The Bridge with Peter Mansbridge - Does Canada Have a New Foreign Policy

Episode Date: October 31, 2023

A major speech by the foreign affairs minister yesterday prompts questions about whether this marks a shift in Canada's overall position on foreign policy.  While most of the attention the speech received was about what Canada wants to see in the current Middle East conflict, there is more to talk about. So we spend a few minutes with former diplomat Colin Robertson on what he takes from what was said by Melanie Joly.  And as promised, a major catch-up on the "end bits" front, from energy, to health care, to pay phones!

And hello there, Peter Mansbridge here. You are just moments away from the latest episode of The Bridge. Does Canada have a new foreign policy? It's an interesting question. Today we look for answers. Coming right up. And hello there. Welcome to the Tuesday episode of The Bridge. I mentioned yesterday that we would do a little catch-up on some end bits, and we're going to do exactly that today, starting in a couple of minutes. But first I want to tell you about our guest today, Colin Robertson, former diplomat for Canada, currently is a keen observer on the diplomatic front, and we'll get into more of his details and more of his thoughts on this issue of

Canada's foreign policy after a speech yesterday by the Foreign Affairs Minister, Melanie Jolie. Perhaps, I guess, if you were asked the question, who's Canada's most famous foreign affairs minister or external affairs minister or global affairs minister? They've been called all these things over the years. You'd probably say, well, it's got to be Lester Pearson because he won the Nobel Peace Prize as a result of his work as Canada's foreign minister, mainly on the Suez Crisis in the mid-1950s, 1956 in particular, I think.

And you'd probably be right if you said Lester Pearson. But Melanie Jolie has been the foreign Affairs Minister now for a couple of years which is enough time to make an imprint and that's clearly what she is hoping to achieve through the travels that she's had, many in the last year especially since Ukraine started and the speeches she's given, including yesterday's speech, which was to set Canada's foreign policy.

Now, arguably didn't receive a lot of attention, probably should have, but didn't achieve a lot of attention, especially in Ottawa, because they're all consumed by the story of the backflip on the carbon tax by the Trudeau government and by the Prime of the backflip on the carbon tax by the Trudeau government and by the Prime Minister in particular. There are things going on, and there's upheaval in the Liberal caucus over it and perhaps in the Liberal cabinet on where it's going to go and where it's going to lead to.

Who knows? We'll get to that part tomorrow on Smoke Smoke Mirrors and the Truth with Bruce Anderson. But today we're going to talk foreign policy in a moment, because I want to give you just a hint of a couple of end bits, because I find this one fascinating. We've talked about this a lot as a result of climate change, as a result of people shifting their power sources. And this piece I saw in The Verge, which is a pretty good online operation, by Justine Kalma, a science reporter

covering the environment, climate, and energy with a decade of experience. She's also the host of the Heller High Water podcast. The headline is, Clean Energy is Officially Unstoppable Now. The International Energy Agency says there's no turning back in the global shift to clean energy. So I'm just going to read a little bit of this article because I think it's pretty interesting.

And it sets up the second piece, which is almost, well, it's not the opposite, but it makes you wonder. Here's this piece. By 2030, 2030, okay, that's only six and a bit years from now, transportation and electricity around the world will be far greener than it is today, according to the latest forecast from the International Energy Agency. Imagine 10 times more electric vehicles on the road. Renewables make up half of the world's electricity mix.

Solar panels alone generate more electricity globally than the entire U.S. power sector does today. So that's the picture of what it could be six years from now. With renewables now the cheapest power source, solar and wind energy are loosening fossil fuels grip on the global economy. This is still from this same article. Demand for coal, oil and gas is expected to peak this decade, according to the IEA's new outlook. This is the first time the agency has predicted that outcome in reports assessing current policies. The IEA's outlook also shows that governments now plan to deploy around two-thirds more renewable energy by 2030 than they did this time last year.

