The Bridge with Peter Mansbridge - Smoke, Mirrors And The Truth (2) - Bruce Is Back And The Two Michaels Are On The Table.

Episode Date: December 9, 2020

China, Vaccines and Pardons all up for discussion.

Wow. Isn't that something? Don't you just love that music? Listen to this. Yeah, that's good. This is the music, this is the new theme, at least for this week again, for Smoke, Mirrors and the Truth. And when you hear that music, the next voice you hear after mine is Bruce Anderson saying good morning, Bruce, in Ottawa. Happy to bring the truth, Peter. Good morning to you. And you'll leave me with the smoke and mirrors. Is that the idea? That's the idea. I got it. Okay, we've actually got, the thing about smoke mirrors and the truth is it really leaves kind of a wide open space.

There's a lot of things that could fit in there, either into all three of those areas or one of those areas. So today we got a couple of things, at least a couple of things we want to talk about. Maybe as many as three. We'll see what the time is like. The first thing I want to talk about is the two Michaels and China. And how these kind of fit in to a lot of the discussions and debates that have been going on, especially in Ottawa, over the last actually few months. Debates about China, debates about the relationship

between Canada and China, debates about how hard has the government been trying to get the two Michaels released, what's the government been doing, what can the government even say about what it's been doing. So we're going to talk a little bit about that, but let me set the scene for the couple of people who don't know who the two Michaels are. The two Michaels have been in Chinese prisons for the last couple of years. They're both Canadians, Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor. They don't know

each other. They're not related business-wise. They just happened to be a couple of Canadian business people who were in China. And, gosh, just a week after a Chinese relative of the head of one of the big tech firms was picked up in Canada because the Americans wanted to question her. She's in Vancouver. The two Canadians, the two Michaels, were picked up. And they've been in prison ever since. So it's one of these kind of convoluted stories. Is it a spy story? Is it a trade story?

Is it a tech story? Is it just a diplomacy story where two Canadians have been kind of innocently caught up in all this? Or is there more to it? What we don't know is, I guess, lost somewhere in the smoke and mirrors and the truth. But that hasn't stopped certain opposition people from going after the government. It hasn't stopped the government from trying to defend itself. It hasn't stopped the media from looking into the story

or trying to look into it. But here's what I want to say, Bruce, before we get at it, because I know you've got some strong feelings on this, is this has got to be a government's kind of worst nightmare, a prime minister's worst nightmare when they are sitting there in their office or they're woken up in the middle of the night by one of their security people who says, prime minister, a Canadian's been picked up in another country and they're being held and we can't get to them and we can't figure out what's going on. Or worse, Prime Minister of Canada has been kidnapped.

We've got to figure out how we're going to do this in an overseas country. What are we going to do? And when you kind of track history over the last 50 years, you go back, well, you can go back to the Quebec crisis 50 years ago. James Cross, the British Trade commissioner, kidnapped in Montreal. A week or two later, the Quebec labor minister, Pierre Laporte, kidnapped in Quebec City. Eventually killed, murdered. And still here 50 years later, we still don't really know everything that kind of happened on that story, what happened in terms of negotiations.

You know, we know the bottom line on a lot of these stories, but we don't really know what was going on. And we were being told very little about negotiations at the time. And there's a pattern to this. That was Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau. Then you had Robert Fowler, the Canadian diplomat. This was not that long ago when Stephen Harper was prime minister and he was being held by Al-Qaeda in Africa.

What was going on behind the scenes then? He was eventually released. Lots of talk about whether money was exchanged. Lots of talk about whether JTF2, the Canadian commando unit, was poised and ready to go in and rescue him, but was called off at the last minute. Melissa Fung, Canadian journalist, CBC journalist, friend of mine, who was held in a kidnapping in Afghanistan,

while Prime Minister Harper was the Prime Minister and who worked really hard for her freedom. And, in fact, she was eventually freed. But I mean, the list goes on. Amanda Landhout, James Loney, you know, the two fellows who were killed in the southern Philippines. Robert Hull was one of them.

