The Bridge with Peter Mansbridge - At 100, Kissinger Has A New Peace Plan

Episode Date: May 23, 2023

You could be excused if you didn't realize Henry Kissinger was still alive, but he is and as he turns 100 this week, he's still actively proposing plans for world peace.  The controversial former US Secretary of State forms part of what Brian Stewart's weekly Ukraine commentary is all about this week. 

And hello there, Peter Mansbridge here. You are just moments away from the latest episode of The Bridge. Henry Kissinger, he turns 100 this week and he's still producing plans for peace he thinks the world should follow. And hello there, Peter Mansbridge in Stratford, Ontario today, Tuesday as we kick off another week after a holiday weekend. Did you enjoy yours? Did you get the weather you were hoping for? A long weekend in May has always been about, you know, that moment where you really feel winter is behind us and the summer is ahead of us. It's a turning point. You know, we change clothes, we're suddenly in shorts, as opposed to, you know, long bulky pants.

But, is that what happened for you this weekend? I was out for my daily walk yesterday on the Monday of the long weekend, and I was wearing a shirt, a hoodie, sweatpants, no shorts. I didn't see too many people in shorts. It was still, it's still not quite there yet, but it's getting there, right? Victoria Day, that's what we called it, and we've called it that for more than 100 years. Why do we call it Victoria Day? You know, we're the only country in the world

that has a holiday named after the former queen, Victoria? Not even the UK. They don't even have a holiday named after Victoria. But we do. Now, I don't think any of us really think about it as a Victoria Day weekend. We think of it as a long weekend in May for all the reasons I just cited, mainly about weather. You're going, wait a minute, come on, Peter,

the UK must have the same holiday. No, they don't. They don't have that. Now, we have Victoria Day technically because of the celebration of the monarch's birthday. Now, you could keep changing this for depending on which monarch, but if you want some continuity in your holiday schedule, you pick one. So we picked Victoria, and we picked the long weekend in May.

The Brits actually have two birthday days. They have Trooping of the Colour Day, and then they have the actual birthday. Now, I'm not sure that they actually make holidays out of either one of them. They have enough holidays already during the year with bank holidays here and there all throughout the year. But the latest monarch, Charles, Charles III, his birthday's in November. Why do I know these things?

Well, he's the same age as me at the moment. We're both 74. I turned 75 a little before him, So I'm a little older than him. He turned 75 in November. So there'll be much hoopla, I assume, around that in Britain. Not here. We've had our long weekend in May. We've had Victoria Day, even though we're not quite sure why we're still talking about Victoria. Why isn't there an Elizabeth Day somewhere? She was around longer than anybody in terms of the monarchy. All right, enough on that, Peter. This is Tuesday. That means Brian Stewart, and we're going to stick with that. I mean, as we speak right now, as this podcast

starts to roll out different parts of the country and around the world, actually. The report, the special rapporteur's report, is coming out, and it will determine whether or not there'll be a public inquiry into the election interference story. Every indication seems to have been that the former Governor General David Johnson is probably not going to recommend that. But I want to wait until all the facts are out on the table. I've seen everything, heard all the different reactions, and we can talk

about this tomorrow on Smoke, Mirrors, and the Truth with Bruce. And I'm sure we'll talk about it again on Smoke Mirrors and the Truth with Bruce. And I'm sure we'll talk about it again on Friday in Good Talk with Chantel and Bruce. But for today, we're going to stick to our agenda. And our agenda has been for the last year is dealing with the Ukraine story and all its various ramifications in terms of the impact on the world. It's been a very popular segment and there's a demand for it every week i get letters about it there are a number of issues

on the table today and not the least of which is what we flagged out of the gate which is henry kissinger you know i'm sure for many of you you thought is is he really still around? Well, yeah, he is still around. And he has a very, I was going to say interesting. It's not interesting. It's a controversial suggestion about how to maintain peace in the world when this current conflict between Russia and Ukraine finally ends. So we're going to get to that with Brian as well, but there's a lot of other things on the docket, as they say, for my weekly conversation with Brian.

