The Bridge with Peter Mansbridge - THE WEEKEND SPECIAL #52

Episode Date: March 12, 2021

We introduce the corrections box to show a little transparency.  But the main body of the special is as it always is -- your thoughts, ideas and questions.  The main focus -- the monarchy and Canada.

And hello there, I'm Peter Mansbridge. You are just moments away from the Friday edition of The Bridge. It's the weekend special. Yes, and hello there, I'm Peter Mansbridge. Looking forward to talking to you today on the weekend special you know what that means we got your thoughts your comments your questions your ideas on the week gone by and we'll get to them all in uh just a moment but first of all you know when you pick up a newspaper okay let me rephrase. When you used to pick up a newspaper, usually on kind of page two, there'd be something called a corrections box. And the newspaper would be very transparent in the way it dealt with things that they perhaps got wrong or left the wrong impression.

And so they would explain what the correct impression should have been. Well, this is the corrections box for this week on the bridge. I like to mark things when, you know, if you get something wrong, you should say you got it wrong. And in fact, that's what I'm going to do. Yesterday, we were talking about Roger Mudd, and as a result of talking about Roger Mudd, we introduced the whole

situation with the Kennedy family and the four brothers. And the eldest brother, Joe Kennedy Jr., he was destined to become president according to his father. That's what his father, Joe Kennedy Sr., wanted. But he never made it to the campaign trail because instead of going into his final year of law at Harvard in 1941,

he instead joined the U.S. Navy. And that's the correction I wanted to put in because I said he was in the U.S. Air Force. He was a pilot. But in fact, he was a Navy pilot, said he was in the U.S. Air Force. He was a pilot. But in fact, he was a Navy pilot. So he was in the U.S. Navy. But the more I read to check and make sure I got the facts right, the story of his death, like he was killed in action, is really quite something. He'd done a number of combat missions initially in the war, but then he went into this thing called Operation Aphrodite.

And it was kind of a bizarre thing. You don't often hear about it. But what the U.S. Navy had planned was there were certain targets they couldn't get at properly, and so what they wanted to do was fly aircraft to the target. The pilots would then bail out. The aircraft would be directed straight into the target and explode and blow the target up. The pilots who parachuted were, of course,

then picked up and brought home. So it's a daring mission, right? So he was on one of these missions, plane loaded with explosives, heading towards the target. And it was, I think, an anti-submarine mission. So there was U-boats they were after in a U-boat pen somewhere. So they get there, and they're going through the process.

They've got it all timed out exactly when they are going to do everything. They lock into the target, and they're going through the process. They've got it all timed out exactly when they are going to do everything. They lock into the target. And they're just minutes away from the moment when the two pilots, including Lieutenant Joe Kennedy Jr., would bail out. But the explosives on board the aircraft prematurely went off. The plane blew up. No survivors.

So that was the end of the life of Joe Kennedy Jr., U.S. Navy pilot. And then the legacy was picked up by his brothers, and you know the story from there. But I did want to mention that and mention it right away in the form of correction, but also in the form of a story. The other one we were on was at Smoke Mirrors and the Truth the other day. We were talking, I don't know, we got got into somehow we started talking about the pope and somebody we we couldn't remember the

pope before francis the one who's still alive first time i think i gotta be careful i shouldn't say first time i don't want to have another correction next week. But certainly in the modern papal era a first time. And we couldn't remember the name of the Pope before Benedict. And either Andrew or Bruce said oh it was Ratzenberger. And we all agreed oh yes Ratzenberger. It wasn't Ratzenberger it was Ratzinger. Okay?

That had been his last name. And I thank Robert Donaldson for sending a note. That's all he said. Not Ratzenberger, Ratzinger. He sent it from his phone where he's at the University of Aberdeen In Scotland

Now, I know that university I know that city I've walked the grounds of the University of Aberdeen It's beautiful, it's gorgeous So I don't know what you're doing there, Robert Or whether you're a student A prof Or what have you don't know what you're doing there, Robert, or whether you're a student, a prof, what

have you. You've picked a great spot in the world to be. And the other item that makes it into the corrections box on this day comes from Dan Hurley in Gabriola Island off the west coast of British Columbia. So we've gone from Scotland to west coast of BC. And Dan Hurley writes about John Harvard.

