The Bridge with Peter Mansbridge - Your Turn -- Very Different Views on The Johnston Report

Episode Date: May 25, 2023

Lots of emails with your views in the first twenty-four hours after the release of the Johnston Report on Election Interference. Those views reflect in many ways the different views we witnessed on Parliament Hill when the report was released.  And the Random Ranter has his take as well focusing on how this week has impacted the state of political leadership in the country.

And hello there, Peter Mansbridge here. You are just moments away from the latest episode of The Bridge. It's Thursday, your turn, and boy, do you have a your turn on the Johnston Report. And so does the Random Ranter. And hello there, Peter Mansbridge here in Toronto today. And, well, here we are, crashing towards the end of another week. Getting close to the end of May. It'll be June soon. And then after June, it's July. It's the summer.

And boy, do we need one. We're all looking forward to one, right? So, not unexpectedly, we have a lot of mail today on the Johnston Report. David Johnston's look at the election interference issue and whether or not there should be a public inquiry, he said, no, the government has accepted that recommendation and won't have a public inquiry, although there will be public hearings. And we're all trying to figure out exactly what's the difference there.

Anyway, there was no hesitation on your part. You sent in lots and lots and lots of emails. Anyway, there was no hesitation on your part. You sent in lots and lots and lots of emails. And there was a reaction to on our YouTube channel. But it's the emails that come to the Mansbridge Podcast at gmail.com. The ones that end up being read on the Thursday edition of Your Turn. So we'll get at it as usual. I'm not reading all of the mail. I read all the mail that comes in. Okay. I read it and then I select which ones are going to end up on the air. And

then you see which portion of those will end up on the air. So that's where we're at at this point. And often a favor goes to those who remember to include their name and the location they're writing from. That's always important. There are other issues that have come up today as well, but the main bulk of them and the random ranter's comments today are on the Johnson Report. So let's get right at it. First letter comes from Rob Bjarnison in Carberry,

Manitoba. Whatever happened to benefit of the doubt, keep an open mind and constructive dialogue. Wouldn't it be nice if our opposition politicians would do one or all of these and consider what's actually in the interim report by Mr. Johnson? The stark contrast between the outstanding character contributions and achievements of David Johnston and the lack of character of Mr. Polyev is very apparent. This reaffirms the concerns discussed last week about lies and embellishments used by some to score political points without any accountability. I guess I'm more a fan of dignified and civil dialogue than venomous hyperbole. Last week's shows were great.

I concur that the latest Moore Butts episode was the best yet, and that's the one he's referring to about the politics of the lie. Well, that's Rob Bjarnason's opening take on the Johnston report and the reaction to it. But as I said, a lot of varied reaction in the mail we got. This comes from David Fletcher. Many people, including me, believe Mr. Johnson's former connections with the Trudeau Foundation would be enough for most professionals to have a conflict. Perceived or real, the fact remains and taints the process. At the end of the day, the most important issues we learned yesterday, this was two days ago,'s just how dysfunctional our government has become. I'm referring to the government as opposed to the liberal government in power, which may share the problem. I was hoping that the media in general, and your broadcast in particular, would focus on this all-important matter. If our national security is not all-important, then I am unsure

what else is. Certainly how the leader of the opposition is acting. The whole matter at hand has nothing to do with the leader of the opposition. Some people seem to want Pierre Polyev to abandon his day job. I am not one of them. The issue at hand is not so much how Polyev reacted, but how Canada can improve the functionality of our various levels of government. Alexandra Esposito writes from Aurora, Ontario. Well, I'm still not clear about the outcome of Mr. Johnston's report. I am like you. I do not understand the difference between a public inquiry or a public hearing.

But actually, I'm more uncomfortable about the character assassination of a great Canadian. Mr. Johnston has given so much of his time to Canada. Who the hell does Pierre Palliev think he is? He continues to spew untruths and half-truths about people's relationships and roles in Canada. I listened to Mr. Delory's interview. That's Fred Delory, who was the conservative campaign manager in the last election campaign. I listened to Mr. Delory's interview last night and agreed with his comments about Mr. Poliev's behavior. He was not a fan of how Poliev reacted to this.