Cleaning up pollution from homes, buildings, and transportation will require electrifying everything from cars to heating and cooling systems. The IEA now expects electric heat pumps outselling fossil fuel boilers globally by the end of the decade. And it has already seen the adoption of electric vehicles accelerate, with EVs making up one in five cars sold this year, compared to one in 25 just three years ago in 2020. Okay, well, that all sounds promising, but listen to this. This comes out of the Business Insider online by Alexis St. John and Nora Naughton.

Headline, auto executives are coming clean evs are not working now before all the ev crowd gets all excited oh geez there's another thing on the bridge saying evs don't work that headline is kind of misleading it's not talking about whether EVs actually can work, you know, cars can drive, move on the thing, on the road, et cetera, et cetera. That's not what they're talking about. They're actually talking about sales, which appear to be taking a real hit. Okay?

Listen to this. Mercedes-Benz, which is having to discount its EVs by several thousand dollars just to get them in customers' hands, isn't mincing words about the state of the EV market. This is a pretty brutal space, the chief financial officer for Mercedes, Harald Willemhelm, said on an analyst call, I can hardly imagine the current status quo

is fully sustainable for everybody. But Mercedes isn't the only one. Almost all current EV product is going for under sticker price these days. And on top of that, some EVs are seeing manufacturers incentives of nearly 10%. That's as inventory builds up at dealerships, much to the chagrin of dealers. While car buyers are in luck if they're looking for a deal on a plug-in vehicle, executives are finding even significant

markdowns and discounts aren't enough. These cars are taking dealers longer to sell compared with their gas counterparts as the next wave of buyers focus on cost, infrastructure challenges, and lifestyle barriers to adopting. Just a few months after dealers started coming forward to warn of slowing EV demand, manufacturers appear to be catching up to that reality. Ford was the first to fold after dealers started turning away Mach-E allocations. In July, the company extended its self-imposed deadline to hit annual electric vehicle production of 600,000 by a year and abandoned a 2026 target to build 2 million EVs. In scrapping plans with GM to co-develop sub-$30,000 EVs, Honda CEO Toshihiro Mibe said the shifting in EV environment was difficult to gauge.

Interesting, right? Those two stories back to back well i found it interesting anyway all right foreign policy there are more end bits to come quite a few more but we're gonna have this short chat with colin robertson first of Now, as I explained a minute ago, Colin is a former diplomat, career diplomat. He was in the United States. I first met Colin in, I think I met him a couple of times in Ottawa. But I remember going out for lunch with Colin in Hong Kong when he was the number two at the High Commission in Hong Kong many, many years ago.

He served extensively in the United States as a fellow and senior advisor with the Canadian Global Affairs Institute in Ottawa. And he has been on the bridge before. He's helped us on diplomatic issues and understanding foreign policy questions. And I wanted to talk to him about our foreign affairs minister for Canada giving her speech yesterday. So let's see what Colin has to say about this and how much of a shift, if at all,

it is in terms of Canada's foreign policy. Here we go. Colin, a lot of the attention to yesterday's speech by the foreign minister was based on her latest terminology surrounding the Israel-Gaza story. But the speech has been billed for, well, for quite a long time, the first of a couple of speeches, that really sets out Canada's position on foreign policy. And the issue becomes, the question becomes, is it really significantly different than what we've been used to? How would you, after having looked at it,

what do you think is the answer to that question? I think you're right, Peter. I think, first of all, it's very internationalist, and that's continuity with successive governments going back to the Second World War. The great foreign policy speech that was given by Louis Saint Laurent when he was foreign minister, the great lecturer, basically setting out Canada's foreign policy,

which we've followed ever since. The importance of the U.S. relationship, balanced by multilateralism at that time, the Commonwealth and the United Nations. And so this speech is very much along those lines, that there's also a recognition. When Saint Laurent gave his speech, it was after the war. It was recognizing that there was things and areas that Canada could make a contribution in. And he identified in particular development assistance to what we now call the global south, particularly in helping in education. And Melanie Jolie does a similar kind of thing. She says there's areas that Canada can be helpful in.