I mentioned John the other day as that tough colleague of mine, aggressive interviewing style, but a wonderful guy. Oh, I was talking about the other day, former Lieutenant Governor of Manitoba, former elected official.

And that's where the correction comes in. I'd mentioned that he was an MLA, member of the provincial legislature in Manitoba. Well, in fact, he was a member of Parliament, House of Commons in Ottawa, before he became Lieutenant Governor.

So, thanks, Dan, for pointing that out, and thanks for remembering what an interesting guy John Harvard certainly was. Alright, the final thing before we get into the main body of the letters is I got a wonderful letter from Laura Martin in Springwater, Ontario. And Laura mentions about a half dozen

or so questions that she feels need to be answered as best as possible on the issue of vaccines and kids. And they're good questions, all of them. I'm not a doctor. I'm not the person who can answer this. I'm not an infectious disease specialist or a vaccine specialist. But at her suggestion, I'm going to ask one not an infectious disease specialist or a vaccine specialist but um at her

suggestion i'm going to ask one of our infectious disease specialists and we'll have that on early next week and we'll answer as many of these questions as possible uh that have come from laura and as once again they're great questions the focus for today's weekend special you won't be surprised that there were a lot of letters on this question of the monarchy you know following the Harry and Meghan interview

with Oprah Winfrey the other night and I sort of loosely said you know what do you think how do you feel how do you feel about the interview how do you feel about the issue how do you feel about the monarchy in Canada should we keep it

how do you feel so I got? How do you feel about the monarchy in Canada? Should we keep it? How do you feel? So I got a lot of letters. And once again, some long. I'll read excerpts from some of them. So we can sort of blitz through this. There are a lot of different feelings. There's no unanimity out there on this.

So let's get started. John Mullen in Dartmouth, Nova Scotia. I love these Fridays because the scope of the country you get here. We're in Nova Scotia. A minute ago, we were in BC. Two minutes ago, we were in Scotland. Here we go. John Mullen writes,

I think Canada will eventually lose the monarchy. Everything has a shelf life, and the monarchy is no exception. I just don't think that our population is quite ready for it yet. I do think Canada would be more than willing to take a step back, though, and try a monarchy- model take away all of the provincial lieutenant governors and commissioners and have the provinces rotate in representatives as government or excuse me rotate in representatives as governor general in three-year terms the symbolism of the monarchy can stop at the federal level there isn't any need to have provincial

representatives surely we can make modifications to our system to eliminate this added layer of inefficiency and added expense. The mechanics can always be sorted out if there's political will driven by overwhelming public support. That's an interesting idea. John, not sure whether it'll fly, not sure whether some provinces might say, no, no, no, you can't do that. We need that. It's in the constitution. You're going to have to amend the constitution. Hey, we're not going there again. Randy Shantz from Toronto. I don't believe we should become

a republic. The monarchy is woven into our constitution. The cost of becoming a republic would be very expensive. It wouldn't improve our standard of living nor reduce the financial cost of our government. The monarchy will continue to evolve and most likely

become better. That is the history of the monarchy in our commonwealth. Continual improvement. Not to think about that for a moment, but in fact, the monarchy has changed over time in terms of its powers and its impact, its symbolism, all of that. Has it continually improved?

Yes, that's another question. Anyway, thanks, Randy. Ron Fisher writes, do you think it's time to dump the monarchy? Yes or no? He thinks I should put that online and do a poll. You know what, Ron? I don't do polls. I do sometimes funny ones about sports.

