The Bridge with Peter Mansbridge - Smoke Mirrors and The Truth -- The Recount Story

Episode Date: May 12, 2025

The election result was a minority government. But it was close, which makes the recount story fascinating & for some, controversial.

Smoke, mirrors and the truth. Fred Delorey, Bruce Anderson coming right up. Hey, good Monday morning. And it's a smoke mirrors and the truth, usually on Tuesdays, they on Mondays for a number of reasons. Janice Stein fans stay tuned. You'll hear Janice tomorrow. She's in Abu Dhabi in the United Arab Emirates.

And we just, all I practice saying the name of the country. We just thought it would work better if we did. Tomorrow gave her time to maneuver around. She's got lots of things to say, but so do Fred DeLorey and Bruce Anderson here on Smoke Mirrors of the Truth, because there are things happening on a number of fronts. And one of them is recounts.

We know how close the liberals came to a majority. And it seems that on the recount process, they are starting to edge a little closer to the majority line. Not sure that they can get there no matter how many recounts there are, but nevertheless, they are getting close. I think they're 170 now, they need 172 to say they've got a majority. But at the same time, you are starting to feel a sense that some people think

there's something wrong with the recount process. So that's kind of tipped in favor of the liberals. No evidence of that, no proof of that, other than the fact that the recounts seem to be going in the liberals favor. Bruce, why don't you touch on this to get started? Well, you know, first of all, Peter, I think that our system works really well. I think if you look back at the election that was, there are a number of things that we can take from it that we should feel good about.

I think there was something like 1900, more than 1900 people who put their name on a ballot. We had a vote. The outcome was accepted immediately by all of the parties involved in the election. The fact that there are recounts in close races, I think is a good thing. Obviously, it's a good thing because we have seen a number of situations where the outcome in certain writings has changed when people went back and reviewed the votes. And I think that the process that we have changed when people went back and reviewed the votes. And I think that the process that we have

for recounting is a pretty good process. I don't know if it could be better. You know, as I understand it and Fred may know better than me from the standpoint of what exactly physically happens, there are a number of people whose job it is to be present during the recount process to agree on the question of which ballots were perhaps miscounted or should be considered spoiled because the intent of the voter was unclear. And it does feel to me that that process has been good. You said that it tilted a little bit in the liberals' favor, but I think that there was one writing that's gone back and forth now a couple

of times and maybe another one that's a little bit unclear. But the thing that I was sort of discouraged by a little bit was a fundraising letter that I think the conservatives put out where they seem to be implying in the language that they were using that unless supporters sent them money to help support their effort to make sure that nothing incorrect happened in the recount, that line of argument for fundraising I felt was getting pretty close to some of what we heard in the United States from Trump Republicans sowing seeds of doubt about whether or not there was some jiggery-pokery going on in the recount

process. So overall, I feel we can all take some confidence in the way that our system worked. I just don't like to see anything being done to kind of chip away at that confidence because we know that misinformation can start to develop into problems for a democracy too. Fred, you got something to say on this? Yeah, a few things. I agree with Bruce largely there about our system and how it works and that it's very effective. The recount process is overseen by a judge and usually you have some of your best lawyers from every party involved as well, just good organizers and

volunteers that you can trust. And it's a, you know, you're going ballot by ballot and ensuring that you're getting it right. And that's automatically triggered when it's a close race. I don't know the exact number, but you can also apply for it. What happened in Terrebonne, though, in Quebec is interesting, where the Liberals lost by 40 some votes on election night, once the final count was tallied properly. And then the recount brought it to a one vote victory for the liberals. So I'm very curious what happened in that original count. You know, that's done in all different polling stations

all around the riding. But that's a significant number to move 40 some votes in a recount. And I'm not saying there's anything untowards. I'd say that the mistake was the first count where clearly something was wrong. Someone was not doing their job properly or someone was being overzealous

and disallowing liberal votes or something. It was very unusual to see that type of turnaround. I remember in 2011, when I was, you know, Deputy Director of Political Operations for the Conservatives, we we lost riding by five votes. And we did a recount and we ended up losing by nine votes when it was all said and done. So it went the other way on us, but only by four votes. So it's quite remarkable to see that type of a vote shift. So someone got it wrong on election night and it is good that on the recount, it is the proper result that came out.