So without further ado, let's bring him in, the correspondent and the war correspondent, my friend, my colleague, somebody who I know you deeply admire because of the constant letters I get about Brian and this Tuesday discussion. Here he is with this week's look at the Ukraine-Russia confrontation. So Brian Vladimir Zelensky was back to his globetrotting tricks again over the last week or so, attending the G7 conference, even though Ukraine's not a member, but attending it, and obviously meeting with Biden and Trudeau and others.

But really his target seemed to be some of the people who were on the sidelines at the meeting, not G7 members, but G20 members, you know, like India and Indonesia, and he even tried to have a meeting with Brazil as well. What's he up to in those kind of meetings, which seemed in a way to be more important to him on this visit than anything else? They were certainly of a high priority and i think what it is is you know he's done a remarkable job in bringing you know

the big power nato and europe and the united states obviously to his side and he's got an alliance that frankly nobody would have predicted a year and a quarter ago before the war started that he could ever get close to. But what he what Ukraine lacks, he feels, is those what we might call swing states, you know, not China, America, that kind of thing. But all those kind of mid power ones with real punch. India, for instance, Brazil is another one, and Indonesia and Asia. And they all come from sort of an anti-colonial past, and they often are extremely critical of Western foreign policy, whatever it is, the old non-aligned states we can remember from long ago. And he's decided that he wants to go really after them. If he can't get them on side, and this is very important,

even if he can get them to contribute to Ukraine, he wants to get them off praising Russia, talking kindly to Russia, saying, oh, well, maybe it's not all Russia's fault. That kind of message that you're getting in a lot of the middle ground of the world. It's not just these three, of course. They were all at the conference, but they have big power and influence, I should say, influence across the rest of the world. And, you know, the middle powers, low powers and in Africa and places like that. So if he can get the message that, look, Ukraine was never a colonial power. There's only one power in this fight that was a huge colonial power, which is called Russia, which is why it's the largest country on Earth, because it kept invading and taking over other places. So we really should either neutralize ourselves and stop talking as if Ukraine should give

way to Russian paranoia and make a deal and maybe be on the sidelines. That would be a huge help for Ukraine when negotiations finally come to the fore. And who knows? I mean, the Arab League, when dropping in on Saudi Arabia, was a surprise to everyone. I mean, they certainly haven't figured it on this, but what he wants to do there, of course, is not only send that same message, you know,

if you believe in international justice, as you always claim, who's the just fighter in this fight? Who is a state that was attacked and its integrity put at risk? And also, can you sell us some weapons? And that's a great ground to go to now, to obviously buy weapons, and they'll be in that market. You know, not all the weaponry that gets to Ukraine goes in via Poland and a shipment. A lot of it goes in via money to Ukraine to buy their own weapons where they can around the world. And that's an important route, too. with those kind of middle nations, if you will, because one of the, you kind of hinted at it there, but one of the problems that Zelensky faces is that these are the same nations

who want to see peace negotiations, who want to see conditions added, want to see the Ukrainians head to the table, be prepared to give up stuff. Zelensky is not giving any indication that he's willing to do that. No, these are all the three biggies. All of them want not only to see negotiations, but they want to be in on it. Remember, there's enormous prestige in the world of being a main player or a middle power, one of those negotiators in chief. So they would like very much to be in on negotiations and they want them to start soon. And they think that the way to start them is for Ukraine to start making concessions

and realize it's not going to get all that territory back. So deal now. Well, the foreign minister of Ukraine came out just in recent days and he said, essentially, this is what Ukraine is now saying to the world. OK, anybody can want to be in on the negotiations. We don't mind what country wants to get involved in negotiations. You're all welcome to try. But let's set the rules clearly in focus so that we know what we're dealing with here. And Ukraine says that any country that wants to be a mediator, a negotiator, has to follow fundamental principles. And what