But we'll leave this to the professionals like Bruce Anderson and Shachi Curl and Alan Gregg, all the others who do real polling. David Coletta works with Bruce. But Ron does say, I have always had a bit of nostalgia for the monarchy but as i get older i want it less and less given this and the recent governor general flap i just don't see the benefits outweighing the cost anymore janet mcleod writes from kitchener ontario

the royal family has completely squandered an opportunity to set an example for the world in how to be anti-racist. They welcomed a black woman into their family but have done nothing to stand up for her or her child or to denounce the blatant racism prevalent in media coverage. Colonial attitudes have prevailed. If not within the family directly, then certainly within the royal machine surrounding them. On the other hand, it's not at all surprising

the royal family of the UK have prevailed over the former British Empire and all its colonial conquests, including the enslavement of black bodies and all the benefits and profit that powerful white men derive from that enslavement for more than 200 years we're seeing the harm caused by institutional white supremacy being born by megan and her family perpetuated by one of the most successful colonist nations of all time except as many black and brown women on social media have pointed out megan's story is also the story of every other racialized woman what influence the royal family could have had

towards bringing more equality into the world and demonstrating and modeling anti-racist behavior within britain and around the commonwealth instead they've chosen to be silent and in the process are upholding white supremacy. So those thoughts from Janet McLeod in Kitchener, Ontario. Robert Ong from Toronto has this to say. When I first became politically aware in my pre-teens and early teens, I was a staunch monarchist. I remember reading an article from the now defunct weekly Toronto newspaper called The Grid.

I've never heard of that, but that's okay. That was supportive of the monarchy, with one particular argument in favor, citing that constitutional monarchies are more democratically accountable than, for example, the American presidential system. Then, by the time I started my first year studying public administration and political science at the University of Ottawa, I was on the fence between monarchism and republicanism. It also happens to be that I wrote a paper for my Governance in Contemporary Societies course that examined what kind of republican presidential system Canada should decide upon sometime in the future to ditch our ties to the British monarchy. Finally, the events of the past year or so from

the scandal involving Governor General Julie Payette and the Oprah interview on Sunday of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex was the last straw for me. Broke the camel's back. Once the reign of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II ends, our country should transition into the Federal Republic of Canada. Don't like the sound of that. With a head of state directly elected by the Canadian people. Yes, that's what we need, another election.

It's frankly quite embarrassing that our fully independent, multicultural country is being represented by the British royal family, who would look completely out of place if they took a stroll down Yonge Street, Robinson Street, or St. Catharines, Montreal. So this is my summary of my transition from being a monarchist to a Republican.

All right, Robin. Sorry, Robert. Interesting ideas. Caleb Gibbons. I'm just trying to see where Caleb is writing from. Oh, he's in Cape Breton. What he calls a have-not corner of our jewel of a country. There have been calls for some time

to remove all semblances of the Queen and her entourage from Canada. My ancestors came to Nova Scotia via Virginia from London in 1750, making them pre-loyalists. Perhaps because it started in Atlantic Canada, we still cling to the

Commonwealth traditions. Tea and those plates that line the top of the kitchen cabinets in many homes in Cape Breton to this very day. That happens in more than just Cape Breton. If a common currency is called for in the storms ahead we would rather go all in with commonwealth partners all right caleb i'm sorry parts of your letter got kind of distorted somehow in the on the machine and in the printer. But nevertheless, I think we get your idea,

the traditions of the monarchy and the importance of them. Tish Whitfield writes from Barry's Bay. That's in the Mattawaska Valley, not far from Ottawa. The way I see it is no one or no institution is perfect. We hold the royal family to a high standard, but they are a family, albeit a large and public family. I know my family is not perfect. We have members that are outspoken sometimes to the detriment of the whole.

We have members that are peacemakers, and like most families, we have the sweet and wholesome mom or grandmom or aunt. I sympathize with Harry and Megan's feelings. Obviously their issues regarding mental health and racism are serious concerns. This is a family matter needs to be addressed by the family. Personally I like Canada's association with the royal family. I think it's an important part of our history and is another differentiation from our neighbors in the South. I guess I would think differently if I truly believed the royal family is racist. I believe it is on them now to dispel this notion.

