The Bridge with Peter Mansbridge - SMT: Handguns -- Why and Why Now?

Episode Date: June 1, 2022

The Trudeau government moves on handguns as part of its latest firearms policy.  How are others not only in Canada but outside the country reacting?  Bruce is here with the latest episode of Smoke Mirrors and The Truth.

And hello there, Peter Mansbridge here. You are just moments away from the latest episode of The Bridge. It's Wednesday. Smoke Mirrors the Truth with Bruce Anderson is next. All right then, welcome to Wednesday. Welcome to June 1st. Wow. I still, I know I've said this a couple of times in the last week, but I can't believe we're already in June. I can't believe that it was like two years ago when we were in June of 2020, we were just saying, wow, finally we've got to the summer and this COVID stuff is kind of behind us. After a couple of months, we can look forward to a summer where things are going to be easy. That was two years ago. And it's still out there, right?

COVID's still there. But it's a lot easier today than it was a couple of years ago, thanks to vaccines, thanks to health care professionals, thanks to a lot of people who spent a lot of time working on this issue. And I know it's controversial, and I know some people are still deeply upset about the way it's being handled, but it's still there. And as we talked about earlier this week, monkeypox is there. You know, it's kind of sitting there. It's nothing like COVID. But it's an issue. It's an issue for some people, and it's clearly an issue that's got some health care professionals concerned about the actions of governments and others on making sure that we don't end up with a bigger problem than it seems like we already have with monkeypox. Anyway, we're not here to talk about monkeypox. We're not here

to talk about COVID. We are here with Bruce, who's in Ottawa today. We are here initially to talk about guns. Now, I don't think it was a shock that the government of Justin Trudeau brought in new gun legislation this week because he basically promised it in the last election, the last two election campaigns. And he has done some things already on assault weapons. But this was a bit of a surprise, a bit of a shocker to some people that he came in targeting, and I use that term carefully, handguns with this week's legislation. And it's left many people asking the question, why? Why handguns? Why now? I mean, we know about Texas. We know about Buffalo.

Neither of those were handguns, by the way. But we know about what that has meant to the psyche of a lot of people, including many Canadians. So the Trudeau government comes in with a ban on the sale, the purchase, the trade, the whatever of handguns. So, Bruce, why? Why now? Peter, I think you're right to characterize it. The government, the liberals campaigned on promises to make a number of changes in Canada's gun laws. And what they added to the changes that were expected was this, what they're calling a cap on the market for handguns. And essentially what they're doing is saying, if you already own a handgun and you want to keep it and you want to use it

for sport or recreation, that's fine. But what they're saying is that they don't want to let that market grow in the future. And I find it, you know, personally, I tend to support that kind of measure, but I understand that some people will feel quite strongly in the opposite direction. And so I've been sort of preparing myself for the conversation by doing a little bit of research to understand where we stand, how many people are affected by this, and what might be motivating the government to take this step. So on the motivation side, one of the things that I saw is that between 2010 and 2020, so over a 10-year period, the population of the country grew by about 10%.

During the same period, the number of guns in Canada grew by 71%. So there's definitely a disconnect there. Now, not all of those are handguns. A lot of them are long firearms. And we've always in this country had a pretty good understanding that if you live in a rural setting, having a long gun makes a lot of sense for you you might need to to use it to protect your farm from pests you might need to use it for hunting so there are legitimate reasons for that and i it's also a good thing that the government has made very clear rules on the kind of long firearms you're allowed to have. You're not allowed to have firearms that have the capacity for more than a certain number of shells. So you literally can't have these weapons that we read about and see that have huge magazines capable of firing hundreds of rounds. So we've

got good protections, I think, on long guns, and we've got effectively a ban on what are called assault weapons. And I think the new bill addressed some more measures in that space as well. But you're right that the handgun measure has really caught the attention of people who weren't expecting to see it in this bill. And so now there's a debate, and it's a good, rational, practical debate for us to have as a democracy. And some people will say, on the balance, I think that the government trying to manage the gun market this way is too intrusive that government should back off that people already have to register these guns that they use them by and large in responsible ways and others will feel i just don't believe that that we should let there be more guns because guns ultimately

lead to higher incidence of gun violence and i did look at at some of that uh as well and in you know the evidence for me is that about 60 percent of violent crimes or violent crimes that involve guns and you know a very significant number of domestic assault issues involve guns. And so, you know, from my standpoint, I do look at that and I say on the balance, and I'm not a gun owner, so I don't feel that interest in, but so people can look at it from their own standpoint and say, I think on balance, I'd rather have fewer guns in society rather than more. And I think, you know, Mr. Trudeau put that on the table and people are free to debate it and other parties are free to to take a different position. And maybe voters will get to look at it in the context of an election and decide which party's position they want. But so far, I don't think that we've seen anybody, any party or leader of a party, say that they're against that, only criticizing the government in other respects. I'll just declare my own personal background with guns.

