us with respect to charles and camilla i think people are going to be leaning in a little

bit listening for uh what sense of entitlement do they have do they carry themselves as people who feel as though they're entitled to our affection to our admiration to our support to our enthusiasm or is it a different kind of relationship because i don't think that you know because the queen has been the queen for so long nobody has entered the picture trying to prove the the nature of the hierarchical relationship with canadians and canadians don't naturally get into that well we should respect people who are on a higher order than us it's a pretty egalitarian country along the way a couple of other things i think that i would try to do if i were charles i think people all in canada always have a bit of an insecurity question about what do people who are important people from somewhere else what do they know about us do

they know anything about us and you know everybody you know every rock star can get up on a stage and say hey good evening Toronto oh how about leafs or whatever it is that they say that that makes people kind of go oh they know something about us like there's a version of that that the royals will do no question about it but what's the layer below that what does he know about our conversation about reconciliation? What does he know about our net zero challenge? Because we know he's an environmentalist, but does he understand what that dynamic is for Canada? Can he relate to that at all?

Not tell us what to do, but just talk about it in a way that makes us feel like he kind of gets us and understands what's unique about Canada. I don't have a great deal of hope that that's what's going to happen. And I don't really, you know, I'll put my cards on the table. I don't really care if the monarchy at some point becomes something where we say, yeah, it always felt like more work to remove it than to just leave it. Maybe we change that math at some point and say, let's just agree that this doesn't really make sense and we respect them and everything else. But I don't think that's going to happen. So I hope that it's a successful tour and I hope it ends up

making the monarchy, making Charles and Camilla kind of more interested in Canada if they're going to be the next generation of king and I guess queen as well. What do you think? You're a little bit more on the monarchist side of the dial than me. I don't know whether I am. I'm definitely on the queen side, having covered her for, you know, more than half a century, having been at a lot of those visits that she took, I think she's a pretty remarkable person. The only time I had trouble with her actions was immediately after Diana died, and I was in London, and, you know,

it was not a good week for the royal family on the way they handled that, and the way the queen handled it in particular. But she's put that in the past. It's not hardly ever raised anymore. And there is this deep respect for her by even those who want to end the relationship with the monarchy. Just as you were saying. You know, nobody has anything against the queen, per se. But let me say a couple of things about your remarks.

You went six and a half minutes for somebody who doesn't care. That's great. That obviously means you care enough to talk about it. Well, I'm here in Denver. I've got a palace here, and I'm feeling a certain amount of interest in the subject. Yeah, that's good. You refer to him as a future potential, the future King Charles. Well, here's your first little note on the monarchy. It doesn't necessarily mean that he'll be King Charles. Well, here's your first little note on the monarchy.

It doesn't necessarily mean that he'll be King Charles. He gets to choose. All right. King Fred. What is his name? He could be King Fred. He could be King Bruce. Could be King Peter. King James.

There's a lot of different things. King Edward. Look, there's that excitement. King George.ward look there's that excitement king george okay there's lots of possibilities there anyway or it could be king charles who knows um i found yesterday on the welcome in saint john's uh interesting because the governor General, Mary Simon, no slouch in terms of making her positions known over time. She's been very straightforward in that. Not in this particular role, but in her career as an activist on, you know, on Indigenous affairs in particular.

But she said in her, you know, her brief remarks she looked at charles and she said we we hope you spend this time learning not just about canada and the country as you've done in many visits before but specifically on this occasion understanding canada's Indigenous peoples, their triumphs and their tragedies, the things that have gone right, the things that have gone wrong in the relationship the Indigenous peoples have had. It was sort of a very direct appeal, and he's going places where he's going to be hearing this. He did right away in St. John's, hearing some of these stories. And this comes at a time when some Indigenous leaders in the country are already suggesting, well, you know, the Pope's going to apologize, as he should for the residential schools question.