Mr. Johnston apparently offered Mr. Poliev access to the material, which he declined on a number of occasions. He keeps illustrating to Canadians that there appears to be nothing statesmanship-like about his behavior. As Mr. Johnston stated yesterday, these repeated attacks on Canadians taking on these types of roles will eliminate many people from entertaining any thought of stepping up to public service. Who needs to be berated on a constant basis? I realize that many were not pleased about Mr. Johnston's decision, but to assassinate his character continuously is very sad. Penny Robertson writes from Greater Napanee, Ontario.

I just finished watching a presser with Pierre Polyev about David Johnson's report and have two comments about it. Despite what is often said about Polyev, he is not a good communicator. Everything he said during the presser was either a distortion, outright lie, attack, or slogan. Anytime he had to go off script to answer a question, he looked uncomfortable and struggled to put together a coherent answer. He's incapable of thinking on his feet.

Adrian Hill writes from Crystal Beach. That's in Ottawa. Hey, Peter, here's the theme he should have used first and last. And the he he's talking about is David Johnston. If we call a public inquiry and reveal our security service strategy and intelligence, China wins. If our politicians allow these issues to divide us, China wins. If we fight amongst ourselves, China wins. If our politicians allow these issues to divide us, China wins. If we fight amongst ourselves, China wins. Aaron Acheson, London, Ontario.

Our former Governor General is a good man, but whoever scheduled interviews, writing time, translation for this inquiry has done a disservice to the country. He wrote that after reading Aaron O'Toole's substack column the other day about what happened when he went for his interview with David Johnston. Public Trust and Public Inquiry. Albert Versteeg writes this. The media, opposition parties, and experts from academia lobbied hard for a public inquiry and doing so were able to influence public opinion to some extent. Let's not forget that two of the aforementioned parties have a vested interest in a public inquiry since they essentially enjoy political spectacles, I think is what he's getting at.

Alex Godoy writes, I heard, sorry, I cannot trust Mr. Poliev as he refused to educate himself on the hard facts related to the main issues that would justify an inquiry. I even would trust him less now as a candidate for Prime Minister. Michelle Dextra from Kanata, Ontario. I've listened more attentively to Pierre Poliev in the last year because I find myself hoping to find a politician I can feel comfortable voting for eventually. I was disappointed, so disappointed. How can the head of a major political party

refuse to get all the information he can get about a subject such as the Chinese intrusion into our political system. He believes having met with Dr. Johnston and reading all the confidential files would put him under the government's thumb. He was like an angry, spiteful, ignorant teenager when he spoke to the media. That is not who I want as Prime Minister. How can I trust a person who refuses to educate himself? There were more than, I've got to say,

there were more than a few comments on that, including some from those who would normally be on the conservative side, and I think are still on the conservative side, but they don't agree with Polyev's decision not to get a briefing from the various security services. Don Mitchell writes from Ottawa. The Prime Minister should never have offered the position of rapporteur to Mr. Johnston, and Mr. Johnston should not have accepted. There is too much intersection of life and career between the

two men and their families. The Prime Minister should have picked someone from Canada who is not a member of the Ottawa, Montreal, Toronto circle of families and business relationships to do this work. The Prime Minister alone is the author of all the ang Angst Against Mr. Johnston. Jean Smith writes, let me see, does she tell us where she's writing from? No, it appears she doesn't. Among her many points she makes in her letter is this one. I would draw your attention to part 20 of the Canada Elections Act, which permits an application to be brought to contest the election in that electoral district on the grounds that there were irregularities, fraud or corruption or illegal practices that affected the result of the election.

Yes, that's true. That's in Part 20 of the Canada Elections Act. But the problem here is nobody feels that anything happened in either the 2019 or the 2021 elections that affected the final result. The government doesn't feel that way. The electoral commissioners don't feel that way. And the opposition parties don't feel that way. They don't think any of the writings' results were affected. The final tabulations were affected by interference of any kind.

If Mr. Polyev has said that, that's not the point of his arguments. So I think that's important to keep reminding ourselves of that. The fear that this could possibly end up impacting elections is very real, on the part of everybody, it appears. And that's what the second part of the process, if you can get over the way the first part was done, the second part is all about trying to ensure that we don't end up in that kind of a situation.

Sharon McKay writes this. What Canadians need in a prime minister is an individual who can listen to and carry on a thoughtful, respectful conversation with people and groups who have opposing views. This is an essential and critical skill, whether dealing with local, regional, national, or international issues. Pierre Palliev's consistent name-calling of those with whom he disagrees simply stops conversations.