are they? The first principle is Ukraine must see its full territorial integrity acknowledged. And that means going back to 2014, course ukraine wants will only deal with a negotiator that believes its territorial integrity should be acknowledged second of all it says we're not going to have a freeze in the conflict don't come in calling for a ceasefire the way uh you know the way the korean joint k Korean War in the early 50s was negotiated because they never really got a peace there. It's just a frozen ceasefire. So, you know, it's also sending a very strong message

to those who on the sidelines of the West will come on and say, you know, we have to have negotiations. Let's do them sooner. And in saying that they know they're going to be calling on Ukraine to give up part of its territory. So anybody who come on, comes in and says, okay, let's get, let's start putting pressure on Ukraine to negotiate. Maybe some people in the republican party the united states for instance saying you know ukraine's not going to negotiate till we start twisting an arm there or

two this is a reply that to do that you have to admit that you want ukraine to give up its territorial integrity to russia you will have to admit that you're prepared to see Ukraine lose territorial integrity to an invader that came in absolutely determined to crush the nation. And that's making it harder for those to be on that. Let's start negotiations now kind of bandwagon. Not that it's a bandwagon yet, but it could become, as you and I know very well, overnight, a very big bandwagon. Not that it's a bandwagon yet, but it could become, as you and I know very well, overnight a very big bandwagon.

These things can change very quickly. What I want to get at here is how realistic is a position of that of Ukraine? I understand it. I understand where they're coming from. But to ask for it's almost like asking for an unconditional surrender

i mean it's not the same but it's all it's almost there they're saying yeah you know you've got to withdraw totally we want all our land back they've already said countless times before they're going to expect you know reparations of sorts for the damage that has been done. They want investigations into the conduct of the war. They want people held accountable. You know, they're asking for everything. And a lot of people will say they're absolutely entitled to, but how realistic is it?

Well, you're raising a good point. It's not really realistic unless this counter offensive that the world is waiting for succeeds beyond now, I would say, almost all hope except Ukrainian hopes. going to happen. So it's a position that is silencing or hoping to silence people for now until they get this offensive underway. Then they will see how successful they have been. Obviously, if they're not as successful as they hope to be, if they mean we'd only say 50 percent of what they want back or 30 percent, that kind of thing. These strong conditions are going to have to change. But in the meantime, it's sort of saying in a diplomatic way, look, we deserve our chance to launch this counteroffensive and see if we can win it all. And until that happens, we don't want you coming in, anyone coming in and saying, you know, before even a force of arms,

we want you to see part of your territorial integrity. How would you give up your territorial integrity? I mean, Brazil, how much would you be willing to give up for peace? A good chunk of the Amazon if you were at war with a neighbor? India, what would you give up to Pakistan in terms of territorial integrity to get peace the answer is not one inch well we have exactly that same feeling as you do and we deserve the right to be able to pursue this militarily because it was a war we didn't ask for but now we have so we're going to try and get them thrown out by force and down the the road, things may change. But right now, this is our position.

Next topic is back mood. You know, the battle for back mood, it's got quite the ring to it. We've been talking about it for weeks, if not months now. I have basically given up trying to figure out who's winning the battle for back mood because it seems to change every day. Even, you know, suddenly in the last couple of days, some are making it sound like it's over and Russia's won it. What are we supposed to read about the battle of Bakhmut? And is it being perhaps used as a feint of some kind on the part of the Ukrainians?

Yeah, war is very uncertain and war is full of lies and war is full of false statements so uh you know the best analysts i can go to who have been following this for a year i mean this is this has been going on for a year if one can believe it i mean talking about first world war blogging this uh the russ Russians essentially appear to have pushed through and won virtually all the city. There may be a block left or something like that. But they basically won the heart of a city that really strategically isn't terribly important. And in doing and winning that, they took just horrific casualties that even they say, even the leader of their Wagner Group and others say, the casualties have been ferocious, unbelievable, up to 1,000 a day. But it doesn't give them a real strategic advantage.