Maybe the royal family, maybe the Queen, maybe Charles should be apologizing for the royal family's role, for England's role in the way indigenous peoples were treated in the early part of this country's history. That was interesting. So the combination of things and how he relates to that, and it picks up on your point. You know, what does he know? What does he understand? What does he know about our past, our history, and how is he going to show that uh in the time to come and it's the same with the climate story which mary simon also made a point of explaining to him about you know how the how the arctic is kind of being the leading edge for Canada in terms of the change that we're seeing because of climate change,

you know, melting water, et cetera, et cetera, rising water levels, melting ice, sorry, rising water levels. Now, Charles has this reputation, as you pointed out, as being the great environmentalist, and long before it was popular. They kind of used to make fun of him on that front. So that's part of his persona and how he uses that to perhaps appeal or get affection. In a country where, I mean, you see it in your data more than anyone, how especially young people feel this is terribly important to the future of the country.

And whether that would make a difference to them, to hear him talking about it with a specific Canadian reference or not, I don't know. I guess what I'm saying is the possibilities exist for him there to have an impact on some key issues that are confronting the country right now whether he takes the opportunity in this you know I mean this is a pit stop three days it's not much I don't I don't imagine you know Peter there's I was just going to say I don't imagine that with you that with his mother at 96 and having been challenged physically in the last little while, he wants to be away from home that much.

So maybe that's the reason this is only a three-day visit. I don't know. But he does have three days. A symbolism of a three-day visit to me is there's not going to be much that's spontaneous he's not going to learn very much that isn't part of a carefully orchestrated script and i think you know i can say oh well you know bruce you've sort of been around that business long enough you become a bit cynical about it but you know i sort of i remember the last tour of the rolling stones and remarking at how mick jagger made a point of in the cities that he was in going out on his own and having these

pictures taken of him you know outside a bar in some corner of a town where people didn't necessarily recognize him and he just wanted to be out and immersed and i thought it was a really creative way of getting across to people that he's not on some sort of elevated uh status he's not above everybody else that he doesn't live in such a bubble that he can't possibly understand what it's like to have a beer in a in a bar and i don't think we're going to see very much of that from charles i think that his his sons were better have been better at doing that not great maybe but better at doing that but he's never really come across to somebody's very comfortable putting himself in those situations but i also wanted to just pick up

one one more point because you said you know know, there are conversations in the country. And how will he relate to them? And one of them, and I'm finding myself curious about this, you know, to some greater or lesser degree, depending on the individual. But if you were looking for a party in the Canadian political system, that was the monarchy party. It was the conservative party. And now the guy who's the front runner for the leadership of that party, more than anything else, says, i don't trust elites and neither should you and we're going to tear down the institutions that govern us and we're going to replace them with i don't know the rule of the jungle or something like that but it doesn't sound like

a guy who if he became prime minister in two years is ready to fly over to london and meet king fred or charles or bruce or Peter, whatever he might be if he's the monarch at that time. So that's another interesting question is you've got this whole freedom thing that's kind of kicking around our political system right now. And I don't expect he's going to address it. But we'll see. We'll see whether conservatives talk about the monarchy in a different way this time than they would have in previous visits by the royal family. I think that's an interesting point. At first, I wasn't sure where you were heading with that, but I think the politicians, conservative and others, have suggested this is not the time to be talking about the future

in terms of the relationship with the monarchy, and I'm sure if challenged on that question, Polyev or any of the other candidates probably use this same answer, which is, you know, now's not the time.

Perhaps at a future date, and everybody knows what that's code for, you know, after the Queen's gone, it'll be time to talk about that. But I hadn't thought of it in relation to, you know, the traditions of any particular party, plus this, you know, this chant for freedom on the part of some people, as if we don't have it right now. Which, you know, I think that's an interesting point it'll be it will be something to watch when and if we get to that discussion uh but i can see them pulling the pin on on that question right now by by just responding, hey, this isn't the time. Anyway, okay, enough on that. I want to switch topics, but before we do that,

as we always do when we switch topics, we take a quick pause. We'll be back after this. and welcome back peter mansbridge in stratford bruce anderson in edinburgh scotland you're listening to smoke mirrors and the truth on the bridge you're listening on sirius xm channel 167 canada talks or on your favorite podcast platform. And we welcome you to the discussion. Of course, only the two of us are having the discussion, but I know you're sitting there with your pen and paper or your laptop or your mobile and you're getting ready to write to the Mansbridge Podcast at gmail.com.