I had two guns that I purchased when I was living in churchill manitoba um and that's you know a long time ago back in the late 1960s long guns and i um kept them right through until i guess it would have been about probably 15 years ago and i was very careful I kept them in the country I kept them um basically under lock and key although I didn't have one of those proper like storage things but I started to freak out about the thought of uh our son Will at that point who was like seven six or seven years old somehow getting his hands on these. I used to, like, wake up in the middle of the night, you know, thinking, oh, my God, I've got to do something about those guns.

And I ended up getting rid of them, destroying them. And so as of now, I have no guns. Although I have good friends who are big believers in their right to have a gun and to properly look after it. But it's funny because I talked to one of them in Western Canada yesterday about this. Because this fellow is no fan of Justin Trudeau's. No fan of the Liberal government as such. And I thought, oh, that's going to be very interesting to see how

he feels about this. And so I sent him a note to kind of try and bait an answer out of him. And, you know, he replied immediately, no one needs a handgun. No one needs a handgun.

No one needs a handgun, was his reply. Assault-style guns and handguns have no place in society. Now, I was surprised that, A, he was so immediate with his answer, and so basically positive about what he'd seen. If anything, he said it took him long enough. He had seven years to do this, but he's done it now, seven years being since he was first elected in 2015 as prime minister. It's not going to change his mind about the rifles he has and the uses for whether it's hunting or, as you said,

being able to ensure there are no pests on their land that would harm the reason they have land. Anyway, it surprised me, and I've been kind of looking for a reaction. The Conservatives, who are, you know, clearly there are a lot of people in the Conservative Party as members who believe in the right to have guns and are careful about the way they have guns. They're being very careful about how they're reacting to this. Not so in the States. I mean, you know, we complain about Canada never gets any coverage in the States. Wow. They're going to town on this one.

I mean, I read the article in Newsweek. I mean, there are articles in every major publication in the U.S. But in Newsweek, they cover all the different things that various conservative politicians, Republican politicians have been saying about this. And some of them are, you know. Can I read a couple of things? I'll read you my favorite, first of all.

Yes. Well, you go ahead first, and if you don't read it all. So Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, that probably many of our listeners will have heard of or know of and probably regret how much they know about what she thinks. She's quite a destabilizing voice, I think, in politics in the United States. And in the things that she says about Canadaada yesterday are really quite um stunning on some level so you know she she really went after uh trudeau and um she talked about how he foolishly completely ignores how taking guns away from his people make his country weak and vulnerable to being invaded and easily taken over by another stronger country like perhaps russia who is very angry at america right now she says she goes on to say canada has an

incredibly weak military and now with trudeau's gun grab his people are left defenseless not only by a criminal attacker but also defenseless against another country's military invasion this is a terrible violation of rights to innocent canadians by their government let's just set aside like who wrote that that is such poor use of the language that it's shocking that there aren't scores of staffers around this woman saying no no no don't hit send on that that's not it's not grammatical it doesn't really make sense and she goes on to say a heavily armed population backing up a strong military force is a mighty deterrent to any foreign would-be invader democrats know this too they demanded ukraine's people be armed with the same guns that caused them to shriek in outrage and they're rushing to ban here does trudeau expect america to defend them of course and so do the rest of

western allied nations the u.s taxpayers pay for the defense of many countries that do not deserve our military support for free or at all and anyway she goes on to say why don't canada send us all the guns they don't want and we'll send them all the democrats that we don't want and then everybody will be happy it's complete it's madness basically it's a it's a vignette of the madness that has gripped american politics for so many years now it seems but this is certainly waking it up again. And then she responded this morning because she noticed that a lot of Canadians took issue with some of what she said.