And that's one thing they've got to be a bit concerned about. It's given Putin the right to wave a flag for one day and say, we won. You know, it's like Iwo Jima or something. It only is not. It's a small city that has now been reduced to total rubble. There's nothing left there. It's just vaporized virtually. So they got that city.

But in the meantime, what the Ukrainians did was they pulled their forces out successfully, which a lot of people in in the past have questioned whether they'd be able to do without getting circled they pull their forces out and now think of think of a horn they've launched offensives to the south and to the north backwood itself and they've started to make some push in the headway. So there's a very real possibility that the Ukrainians now could surround the victors that came in and captured Bakhmut and surround them in a pocket,

a little bit like, you know, a small Stalingrad where the Germans got almost all the city. And then, of course, the Russians attacked on the flanks and completely surrounded an army of 300,000. Whether this happens or not, in fact, be trying to figure out where the counteroffensive is going to come elsewhere and shoring up those distances. So they've kind of, in a way, the Ukrainians, have sort of pinned down a large Russian force that doesn't have much option now but to stay focused on back mood, even though, and this is perhaps the biggest irony of it,

once the offensive is underway, who's going to even think about back mood in three, four, five weeks? It'll just become a name from the past, like many of the others we've heard of in this war. So it's a symbolic victory at great physical cost, but it can't be declared a total victory now because the victors could yet get cut off and surrounded by the Ukrainians. And no matter, in any ways, whatever happens, it probably won't be much remembered four months down the road, except by, of course, the people who fought there and the Ukrainians,

to whom it's a heroic city. You know, your image of Bakhmut today is a haunting one because I, and I've heard others describe it the same way that, you know, it was a city a year and a half ago with a bustling population and a community life and all of that. And today it's nothing. It's just a hollowed out city. There's nobody living there. There's no population. They've long since left.

And all there are, you know, has been street to street fighting. And now it's basically left with kind of Russian troops and corpses from other, you know, soldiers from both sides littered across the city. It is an incredibly haunting image of what this war has become, at least in that city. It is. You know, I sometimes wonder if Ukraine, when this war is over

and it gets back, which I think it will, whether it will leave it in that state as a kind of monument city, there is many countries we'll keep from the war, like the downtown of Hiroshima, for instance, Verdun in France, the fort is just left, villages around Verdun were just vaporized and they were left as such as monuments. So it's possible a good part of Bakhmut will just go into the future of being a monument city of ruins or portion of it as a warning to Europe and the world.

This is what happened when wars get out of stride kind of thing and go nuts. You know, just on this past weekend, looking at the G7 leaders and some of the visiting G20 leaders in Hiroshima, in that Japanese city that received the nuclear bomb in 1945, and here 75 or so years later, there were the leaders of the world, most of them, sitting in that same city using it as a conference city. You couldn't help but draw the distinction between those two moments in time. Yes, absolutely. Okay, we're going to take a break in a sec, but just one more point I want to get to.

And that is, we've talked about it a number of times over the past few months, and this is the manpower situation, especially as it relates to Russia. What is the latest situation there? It's a critical situation there. I mean, first of all, you have to refer to the front. Apparently, they have no reserves left. They have, you know, 300,000 or so in the area of ukraine that conquered every division every brigade there is already tied down at the front so one of the worst mistakes you can make in the military is have no reserves behind you so if the enemy punches through your lines you know where's the reserve i mean that in france in 1940 when churchill went over to see if france keep on fighting, he had the first question was, where are your reserves to a top general? And the general says, there are none.

And then Churchill's arches sank. He knew it was over. Well, the Russians appeared to have very little reserves. And part of the problem with that is there's a major crisis, really, brewing in Russia itself of too few workers. There's a worker shortage there of, according to a big industrial group that covers up to 1,000 industrial enterprise. There's a 35% fewer workers than there should be. The worst figure since 1996.