And so I think that this was a continuity speech given by a foreign minister who's now been two years in the job, who has a lot of energy, who's been traveling the world, has developed a pretty good network of fellow foreign ministers, which is what you have to have. We've had a succession of foreign ministers under Mr. Trudeau, as we did under Mr. Harper. Keep in mind that Lester Pearson served, what, eight years as foreign minister under Louis Saint Laurent. And then, of course, where she began her speech, taking today's events and saying, here's what we're going to do. We're going to get the Canadians that are there, make best efforts to get them out. We're talking with our allies. We're talking with other parties. She, of course, had just been to the Middle East, and she said, here's what we're trying to do to do this, but we have to do it, again, in a collective fashion, using multilateral instruments, and we also have to be prepared to help out on the humanitarian's

side. You know, some of the terminology she used on the Israel-Gaza situation is interesting to follow through on, and I want to ask you about it in a second, but I just want to stick to the main point for a second. Have we shifted at all in terms of the way our foreign policy is going to be seen as a result of the speech yesterday, and I guess the next one to come? Well, the proof is in the pudding. She's announced that Canada will pursue, first of all, a resiliency and defense of national sovereignty at home, and that we will have a pragmatic diplomacy abroad, that we will now work with people who we don't necessarily agree with because we do have to engage. She took the framework of autocracy versus democracy and said, this simply doesn't

work. We're going to have to work because the world is a much more complicated place. She used a Madeleine Albright analogy who talked about, no, diplomacy is not chess, but two people making rational moves and having time to reflect. It's more like a game of billiards with the balls always in motion, and you're never sure where it's going. And I think that's a more accurate reflection, particularly for a country like Canada. Again, going back to Pearson, who said, once was asked, well, what's Canadian foreign policy? And he said, I don't know, ask me at the end of the year. What he meant by that, of course, is that you react to events as a middle power. And that, I think, is something that Melanie Jolie now appreciates and that was their point about we will the billboard example and we will we will try and find niches where we can be helpful

but we're not always sure where these are going to be but it'll be rooted in a pragmatic diplomacy we will be more active internationally particularly using multilateral instruments at the same time we must do what we can to defend our sovereignty. Now, to answer your question directly, this means investments in money and things the last two governments, the Harper government and the Trudeau government, have not done. They've not invested in the diplomatic service. They've not invested in development assistance, and they certainly haven't invested in our military. When other countries will watch us now, should we assume,

would it be fair to assume that it's going to mean less lecturing from Canada about what they should do and more diplomacy in terms of working together, trying to understand other people's sides of the issue? Well, I think she gets that, but of course, does the Prime Minister? That's the question, because the principal lecturer of Canada has been the Prime Minister. And of course, the relationships with Xi Jinping and Mr. Modi in India are very much as a result of the fact that I don't think this prime minister can name half a dozen leaders unlike his father, unlike Brian Mulroney, or unlike Jean Chrétien, who he could phone and get a real read on. I think that has been a problem of both domestically and internationally on the part of the prime minister, and that it does, the tone does start at the top.

Wouldn't you assume that the foreign minister would talk to the prime minister if there is such a shift going on and get the agreement with the prime minister? Peter, I think this speech was intended for, in a sense, three audiences. The broad public, the kind of scholarly community that follows these things, but most importantly, for her caucus colleagues and cabinet, because I think there's a real debate going on. And I certainly have been told of this by senior officials and some members of cabinet that there's a big debate and has been an ongoing debate about how much investment you make in international affairs, and particularly in the military right now.

And she referred specifically to the defense policy update, which has been promised now for two years. And I think it was on the verge of bringing it out, but prime minister said no, and of course then changed ministers. And we have now Mr. Blair. The development assistance, we're at one of our lowest points ever in terms of what we give internationally.