The royal family sets an example of service and kindness in their charity work and their presence in world events. I recognize that colonialism has had and continues to have negative effects on the Indigenous people and people of colour all over the world. It is each person's responsibility to do their part to acknowledge and rectify this in everything we do or say. having said that, I do believe that Canada should still keep their association with the monarchy in the symbolic way that we do now, including the history and tradition, but always staying true to the Canadian value of inclusiveness and respect of all people

and the government that we all cherish. You know what? We got lots more letters to go. There's still to come. So we'll be right back. And hey, here we are with the weekend special right here on The Bridge. Whether you're listening on Sirius XM, channel 167, or if you're listening on your regular podcast feature,

we're glad to have you with us. And I should note, it's been, what, a month and a half now since we made the transition from doing the podcast ourselves and pumping it out ourselves to an association and a distribution with SiriusXM, and it's been very beneficial. Our audience has grown. Just on the podcast alone, we passed over 200,000 downloads,

as they say, in the podcast business just the other day. And we already had, I think, 1.7 million or something downloads before, in the year and a half that we'd been going before. So you can do the math and see that we're growing. So that's nice. That's always good to hear, and we keep hearing from people all over the country and sometimes in different parts of the world who download our podcast, have a listen to what we're saying. We're talking today mainly in your mail

about the future of the monarchy in Canada. Here's a quick one from Brody Otway in Prince George, BC. Once again, I don't know what was happening with the printer whether it was the printer or the internet or something but i some of these emails that i've got haven't been distorted but there seem to be words missing um anyway brody writes or to get the general sense of what he has to say here, I'm not an anti-monarchist per se, but I find it very difficult to justify the monarchy and its associated expense. When the Queen passes on, it would be a natural point to have a very serious discussion as a nation about how we see the monarchy and how we see it looking as we move forward. You know, I think there may be an agreement on that on the part of a lot of different people.

That doesn't necessarily mean action will be taken, but it may be the time then to discuss the future of the monarchy and the role it should play within individual countries and within the UK itself. Although it's interesting to see the polling data that's come out of the UK this week after that interview and it's been overwhelmingly in favor of the Queen and the royal family and not very flattering of Meghan and Harry.

While on this side of the Atlantic, I wouldn't say the numbers are a total flip of that, but there's much more support for Harry and Meghan on this side of the Atlantic than there is on the other side. Stacey Campbell writes from Vancouver, read a lot of letters from British Columbia this week. And, you know, there is, you know,

a good chunk of BC, especially down around Vancouvercouver island and victoria especially heavily monarchist right or at least that's the perception i'm sure i'm going to get letters now saying ah man spriggy you're out of date it's not like that anymore at all i don't know whenever i go to Victoria, it looks pretty monarchist to me. Anyway, Stacey Campbell writes, and she's in Vancouver. She's not in Victoria, so I won't confuse that. I was stunned but not surprised by what was said in the Meghan Harry interview. I'm surprised, though, that so many people took it at face value.

If you'll notice, so much of what they said or alluded to in the interview has been debunked, has been questioned. I'm not sure it's been debunked. I know what you're getting at, but there are clearly some areas that look a little hazy in terms of people's memories. And I don't think we know yet exactly what happened. If anything did happen, I don't think we know the facts yet. And we may never know the facts.

The family says it's going to keep it to itself, but they're going to discuss it. We'll see. I completely understand and agree with a lot of the arguments to abolish the monarchy. But my love of history also argues to protect it. The Queen, Prince Charles, and Prince William all worked tirelessly. And they're excellent role models for the public. Stacey Burgot Campbell.