And it's a, you know, it's a deep, quote, a deep and long-term problem holding industrial growth back. Well, Russia desperately needs that industrial growth back. Putin himself in April said that Russia does not have enough workers. Therefore, people have wondered sometimes, well, look, you did have a forced mobilization of 300,000 troops in the fall. Why haven't you done more? I mean, why haven't you called up an initial 400,000?

Well, maybe he should have in war terms, but he's dealing with two problems here, war and domestic industrial stability. And they simply, it looks like they simply don't have enough workers that he can go through there and then pull out another 300, 400,000 workers from factories. I mean, there've already been some riots in Russian factories and workers saying we're sick of two shifts in a row. I mean, we need more assistance. You're overworking us. So he's got a real dilemma on his hands. And one Russian after another,

they won't come out and question the war, but they'll say things like, I think their development minister came out and said that the lack of workers was really hitting labor productivity and training, all of that is being messed up and lost. And they're raising questions of Russia's survival in the country. So, I mean, when you think about why don't the Russians move troops down here

while they don't have enough troops on the front, over a 600 to 700 mile front, to move them easily and plug holes because they don't have reserve? Why don't they go home and bring in more troops from Russia? The cupboard could be bare in realistic terms. There will always be millions around, of course, but you can't take them out without creating a tremendous havoc back home. It reminds me a little of the problem that Germany had, the Second World War, which had a real labor shortage once they sent their armies everywhere, including off into Russia.

It didn't have nearly enough workers, German workers, in their factories, which meant they had to keep basically corralling, bringing in French forced workers and Dutch forced workers and Polish forced workers. And that added to an already hostile attitude towards Germany. It was really a kind of crisis step. But it looks like Putin went into this war not realizing that if it lasted more than the 10 days he expected it to last, they would end up with a real manpower crisis, which is certainly what they have on their hands now.

All right, we're going to take that break. But when we come back, a really interesting international figure, controversial at times, a longtime international figure, enters the discussion on Ukraine in a way that has surprised more than a few people. And we'll talk about that when we get back. And welcome back. Peter Mansbridge here. It's the Tuesday episode of The Bridge. And Tuesdays means Brian Stewart, and Brian is with us

talking about the Ukraine situation. You're listening on Sirius XM, Channel 167, Canada Talks, or on your favorite podcast platform. Now, I don't know about you, but I've interviewed Henry Kissinger probably a half a dozen different times. Usually in the late 80s and the 90s. Last time I saw him and talked with him was about 10 years ago at a conference we were both at in Spain, of all places. But there's a controversial figure, as I've said. Sometimes some have charged him with being a war criminal for the way he pursued the conflict in Vietnam. But there's no question he has been a huge figure on the international stage

and an advisor to presidents and prime ministers around the world over time. He turns 100 this week. This coming Saturday, he turns 100. And we don't hear too much about him lately, but he's apparently entered the fray on Ukraine with some interesting discussions, including it's time that NATO considered bringing Ukraine into NATO once this thing ends, the current conflict with Russia. That has surprised, shocked, even scared some people because of what that could mean in terms of the big global picture.

How do you look at all this, Brian? Yeah, first of all, in Kistler, like you, I've interviewed him a few times and met him socially at events. And, you know, there's no question what you think of some of his decisions. He's made so many decisions that he's going to make enemies. There's no way you could be involved in world affairs since the 1960s without really upsetting a lot of people but he has got i think it's generally accepted an incredibly brilliant mind now he's been known what's interesting about the latest comments he's been known really for years now as one of those who says that, you know, the West expanded too far to the East