But it's also going to be a great story to tell for everyone in campaigns going forward. One vote, one arriving, and almost gave the liberals a majority government. Like it's remarkable and it's going to be an example we're going to use all the time for many, many, many elections. To Bruce's point about the fundraising email, I do think there's value of course in fundraising off of these issues and pushing out that, hey, we need the resources and help to send people. But I do agree the language was way offside. It was going into a conspiracy world. You know, stop the steal types language just isn't appropriate. There's, you know, we do need to send good lawyers in and good people to help do the count, but not because

someone's trying to break rules. And I think that's an unfortunate way to, to imply unfortunate. Yeah, Fred, you probably have examples of people that you know, you know, your point about every vote counts. I remember there was a friend of mine years ago who ran as a liberal in a writing that wasn't really expected to flip. He campaigned long and hard for months and months and months. And he came up, I think it was five votes short. And he said that maybe the worst part of the experience was kind of meeting friends and neighbors in subsequent weeks who said things to him like, oh, if I'd known you were gonna be that close,

I would have gone at it. Thanks. Thanks for that. Fred, I wanna just get you to clarify something. You kind of touched on it there for a moment. But in the process of a recount, there's a judge who has, I guess, the final say, but in the room during the count are in fact representatives or lawyers for all the parties that are represented on that ballot. Yeah, all the parties that want to send people, right? Some parties may not end up doing it if they're not in the race or if they're not interested, but typically

the main, the three big parties and if it's Quebec, four parties would be there. But are they just watching or can they enter into the discussion? Can they say, oh, well, judge, look at this or what have you? You know, they're so it's, it's, they're going through all the ballots themselves altogether, looking at each ballot. And there's very clear ballots were clearly marked. And then there's some that may have an X beside a candidate's name and a checkmark in front of their name.

And in some instances, some people think that's a not allowed. And so you would argue and take that to the judge and the judge would say, where was the intent? Um, it's, you know, you can kind of figure out what people were trying to vote. Um, and then they make that final ruling. The judge does. Um, they don't all have to sign off on the final ruling. It's just the judge signs off on the phone. Yes. Yeah. They don't all have to sign off on the final ruling. It's just the judge signs off on the final. That's right. Yes. Yeah. They don't have to agree.

Just the judge has to. But are they, are they held? I mean, can they say anything when they leave the room or are they kind of held to a certain? I'm not sure on that. I don't think there's ever really been it. I can't remember an example though, where any party walked out of one of these processes and said, it was, you know, hijacked by the judge or anything like that. It's another measure from my standpoint.

And there's a similar process. There's scrutineers in every polling place from different parties. And whenever I've come in contact with that, I've been really kind of struck by the fact that there's a bit of a peaceful kind of context to that, which stands in quite a sharp contrast with what the parties are doing every day, every hour leading up to a vote. And then you go in the polling place and you see people from the different parties sitting around and they're all, you know, drinking coffee or tea together. And they're sort of working it through together. And I think that it's probably a similar thing in the context of these, uh, these recount situations.

Well, you do tend to put in your more aggressive people in a recount. You want to put people that, you you know to steal a phrase from the selection that are not afraid to get their elbows up and to make you know solid arguments that they think are fair. But yeah, you send in your most aggressive and that's why you need money to do it and that's why it's fair to fund off of it. But again, using language that I think is more responsible than what was used. But at the end of the day, it's a judgment call by the judge. Yes, if there's a dispute, yeah. Okay.

They make the final call. All right. Changing topics here. And this one will seem like it's really coming out of nowhere, but perhaps it does feel that way because, you know, up until a few days ago, does feel that way because up until a few days ago, on the trade front, China was seen as the big enemy, especially of the United States, and that Trump was going after them big time with tariffs of 145% or some huge number. Over the weekend, two things happened. One on that front, the US-China front, they've got a deal, at least a tentative deal, and they're going to kind of hold back on the huge tariffs for 90 days, I think. So something happened there.