And the other name was John Ridsdale. Anyway, I guess the point I'm making is this is worst nightmare for any leader, any prime minister. And there's a lot of kind of smoke and mirrors and debates about the truth around these issues because to go to your point bruce last week and i'll finally hand this over to you your point last week is there are times when politicians leaders government leaders there are things they can't talk about this is like negotiations going on

and yet they've got a public anxious to know what's going on they got the media pouncing on the opposition uh trying to take advantage of the situation demanding answers which is partly their job yeah anyway take it away resolve this well the situation for me. I do think this kind of situation is the sort of thing that keeps prime ministers awake at night. I don't think there's any doubt that knowing that you may be in a situation where the decision that you make in answer to pressure could cost the lives of an individual Canadian isn't something that really comes with any training. It's bound to make anybody in that position feel a tremendous sense of tension and uncertainty as to what the right thing to do is. The pattern in Canada has been to lay out a convention that we don't negotiate with terrorist organizations. And I think what's interesting and more complicating in some respects about this is that this is the state that is holding these two

Canadians. And it's the biggest or the second biggest economy in the world. It's a huge trading partner for Canada. It's an incredibly important place in terms of where Canadians have come from and traveled to. And so our relationship with China has a lot of facets. And this step by the Chinese government to basically hold these two Canadians as hostage, looking for a favorable decision, not just on the woman who's been incarcerated as a result of Canada living up to its obligations to the U.S. under our extradition agreement. But they're pushing Canada on our treatment of Huawei and the technology associated with 5G. And I think, you know, so this dilemma, I think,

has a number of dimensions that take it, you know, that add to the level of stress that would normally be felt with Canadians being held in prisons somewhere else or whose lives would be at risk somewhere else. There is an industrial espionage question around the Huawei technology, and there are other countries around the world that said, we're not going to allow that technology to be used in Canada. And I guess several of the major Canadian telecom companies, Rogers,

Bell Canada, TELUS, have already made clear that they're not going to use that technology. There are lots of people who are experts in this area who have very strong arguments to make about why we shouldn't let that happen. But I think this is playing out as part of a backdrop of China being more muscular in its relationship with the rest of the world. Obviously, there was a lot of tension in the relationship with the Trump administration. It remains to be seen where Biden is going to try to take that relationship. And so we kind of sit awkwardly, our issue and the fate of these two gentlemen sits awkwardly in the middle of all of that. And as you correctly point out, Peter, we also have a kind of an opposition politics playing

out here in Canada, where Aaron O'Toole, the new conservative leader, seems to love nothing more to get up every day and wave his arms about how we need to push back and fight harder with China. We need to take a harder line with China. And I think even though there may be an instinct on the part of Canadians to say that's true, you know, Canadians are also extremely pragmatic people. And the next thing that they will think is usually, well, exactly what form would that take? Exactly how would that help? Will that help solve the problem for these people? Will it potentially cause a bigger economic war to break out between our countries? We've seen situations in the last couple of years where China has said, well, we don't want to buy any more of this or we don't want to buy any more of that from Canada. And every time something like that happens, there's a sector or a group or a community or a group of workers whose livelihoods are put at stake.

So there's a lot to play for here in terms of trying to find a solution that helps the two Michaels. the kind of thing in my experience where, you know, it's normal to expect opposition politicians to try to tear a strip off the government for whatever they think that they can get away with doing that on. But it's probably better if the prime minister and the Canadian government do what they can do behind the scenes to try to affect some positive solution for the two Michaels and to put the relationship between our two countries on a better path going forward. And that generally isn't done through the media or through Barb's back and forth in the House of Commons. Okay, I accept all that, except there does seem to be a certain sense of, I don't know, smoke and mirrors going on, right? There's a feeling that there's something getting close to perhaps a solution here.