She calls herself a proud Gen Xer, 48 years old. Love, love, love your show. All right, Stacey. Thank you. love love love your show alright Stacy thank you Pat Provo writes from Saint-Bazile de Grand, Quebec what a kerfuffle that interview with Harry and Meghan made last Sunday night

after the disgraceful situation of the Governor General's office management of Julie Payette, it's time to make the role more dignified and more relevant to this day and age. I've never understood the liaison that the Governor General has with the Queen. Well, it's very ceremonial, okay, for starters. Usually when a new Governor General is appointed, the Governor General goes and meets the Queen in the UK.

And then that's it. Except if the Queen comes to Canada, which apparently she's not going to be doing anymore but if she did obviously the Governor General is involved in whatever ceremonial activities take place but the Governor General's main connection, because Pat mentions how British Prime Ministers meet with the Queen supposedly on a weekly basis. That hasn't been happening in the last year. I think they've talked on the phone on a weekly basis, Bojo and the Queen.

In Canada, what happens is the Governor General has a weekly audience with the Prime Minister. That too, I assume, has not been happening as a result of the pandemic over the last year, but I'm sure they talk on occasion. But the whole idea of that is sort of an update on what's happening within government. But when the Governor General gives the speech from the throne,

she doesn't sit there and write it. It's written by the Prime Minister's office. And it's kind of the government's agenda for the parliamentary session ahead. So that connection between the GG and the Queen is, well, it's more than symbolic, but it's not a lot more than that. Anyway, Pat's hoping that, you know,

that there's going to be change coming, but make it change in a fashion that doesn't upset history, I guess. There were a lot of other letters, once again, that dealt with various issues on the question of the royal family, and most of them centered around this idea that, you know, perhaps we've missed the opportunity this week to talk about some of the nuances of how this story may be felt by those who are more directly affected. Lakshmili Narendra wrote from Streetsville, Ontario, and was making that very point, and

it's a good point. He liked most of our programming, or she liked most of our programming this week, but was not keen on the fact that we didn't go deeply enough into the various nuances. We got a letter from Climax, Saskatchewan. Tyrell Bertram. Tyrell C.K. Bertram from Climax, Saskatchewan, Tyrell Bertram. Tyrell C.K. Bertram from Climax, Saskatchewan. As Tyrell writes, that's a town in the southwest corner of the province. It sure is.

When it comes to the royal family, I love Queen Elizabeth II and think that the conversation about the future of her role in Canada cannot start until she passes away. That is a common theme through a lot of letters, no matter how people feel about what that future should bring. And obviously it's a delicate issue. The Queen is 94. Her mother was alive until she was 101, and the queen doesn't look like she's going anywhere soon. She's obviously very concerned about her husband,

who, last I checked, was still in hospital after a heart procedure. He's 99. And the Queen has lost some of the people closest to her from her life. Obviously, her father, who died in 1952. But Princess Margaret, her sister, her younger sister passed away. Her mother is gone. Her husband who has been in her life since I think the first time he wrote to her she was like 8 or something.

So he's been a constant in her life. Now, obviously, her kids are constants in her life, but those most closest to her, who spent the most time with her over her lifetime, they're slowly exiting the stage, and if something was to happen to Prince Philip, I'm sure that would have a very, very difficult impact on her. Okay, here's one from Albert Versteeg.

Churchill said that democracy is the worst form of government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time maybe that can be said for the role of the monarchy in Canada also let's face it, one of the alternatives as practiced down south for the last four years is not something we want to emulate full disclosure, I'm an 80-year-old born in the Netherlands who came to Canada in 1959 and whose formative years were in a monarchy. As far as Charles is concerned, he should abdicate.

However, the British monarchy has been very dismissive of the Dutch monarchy where abdication was concerned. Interesting take, Albert. All those European monarchies, they watch each other very closely to see who's doing what. Right? Here's the final one. And keeping with the theme of let's hear from the West Coast a lot this week,

we're going to sunny Saanich, British Columbia, for Trevor Barry's letter. Same topic. Peter, I am a soft monarchist, but I am a big fan of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II. On Monday this week, I celebrated International Women's Day. On Monday, I also made a point to celebrate Commonwealth Day. I cannot think of another woman who has done so very much, worked so very hard, and accomplished such achievements in the post-war era than Elizabeth Windsor Mountbatten, including for BIPOC, people of color, and often by fighting her own entitled peers in the process. She is not perfect. The institution, they call it the firm, is imperfect.