Something clearly happened on that front, and as a result, markets have been going a bit crazy already today with the news that there could be a deal on the offing the other thing that happened was Perhaps less consequential on the world market, but very consequential perhaps on the Canadian market the new China's Chinese ambassador to Canada is actually been around for a year, but this is the first time we've heard from him sat down with Vashe Kapelos at CTV and His message was you know it's time that we kind of moved on, Canada and China, from the problems we've had in the last few years, and there have been problems, significant ones. I'm just wondering what this means, what this says to us, especially on the way things are

going to play out. Because it's been a political issue, there's a relationship with China, whether it was Justin Trudeau in China, other elements of the global government in China, and the conservatives in China. What does these two things perhaps say about the relationship moving forward? Bruce, I want you to start. Yeah, let's start with the Trump-China conversation. I think that it's really fascinating to watch how that's been evolving. Fascinating is the nicest word that I can use to describe the chaos that the White House has been creating in geopolitical circles and trade markets and in economies. And who's to say that by the time this podcast goes to air that he hasn't changed his mind and gone in a different direction. But if we assume that what we're hearing right now about the arrangement reached by the Chinese

and the Americans, which I gather is some 90-day pause. Again, in keeping with his habit, he seems to want to always be able to return to this conversation about tariffs and to kind of wave it around as some sort of threat. But why do I think that this happened? I think part of why it happened is that I think Trump is losing the conversation about whether or not consumers are going to pay more because of these tariffs. I think there are more and more instances every day where consumers are realizing that what Trump is maybe

making as an argument is, yes, this is going to hurt you now, but 10 years from now, the American economy is going to be a lot better. And I think that voters who voted for him, many of them didn't hear that argument. He didn't make that argument. They don't buy into that argument. You know, I've heard a number of commentators say that American consumers' tolerance for pain is really quite low, especially if you compare it to Chinese citizens. And so, I think he's been seeing evidence that his polling numbers are going down, that people are alert, including business people are alert to the risks, the economic risks associated with these tariffs.

And over the Friday through the weekend, we were seeing more and more stories of through the weekend, we were seeing more and more stories of the first ships from China rolling up on America's shores for which the 145% tariffs were going to be applied. We're going to start unloading. Now the big retailers in America, the Walmarts, the Amazons, the Targets, and so on, I think have all at Home Depot have all been telling the White House, we're going to have to put these tariffs on the bill that consumers pay. And we're also going to stop buying these products that cost more than twice as much as we had been paying for them before.

We'll have to try to find another way to fill up our store shelves. And I think that the Trump administration realized that it was headed for some sort of a wreck in public opinion and consumer reaction to this. And so they needed to find a solution first and foremost with China before the question of empty store shelves and dramatically higher prices hit home. So I think that's a very big development because to me it does signal that politics and economics has started to collide with his rhetoric and his fascination with this idea of terrorists. Turning to the China-Canada thing.

Okay, just before you go there, Bruce, let me let Fred in on the first part. Yeah. On the US-China situation. thing. I didn't just before you go there, Bruce, let me let Fred in on the first part on the on the US China situation. No, I think I think Bruce covered it very well. I'll just add that I just don't understand how the Trump administration weren't aware of the impacts that this would have the immediate impacts, given that, you know, he was elected to help raise these people up the people who feel left behind they're going to get walloped by this harder than anyone else potentially a trade war definitely in the short term I don't know what happens ten years from now but it just politically it makes no

sense it made no sense and I don't know how these guys are running their government it's a it's a it's an absolute trainwreck and they're they're no sense. It made no sense. And I don't know how these guys are running their government. It's a, it's a, it's an absolute train wreck and they're, they're wobbly. They keep going up and down. They keep making these different decisions. He keeps adding things, take them off, adding them back on. Like I just, it's going to be continued to be absolute chaos. Okay. Yeah. From one day to the next, is it fentanyl? Is it, you know, they're ripping us off? It's kind of all over the place and, you know, maybe some sort of normalcy would happen at