And there's no backing down by her, though. She's a piece of work. You know, it doesn't surprise me that there weren't people in her office who were saying you know maybe maybe this is too much those are the same people who probably wrote those lines for you know there there is a a cadre of people yeah on that side who are you know they're way out there uh on the right handhand side of this issue. Chris Palombi.

They have to be. They have to be illiterate, though, honestly. Like, put a little effort into it. If you're going to make a crazy point, make it in proper English, at least. Well, Chris Palombi goes for proper English. He's a Republican candidate for Maryland's 5th District. He tweeted this. Oh, Canada, Trudeau is turning our neighbors to the north into a totalitarian dictatorship.

That's a big word. He also uses marmalade on occasion as a big word. A totalitarian dictatorship. Just wait until the slippery slope continues and they begin seizing guns. Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it. He added. Now, there's all kinds of them. If you go to this week's Newsweek, there's a lot of things.

However, you know, the striking part is, well, striking may be too strong a word, but the interesting part is that while those on the right in the states, the Republicans, are jumping all over this and saying what Trudeau's doing is what Biden wants to do. And if Trudeau gets away with it biden will do it what i find interesting is that the conservatives in canada are being the they aren't being so black and white on this issue in terms of uh the path ahead yeah they're being very careful so So why is that? Is it because they're in a leadership race? Is it because they're really, you know, there's some, sympathy is probably not the right word, but some support for some forms of gun control by their party, and they're trying to figure out where they should be on this.

What do you think the reasoning is here? Well, I think the Conservatives, it wasn't very many years ago, Peter, I know that you probably covered it extensively, but remember the kind of really difficult battle over the idea of a long gun registry in Canada? I think it happened during Jean Chrétien's time as a prime minister. And, and one of the most interesting things about it was how big a divide it caused within the liberal caucus at the time.

There were a lot of liberals who just said, this is not what we should be doing. It's going to end the chances of liberals winning seats in rural Canada for a long time to come. That emotions run really high. Conservatives were extraordinarily kind of amped up on that issue. And I can't, as I was watching the reaction in Canada to the announcement by the Prime Minister and minister mandacino this week i couldn't help but notice that there is there doesn't seem to be that lack that that level of uh dissonance within the liberal party ranks or even frankly within the country so far i mean remains to be

seen whether um there is the development of some kind of backlash in public opinion but i've been watching public opinion a long time as you you know, and I'd be surprised. And part of why I'd be surprised is that we as Canadians, you know, may see our country as being comparatively safe, comparatively regulated in terms of how guns are used, but we've been watching a society south of the border that is over and over and over again you talk about history repeating itself seeing these awful tragedies of people getting these weapons and going into schools or other

public places and mowing people down and at the same time as we're seeing that we're seeing that their political system is unwilling or unable to form a consensus to do more to stop that level of violence so we can see our country and say it's not that but because we see those things happen we also i think generally have become more oriented towards fewer guns tighter regulation is probably a better thing to do even if it puts some encroachment it puts some limits on the rights that people who like to have guns feel and of course we don't have what the americans have the second amendment in their constitution you know usually shorthanded as the right to bear arms and i've read a lot of people in the u.s to kind of study the constitution who say you know the idea of uh of kids 18 year old being able to own ar-15 assault rifles that

wasn't really what the founders the writers of the Constitution had in mind. They were designing a constitution for a mostly rural agrarian society that was worried about maybe invasion from the former colonialists. So I think America has got itself drunk on this Second Amendment idea. It's a way for people who don't like government to say, government is going to come after you, it's going to take away your rights, and the right to bear arms is the right to defend yourself against that kind of encroachment, and it's built into the American way of life. We don't really have any of that. And so when I look at, to really have any of that and so when i look at to your point to your question when i look at what the conservatives are doing right now

i saw pierre poliev um tweeted on the 30th so two days ago the liberal trudeau slash charrette record on guns is a total failure their useless registries and soft sentences for gun criminals make the problem worse. Respect law abiding gun owners, put dangerous criminals behind bars and stop gun smugglers at the border. Now, what he didn't put in there and what he hasn't tweeted since is that I would repeal this measure of capping the handgun market. And I think he hasn't done that because I think he knows that it will probably be the case that more people, including maybe more conservatives, will say, I don't see a problem with that measure. And so does he really want to put himself in that position? Or is he better to just sort of from his own political management standpoint?