And the family, like so many others, is a hot mess, made worse by tabloids, virtue-signaling populace, and of course the plague of social media algorithms and echo chambers. I personally loved the Oprah interview. I believe everything Meg and Harry had to say. But I'm not deterred. And when it comes to the monarchy of the Commonwealth, I don't believe they are either.

In fact, I believe the Queen herself is personally glad for them and allowed this space and this exit to take place. It serves to modernize, yet again under her watch, an enduring institution, and one that ultimately serves more pros than cons. Multilateralism and cultural exchange between otherwise disparate nations, stability, democracy, and even self-determination to millions worldwide of many backgrounds,

and accomplishments of crown indigenous relationships in Polynesia, e.g. New Zealand, and the promise of reconciliation in Canada flows through the crown. Modi's Hindu nationalism, that's India, right, Prime Minister Modi, would have arrived sooner to plight northern Indian farmers, if not for the crown's legacies of collectivism, pluralism, and a diaspora.

Punjabis, who migrated smoothly to Commonwealth nations like Canada. Scottish nationalism embraces the monarchy, the EU, and social democracy, and this is no coincidence. Republicanism in Canada serves only to fuel anti-establishment anarchy. The monarchy must be met with criticism. It must be held accountable. And it must adapt, so that it may endure and continue to protect us. God save the Queen. Trevor Barry

and Sonny Sanich, B.C. All right. Okay, Trevor. You made your case. And now the people will decide. So as I said at the beginning of this, a real sense of where at least our listeners stand,

and there's divided opinion. That's good. And they're willing to engage and discuss it and talk about it. And it seems that everybody to some degree thinks we do need to talk about it. Mind you, there's so much on the plate these days, right? Is the future of the monarchy really something we want to deal with right now? I don't think so, and I don't think any of you do.

I think we know the time that it's going to happen in terms of a discussion. Now probably is not the right time. Okay. The weekend special for week 52, our 52nd week since we went daily. Mainly covering the COVID story. But as you can see and as you can tell, there have been other things that we've been sidetracked onto. But next week, as we literally head into the second year of our coverage, there will be lots to talk about. You can be sure.

Because still central to our lives is this question of the virus. How we're dealing with it. How we're getting our vaccines. When we're going to get vaccines. And what real difference will that make? Joe Biden gave a speech last night that made it sound like, hey, we're not out of the woods yet. And you have to follow the protocols. But we have the distinct possibility that by the middle of the summer,

even the beginning of the summer, that at least in the U.S., there will be some return to normalcy. I think he used the phrase families together on July 4th. Well, wouldn't that be great? Let's see how that plays out. Wouldn't it be nice if we could say that about July 1st? Well, maybe we will be able to.

As the vaccine buildup continues and the distribution gets better. But don't ignore the threat on the horizon that exists still at this time. We are only in mid-March. We can't afford to fall off the rails here and let a third wave take hold. I see our friend Isaac Bogoch, the doctor, Dr. Bogoch, is warning of that possibility

if we're not careful here because of the variants. So, that's your message for this weekend. If the weather's good where you are, I hope you're able to get out. Breathe in some clean air, but doing it in a way that you're staying away from others. You're certainly staying away from areas where there are lots of people. You're washing your hands.

You're wearing a mask or two. So enjoy as best you can your weekend and keep thinking ahead. The light at the end of the tunnel is there. We see it now. We can see that light. But we're not at it yet. We may be soon. All right, I'm Peter Mansbridge. That's been the weekend special on The Bridge

for this Friday at the end of week 52. Thanks so much for listening. We'll talk to you again on Monday