And that's being fed from all sides. And one assumes that's partly being fed from the government side as well, that we could be close to something here in terms of a solution for the two Michaels that fits in the, also in the bigger story. Yes. I, I think that those hints are coming out. I think one of the things that I've kind of watched is this issue evolved over the last years is to be careful about who might be putting what tidbits of information into the media domain with what purpose in mind. I want to be hopeful that the signals are being sent by people who are knowledgeable about the

situation rather than just trying to apply more pressure for the particular outcome that they're looking for. We saw a situation develop earlier this year, I guess, where 19 people who had significant foreign policy experience in Canada signed a letter encouraging the federal government basically to stand down in its position vis-a-vis China and the extradition of this woman. And a lot of people looked at that and said, why did they sign that letter? Surely that they must have known as experienced individuals that this comes with a measure of risk for Canada. In effect saying, all right, you got us. We'll just kind of accede to your pressure, China. And China was very caustic statements about Canada in the media at that time. So I want to believe that the whispers of some positive resolution are real. But I do think that one of the things that the government is doing right on this issue right now,

and I would say the same thing about how it's handling the questions about vaccine, is that it's not saying anything until there's something to say. I think that's a better way to approach it. I think it sometimes feels awkward because you feel like you're in the cabinet, that everybody around you is talking about this and putting pressure on you. And the expectation is that you have something concrete to say. And why not right now? Like, why not right this minute?

But it sometimes is better just to wait until you have something to say that is concrete. You know, when, you know, I rattle off those other names in terms of the past of situations, similar, not the same, but similar to what we're witnessing now. And in all those cases, it was, you know, the amount of information governments were giving out was about the same as what we're seeing here. They weren't giving out information because they were either trying or wanted the perception that they were trying, that there was negotiation going on or there was something going on to try and get these people free.

And it's not always negotiation. It can also be some active attempt to break them out. But I can remember in the case of Melissa Fung where we were pleaded with not to talk about it, not even to report the fact that she had been kidnapped because of the delicate nature of the negotiations that were going on. This was during the Harper government. And as I said, Harper clearly showed, and he showed to us, he showed to me, and he showed to other members of CBC how personally involved he was in trying to make things happen. And, you know, one assumes, although we don't know, that it's been the same in the past and in the present in terms of the personal involvement of the person at the top.

Because, as you said, we're dealing with people's lives. And already, unfortunately, during Justin Trudeau's watch, we've seen two Canadians who were executed in the Southern Philippines. And he had to live with that, knowing that he'd been working on trying to get these two people out. And whether he tried hard enough or whether he'd done enough or not, I guess is something that, that he has to live with. What makes this story even more interesting is the added dimension of this whole relationship with China that you talk about and how seemingly awkward it is for, for certain political parties to jump into this.

I mean, the conservatives, there's no question. They are playing off a very strong, well, I think it's strong. You probably know better than me. I don't know whether you've done research on it. But what seems in pockets of the country to be very strong anti-China feeling. We see it come up in different issues. A lot of it as a result of the coronavirus. But here is the, you know, the conservatives

are acting on that, but at the same time isn't China one of their big economic solutions for Western oil? Yeah, I think that's a really good point and I think this is where we get into what's smoke and what's mirrors and what's the truth. I think on the public opinion side of things, Peter, it was only a couple of years ago where we were measuring the appetite on the part of Canadians for a free trade agreement with China, and it was actually pretty high. And so I think that it's safer to assume that for Canadians, the question is not whether we should have a good relationship

with China. It's whether what are the right things to do to have the proper relationship with China and the current regime in China. And in the context of a global geopolitical situation that was greatly disrupted by Trump and by the Chinese. And I think people are smart enough in Canada to know that that's a complicated set of questions. And it doesn't lend itself well to arm waving about communist China as though it's the worst country ever in the history of the world. And therefore we should, you know, say that every day. I think that, that people look at that kind of rhetoric with an appropriate amount of skepticism about whether it actually conceals or purports to have underneath it any real solution.