And I guess there's maybe today or this week, the last week for the sale of memberships and, you know, the building of support in his leadership campaign. It looks like he's uncharacteristically unwilling to take a really hard line. So he's just using this kind of vague, you know, Trudeau and Charest, they always believe in these registries. They don't work. I don't think Canadians believe that they don't work, by the way. I think that Canadians think that they probably helped save some lives. And we haven't heard from others as far as I know yet, but probably there's room within the next two or three days that we'll hear something. Every once in a while you see in these leadership campaigns, there are obvious questions that either aren't being asked or when they are

aren't being answered. And that's, that's clearly one of them right now on, on guns. Okay. You don't like what Trudeau is doing. Would you, would you repeal it if, if they pass it and you're prime minister, would you get rid of that? It's a pretty straightforward, simple question should have a pretty straightforward simple question should have a pretty straightforward simple answer um now polyev and some of the others have have had simple questions thrown at them over these past weeks and and months and they keep changing their mind on what their answer is uh but it'll be interesting to see because it's bound to come on at some point what would you do what would you do with this if it's the law

um and and that's more of a challenge to answer than the answers that he's been giving so far and the other candidates as well it's the same as the questions to Charest, which I'm not sure, I don't think, or at least I haven't seen that he's answered yet, which is, if Polyev wins, will you still run for the Conservatives? And the same question to Polyev, if Charest wins, will you still run? That's a legitimate question, and it's one those who believe in the party um should want to hear the answer to so yeah i can't i mean i i think it's an interesting

question but i having watched the conversation that they're having in the public square about each other i've long ago concluded that there's no way that either of them could serve in under each other's leadership i mean the most recent versions i was just looking at what jean charé was saying um they're you know we've both seen a lot of races where candidates say crusty things about each other testy things about each other, testy things about each other, but I don't remember seeing anything like this. It's really, you know, it's very, very tendentious. He talks about how there's no, Canadians have a right to know whether Mr. Polyev is going to attack our other institutions. Will he attack the Canada P pension plan the parliamentary budget officer the ethics commissioner the director of election

elections canada what won't he do for his own power um there's no attack another one there's no attack no insult no line that polyev won't cross in his pursuit of power all he's ever been to our party is an opposition attack dog a good one no doubt but we need a serious leader one with experience and credibility um so i don't you know i don't think that he he would want to serve in that kind of role i'd be very surprised if he did i can understand why he's not anxious to tell conservatives that uh if he doesn't win he won't stay but i think people are reasonably able to kind of look at what he's saying and saying what what would be the the point i mean charret obviously or polyev obviously doesn't have a high regard for for charret either

and um spears no opportunity to to run him down all right let's uh let's leave it at that we're going to take quick break here when we come back we're going to explore a little bit more on this airport chaos story and we'll use bruce's personal example to to do it that's right after this And welcome back. You're listening to Smoke Mirrors the Truth with Bruce Anderson. Bruce is in Ottawa. I'm Peter Mansbridge. I'm in Stratford, Ontario. You're listening on Sirius XM, Channel 167, Canada Talks, or on your favorite podcast platform, and of course, wherever you're listening from.

We're glad you're with us. Okay, I've spent, I don't know, the last few days talking about this issue of travel and the problems that exist especially on the airline side of things in airports literally around the world but certain airports in Canada as well and it's chaotic and people are really upset about it and you know I've had some criticism from some listeners who say we're being elitist because we get to travel by air and most people don't well you know you know, tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, do travel by air. And they've been cooped up for the last couple of years,

and they were banking on some real holidays. And I've been hearing about it because they write all the time. And they want to know what's happening. How long is this going to go on they understood that it could be a problem for the first you know week or two after it seemed to settle down on the covet front but there's all kinds of issues now about staffing and airline schedules and air crew schedules and you know security lines you name it that's a lot it's it's a mess um now bruce has just traveled back from europe uh literally in the last i don't know 48 hours or so what what was that experience like

well you know to start with peter we went to scotland um my and I, I think six weeks ago. And we'd been planning to go away for a long time and get a good break. And we didn't want to travel around very much. We wanted to go one place and stay in that place and be able to kind of work from there remotely, that sort of thing and but we landed in the uk on the day that masks were declared kind of optional uh in terms of public settings and so the first thing that i noticed was that the first day that we would go into shops or public places in in sc even though the masks were optional, it was still about 50% of the people in those situations who were wearing masks. The second day, it felt like it was about 25%. And by the fourth or fifth day, it was down to about 10%. And by the time we left,

um, it was maybe like one in every 20 people or 40 people that you would see wearing masks and that was in kind of more remote and rural areas of scotland and as we were preparing to come home we knew that we were going to spend a couple of days in london and in london um there were very very very few people wearing masks and so so we ended up kind of going to an art gallery, going to a museum, being in restaurants, kind of enjoying the spring air and sunshine in public places in London. And there were lots and lots of people, as you know, it's the Queen's kind of jubilee celebration.