And what we do give internationally tends to be mostly done through multilateral institutions. So they don't have the Canadian flag stamp on it. And that's a reflection of trying to save money on civil servants, people abroad, diplomacy. And then, of course, on diplomats itself. And what Melanie Jolie promised, and she did point to some examples yesterday, that we are going to have more diplomats abroad, both in the South Pacific and in Africa. And she had just come back from opening our embassy in our new embassy in Armenia. Well, it'll be interesting, as you say, to see how she makes out with that third audience, the caucus, the cabinet, and the prime minister himself, in terms of what she's had to say.

And he's the key on this one. He's the key. I don't think he has not been moved. And I think that there is a debate ongoing. And I think that certainly the post the invasion by Russia of Ukraine and the tour that Anita Anand and Melanie Jolie and Christa Freeland has always been there even before

I think those that they call them the three iron women within cabinet of course Anita Anand now is at Treasury Board and so she has a hand in spending out the dollars but I don't, certainly my sense is that the majority of cabinet and of caucus would still rather put the investments on the social justice side,

gender, LGBTQ rights, inclusion, and in particular on climate. And of course, the current debate right now, which eclipsed in a way her speech, which really didn't get a lot of attention uh is is on the the government uh the prime minister's change on on the carbon tax last week yeah i'll say that's going to be very interesting and if it does it's you know if it leads at some point which many people think to a eventual leadership campaign in the Liberal Party, the three women you mentioned are all often discussed as potential leadership candidates. Last question, and it's on the Middle East situation.

The terminology that the minister is now using, it seems that Canada has used at different times in the last three weeks, you know, a pause, a humanitarian pause. There have been calls on some parts of the Liberal caucus for a ceasefire. And yesterday, the minister using the term truce, a humanitarian truce. Now, you understand diplomacy as well as most people I know.

What's the difference between those words and the fact that she at least settled on humanitarian truce as the thing to be calling for? What does that mean? Well, the truce is usually something that is negotiated between the two parties, which calls for a pause in the hostilities, in this case, to, I guess, allow humanitarian assistance and to continue the negotiation. A pause is quite different, where hostilities continue, but in particular sectors or a broader sector, that there is an agreement for a period of hours where there'll be no fighting, but these pauses usually break down quickly, as do truces. But there is a difference. A truce is something that is usually negotiated through a third party, through the UN in this case, which is there. But certainly, there's no

listening to the news as you did today. Benjamin Netanyahu certainly didn't give any indication that he's interested at all in either a truce or a pause. So it has no effect for, because in order to have a truce, you have to have two parties agree. In this case, probably on the Palestinian side, there would be several parties involved. Not just Hamas, but some of the Islamic fundamentalists, other groups that are now in the equation. Do you make a distinction between truce and ceasefire? Yes, a ceasefire usually is preliminary to ongoing negotiations that will bring about an end of hostilities. So these are all parsed. There are differentiations in them. about an end of hostilities.

These are all parsed. There are differentiations in them, but in the public minds they all amount to the same thing. It means whether you call it truce or pause or a ceasefire. But I don't see any of those on the horizon for now, simply because of where the Israelis are in terms of their efforts, having launched now the ground war within Gaza. So I think it gets worse for now. And of course, there are Canadians, as Melanie G pointed out, but it's not just Canadians. There's a lot of other citizens. In fact, that one report I saw, the most citizens, in fact, come from Southeast Asia. These were workers who were

taken working, I guess, in the fields on the disputed territories. And I guess the thing we have to keep in mind is Canada's position remains as it does in the United States, that Israel has a right And I guess the thing we have to keep in mind is Canada's position remains, as it does in the United States, that Israel has a right to defend itself. So adding that to issues of truces and ceasefires and pauses gives Israel, in a sense, an out, right? We're going to keep doing what we're doing. We understand and we're looking to find ways to get aid in and sense, an out, right? We're going to keep doing what we're doing. We understand and we're looking for, you know,

to find ways to get aid in and out, but we're going to defend ourselves. And that seems to be why they're rejecting any questions about ceasefires, truces, or pauses. Yeah, I think that's right. And I think that we've also said Israel has a right to defend itself. And you recall last week at the United Nations, within the General Assembly, again, this doesn't have any effect, but the majority vote to call for a ceasefire passed overwhelmingly. But the

