The Bridge with Peter Mansbridge - SMT -- IS DONALD TRUMP THE ONLY FOCUS FOR CANADA RIGHT NOW?

Episode Date: March 4, 2025

Canada is in a series of high stakes political races, for party leadership, for an upcoming national election.  But is there any focus more important than Donald Trump and the damage he could cause from tariffs and annexation talk?

Smoke, mirrors, and the truth. Bruce Anderson, Fred Delory, they're both in the house, and we're going to get going right after this. Okay, SMT for this Tuesday, and this Tuesday is the beginning of a real trade war. This is going to hurt. People are going to lose jobs. People could lose homes. This is going to be ugly. And so here's the question, the opening question for today, because this is all happening at a time when the country is in a number of really important political races,

whether it's for the leadership of the Liberal Party, eventually the Prime Minister's office, or whether it's for a national election, which could be coming at any time in the next few weeks. So the question is, because we're now in a trade war, should the target be Donald Trump and not each other? Bruce, why don't you start us? Well, you know, I think the conversation should be about Canadians

and the Trump tariffs for sure. I think the, I don't think in the 40 years or so that I've been polling that I've ever seen Canadians be as preoccupied with an economic challenge as they are now, and that includes some pretty serious recessions that have happened and a variety of different economic events that cause people a lot of concern. But this is this is different. This is massively different. level of worry is even greater than the level of insult and anger at the way in which the U.S. president has been talking about Canada. I mean, we went through a period of time where feeling insulted and angry and surprised and shocked and dismayed at the language that was being used about our country was a prominent feeling. But I think right now it's worry.

I think people don't know what the impact is going to be. They don't know how far it's going to go, how long it's going to last, what we can do about it or not. And I definitely think, Peter, to your question, people want politicians to focus on their needs, on the big picture, on the big issues, not the small small issues not the partisan sniping not the question of whether stephen harper liked mark carney once doesn't like him now whatever that whole thing is that the conservatives were trying to do yesterday that's small ball that's missing

the point for canadians and hopefully the uh the conservative leader will kind of come back to the center of the conversation today. I saw a tweet that he posted. He wasn't doing it yet. He's still going. I told the government a month ago to fix this. So anything could have been fixed in the last month. He should just join the conversation about what are we going to do about it

as a country? How much can we maybe try to work together? Can we at least talk about it as though we're all on the same page rather than we're trying to litigate an election that hasn't been called yet and for which voters are going to get to have a choice and have a say and that time is coming. But anyway, that's what's frustrating to me to watch is I think this is a moment to put down partisanship and work together as much as people could.

What do you make of that, Fred? I'm not sure how that works. How do you work together when you have very different ideals and paths forward? I think that's one of the stumbling blocks here in any sort of approach. The government and the official opposition are going into an election within likely weeks, and they have to put their plans down. They can't say we have the same plan. There's got to be a contrast between the two.

It's going to be interesting, the ballot question. It is Trump-focused, but is it Trump himself? Or how are we tackling the issue of tariffs? Or how are we opening up our country to new markets? I think that's going to be the big focus, is how does Canada get products to market? Because our market, our biggest trading partner, is basically closing the door in many regards.

So I know Trump is the cause of this, but what is the solution? It's more markets. And I think whatever campaign can say, trust us that we can open up more markets and expand, we'll be successful. And to do that in a campaign, you have to contrast. You have to say, we're going to do this.

The other side can't do it as well. So there is no way swords are going to be put down. They shouldn't be put down. It's an election. It's about giving Canadians options. And that's what we're going to see. And I think we're going to be seeing it in a few weeks once the writ drops

yeah I think that is look I think Fred's right that there's going to be a contrast I suppose I think there are going to be some things where people are going to say well I'd like to see that contrast and other things where they're going to say are there any things that you agree on? For example, I think that the first order of business for many people is if the company that government should fund, that the program should be put in place to cushion the impacts? I think the government has been making clear that that's what they think should happen.