and it caused a lot of the unease in Russia. And, you know, and it's, you know, it sounded like, you know, he certainly didn't want Ukraine and NATO or any even to be considered a kind of West Bloc country in many ways. But he's also been very disappointed in Putin. He's really come out and feels that Putin made horrible mistakes on this war. And what he's saying now is that in actual fact, what they did before the West was the worst possible thing, which was to sort of promise Ukraine that maybe you'll get a NATO and most likely you'll get a NATO and most likely you will get a NATO. And we just have to sit and go through a few things for a while. And he said that this

what this did was it left Ukraine suspicious, held suspiciously by the Kremlin very much by Russia. They may be in the NATO soon. Well, NATO actually had no intention of bringing Ukraine in because they thought it might be a little bit too hazardous. And also the corruption at the time was very severe. So he said, you know, you made this, in a way, the country a target. And, you know, what he's now saying is, in a way, the reverse of what his former position was. It's evolved somewhat because the situation has evolved.

But he thinks that any foot dragging by the Europeans from now on is just as disastrous because there's likely to be a disaster. There's likely to be a peace negotiation which will leave both Russia and Ukraine dissatisfied. Whatever comes out of this war, you're not going to get a very satisfied Russia or in a very satisfied Ukraine, most likely. So that means there's going to be a lot of tension in this area going forward for a future generation to really worry about. And there's nothing like revenge tension to really stoke a future war. So what he's saying is that, in his view, this is a recipe for future confrontation, not to bring Ukraine in. I'm going to quote from him. He says, what the Europeans are now saying is, in my view, madly dangerous.

Because the Europeans are saying, we don't want them in NATO because they're too risky. And therefore, we will arm the hell out of them and give them the most advanced weapons. His conclusion to that is very stark. It says we have now armed Ukraine to a point where it will be the best armed country with the least strategically experienced leadership in Europe. And I have nothing to sort of restrain it, which is, you know, kind of argument. I haven't really heard much from anyone else. But when you stop and think about it, yes, we're giving Ukraine an enormous amount of modern arms. It already has a large armaments manufacturing capability of its own, which was once a nuclear capability, we should point out. And, you know, Zelensky may not be around forever who knows what kind of leadership could be in charge of a ukraine down the road

that isn't in nato but is really armed to the teeth and getting more armed all the time and still scaring russia so he thinks the solution now is get ukraine into nato get it firmly in where it gets more experience where it's part of a consensus, where it realizes, you know, consensus going forward is very important in Europe, get it into the EU as well. But at the same time, you've got to make overtures to Russia to sort of say to lessen their, you know, extraordinary unease to some extent. How he'd do that, he doesn't go into detail because even that raises the question. Neither Zelensky nor Putin are going to be around

that many years in future. Maybe Zelensky will, but Putin most likely will not. So what he's trying to say is get Ukraine in the comfort zone for the world of NATO and the EU. Don't leave it hanging out there, armed to the teeth, scaring half the Europeans and the Russians, get it safe, and then go after Russia and say, okay, how can we really give you a security guarantee in the future that you won't be so obsessed with, with,

you know, fictional threats from the Western Europe, because nobody in Western Europe is going to want to go to war. We were too busy making money and trying to live the good life, which you are always demeaning and criticizing us for. We're, we're happy folk and we're not, we're not angling for war against the east here you know it it's

it's remarkable that at a hundred his mind is still you know operating the way it does that he is plotting the big international maneuvers and how they impact uh uh you know a world where the the sometimes the smallest thing on the other side of the world can affect us all. So there he is working on this one at 100. And as we both said, there's a lot about his past that's controversial, and some people feel very strongly against him, but there are also a lot of people who feel very strongly that he's contributed a lot to the world's thinking at

least on on big strategic moves and certainly this uh this is one that could have a an impact as well okay we're gonna have to wrap it up there brian but uh as always thanks so much for your thoughts okay thank you brian stewart with us as he is on all Tuesdays. It has been for, I guess, most of the past, well, almost a year and a half now since the conflict in Ukraine began. Brian will be back next week. But I warn you, we'll soon be into June, and June is the last month before we take a break for the summer. There will be occasional shows and there will be month before we take a break for the summer. There will be occasional shows, and there will be encore repeat shows at different times during the summer,