And so there's a lot of tourism into London. We flew on EasyJet and went through Luton Airport. And in every case, what we saw there was people who were respectful, I think, of others who wanted to wear masks, but most people choosing not to um and there wasn't really an active debate about whether this was a source of friction in society or whether there were a lot of people who were making this choice not to mask mask um and were putting other people at risk it almost seemed as though people kind of were comfortable with the idea that you can choose to wear a mask or not wear a mask and nobody's going to kind of finger point or blame or have tension in their relationships with other people. And I was surprised at that because I felt like what we'd seen over the last couple of years was people preparing to be, you know, unhappy with each other based on whatever choices the other person was making you know that the that the people without masks would be kind of annoyed at people who are still

wearing masks and the people who are wearing masks annoyed at the people who weren't because they thought well you're putting other people in jeopardy i didn't sense any of that kind of friction and um i'm not speaking about this from the standpoint of what's the medical science tell us about the level of risk. I'm talking about the political science of what I observed about public opinion in Canada over the last couple of years, and indeed a little bit around the world, and what was happening as people were starting to de-mask in another country with a set of values not dissimilar to to ours and then on the last day the day that we left the uk we went to heathrow crowded airport as as ever hardly anybody wearing masks and that felt like the normal experience in the uk and then all of a sudden when we get to

the air canada lineup it felt like we were entering a different world um the requirement to wear masks is still on for uh canadian flights and in canadian airports and so that then started a kind of a 12-hour journey including four hours in the Halifax airport where everybody was required to on these long haul flights and in these rather large airports. Because you hadn't been doing it before. There's no testing requirement at the other end. There's some random testing. We didn't kind of run into it. There's no testing requirement at the other end. There's some random testing. We didn't kind of run into it. There's no quarantine requirement anymore.

And so I wonder where we're headed with mask rules. It seems to me that the more people that experience travel to places where mask rules have been relaxed and made optional, that that's going to feel like the more normal thing for Canadians. And they're going to put a little bit more pressure on governments to move in that direction. And what I'm curious about, and I wonder what you think about this, is will that debate become as testy as the debate about vaccination has been? Or are we as a society getting to that point where people are going to be able to say well look i if you're not wearing a mask i'm going to judge you to be against science probably an anti-vaxxer or are we going to do what i observed in the uk which is people saying

you're choosing not to wear a mask that's fine i don I don't see you putting me at risk. I don't think of you as a bad person because you're putting other people at risk. I just feel like this is the normal evolution from pandemic to endemic. And if it turns out that we're doing the wrong thing, then we'll have to go back to some of those measures. From a social observation standpoint alone, I'm fascinated by how we moved through at least or what i saw there how we moved through a a debate that could have been quite a tendentious to something that didn't seem like it was that at all and i wonder whether that's going to happen here um you know i i think it's going to be well first of all it's going to last longer it I think it's going to be, well, first of all, it's going to last longer. It sounds like they're going to extend the airport rules and the airline rules until the end of June.

So basically another month on the masking policy and various other things, the Arrive Can app and stuff like that. My own feeling is that, you know, we've kind of come to grips with this now. You know, the bit of time that I spent overseas, the mix of those who wear masks and those who don't wear masks, you know, existed and seemed to exist without issues, without problems. And there weren't people sort of attacking each other for either wearing or not wearing a mask. And I see the same thing here, even around my, you know, little hometown of Stratford.

You know, you go shopping downtown or just walking around and some people are wearing masks and some people are not wearing masks. There's, you know, some stores have signs, we prefer you wear a mask in the store and people seem to go along with that. That's fine. But out on the street, there's some in masks and some, and I think, you know, we're, we are heading to that future for the next unseeable amount of time. It's going to be a lot longer than a month of June.