I don't know where the Conservatives are on it. It'd be good to hear them on that. Presumably, that wouldn't be one of the things where there would need to be a sharp contrast because I think people are worried about will they be able to pay the rent, will they be able to pay the mortgage, feed their families, that kind of thing. I think that's important. economic leadership the conservatives are proposing and what kind the liberals would offer, presumably if Mark Carney is, as everybody seems to expect right now, the liberal leader. On the weekend, we had prominent conservatives arguing that Canada desperately needs its own version of Doge, the thing that Elon Musk is leading in the United States. Now, some commentators say, well, that wasn't the Conservative Party that said that. It was this one kind of leading Conservative intellectual. But nobody said that they don't want that. And I think that's the kind of contrast that probably should come to the fore. So should the question of whether or not Pierre-Paul Lievre still says,

I would fire the Bank of Canada governor. His interest in cryptocurrency. Those are questions that are going to come up as points of highlighted contrast in the election campaign. I haven't heard what he's saying about those things right now. I rather suspect that Canadians will have a hard time believing that somebody who is advocating for things that sound like the kinds of things that Donald Trump is in favor of is what we need right now. Some will, for sure. There are some voters who say, give us the Donald Trump version. I think there are more voters who say what's happening in the United States is a cautionary tale. If you elect somebody who has views that sound like they want to rip everything up that you think is maybe not working perfectly, but doesn't deserve to be ripped up, then don't be surprised if things end up getting ripped up. So I think that will be a central contrast in the

campaign. And I think Fred's right on that point that people should see what the differences are. You know, I totally understand the points of contrast issue. And obviously, once we get into a real election campaign, that will play out. I guess what I'm asking is, in this moment, I mean, this is day one, right, of the trade war. Is there a need in terms of the country for some sense of political unity on the fight? Appreciating that there are going to be different approaches to some of this, but whether there's some sense of, I mean, there's, you know, I don't know how much unity there is in the American side,

but there certainly is in the government, it appears. And, you know, the whole thing about going up against a house divided, I don't know how much unity there is in the American side, but it certainly is in the government, it appears. And the whole thing about going up against a house divided, is that what we look like? Do we look like a house divided, or do we look like just a normal democratic country where there are going to be differences of opinion, even on a day like this? Fred.

Well, I think one of the issues is we should have had an election months ago, and we haven't. So we're stuck with this lame duck government for another four or five days, and then a new prime minister comes in, and then we're going to the polls. So it's hard to say let's put down our swords and all hold hands and walk through the meadows together singing songs in unity when we're about to go to an election. We're about to lay down the two paths forward.

It just doesn't make any sense. If we were four years out from an election, maybe we could sit down and do this. But that's not where we are. You know, Trudeau hung on for so long that we're in this situation now. I'll still hold Fred's hand and walk through the message. And I think one of the things about this is that, you know, Fred and I have both been involved or been around politics for a long time. Me longer than him. You can tell by the hair is still, I think that's the natural color of his hair. Peter, you've been around even longer.

It looks like, but where was I going with this? I was going in the direction of, I don't know if you want to know. Fred cares about a lot of the same things as I care about. He cares about government policy that protects people from economic harm that comes from somewhere else. He cares about incentivizing entrepreneurship and business building. And, and in the context of the tariff situation, there is going to be a contrast between parties that say we need to find more markets more quickly.

And one will say, we'll do it this way. And others should say, well, we'll do this other way. Right. There'll be one party that will say the path to success is going to be just really cut taxes. And there's going to be another one that says, well, we need to cut taxes and we need to spend more on certain kinds of things.

Those contrasts, I think, are absolutely legitimate and important. And I suppose maybe if there's any disagreement between me and my hand-holding friend through the meadows here this morning, it is a little bit to your point, Peter, that there is a moment here where I think voters are going to size up what those leaders look like. And they're going to decide whether or not the preoccupation of the individual is partisan advantage or the public interest and that's not that can be a harsh judgment um and if i were advising the conservative leader i'm not i'm advising mark carney i used to advise progressive conservative leaders. Fred did that too. I would say, put it down for a day. Let it be. You'll fight that partisan fight with ferocity and all the money and tons of energy, like in 10 minutes or in 10 days. But you can take a moment here. You can speak to the country's anxiety.