but we will take a break through the summer months as we have for the last couple of years, and obviously we look forward to that. Okay, a couple of in-bits, as we like to call them. And I thought of this one because of the way we began the show, talking about the long weekend in May and how it kind of signals that change of seasons as we move towards summer and all the delights of summer. Well, one of the delights of late spring, early summer, if you want to call it a

delight, is the emergence of mosquitoes, black flies, you name it. They are part of Canada, just like everything else is at times part of Canada. I can remember when I used to go up into the Gatineau Hills to our little cabin in the early spring. I haven't done it for years, but I remember when I used to. And sometimes the way those bugs came at you, You have to be quick. And tried everything. Wore those bug nets, you know, bug jackets, bug nets, bug hats, the whole bit to try and prevent them. And the last thing you wanted was letting any into the cabin or the tent

or wherever you were staying. But that's part of Canada, right? However, there's been this constant thing about how come some people get bitten and get bitten a lot and others don't get bitten at all? What is it that those who don't get bitten have that the rest of us don't have? Well, apparently it's all about your body chemistry, right? And I guess we've suspected that all along. But one of the biggest studies ever taken has been underway in Zambia, where they in fact built an open air arena just to try and determine what scent

it was or what body odor it was that allowed mosquitoes to go after some people but not others. And how did they set up this arena? Did they put like 2,000 people in it? No, that's not what they did. What they did was they set up, you know, in one description I read in this story in the Washington Post, it was kind of like, you know, little hot plates inside this arena

that were hot to the degree of what a human body gets, warm. Because they're attracted, mosquitoes are attracted by the warmth, and they're attracted apparently by the odor that comes off a human body when it's at a certain temperature. So they found, just like you find in real life, that some of these hot plates, for lack of a better term, attracted mosquitoes, while others did not. And so far, the study is seeming to indicate that the ones that are not attracting mosquitoes are the ones that have some kind of eucalyptus-based plant extract with them.

So the next time you're in the grocery store, try to look for something that has some kind of eucalyptus base in it and then rub it all over your body before you go outside. I don't know. But listen, we can laugh about mosquitoes, but mosquitoes are a problem, right? They kill hundreds of thousands of people every year because of the various diseases that they can carry and then suddenly implant on your body.

So there's a reason for this study that's going on in Zambia. And that is to try and limit the damage in terms of those who suffer from mosquito bites. There you go. I know you're probably halfway out the door now, heading to the grocery store. What have you got here that's got eucalyptus in it? I'm sure I'm going to get letters on this and people say, oh, Peter, don't be silly, just do this. Okay.

Remember those lemon candles that used to be a big deal that supposedly keep mosquitoes away? I don't know. Never worked for me. Okay. That's going to wrap it up for today. As I mentioned at the beginning of the program, there's going to wrap it up for today. As I mentioned at the beginning of the program, there's going to be lots throughout the day on your various news channels

and news sites about the David Johnson report on the issue of election interference in Canada and whether or not there should be a public inquiry. So listen, read, and then tomorrow when Bruce joins us on Smoke, Mirrors and the Truth, we'll talk about it as well in terms of what this decision means for the way forward, what this decision means politically, and what this decision means for David Johnston, who some say should just never have accepted this role. It was a no-win from the beginning. So we'll see.

We'll talk about all those things tomorrow. I'm Peter Mansbridge. Thanks so much for listening to The Bridge. The week ahead is SMT tomorrow, your turn on Thursday, and I'm sure some of you will already have your thoughts in mind about what you want to say on the inquiry situation. Random Ranter will be out on Thursday as well, and then Friday it is Good Talk with Chantel and Bruce.

That's it for this day. I'm Peter Mansbridge. Thanks so much for listening. Talk to you again in 24 hours.