Because I think most people would probably say, well, if Justin Trudeau stood up every day and said the kinds of things about communist China that Aaron O'Toole says, would the Michaels be closer to release? Would our economy have a path forward that doesn't look more rocky? I think those are fair questions for people to ask. And I think the question about what the relationship should be in the future is one where people are pretty pragmatic. And that doesn't mean let's surrender our principles. But it also means let's not pretend that just by yelling at China that we can bend China to our will, because they know that the world doesn't quite work that way. And you raised the point as well about, you know, one of the most contentious debates in the last several years in Canadian politics has been about whether or not we needed the pipeline to tidewater on the West Coast. And the Conservatives, in addition to fighting hard against carbon pricing, fought really hard for the construction of a pipeline days that there were more journalists who are saying to the conservative leadership right now,

how do these things fit together? Exactly what is your plan when this pipeline is built to move your product to China, to move our Canadian product to China in the middle of diatribes every day about the communist Chinese regime. Now, I'm not making that point to say we shouldn't criticize China. I'm simply saying let's challenge our politicians to be rational and accountable for the intersection of the two different positions that they seem to have on this, because we know, and we can read about it today. Australia is experiencing some real economic pressures from the Chinese government in certain parts of their agricultural exports. So this can be a real economic issue. It's not as though China will go, oh, well, now you have some oil that's available to it.

They're getting oil now. They're getting it from other places. They don't need to buy our oil. So if we want to get it to them, I think we need to just understand that there needs to be some way of having a conversation with them or we don't care about it. But I don't think you can have it both ways. And I think conservatives on many days in Ottawa on China are trying to have it both ways.

It's funny because you think back 25 years when Kraytcham was prime minister and then Martin was prime minister and on a totally different level and for different reasons there was a similar argument going on right? Kraytcham was taking the trade missions to China frequently and taking what with him 30, 40, 50, 60, 100 Canadian business leaders trying to open that China door for Canadian business while at the same time taking serious flack from not just the conservatives but other opposition areas as well both in politics and outside of politics about cozying up to the communists. So this has been, in some ways, a constant dilemma of looking at the most populous country on earth

as it breaks out into a, you know, it sounds odd, but as it breaks out into a capitalist system, in a sense, in business, and trying to take advantage of that and trying to be a customer and a seller at the same time. So it's difficult, and Creighton saw how difficult it was and took a lot of heat at times, but was consistent. And Harper, to a degree as well, understood what the relationship could mean. Anyway, let's move on a little bit, because I want your thoughts on vaccines. I mean, we talked about this last week, we've, you know, we, there's been a lot of talk about it. Here's my, um,

here's what I'm wondering as we get closer, like we could be days, if not hours away from, you know, the, the very initial moments of, of the movement of vaccines in Canada. Um, my question is related to how you convince people that it's okay. Because every day you see stuff, right? I don't know. I think you've done some, you've done research and it, you know, it's a small minority, but it's not an insignificant minority of people who say, don't come near me with a vaccine. I'm not interested in the vaccine.

Or I really want to pause and think about it for a while. I want to see how it plays out. So what do we know about how governments and the drug companies and the medical people, health authorities, what they're considering to try to convince people that this is okay. We kind of watched the unveiling in the UK over the last couple of days and what they've been doing. We've seen in the States how the three former presidents are going to, you know, get their vaccine at the same time together as, you know, as a point to show Americans that it's okay.

Is there active discussion going on? I ask you this because I know that you're, I think one of your clients is what, the CMA, the Canadian Medical Association? I do work with the CMA, yes. And they obviously must be concerned about this, about how you convince people, you know, simply as doctors. But what are you hearing? Are you hearing things about how they're going to help, how generally there's going to be people, knowledgeable people and smart organizations that are starting to turn their attention to this question now that it seems inevitable that we're going to have not just one, but probably, sizes the problem. And this is the short version of it, Peter. About one in three people say, I want this vaccine, whichever vaccine,

as soon as I can get it. Just tell me where and when and I'll be there with my sleeve rolled up. And you have another 10% who say, I'm never taking any vaccine. I don't want to have anything to do with it. The government can try and persuade me, but I'm not going to. And so we're really talking about 60% who are kind of in the middle. And the biggest chunk of those people are folks saying, I'm going to get it. But I want you, Peter, to take it first. And I'm going to just kind of keep an eye on you and see how everything's going. And if it's okay for you, because people aren't really concerned about the efficacy.