Canadian resolution, which wanted to be a piece of that, well, we got 85 votes. It wasn't enough to meet the threshold. I think we had to get two-thirds that would have said that, after all, this was caused by a mass terrorism on October the 7th. And that didn't go through. And that was something that Canada took the initiative and led on. Okay, we're going to leave it at that, Colin. I really appreciate you breaking down some of this for us and getting behind the diplomacy, in a sense, in terms of the words and trying to explain what all this means. We do appreciate it.

Thanks very much. Thanks, Peter. Colin Robertson, a former diplomat, and now a fellow and senior advisor with the Canadian Global Affairs Institute, which is located in Ottawa. We thank Colin for his time. Obviously, we'll be monitoring this story and any follow-ups to it. are absolutely following the story as closely as we can in terms of what's happening in Israel and Gaza and with the Israelis now appearing to do a full-on ground invasion into Gaza. Well, full-on to the extent that they're taking different, they haven't sent the tanks in in force into Gaza, but they are going in on individual missions,

and they were last night successful in freeing one hostage, a young Israeli woman, with a commando raid, which we haven't heard all the details of yet, at least as I'm broadcasting this, I haven't heard all the details yet, as to how exactly they did that. They must have known something about where this woman was, but the main point is she is out and already reunited with her family. So that's good to hear, but there are, as we've mentioned a number of times, more than a couple of hundred other hostages still being held

by the different forces inside Gaza that are holding hostages, mainly Hamas, but not exclusively Hamas. All right, we're going to take a break and then get back to some of our end bits, because there's some good health ones as well that we've been holding on to for the last little while. We'll be back right after this. And welcome back. You're listening to the Tuesday episode of The Bridge right here on SiriusXM, channel 167, Canada Talks, or on your favorite podcast platform.

Wherever you're listening, we're glad to have you along with us. Okay, I mentioned a couple of stories that relate to our health that I found interesting and that we've been holding on to, looking for the right moment. And this is the right moment. The Daily Mail. It's a British paper, UK paper, on dailymail.com, has this story by Kate Pickles, who's their health editor in Amsterdam. Men are twice as likely to suffer a heart attack as women.

All right? Men, twice as likely to suffer a heart attack as women. And as a result, in Britain, the National Health Service All right, men, twice as likely to suffer a heart attack as women. And as a result, in Britain, the National Health Service, the NHS, the much-discussed NHS, has a new plan. They're putting blood pressure checks. One of the ways of going about how potentially you could be suffering a heart attack at some point. Check the blood pressure.

The NHL is, NHL, the NHS is going to offer men blood pressure checks at barber shops. As new research shows, they are twice as likely as women to have a heart attack. So you're going to get your hair cut?

Hey, let's get a blood pressure test. Health leaders have revealed an additional 2.5 million free checks will be rolled out in communities each year as part of a drive to target men who are reluctant to go to doctors. I bet you know a few men who feel that way, right? No, no, no, I'm not going to a doctor. I don't need a doctor. I feel fine. I don't need a doctor. The NHS estimates the move could help prevent more than 1,350 heart attacks and strokes every year.

Every year there are 100,000 hospital admissions due to heart attacks. In fact, that works out in the UK to one every five minutes. One doctor who I talked to in Aberdeen in Scotland told the Daily Mail, the advice is that men should start looking early at risk factors like obesity, lack of exercise, smoking, alcohol consumption, and reach out to their GP, their doctor, to get those things addressed. All right.

How often do you get your blood pressure checked? Here's the other health story. How many times a day do you clean your teeth? Do you do some oral hygiene? How many times a day? Traditionally, we've learned you should do that three times a day, right? Breakfast, lunch, dinner. Clean your teeth.