some point, but who knows. On the China-Canada thing, I think there's always been some clear signals that one of the things that the US doesn't really want to see is that China develops stronger relationships with other countries around the world because of America's aggression towards China. And I don't know if that's part of what the Chinese ambassador was trying to launch as a conversation, a kind of a warming of the relationship with Canada to help America understand that this is something that they intend to pursue, a warming with Canada and

with other countries, perhaps that they've had a tendentious relationship. Whether or not Canadians will kind of be fully open to this, I think is a separate question. I think people will generally prefer to have a solid trade relationship. And we've faced tariffs from China on canola. We've applied tariffs on China on steel and aluminum, if I'm not mistaken, to be in line with the American tariffs on those products from China, because we didn't want to be a country where people from China could ship products through us into the United States tariff-free. But we also have a report that says that China is a significant actor trying to disrupt or affect our politics and is a cyber risk, maybe the principal cyber risk for Canada anywhere in the world. So there's reasons,

obviously, to continue to be hesitant, skeptical, concerned about China's role in Canada and maybe in other parts of the world as well. But it was definitely a different tone from the Chinese ambassador looking to establish a kind of a let's turn the page and focus on the things that we can work on together. And Fred, the conservatives have been very wary about China for more than a little while. Does this calm those fears at all?

Does what calm the fears that? The seeming difference in the approach the Chinese ambassador is making now to Canada, saying we've got to put some of these things behind us, we can move on. Look, I think that's always a good position to take for people, for governments at this level, to try to move on and try to improve relationships.

But there'll always be a concern, as Bruce mentioned the report about foreign interference, certainly concerned a lot of conservatives. I was very vocal on this during the last parliament about how I don't think foreign interference actually impacted any of the writings. I was the campaign manager in the last election, previous stuff would have been impacted by that. But what's interesting, if you look at the seats the Conservatives won in this election, we lost about 10 seats in 2021 that were heavy Chinese

Canadian populations. We won most of those back in this last election. So there definitely seems to be a thawing there in terms of how Chinese Canadians perceive conservatives as well. And again, just to remind everyone and yourselves included, in 21, I believe it was our own messaging that hurt us with Chinese Canadian voters, not forward interference. I think that was a big part of what drove voters away from us.

So that seems to have thawed and the Conservatives are certainly not using the same rhetoric that offended people in those writings in that election. So from the Conservative perspective, I think there is always an openness, but also there's always going to be a concern given the human rights and other things that are happening in China. All right. Okay, final topic is, you know, it will be much clearer to all Canadians in 24 hours time when Mark Carney picks his cabinet. Cabinet making is always, well, there's a kind of an inside baseball feel to it for those who live in the bubble in Ottawa and those political junkies outside of Ottawa. How those decisions are made, you know, there's decisions surrounding regions, gender, experience, the list goes on. But one assumes that Mark Carney has decided what challenges he wants to meet with

his cabinet tomorrow on size, on how the cabinet itself would play out. There's been this talk of inner cabinet, outer cabinet, which we've seen before in past governments, where some ministers have more, kind of more clout really, than the outside the ring ministers. What's the biggest challenge you think faces, well, Carney in this particular case, but any new government in forming a cabinet? Bruce start, or sorry, no, Fred, you start this time. I think the biggest is making sure you have good, solid, competent people that can do the job.