You can make it appear as though every day that you wake up isn't a day about your partisan advantage. So I said, if I were advising, I suppose I just kind of informally did. I don't expect that advice to be taken. It didn't look like it was happening for the last 12 hours. But that's what I think the country wants. So I think that's what, you know, politicians should be preoccupied with. Do you want to try that, Fred? Well, look, it's one of those things where I don't understand or quite understand what we're asking for here to the Conservatives to come out and say, yeah, this is bad. Like, Polyev has come out with his Canada First rally from a few weeks ago and made very clear

what we need to do and how we need to get products to market. It's about looking towards solutions now. We can't just say, yeah, sit here and recognize that it's a big problem. It's a big problem. And I think one of the things the Conservatives have done effectively well is showing that for the last nine years, the Liberal government has not been getting products to market in other markets at the level they should have been. So I think that's an interesting contrast, because you can see watching this Liberal leadership race, this is basically, you know, Chrystia Freeland is running against herself and everything they've done. And it's fascinating to watch the Liberal Party try to transform into the Conservative Party in so many ways. And now ask the Conservative Party,

hey, can you guys stop being partisan and attacking us? Let's just dust and fly. Okay. Point me to the end of this week. You know, we've got whatever it is now, five, six days left in the Liberal leadership race. Bruce suggests and not surprisingly, it's his guy, that Carney is doing well and could very well end up with the leadership in his hands, and that seems to be the indication of whatever data is out there.

What do you expect in this final week, this final rundown? Nobody of consequence has dropped out of the race they're all still in it uh what do you expect um fred you start us on this um well it's interesting this is also trudeau's last week as liberal leader uh so be interesting to see what other crazy announcements he comes up with i know a few weeks ago ago he announced a high-speed rail line across eastern Canada, despite being a lame duck government. So it'll be interesting to see if he puts out any more weird announcements. From the race itself, I mean, I think I mentioned last week how Max Bernier was supposed to win in 17 in the federal conservative race. In 2020, Peter McKay was supposed to win and both lost.

But this race is much more like the 2022 conservative race where Pierre Pauli have crushed everybody. I don't see this as a contest at all. You know, Karina Gould, I think, has been the one candidate who has really stood out as a strong speaker and as someone who seems formidable. Carney's campaign, you know, the Conservatives have been quick to pounce on, you know, what they're calling lies or mistruths about his embellishment of his record. And it's interesting, they seem to be very much zeroing in on that,

which I find a bit odd because he also made a comment in the french debate about grocery prices or sorry he didn't make a comment he didn't know what the average family was spending on groceries um and it felt like to me that was a great opening to drive back to the affordability contrast instead they're going on the whole brookfield management did he was he chair or not um and it's it you know they're they really piled on to that issue I'm not sure how effective it'll be unless they have a lot more of that of mistruths if it's a slip if it's something explainable that's one thing uh but it seems that that's where they're pushing hard um but at the end of the day Carney should win this by like a first ballot uh knockout ruse yeah well when fred said when fred started by

saying you know i think this is trudeau's last week i had that feeling that that you know he was going to cry because uh i think that there's nothing sadder for the conservatives as they think about the campaign ahead than not having Justin Trudeau as the liberal leader. I think it's been such a, it's been a ride for them to be able to spend almost all their time talking about what people don't like about Justin Trudeau or what he's done that hasn't turned out as well as, as he might've hoped and that sort of thing. And I think kind of losing that will be like having that security, as well as he might have hoped and that sort of thing.

And I think kind of losing that will be like having that security blanket kind of taken away from them. And I think that's a little bit what we're seeing this week, is that they've had that as the feedstock for their political operation for so long. If you remove that feedstock, because even though Mr. Trudeau is still in the office, I think the Conservatives have correctly deduced that there's not much point in spending all of your time talking about him and the things that you don't like about him. You've got to get on to other things.

However, removing that feedstock and then replacing it with a series of things that, I don't know, if this were boxing, these would be like punches that just missed the mark, I think. Now, I could be proven wrong. We'll see over time whether or not people go, you know, I'm really worried about the economy. I'm really worried about tariffs.

But I'm more worried about what happened with Brookfield. I don't see it. There's nothing in my years of following politics that makes me think that's the thing that's going to distract Canadians. I think it might raise a few dollars from the conservative fundraising base. I have no doubt that kind of thing. And then the one that they were pursuing yesterday or the day before, seems like a few days now, is this notion of, well, was Mark Carney really helpful in the financial crisis of 2008 or was he really, really helpful? And, you know, I just find that Stephen Harper said what he said about Mark Carney back at that time. Now he said something else in a fundraising letter to the Conservatives