Because your entry into the discussion can take place that way on the Thursday edition, kind of your turn, your mailbag kind of edition. All right, topic number two for today, and this one is, it's difficult, and we've all talked about it and thought about it throughout this week. After the events of last Saturday in Buffalo, New York. You know, tragedy, horrific story. This whole issue of, you know, the great replacement theory,

and people making very strong statements about how horrendous that is and how it can't be part of our political dialogue. Now, it has been kind of the number one story in many parts of not only North America, but the world over these last four or five days. As we have witnessed whenever there are mass shootings in the United States, it becomes a big story for a couple of days. And there are all the familiar chants that we've got to get guns out of people's hands. And this is violence against blacks in many cases. And that've got to get guns out of people's hands and this is a you know violence against blacks in many cases and that's got to stop and we have to find a better way and etc etc and that goes on for three or four days then it kind of vanishes until the next one hits so to start this off is there any reason to believe this is going to be any different than

all these past occasions of which, you know, I could run through the names of cities in the United States where this has happened. And sadly, a couple of occasions in Canada as well, where mass shootings have taken place. Is there any reason to believe that this can be different than all these past ones? Maybe, but, but i think it's only maybe i think the first thing obviously it's heartbreaking to see people

who were just going about their daily lives have their lives ended by somebody who um only approached them from the standpoint of hatred and a desire to end their lives, never met them, had no beef with them, drove 200 miles or something like that to, you know, find this area where the kind of people that he wanted to kill would be. And then he went about killing them. That's not new in America and it's happened, similar things have happened in Canada. And, you know, the extra sadness, I think, for a lot of people, maybe especially a lot of people in Canada, but I'm sure I know a very substantial proportion of Americans as well,

is that realization that you mentioned, which is that the new cycle would turn, people would feel anguish about it. And then within a very short period of time, everybody would be talking about something else. So all of that would add up to know this isn't going to be any different. But there's one thing that I think is becoming different and notable and potentially a change dynamic around this particular thing and other events of a similar nature, which is that over the last 15 or 20 years, all these mass shootings usually led to cries for a change in gun laws. And that's still going to happen, and it still should happen. But the other thing that's becoming a bigger part of this conversation is an understanding of the role of the Internet in allowing people to traffic in thoughts and theories and hatred and plans to do something about it and the realization that it isn't just the availability of guns but

it's the trafficking of ideas that produce these kinds of behaviors that we need to look at more seriously as a society and so we are in the middle right now of a pretty active conversation about freedom of speech you know the elon musk wanting to take over twitter and say everybody should be able to say whatever they want that's what you know that's that what should that's what should define democracy within the law he said but of course within the law we've talked about this before whose law and the strict definition of the law or the spirit of the law those are different things and so we know for example that this individual wrote this long screed about replacement theory the idea that immigrants are going to replace white people and

this is a product of some grand plan by you know unseen global forces um and in the past the kind of the simple thing for people to say who didn't want to change the gun laws i think peter was to say well this is somebody who's got mental health problems and we need to understand the mental health problem and deal with that as well as do whatever we should do on guns. But really talking about it as a mental health issue was a way for gun advocates to avoid pressure on gun laws. But I think that's changing. I think that people are now looking at this and saying, we can't just say that because there are people who have mental health issues that we shouldn't be looking at how the trafficking of those ideas inflames energizes motivates catalyzes horrible behaviors because there's a lot of evidence that

it does and so um you know there's an example right now that's in the middle of the canadian political context the the skirmishing between conservatives in the last 24 hours has really been about, well, you know, there's this prominent figure named Pat King, who was an organizer of the convoy, who was in jail. He may still be in jail in Ottawa. I'm not sure as of a month ago, he was still in jail. And this is a guy who has a video out there. I think I saw it on Twitter. Maybe it was on another platform. I'm not sure, but where he talks about the replacement theory, he's an, you know, he's a believer in this. And so yesterday you had conservative politicians talking about him

and who was quick enough to challenge his ideas, to criticize his ideas, to take a position against the things that he was saying. I think that's an interesting conversation. It may not change what's going on in the United States, but I do think that moving the conversation past just gun laws and mental health and into the trafficking of these nonsensical conspiracy theories that then turn into acts of extreme violence, New Zealand, another example where we saw that, I think that's a new element. And I believe that we're getting closer to a critical moment where democracies at least are going to have to make some hard