His refusal to meet with Dr. David Johnston, special rapporteur appointed to investigate reports of foreign interference in recent Canadian elections, and his refusal to apply for security clearance so that he can, along with the other party leaders, review secret information available to Dr. Johnston and can observe a special parliamentary committee that is studying foreign interference, provides ample proof that he does not have the courage and diplomacy required to seriously and dispassionately examine complex issues. That may well be the longest sentence we've ever received here

at the Mansbridge podcast, but nevertheless, you get the point. Back to the letter. He does not have the skill and wisdom to serve as a national leader and international representative of the Canadian people. At present, says Sharon McKay from Dundas, Ontario, at present I do not belong to any political party and feel great despair about the state of political leadership in our country today. That was a theme in more than a few letters that we received here at the bridge over the last 24, 48 hours.

And it has been, I guess, a bit of a constant theme about leadership, political leadership in Canada. You know, for the past couple of years here on the bridge, I do have a couple of other letters to read about the Johnston Report. And they're very interesting letters. I'm going to save them to the end of today's program. But this theme about political leadership in Canada and the state of it as exhibited in this latest issue is also the subject of the the ranter's rant this week. And as always, he pulls no punches, the ranter. These are his opinions. They're not necessarily shared by me, but they are his opinions and I feel strongly about this. So

let's wheel them out. Come on, Mr. Ranter, come out of your little hibernation from the last week and weigh in on this subject. Here we go, the random ranter for this week. This whole China debacle with election interference has driven home one thing to me. We need a better quality of leadership from our politicians. Trudeau's reaction has been one of entitled arrogance. He shrugs it off like there's nothing to see, when there's clearly at least something to see. And then he decided he'd try to avoid a formal inquiry by hiring former Governor General David Johnson to investigate it. I mean, if he was thinking Polyev would be okay with a Johnston-led investigation,

just because Johnston was a Harper appointee, then Johnston clearly has not been paying attention. And for that matter, neither has David Johnston. I mean, what was he even thinking by accepting the position? I'd have thought he'd be smarter than to step in a steaming cow patty like this one, but nope. He could have said no, and he should have said no, but personal reputation be damned, he said yes. Now on the other side of the equation, you have Pierre Polyev, taking his dog and pony, boy who cried wolf act, and going the full chicken little with it. Just when you thought you'd seen his full spectrum of outrage, boom, his histrionics hit new heights.

Or is it lows? I'm not sure, but either way, cue the cameras because he's going full soccer flop on this one. And then without blinking an eye, he'll roll into his crime, chaos, and taxes. Oh, the humanity, dystopic Trudeau monologue. The way I see it, the truth lies somewhere in between Trudeau's nothing to see here because I say there's nothing to see here and Polyev's the sky is falling and it's all Justin's fault. I mean, I don't care what Justin says, there's clearly something to see. But keep in mind the agreed upon facts center around a $140,000 donation to his father's foundation and some isolated events in a handful of writings that amount to some paid volunteers, some laundered donations, and a couple dozen questionable social media posts. Well, I'm sorry, but $140k to a registered, audited, accountable charity is not an earth-shattering amount of money.

So to me, it's beyond hyperbole for Polyev to even suggest that it means Justin is in bed with the Chinese. And the attempts to influence the election? Those are legit threats that need to be investigated and pushed back on. But in the grand scheme of things, they did not sway the election or even really affect the seat counts. But you know, the Chinese did do some serious damage to our democracy by handing Polyev and the conservatives the perfect excuse to question the integrity of our elections. And like he said himself the other

day, he won't be silenced. He's the victim. Hell, if you listen to him talk, he's practically a martyr to democracy. Well, I'll give him this. He does have a passion for hot air. And if you hate Justin, like so many people do, well, that hot air can come off feeling like a warm breeze in winter. The way I see it, I just wish we had two leaders that were more grounded and less extreme. To me, Justin is entitled and arrogant, while Polyev is outraged and also arrogant. I don't know what we can do with them, because there's something going on with those two that's just not healthy. They're so focused on each other, and at the end of the day, Canadians really do deserve better. We deserve responsible leadership, we deserve transparency on this from our government, and we deserve an opposition

that puts what's best for Canada ahead of what's best for them. There you go. The random ranter for this week. Did he touch a base with you or was he off the mark? You've heard a selection of our letters today and there was a little bit of each of them in that. But nevertheless, there he goes, the random ranter with his thoughts on what's happened this week in terms of the reaction to the Johnston report and how we should, or at least how he feels about political leadership in Canada. As I mentioned, there are a couple of other letters.