And it's not always easy to determine who can do that job and who is competent. They may have been good outside of politics, but actually figuring out who can hold the job and do it well and lead their file. And that's something Carney, I'm sure, and his team have been looking, pouring over the last few weeks since they won the election. But there is all, there's the regional issues, there's the gender balance,

there's all the different things they're trying to get. And as you alluded, you know, are they gonna have all full ministers or are there gonna be junior ministers in there too? And what role will they have? I would hope that this is not a symbolic government or a cabinet, but one that is really focused on an agenda and that's on productivity and the other things

that Carney's talking about. So putting in solid competent people that can lead their file and actually build a cabinet that isn't a, you know, just spokespeople, which I think a lot of the, maybe the last 10 years, we've seen a lot of that. So ultimately competency, which I think a lot of the maybe the last 10 years, we've seen a lot of that. So ultimately, competency is what I think Carney seemed to be trying to figure out. And that's not easy to figure out at this game. Bruce? Yeah, I think Fred's right about that. I think the thing about Carney that I see is somebody who's very focused not on this idea of winning in politics, but of

creating the outcomes that he promises he's all about. Stronger economy that works for everybody, diversifying our trade relationships, building the strongest economy in the G7. He's pretty consistent in terms of what it is that he's focused on. I think he's moving pretty quickly He's pretty consistent in terms of what it is that he's focused on. I think he's moving pretty quickly to put a cabinet in place. I think that speaks to the level of kind of energy and discipline that he brings to his part of that conversation. Fred's point about people get elected and in many cases, they don't have any experience in the job of an MP and nobody really tells

them what the job of an MP is. So a lot of people just take up a bunch of time trying to figure out is there a boss? Is there a game plan? Is there a job description? What are my responsibilities? What am I accountable for? And then you add a cabinet position and that's even more complicated. You don't know whether or not what you should really do is kind of run with the mandate

that you feel like you have. You don't know whether you should be guided extensively by your deputy minister and the senior officials in your department who will have prepared different transition books. We come back to the transition books but basically there would have been one for a Poliev supermajority, there would have been one for Trudeau, there would have been one for Poliev, there might have been one for Freeland, who knows and you know starting in, somebody might have started the process of producing transition books for a Carney administration. Why is that important? Because all of those senior officials in Ottawa had been working a little bit without a roadmap for a number of months, even as

significant issues became more challenging for the country. So they'll be looking for direction from Carney and through him, from him through his cabinet. And my last point is I hope that the way that Prime Minister Carney approaches cabinet making is a lot about I want people that I can have a conversation with that I can hold accountable that I can hear their ideas and we can kind of exchange as we go through it rather than a really command and control kind of a situation. You know, the notion that chiefs of staff to ministers would report to the PMO, I never thought that was a good idea. I think ministers should develop some real kind of sense of independent voice and strength to feed into the role of the prime minister and to help shape a cabinet conversation.

And that would maybe take a little bit of time with some of the new people, but it'd be worth doing. Can I just ask a question about experience? Because the last thing one assumes that the liberals want is to be told, oh, it's the same old crowd. You know, you put all those Trudeau ministers in back again, and more than half the cabinet is reflective of the last one, the last era, versus putting new people in who clearly have, you know, who have a resume

that looks pretty impressive, but they don't have the political experience. And that can be challenging, especially if you're in a senior role. So how do you find the right mix of that? Looking new and yet not looking inexperienced. Fred. Well, I don't think he cares if he looks new or not.

Like politically speaking, you would, you know, you want to differentiate yourself from Trudeau, but I don't think he cares. As Bruce said, I think it's about outcome focused and who can be the very best. And that could be one of the drawbacks where you don't want some of the Trudeau people because maybe they, you know,

these people have been running an agenda for 10 years that may be quite contrary to what Carney wants to do. And it's hard to retool some of these people and to get them thinking differently and pushing issues differently. So I don't think that's a big, you know, a big factor in this experience. You know, if you look when Trudeau formed government,

none of his cabinet were experienced. When Harper formed government, I think there was one or two people from the Maroon era, none of them were experienced. So you can come in with a brand new government. I don't think that is a problem here. Not that I think that's gonna happen. There are some effective, strong cabinet ministers

from the Trudeau era that I would imagine would remain in some capacity, not sure if they'd be in the same role or not, but there are good people there. But I don't think experience, I think it's about just getting things done. Okay, Bruce, you get the last word. Yeah, Frank's point about how much to worry about whether or not the average citizen looks