They're concerned about the side effects. And they don't want the side effects. And so they're anxious about that. And Peter, if you get it first and I watch you for a few months and you look okay and you're ready to go out and hit the golf ball again. And you don't have to worry about distancing quite as much, maybe, then I'm going to get that shot. Now, so for those people, the answer about how to convince them is probably first and foremost, their doctor, or the association of doctors. You mentioned the CMA, but it's basically the voice of doctors saying, we've looked at this as medical professionals, as your advisors on your health. And we think that it's a good idea for you to take that. And the value proposition of a doctor

saying this to somebody like that, relative to a Donald Trump saying, I made this miracle happen, that's not even close, right? So we know what's at the bottom of the list of credibility is a politician who doesn't even believe that the disease is the real problem. At the top of the list of credibility is going to be a doctor's voice. I think there's a, that next group, which is kind of 14, 15% who say, I don't really want to get the vaccine, but I could be persuaded. And for them, it's a whole variety of different things. Certainly no question that doctor's voice is very important for that group too. But then beyond that, it's peers and influencers. And you kind of made the point about some politicians, high profile politicians, but I actually also think it's going to be figures that people in that category look up to, trust for one reason or another, identify with. influence is so important in so many aspects of life right now that it will be important for that group too. And so if the next five or six months see some combination of strong statements by

doctors, interventions by doctors with their patients about the value proposition, if we see social leaders saying, I'm going to take this vaccine. And if over that passage of time, you or I know somebody who's had the vaccine or multiple people who've had the vaccine and didn't have a problem, and maybe also if we start to see some reduction in the infection rates where the vaccinations are happening, then I think that this problem has a good chance of being resolved rather than have that 10% who don't want anything to do with the vaccine becoming 20% or 30%, which would cause a real problem for us, right? Basically, what it would mean is that we would be a lot slower to return to normal life and to a normal economy. If that number of people who say,

I don't want to have anything to do with this vaccine doubles or travels. I don't think that's the way that's going to go in Canada. I think communications can help so that people feel like they're hearing everywhere they go, that this is safe and other people are doing it. So that's my feeling about it. And if I could just add one thing, which, you know, I think you and I were talking a little bit about yesterday, a fair number of the people who are resistant to the idea of taking the vaccine sport a blue sweater politically. And so among the voices that probably would be helpful are conservative politicians, people like Jason Kenney, people like Aaron O'Toole, people like Candace Bergen and Michelle Rample Garner, maybe spending a little bit less of their time talking about how good America has done on this and a little bit more of their time saying, by the way, when the vaccine is available, people should take it and we'll take it. Because I think when we look at those subsets of the population where people are anxious, we know what some cluster of that opinion is. And it's

an anti-government cluster. It's a mistrust of progressives culture. And those voices can be helpful. And some of those voices have been heard, not the one specifically that you've mentioned, although Jason Kenney is in a lot of trouble here right now. And he

seems to be coming around a bit on some of the things he's saying about what's needed to fight COVID-19. He is. seems to be coming around a bit on some of the things he's saying about what's needed to fight COVID-19. He is. If I can just on that, Peter, though, every time there's an anti-mask or an anti-vax demonstration, the single most important thing that can happen to reduce the frequency and the size of those situations is for conservative voices to be heard. Progressive voices can say, this is horrible. Why are these people doing that all they want? And they probably

will, and they probably should. But if we want to tamp down that resistance, those conservative voices are absolutely vital. You could just look at the United States. There was a column written by a guy for the Toronto Sun. I don't think I'm going to say his name because I don't want people to read the article the other day. Basically, he was saying, well, if you extract the people who are old and sick in Canada from the list of people who died from COVID, it's very many people. And he was kind of making that point as a way of saying, I don't think we should be devoting this much in terms of resources to COVID or spending this much time slowing our economy and so on. And of course, you only have to look south of the border to see what happens if you don't take this seriously.