I'm going to get to them later on, but we're going to move on to other topics but first before we do that it's time for a quick break and welcome back you're listening to the Bridge, the Thursday Your Turn edition, along with The Random Ranter. You're listening on Sirius XM, Channel 167, Canada Talks, or on your favorite podcast platform. A week and a half ago, a week ago Monday, we had the Moorabots conversation, number eight,

and we're still getting a few letters in on that, and it's kind of timely again this week because we've been dealing with this issue on conversation number eight of the politics of the lie. Carrie Lair writes from Crow's Nest Pass, Alberta. In fact, her opening line, I love it. Thank you for your podcast, which I listen to while I paint in my studio in Crow's Nest Pass, Alberta. You know, such a simple line, except we can all embrace that image. That Carrie is sitting there in her painting studio overlooking the Crow's Nest Pass in Alberta.

You can look in any direction there and there's a painting. Right? You can just imagine it. Gorgeous. And, you know, depending on the weather, it's different every day. All right. Here's what Kerry has to say. Today, I first listened to a couple of political podcasts from Alberta, which provided analysis of last night's leaders debate between Rachel Notley and Danielle Smith. Then I went on to listen to your podcast from May 15th, the Moore-Butts conversation number eight, the discussion on the politics of the lie. Such a great conversation. It was. It was a really good one. And so much that fills me with a sense of trepidation.

After listening to your podcast, I pondered a future in which I could live in an Alberta that is governed by the UCP under Daniel Smith, with Pauliev as Prime Minister, and Trump elected again next door. The thought so paralyzed me that the only thing I could think of was to sit down and gather my thoughts in an email to you. Well, that's quite an image you had of the way things just might unfold, and that is entirely possible that it could unfold that way. Mike Wan writes from Toronto,

The Moore-Butts conversation number eight, the best one yet, and that is really saying something. The discussion about the loss of trust in institutions and the progressive degradation of the public square were particularly insightful in explaining our current political environment. These types of in-depth conversations with such thoughtful Canadians are exactly what has made our public square so much less toxic than in the U.S. Thanks for that, Mike. I agree when we have the opportunity, as we do through this amazing world of podcasting, to have lengthy conversations,

hopefully thoughtful in nature, gives us all this opportunity to think and expand our minds and our thoughts about various issues. You don't have to agree with these things. The whole idea, as we've often said on this program, is to give you the opportunity to think big. Think beyond the obvious on issues and how you want to feel about them. And, you know, the podcast world, you could spend the rest of your life just listening to podcasts and you wouldn't make a dent in the amount of material that's out there. And you can, you know, ignore all the, what you might think are the garbage podcasts,

and just look at the thoughtful ones, and you're not going to make any more than a dent in them. There's so much material out there. And that's why we here at The Bridge, and when I say I here at the bridge and when i say use the color i'm using the collective we and i'm talking about whether it's you know whether it's our special guests on on mondays whether it's brian stewart on tuesday whether it's bruce on uh wednesdays and with chantelle on on on fridays or whether it's know, your own comments and the random rancher's thoughts on Thursdays, like today.

We feel so lucky that we're able to just kind of put stuff out there for you to think about. As I've said before, you don't have to agree with us, but just the simple fact that we're having a conversation that in some cases, and I think it was captured there by our artist in Crow's Nest Pass, Alberta, Carrie Lair. You can take part in the conversation. We may not hear you until we get your letter. We may not hear you, but you're there talking. You're talking to us, and there are people sitting there right now saying,