Practice oral hygiene. Well, here's more reason why you should do that other than just to keep your teeth clean and hopefully avoid cavities. This is in the Washington Post. Take care of your teeth and gums because oral health can affect your brain. Here's the story. I'm going to read a bit of it.

Poor oral hygiene is associated with an increased risk for myriad health problems, including heart disease, diabetes, cancer, rheumatoid arthritis, and early death. The state of our teeth and gums, though, may be vital for our well-being beyond the mouth and body. Emerging evidence suggests that what goes on in our mouth can affect what goes on in our brain and may even potentially affect our risk for dementia. People should really be aware that oral health is really important, said Anita Visser, who is a professor in geriatric dentistry

at the University of Groningen in the Netherlands. Severe periodontal disease, chronic inflammation of and damage to the gums and bone that support the teeth, affects about 19% of people older than 15 or more than a billion people worldwide, according to a 2022 World Health Organization report. More research is needed, but recent observations have suggested that oral health may be a modifiable risk factor for Alzheimer's, the most common type of dementia.

Scientists are still working out whether and how the health of our mouths and minds meld, but they've identified two potential culprits that might explain how gum disease could lead to Alzheimer's disease, bacteria, and inflammation. Just one last sentence on this story. One of the first studies to document the link between gum disease, tooth loss, and Alzheimer's disease, focused on a cohort of aging nuns who were part of a larger study on aging. Researchers tracked 144 of the nuns and found that severe tooth loss was associated with dementia risk

up to 6.4 times higher than compared with those who lost fewer teeth. All right, well, if all that isn't enough to get you running up to the bathroom right now to brush your teeth, I'm not sure what would. But it certainly will be the situation for me. I'm pretty good, though, at cleaning my teeth. I learned early because I didn't when I was a kid, and I had a lot of dental issues. But hopefully, they're rather intact now.

Okay, a couple more stories from the in-bit section. You know, it's funny because I get a lot of letters each week from people responding to different things that were on the end bits or saying, love those end bits. More end bits, please. Okay. Well, here's one. How old are you? and do you remember at the airport when you take, you know, you might take your parents

or you might take your kids on a flight and you could go, you go and you check in and then you just go to the gate with your kids, right to the gate. Even when there started to be security lines, you still had an opportunity. But they were going back quite a bit. We're certainly going back before 9-11.

So we're going back to the last century, if you will. And you used to be able to do that. And you used to be able to go right to the gate welcoming friends or family who were coming in on flights. You were allowed to do that. Well, in the last 25 years, that's been a no-no. You couldn't get past the counter. In some cases, you couldn't even get to the counter

to see off your friends and family. Now, you can go with them right to the gate in one airport. It's in the United States. And there's a story on it in the Philly Voice, which is a dot-com operation out of Philadelphia. And Brian Saunders from the Philly Voice staff, he writes this. Philly Airport to allow guests without flight tickets through security with a new day pass. It's called the Wingmate program,

and it lets people accompany travelers to their gates and wait for those arriving on domestic flights. People without flight tickets will soon be able to get through security at Philly's airport. Wingmate, a program slated to begin tomorrow, November 1st, will allow people to accompany travelers to their gates, wait for those arriving on domestic flights. That'll be interesting to see.

I think part of the push for this came from some of the airports, restaurants, and shops saying, let more people in. Be better for us, more beneficial for us. They still got to go through security. So what's the problem? Why not let them in? So they're going to, I imagine, test this out. And people will be watching in Philly.

You know, I can remember, it's more than a year ago now that I was going through the airport in New Orleans. I'd been down to New Orleans to give a speech. And flying back to Toronto, I went through security. And for the first time, they said to me, don't take anything out of your bag.