at the cabinet and says, I see, you know, X number of faces that were in the last cabinet, so I'm disappointed. I don't think that happens. I think that happens in this town. I'll try to raise it, right? I'll push it. It's a same Trudeau government. There's not a thing with voters and I don't think that the Prime Minister should spend

any time really preoccupying himself with that. I think he should pick the best people. He should empower them. He should give them direction and then he should let them get on with their jobs and have a regular kind of feedback loop. I think that's the way cabinet works when it works at its best and I think he should let them get on with their jobs and have a regular kind of feedback loop. I think that's the way cabinet works when it works at its best. And I think he should put people in his office that carry that attitude forward. I think there is a feeling that it's time for a change in the way in which the chemistry

within government works. And I think that's something that will make government work better if there is one. Okay. Well, time will tell whether that's the case. And it starts with the selections that are made tomorrow and hearing what people have to say, those people have to say about how they're gonna carry through on their portfolios. Okay, gentlemen, thanks for this. We'll talk again in a week. Thank you guys.

Thank you. Thank you. And welcome back Peter Mansbridge here for your, your Monday episode of the bridge. And for those of you who might have missed the very beginning of the program today, just to catch up, we have not shelved Janis Stein. She's in fact on this incredible, another one of her global jaunts, travel around the world. And we decided that tomorrow is a better day to air our

discussion with Janice based on her travels. And so to let you know, she was in London, first of all, at a major conference that we'll talk about. And then she traveled to Abu Dhabi in the United Arab Emirates. And from there she will go to Riyadh in Saudi Arabia. So she's doing a trip here. Tomorrow she'll be in Riyadh. And she'll in fact be in Riyadh for a couple of days. And we'll talk about the impact of that. But it's the London Conference,

which is really quite remarkable when you hear her stories about what happened at that conference and how it fits into our story on a number of levels. Our story in terms of international security, our story in terms of defense and defense spending, and our story about the differences between more than a few of our countries that are our allies and the United States. And it was very clear at this

conference what those differences are. So we'll talk about that with Dr. Stein from the Monk School at the University of Toronto tomorrow as we flip the days a bit. That's why you heard Smoke, Mirrors and the Truth today. It worked for them as well because it gives them the opportunity to talk about the cabinet shuffle tomorrow, which we won't be able to talk about tomorrow because it happens after we're program normally airs. So that's just to let you know. That's why we've shuffled the deck a little bit this week and starting with Smoke and Mirrors and the Truth on a Monday and Dr. Janice Stein on Tuesday. That's probably for this week only, right? We're back to our normal schedule after

this week. Okay. The other point of housekeeping that we always deal with on Mondays we can now deal with, which is giving you the question of the week, which will be for Thursdays your turn. Of late, we have had a tremendous number of letters come in. You saw last week, we didn't even get, we didn't get anywhere near half of them on. And we still probably had 40 or 50 letters that we did make it onto the program. So we really appreciate the time you spend in thinking about what you'd like to say. And the number of you who are writing for the first time, that's great. We love to see that. We love our regulars, who we hear from almost every week.

But we like first-time letter writers as well, and so we get them on as often as we can. So what about this week? Well, first of all, the conditions. These are really important and sometimes you get carried away thinking about the question and you don't listen to the conditions. Here are the conditions. You write your offering to themansbridgepodcast.gmail.com. Keep your entry to 75 words or less. Ever since we instituted this, it's worked extremely well. I think for both of us. It certainly works for us, but I think it works for you as well. It focuses your mind and sometimes it focuses your mind down to one word. But we like anything up to 75 words, after that too much. The deadline for entry, we're going to change it a little bit this week. I'm going to change it a little bit this week. I'm going to change it to 12 noon on Wednesday, Eastern time.

Most of the letters come in on Monday or Tuesday, I got to say. We have some stragglers to try to get into the last minute. So the last minute this week is 12 p.m. Eastern time on Wednesday. Okay, that's the new deadline on time. It makes, well, it makes life easier for us. Maybe not so easy for you, but it does make it easier for us. And we appreciate you on that.