Peter, will you just get on with the next letter? Yes, I will move on to the next letter. And the next letter comes from Baxter Houston. And he too is writing about the Moore-Butts conversation number eight. Baxter is in terrorist British Columbia. One of the hopeful qualities of evil politics, I'll use that word with license considering your own guests, Mr. Moore and Mr. Butts used it in their descriptions

of the nature of political sludge currently dominating both Canadian and U.S. politics, is that it inevitably disintegrates into mutually eviscerating camps. Politicians with such evil mindsets cannot help but begin preying on each other. Such social institutions have that quality as a built-in self-eliminating nature. All right. Okay, moving into the final segment of your turn and this is kind of like the potpourri section there's all kinds of um different issues thrown out here

stephen low um stephen is in maitland nova Scotia. He wrote a very lengthy letter. The headline, Questions Relating to the Potential U.S. Debt Ceiling Default. And he really, he takes it segment by segment, impact by impact. Unfortunately, as he recognized, it's a letter that he was hoping I'd read, and I did. But he knows full well I can't read this whole letter. It's like a book on the air. But he's noting all the various impacts it could have on everything from the war in Ukraine,

the shift in power, with a shift in global banking, when other nations call in or cash in debts. I mean, there's a lot of potential impacts to this story. I still think that it'll be like so many other times we've seen the debt ceiling issue in the States come to the forefront, that it'll be resolved in the final moments before a total collapse. But the exercise of looking at what would happen if there was a total collapse is an important one. as Stephen says in his conclusion, why is no one extrapolating these potential outcomes from the current situation in the U.S. and talking about it? It seems to me that if people were discussing this, it would be like shining a light on a nest of cockroaches

and would force them to hide back under the rock from which they came or to fess up and back down, thus ending this potential global nightmare. It's a good point. I think one of the reasons nobody's doing it is because they've seen this come into the brink so many times before in the last decade or so, and every time it gets resolved at the last minute.

And the assumption is that's going to happen here again this time. Well, what if it doesn't? And I guess that's the point that Stephen's making is that we should be talking about that. We'll just wait until it gets a little closer to the precipice. I don't mean to make light of it.

Stephen, I know you put a lot of work into that, and I appreciate it. Jesse Vandermulen in Lumbee, BC. Peter, we had a rainy, stormy May long weekend here in Lumbee. However, that's a good thing, considering all the hot weather we've had so far in May and the threat of wildfires. Always, I agree with you, it would make more sense for a holiday

celebrating Queen Elizabeth over Queen Victoria. Perhaps we'll see that come to pass sometime in the future. This was a result of my rambling the other day about why do we still call it Victoria Day? You know, she's been dead for 120 years or more. And yet we still call it Victoria Day. We still celebrate her birthday. We actually, what we're celebrating is the monarch's birthday.

And we just decided to have it as one day, and because we in Canada love long weekend in May, that's the one that they ended up choosing. However, there seems to be some growing support. In other words, that means there were two letters. Cam Befus from Edmonton writes, let's switch Elizabeth Day instead of Victoria Day. All right, Cam.

Sandra Armstrong. Sandra writes from Miss Saga. I listened to good talk while making the long drive to see my mother in Mississauga. Comment, I would love to see as prominent and trustworthy journalists that you stop referring to the pandemic in the past tense, during the pandemic, etc. It's still very much a thing, despite our anti-mask world. Your voices would help people continue to be vigilant.

Thank you. Actually, Sandra, whenever I mention the pandemic, I usually add, hey, it's not over. It's still kind of out there. Well, it's not classified as a pandemic anymore, but it is still very much a potential health hazard and that means you got to be careful you may not have to wear a mask but that doesn't mean you act in such a way that you could either get capture or spread the problems of COVID.

Janet Molnar from, well, she's in Victoria now. She's from Alberta, but she lives in retirement in Victoria. Many commentators in Alberta have questioned Danielle Smith's suitability to be premier. She seems to have received her education of legal matters by watching U.S. television. After watching the debate, I would agree with them. Pleading ignorance of the law because she's not a lawyer does not cut it. As we learned very early in law school, ignorance of the law is no defense.

John Weiss from Windsor. Punching up the podcast, The Bridge, is now a daily habit that reminds me that our unique south of Detroit location, that's right, you know, if you look at a map, Windsor is actually south of Detroit. Our unique south of Detroit location is home to Canadians who can easily be influenced by the bombardment of U.S. media.