3,000 people a day, roughly, dying right now. And, you know, I guess a columnist can write those people off and say, well, all of them were old and maybe they had other illnesses. But they're real people. They're people who have families. They're people whose lives didn't need to be lost. And Canadians don't look at this the same way. They look at these lives and say, we need to protect people. And that's the message that Jason Kinney and other conservative politicians are hearing right now.

As I said, some are. I get what you're saying and the list you've come up with. Brian Palliser last week, Manitoba Premier, he couldn't have been more out front and emotional and, you know, you, this is the real deal. You, this is a killer. You've got to do something. You've got to take part in, in our, our protection plans.

Um, you know, you know, you get a guy like, um, Chris Christie in the States who gets COVID as a result of the super spreader events in the White House. And he's adamant now, like, he's just like, he won't listen to any of that. His former, you know, pals within the Republican party and their position, he finds it incomprehensible in terms of dealing with COVID. But those people need to be, you know, up front. And I still feel, you know, that the government itself, too, has to come up with innovative ways and not just, you know, politicians and former politicians.

But I forget the phrase you used, but obviously people who are well respected within the community, within the country. You know, the first name that came to mind for me, and I don't even know where he is on the vaccine issue. And so, excuse me, if you're an anti-vaxxer, Chris Hatfield, I somehow doubt you are, um, with your a hundred percent belief in science. Um, but somebody like that, like a Chris Hatfield and the incredible way he, and the powers he has of communication, uh,

being out front on something like this, but you know, listen, there, you can come up with dozens of names of, uh, of people who could take this away from the partisan debate and make it more of a sort of people issue. And this has got to happen.

Okay. We're running out of time. If we're going to sort of, you know, we've been trying to keep these podcasts, the smoke mirrors and the truth to around 40, 42 minutes. So pardons is the last word I had on my little list of three things to talk about. I still don't understand why nobody has asked Joe Biden if he would pardon Trump if the question was thrown to him. I mean, he has been questioned about would he have the Department of Justice investigate Trump. And he said, I will never say that. If they need to investigate him, they'll make that decision on their own.

I'm not interfering. But they've not asked him directly the pardon question. And I know there are all kinds of levels to the pardon debate about, you know, federal offense versus a state offense, self-pardoning. Does he self-pardon himself? Can he even do that? What about his family? Can you pardon people for future potential crimes or only for past possible criminal actions? But I, you know, I think this will only heat up in the days ahead because no matter, I'm still a big believer that, you know, Trump's toast, he knows he's toast. All this is a charade that's going on and will eventually, you know, peter out.

It just keeps him in the news for week after week and makes it look to some of his supporters that he's still got a chance somehow to survive through all this. But at some point, the pardon thing will become the dominant story. That's where I am. Where are you? Well, I think it will, too. I think Trump is going to use the pardon power.

I think he's been telegraphing that he wants to. I think there's been this kind of wacky attorney general of Texas situation that developed yesterday where he kind of looks like you don't have to be a wild eyed conspiracy theorist to think that this guy who's under a lot of pressure with cases coming against him in Texas decides that he's going to launch a lawsuit against four other states saying that they completely missed the election results it's like he's putting up a billboard in front of the white house to donald trump you know pardon me too right and you can't help but think that that trump has created this market for pardon and that uh i don't know't know, and maybe this is crossing a line to say it, but

he's got, what, 40 days or something like that in which he can still accept favors or imagine favors to come. So it's not just about pardoning himself and his kids. It's about selling the last thing that he might be able to get some money for while he still has the ability to give something out or sell something that shouldn't really be his to sell. So if I'm Biden, I actually don't find this very complicated. I keep my powder dry. Somebody asked me the question, I go, I'm not the president now. And we'll have to see what the president, who is the president, has to say about what he's going to decide. And whatever he decides, you'll hear from me at that point in time and then when I take office. But I also would say

that Biden is doing a pretty good job of saying one thing that you should know about the Biden brand is I'm here to restore some integrity in the institution, some belief that you can trust in the integrity of the people in the institutions. And, you know, in the last several years, we've had a helpful discussion in society about the whole idea of privilege and what could look like a more ridiculous aspect of privilege than the idea of the top elected official in the country being able to absolve any of his friends or family members who've committed crimes or who might commit crimes in the future of criminal prosecution. What a statement that would make about privilege. And it wouldn't surprise me if he does that, if there isn't a discussion that starts about a constitutional amendment that says this doesn't have any place in a modern democracy.