You don't need to get your laptop out. You don't need to get your laptop out. You don't need to, you know, put all those things in little plastic bags. You don't need to take your belt off. Don't need to take your shoes off. Just go through as is. Put your bags in, you know, the tray. That's all. Don't take anything out of them. Don't need to take your jacket off. Just go through the little, you know, archway thing. And I thought, wow, this is something.

Well, that was a little more than a year ago in New Orleans, and that was a test case. It's now you're seeing it pop up in different airports across North America. They have a line like that in Toronto. I think you need a Nexus card. I know you need a Nexus card to get that access. And you just go through. You don't need to take anything out of your bag. So, things are changing at the airports,

and Philly may be leading the way in this idea of allowing people to go with you to the gate. Last story for today. It's from the Washingtonian magazine. This is a magazine that I started reading when I spent a lot of time in Washington in 86, 87, almost as the Washington correspondent. Well, I was the Washington correspondent, but it was not official.

I was filling in for different people at a time when they were waiting on deciding who the next correspondent was going to be. So I spent a lot of time there, and I picked up the Washingtonian magazine and the Washington Monthly, two different periodicals, and they're great, and I still read them. They're terrific. Anyway, Washingtonian is more of a kind of feature magazine, and it has a story currently that's headlined,

Why is there a new payphone on a quiet street in D.C.? Okay, payphones, they're disappearing, right? Most places they're gone forever. But not on a quiet street in D.C. Here's the story. It's written by Rob Bruner. Earlier this year, a mysterious payphone appeared on a residential street in Chevy Chase, D.C. Locals were surprised to discover that it worked. You could lift the receiver and call anyone, anywhere, for

free. No quarter required. But the phone actually had a more specific purpose as made clear by the sign across the top. What did that sign say? It said jokes. Push one and you got a knock-knock joke. Pressing two yielded a joke for children and so on. The idea was a fast hit with neighborhood residents, especially kids. But why was it there? And which local cut-up was behind it? Some minor detective work recently revealed the answer. The Joke's Phone is the work of a substitute teacher at nearby Lafayette Elementary named Don Rutledge, whose house is across the sidewalk from the phone.

Rutledge is the kind of guy who likes to tinker, and he has a history of drumming up quirky projects. Ask him about the cupcake car he keeps in the garage. The payphone project just seemed like a fun idea, he says. Last year he scored an old phone online from a site called payphone.com. Can you believe it? There's actually a site called that. Then spent six months gutting it

and transforming it into a homemade humor dispenser. It runs off of a microcomputer stashed inside the phone and calls are routed through his home Wi-Fi. Part of the fun was figuring out how to make it work, wiring the electronics, writing 700 or so lines of computer code, and designing the phone front signage that sort of explains the whole concept. Rutledge estimates he spent about $700, a figure he semi-jokingly describes as embarrassing. Still, people love it.

Maybe that's because the gags aren't an afterthought. Rutledge has put some effort into finding what he describes as quality dad jokes. Two examples. This one's funny. Here it is. How does the polygamist hippie count his wives? One Mrs. Hippie, two Mrs. Hippie. Come on, that's funny.

That's definitely a dad joke. Now, it's not just giggles. The phone also offers random facts, like, did you know that most people can't lick their elbows? I did not know that. But now I do, and so do you. That's it for today's The Bridge. Tomorrow, Smoke, Mirrors, and the Truth.

Bruce will be by, Lots to talk about, especially on the backflip, still, by the Prime Minister on carbon tax and the kerfuffle that's caused within the Liberal Party. They stood for something. Now, do they still stand for it? Or don't they?

And why not? And how widely was this discussed? We'll see where that goes tomorrow on Smoke Mirrors and the Truth. Thursday, it's your turn, so cards and letters, send them in. The Mansbridge Podcast at gmail.com. The ranter will be

by on Thursday as well. Friday, it's Good Talk. Chantelle Hebert and Bruce Anderson. That's it for me this day. I'm Peter Mansbridge. Thanks so much for listening, and we'll talk to you again in 24 hours.