Even the temperature from our local radio stations, their station, are delivered in Fahrenheit, not Celsius. What concerns me considerably more is the proliferation of legal gambling on professional sports in Canada and North America. It is an invasive threat to the integrity of big league sports. Ironically, both Willie Mays and Mickey Mantle were once banished from baseball for accepting money from an Atlantic City casino for being greeters. Today, Wayne Gretzky, Connor McDavid, and Austin Matthews, to name just a few professional athletes, are pitchmen for professional gambling. Their involvement is met with either indifference or even praise for doing so. I predict that sooner or later, a professional athlete, official, or someone with influence on the outcome of a game

will succumb to the enticing lot of gambling ads, especially on television throughout the Stanley Cup. A lot of them. Wall to wall. Those ads aren't cheap, which gives you some indication of the amount of money that's pouring into the gambling business. Okay. It's time for the last couple of letters.

And these are, they go back to our main topic, the Johnson Report. And I found elements of both these letters really informative about our world today. A. Douglas Much. And I'm just looking to see whether Douglas includes where he's writing from. I don't think he does. Just a reminder, please. Try to add that. It's important, at least to me.

Anyway, Douglas Mutch writes, I watched you and Bruce discuss this today. I have these reflections. The mob, both political and media, was clamoring for a public inquiry. A weaker person than David Johnston would not have had the courage to decide not to accede to their demands. Kudos to David for his courage and judgment. And then he goes on with 10 or more points as to how he felt about the story. Now, that's not why I'm reading his letter.

I'm reading his letter for a PS he wrote. I love this PS. This is another one of these PSs where you have the image. You can feel the image, see the image in your head as you listen to these words. From Douglas Mutch. PS. Every Friday, I facilitate a discussion group with a bunch of 90-year-old men.

This week, we are discussing the Johnston Report. I prepared my package before I watched you and Bruce today. In case you're interested, my summary notes are below. So this is after a lengthy letter. He then adds his summary notes, and they're all on the Johnson report and his takeaways and the path forward, the media's role, et cetera, et cetera. But the image that he meets every Friday, and he facilitates a discussion

with a group of 90-year-old men. We should make that a little more diverse there, Douglas. We should add some 90-year-old women in there as well. But tomorrow they'll be discussing the Johnston report and in helping them along, Doug Mutch has prepared some discussion notes for them. I love it. I love that fact. Doug, you got to tell them to listen to the bridge.

That'll help them get in the mode too. Our final letter today is not really about what we witnessed this week, but it relates back to something that the random ranter discussed a couple of weeks ago and put out his opinion to provoke other discussion and it certainly worked to i think the chap who's had more letters read on this show than anyone and i don't even read all his letters on air but But I've read quite a few because he always makes a good point.

Often it's like dumping on me for something I said or correcting me on something I said. Maybe it's the better way of saying it. But nevertheless, here we go. David Oliver's latest note from Oak Bay, British Columbia. Another one where you don't need

any more description. You can just imagine if you've ever been can just imagine, if you've ever been to Vancouver Island, if you've ever been to Victoria, if you've ever been to Oak Bay, you can imagine in your mind the views that David Oliver has every day. Anyway, here's his letter. Dear Peter, I enjoy the random ranter very much. I find he often stimulates me to examine why I hold my own views. However, his piece on Joe Biden wasn't so stimulating.

If you wondered what is meant by ageism, the ranter provided a good demonstration. He thinks Joe Biden should give way to someone younger for no other reason than his age. Did he examine his competence, his political acumen, his policy prescriptions, the wisdom of his decisions? No, just his age. Has the ranter noticed there is a war on in Europe? Perhaps someone with Cold War experience

might have a better perspective than a know-it-all whippersnapper. Some people do some of their most important work in their 80s. David Attenborough and Bertrand Russell to name two. David never goes on long in his letters. He just makes his point and he's out. And that was his point today. A gentle little shot at the random ranter. And you know what? It kind of syncs up with the other letter. Those 90-year-old guys who are getting ready for

tomorrow's meeting to discuss the Johnston report and how they see it. Because to them, 90 is just a number. Doesn't take away their ability to talk about it or to vent about it or to have their own ideas about solutions. So there you go.

Another week of your turn. Tomorrow, the bridge returns with good talk. Chantel and Bruce will be here. And gee, I wonder what we'll talk about. God, I can't think. What could we possibly talk about? I'm Peter Mansbridge. Thanks so much for listening today. We'll talk to you again in 24 hours.