decisions about what constraints need to exist on speech in order to prevent these kinds of things from becoming more common. You know, I know some people will go oh there they go again they're going on about the conservatives um no actually i don't know i would just be they're both both the camps in this we're saying this is a problem not the speech part but the ideas and and so i encourage that debate i want to be clear i'm not criticizing them i'm saying no all i was getting at is you know why why does it come up that we end up talking about the debate within the conservative party and and it comes up because they're in a debate about leadership right now and as a result all issues are playing out

and as a result they're getting a lot of coverage which is what they want to do is to get coverage during a leadership debate and to you know expose the the the differences and the fault lines whatever uh between candidates and you know and that's what we're seeing but i think you know it has been interesting to watch these last couple of days because, you know, Polyev, well, first of all, it was Patrick Brown sort of went after Polyev on this issue saying, hey, you supported Pat King and, you know, he supports replacement theory and you're going to say something. And Polyev came out fairly quickly after that saying, it's outrageous, it's scandalous, you know, I don't believe in it, and it's disgusting. Yeah, good for him for doing that, too. Yeah, and, you know, and others have weighed in. Michelle Rempel, Garner, has weighed in on this issue as well from a similar side. So it's not surprising that it's happening.

It's not surprising that we end up talking about it in light of that party because that party has the spotlight on it right now. You know, I hope that we hear something from Maxime Bernier because I think it's important to know i hope that we hear something from maxine bernier because i think it's important to make the to make the point that politicians aren't responsible for all of the strange ideas that some of their followers have at the same time if they happen to know that within the movement that they represent that there are significant numbers of people who believe these theories that are false and who are indulging in communications that for some people could incite acts of violence that they have an extra burden of responsibility

to speak and so it's it's a good thing that michelle rample garner was and that pierre pauliev was and that patrick brown and others have been um. Max Bernier is the voice that needs to join in the debate, and maybe he has, and I haven't seen it yet, but I hope that he will. I've been surprised, quite frankly, that in the campaign so far, that Bernier, the leader of the People's Party of Canada and the former Conservative, the guy who finished second a couple of leadership campaigns ago for the Conservative Party, has basically been pretty quiet. We haven't heard much from him at all.

And if anything, he's running the risk of a drain on his party, right? You know, there's some of the support that he had has been looking back at the Conservative Party where they used to be to listen to see who's saying the kind of things they want to hear and he's saying nothing and bernier is saying nothing um or very little that could act uh you know it could be an interesting sidebar to the story no it could be and i don't know whether or not it's because he doesn't you know he wants to keep his powder dry until he sees who's going to be the leader and then he can really go after

them with what he to be the best way to peel back his hers i don't know i think right now some some of what pierre pauliev is saying is going right after bernier supporters some of what Pierre Pauliev is saying is going right after Bernier's supporters. Some of what Lesley Lewis is saying about Pierre Pauliev is the kind of thing that's helpful for Max Bernier. But it's early in that process, and maybe he's going to take a little bit of time. I know that he has been speaking about the abortion question and saying, you know, if he were in charge, he would welcome a debate uh on him um and um so we'll see but uh you know i do think on this question of mass shootings and the trafficking of these horrific conspiracy theories maybe we're at an inflection point that is going to lead to a different set of actions i'm not optimistic about more gun control in the United States because, as you said before, the cumulative effect of all of the mass shootings has been negligible in terms of.

Well, we seem to have we seem to have lost Bruce. We were taking a lot of hits on the connection line through the internet, which has been great for us. And I know there are times that some of you are going, can't you get a better line to whomever you were just talking to, whether they were in Ukraine or whether they were in Washington or whether they were in some other part of the world. You know, sometimes you're left with what technology gives you. And we're pretty lucky to have got what we have got over these last couple of years through a pandemic. So unfortunately,

we seem to have lost Bruce on this one. But we got the main topics covered and we appreciate both his time and your time in listening to it. For Bruce, he'll be back with us later in the week with Chantel for Good Talk on Friday. Tomorrow, Thursday, we'll have your turn. We'll have some of your thoughts on some of these issues. So don't be shy about sending them to the Mansbridge podcast at gmail.com. I'm Peter Mansbridge. I'm in

little old Stratford, Ontario, and we look forward to talking to you again in 24 hours. Thank you.