Okay, the question. So those are all the conditions. Oh, name and location, very important. I know you all remember this until such time as you push send and some of you forget one or the other, the full name or the location you're writing from. And people say, well, why is that so important? Well, it's important. It's important to us. We like to know who we're dealing with, and we like to know where they're writing from, because it gives us that kind of reflection of the country. Okay, the question this week is, because we're trying to get off politics a little bit,

and this is a different kind of politics. This is the politics of your community, your school, your teachers. It can be a reflection of all those things. Here's the question in its simplest form. What Canadian history lesson should every Canadian kid know before leaving high school? Okay, one of the reasons why we've come up with this, and when I say we, it's, you know, my good friend and co-author, Mark Bulgich, helps me with this portion of the week, the letters and helping decide what gets on and what doesn't, but also helps and is instrumental in helping with the questions. We like this one because there's so many times, and I've told this story before, when Mark and I were over doing some of these great anniversary shows, whether

it's D-Day or VE Day or D-App or whatever it may be, Vimy Ridge. The number of times we've done a special show and then we end up getting letters, usually from young people, and more so 20, 30 years ago than now, I got to say, which is good. It means there's been an improvement on this front, but we used to get letters from young people saying, I watched your show on D-Day and I had no idea that Canada was so involved in D-Day. You know, I'd seen Saving Private Ryan or what have you, some big movie, some big American movie. And I had no idea the Canadians were involved then.

Well, I think everybody knows that now. And we can thank, you know know a number of broadcasters and news organizations and I think especially the CBC for committing to telling that story and the others that we've told as well. But the fact of the matter is there's still a sense that we don't know our own history well enough. So the question of the week, this week, pulls on that thread. So I'll repeat it again.

What Canadian history lesson should every Canadian kid know before leaving high school? We have a rich history. Most of you know that. And many of you have probably run into the same kind of issue that we're talking about here. When you're talking to a young person, they had no idea that such and such had happened or such and such was a part of Canadian history. So I want your answer to that question. What Canadian history lesson should every Canadian kid know before leaving high school? And I'm looking for one lesson. I don't want those letters that start off by saying, you know, it's a great question,

but there's so many possible answers. I could say this and this and this. I don't want that. I just want one. I want one lesson. And think about it for a while. You know, it doesn't have to be obvious, but it has to tell us something about the country. It could have come from hundreds of years ago, or it could have come from 10 years ago.

But something about our country's history that young people should know before they leave high school. Okay? There's your question of the week. Wednesday, 12 p.m. Eastern time, 12 noon, Eastern time is the deadline for getting your answers in. So think about it. Don't be in a rush. You got a couple of days here. Think about what is that question or what is the answer to that question. That's likely to separate you from a lot of others who may come up with,

well, nothing's obvious here. I mean, you come up with your answer, send it in, look forward to seeing it and hearing it. it and hearing it. Okay, a snapshot for the rest of the week. Tomorrow, as I said, we flip things around in new order. Dr. Janice Stein from the Monk School of the University of Toronto will join us from Abu Dhabi in the United Arab Emirates to discuss her week this week, which has been fascinating. As you know, she gets invited to conferences all around the world, all the time. She meets people, she listens, she talks, she gives her opinion on stuff, and she challenges others. So she's going to talk tomorrow about, she'll talk about Abu Dhabi, but mainly what she discusses is the conference she went to in London.

And I think you'll be fascinated to hear her stories from that. That's tomorrow right here on the bridge. Wednesday is our encore edition. Thursday, it's your turn with your answers to that. Plus, you know who the random renter will be by. And then Friday, it's good talk with Chantelle Bair and Rob Russo. So our lineup changing a little bit

as a result of the first couple of days, but still all your favorites are all there this week. Thanks for listening today. I'm Peter Mansbridge. Hope you enjoyed it. We'll talk again in less than 24 hours.