And we really need to think hard about how the founding fathers didn't imagine a situation where somebody in office would basically be looking like they're selling pardons, which is what it appears to me is going on right now. So that's my rant on pardons for this week anyway. And the last guy who got nailed for selling a pardon was the former governor of Illinois. Blagojevich. Blagojevich.

Who got a pardon. Yeah, who went to prison until Trump pardoned him. Trump pardoned him for selling pardons. Yeah. So maybe there's a clue in all that too. Okay. Good discussion. I mean, I think we've got lots more to continue on the next 30, 40 days on the pardon issue and the virtual zoo that's going on.

But it's not so virtual anymore down in the States. But as we've shown today, we also have our own issues that revolve around smoke mirrors and the truth. So we appreciate you listening in on all this. And Bruce, thank you so much. We look forward to our chat again next week. Of course, Peter. And send a box of those books, Extraordinary Canadians. That's the book. When I go out on the street, I don't see a lot of people and they all have masks

on, but you know, if I'm kind of brushing by them like six feet away and they spot me, they go, aren't you the guy that knows how I can get a copy of Extraordinary Canadian, that best-selling book that everybody wants for Christmas. Your copy must be getting pretty dog-eared right now. You're probably reading it every day. Well, I had to lend it to everybody. It's kind of sold out around here. It is sold out in a lot of places. As you were talking, I was just actually looking at the sales numbers

for the last week. It's still, four weeks in so it's still four weeks in. It's still doing extremely well. Still up there well placed on the bestseller list. Well, it helps, of course, that there were extraordinary Canadians for you to write about. I mean, if that hasn't been the case, really just kind of adding your layer of profit on top of the lives that they've lived. But, you know, that's the way the capitalist system should work. So thank you again, Peter, for this week and for writing that book.

Thank you, my friend. All right. So, yeah. So there you got him, Bruce Anderson in Ottawa. Let me say just a couple of quick things before we sign off for this day. The weekend special on Friday, I mentioned to you yesterday, we're trying to find, we're coming up with some new ideas to give a free copy of the book, sign a copy of the book away on Friday. The last two weeks we've done Tell Me Something Good about what's happened to you this year in spite of all the difficulties we've all had.

And that was extremely successful. And we've got lots and lots of mail. And so much so that many people are still writing in on that topic. I'm trying to shift the topic this week to tell me something that you've actually done this year that's different to prep for for the holiday season upcoming something different but in some way relates the kind of year we've had not the obvious you know not going to travel and I won't be able to see family or that kind of stuff tell me something else so I'll keep that open for another day I didn't get a tremendous amount of mail on that last night. Uh,

but maybe you're just thinking, thinking about it. Um, but I still get mail on the other one. Tell me something good. So we'll see where it all ends up. And, uh, also this week being swamped with the request for book plates, really, really swamped this week. I'm out of book plates, but Simon & Schuster says they are rushing a new load to me, which may get here today or tomorrow. And if so, then I'll get things in the mail.

So hopefully you'll have them for gifts for the holidays. Actually, you have to buy the book as well as the book plate, but not from me. Obviously, get the book. Send me a copy of the receipt or the picture. I'll send you a book plate. No problem. Signed. Personalized.

Okay. Enough is enough, and that is enough. So I'm Peter Mansbridge. This has been the Bridge Daily's podcast within a podcast, Smoke, Mirrors, and the Truth, with Bruce Anderson joining us from Ottawa. Thanks so much for listening. We'll talk to you again in 24 hours. Thank you.