Some people are going to wear masks for quite a while. Yeah, yeah. And I think they've kind of, I think both sides in the debate have basically accepted that. Sure, there are are there some extremes there are but i i haven't seen them evident in my life like i i haven't seen arguments breaking out or people treating each other poorly for either wearing or not wearing a mask and you did see that you know a year ago yeah yeah tensions were running high right but but now it's sort of you know this is the way we live in 2022 and could well be the way we live for the foreseeable future

there is this question about vaccine mandates that sits alongside this right which you know some are saying, maybe the government should eliminate the vaccine mandate, the requirement that to travel, you should have two doses of a vaccine. There are some who say, maybe you need to raise that threshold to three doses. And I find that an interesting debate as well. And I'm always trying to be careful not to encroach on the science of health and vaccines and all of that. I'm only looking at it from a social science standpoint. there's a really powerful medical science reason for continuing with those mandates or raising the

standard to three doses the question of what it does to our social cohesion is is one that i think needs to be considered because you know in our surveys 90 of adults say that they've had at least one dose um so those people aren't anti-vax and that's a huge accomplishment in terms of the country and most of those people took those doses not because they were forced to but because they thought it was the right thing to do either from a science standpoint or from a respect for others health standpoint or both in most cases both but it begs the question are the other 10 percent have they just been too busy or are they and can you ever get them to take the vaccination and if you if you ask me I think they're probably not going to get vaccinated and so the question of what should you do about that to me is do you try more things that

are coercive in nature or do you just continue to try to encourage people and you try to remove the the degree of tension in society around this and people who've heard me opine on vaccines probably wonder if i've gotten some sort of weird anti-vax idea in my head and i don't have that at all but i do think that social cohesion is is important to our democracy and so that the people in charge need to look not just at the, at the science, the science is the most important question, but then they also need to kind of factor into should we take a step that we think might create more tension in society, or should we be looking to say we've reached a threshold of safety where we

can relax some of these measures which we only took because they were needed to get us to this level of safety and now we're there and so maybe we need to allow some air out of the pressure that's been kind of built up around the issue of vaccination and masks if it's safe to do that under, if it's safe to do that. Underline if it's safe to do that. Well, let's not kid ourselves. We're heading into a summer which we hope is going to be one of traditional summer values for most Canadians. And they've got to do the things that they've done throughout their lives. We're hoping for that.

But let's not kid ourselves. By the time the fall rolls around, the various reasons will combine to suggest we're probably going to need another vaccine, another booster. And one of the things that was interesting, Isaac Bogoch was on the show on Monday and he said the drug companies

are working on a kind of a cocktail thing that would be the combination of your annual flu shot plus a booster. So one shot all in, all done. Let's hope that happens. Because

that would be a much easier way of going about things uh for especially because this has become so politicized right the doctors didn't really politicize it um but it has become political and if we can take the politics out of that i guess that's kind of where I'm coming from. I think that the vast majority of people want to do the right thing for their own health, their kids' health, their parents' health, their neighbors' health. And the fact that 90% have put at least one dose into their bodies means that people are open to the idea that this is a helpful thing. And so I think we're actually well situated as a country and for what may come and if if things get worse i think we'll we'll find that people

respond to the requirement to do more um but i also feel like it's been a source of a lot of tension uh in the country for the last two years as people were stressed by the measures and the pandemic and a period of time where there's less of that stress is probably something that the country would benefit from. Okay. We're going to call it a day. Wrap it up for this episode of Smoke, Mirrors, and the Truth right here on The Bridge.

Bruce is in Ottawa. And we'll be back on Friday with Chantal Hebert for Good Talk. And we look forward to that. Tomorrow is your turn, your opportunity to weigh in on any one of these issues. The Mansbridge Podcast at gmail.com is the place

to write. The Mansbridge Podcast at gmail.com. Look forward to hearing what you may have to say on any of these issues. Don't forget where you're writing from and your full name. Look forward to that.

All right. That's it for this day. Bruce, thanks very much. That's where you answer. You bet, Peter. That's where you answer. Thanks, Dr. Egan. You say.

You bet. Good to talk to you. Thanks very much, Bruce. It's great to be back home, Peter. That's where you answer. You say, you bet. Good to talk to you. Thanks very much, Bruce. It's great to be back home, Peter, and lovely to see you and hear your voice again. Okay, take care. That's it for this day on The Bridge. I'm Peter Mansbridge. Thanks for listening. We'll talk

to you again in 24 hours. Субтитры подогнал «Симон»!