this week. I don't think that issue or litigating that thing is helpful for the Conservatives. I think on the other hand, it just kind of reminds people and maybe informs people who don't know anything about Mark Carney that he's been kind of at the center of good economic policy in the past. So I think conservatives are struggling to find their footing. They're a very, very effective political organization, so I expect they will find they will plant their feet at some point. But I think their biggest problem is, is the leader that they have right now spent a lot of time accumulating scar

tissue that he didn't need to do, that there are more people who don't like him than there needs to be. I say that because if you're an opposition leader, you don't need to have 71% of BQ voters in Quebec dislike you. You don't need to have three quarters of NDP voters say they wouldn't vote for you. Those two things are things in the political landscape right now, which Justin Trudeau didn't make happen and Mark Carney didn't make happen. Those happened because of the way Pierre Poliev pursued his agenda and his style as conservative leader. And that bill comes due sometimes. Sometimes it doesn't, but sometimes it

does. And I think that's part of what the struggle is right now. All right. I think it's a little bit long. I'm sorry. I think Fred should be able to reply. No, no, no. I think you got all the points on your page listed there. It's good. I agree with Fred. I mean, they could have opened up a wound on the cost of living stuff, and they chose not to, and they went after the Brookfield stuff, which, you know, is legitimate for some people. The cost of living stuff may be a wider spread.

Now, I also think it's interesting, this is the last week of Justin Trudeau. If we remember, some of us are old enough to do so, the last week of Pierre Trudeau's time, and he loaded up the baggage with patronage appointments. He put all kinds of people in the Senate, ambassadorships, various appointments. Will Justin Trudeau do that in these final days? He's done a few Senate seats a little while ago. There are some empty seats.

Will he fill those with loyal liberals? Will he do a few ambassadorships? Will those become a problem for whoever takes over if it's Carney? Is he going to have to explain those away? Will there be a you-had-an-option moment to overturn some of these appointments? That will be interesting to watch that part play out as well. In terms of, you know, one of the first things that's going to be on the plate for whoever wins on Sunday is election.

When should the election be? In light of what's happening in terms of the relationship with the United States, the trade war, the fact that if it's Carney's unelected, how soon should one, should an election be? Are the conservatives still going to say, we should have an election right now? Or are they going to want to play this out for a while, given a new leader? What's the, What's your take on that, Fred? What should the election timing situation be? I think it should be immediate.

We need a government, a permanent government in place. The NDP and the Bloc have already said they're not going to support, you know, whoever the new Liberal leader is. Now, there may be some provisions for certain bills. If there's some emergency fund that needs to be escalated, they said they may support. But even on that front, everything I'm hearing, and I'm no economist, but when it comes to the tariffs, like, we won't feel the impact for many months.

So I think we could get an election, get a new government in place, whether it's a Carney government or a Polyev government or, by some weird miracle, a Singh government. I shouldn't say miracle. That's not the right word for that. But, you know, a new government in place that can then put down what it wants to do. So I think they should go right away. There was an interesting piece Guy Jerno wrote in The Hub.

He's former chief of staff to Premier Mike Harris and to Prime Minister Stephen Harper about the possibility of Carney not even getting sworn in as Prime Minister, but going to the polls as Liberal leader and having an election, leader versus leader. Trudeau would remain caretaker Prime Minister until the election is over. And I think that's an interesting idea, because if Carney is sworn in as Prime Minister in a week's time, he has to swear in a brand new cabinet, because the cabinet is sworn in as prime minister in a week's time he has to swear in

a brand new cabinet because the cabinet is wiped out immediately and he's got to swear in Trudeau's team as his cabinet and I think it's it's not a great look or a great image for Carney to be basically captaining the same team that's been running the place for the last nine years. At the same time though there is the the possibility in the middle of an election there could be some major thing that has to happen that he may want to be the guy that goes down to Washington to deal with. So it'll be interesting to see how that plays out. Of course, if he tries to bring the House back, it'll be fascinating, too. And, you know, the NDP can always be bought and the bloc can never be trusted. So who knows what will happen?

I'm sure the Conserv can never be trusted. So who knows what will happen. I'm sure the conservatives would love it. I'm sure the conservatives would love it. If Trudeau was still the prime minister through an election campaign. It's shocking that Guy Journal thinks that that would be a cool idea. It's shocking. Shocking that Guy Journal thinks that that would be a cool idea and that Fred brought it to our attention today. It's shocking. How could I have imagined something like that? Give me your election timing thing, Bruce.

What is it? You know what? I mean, I think that the country knows that it's going to have an election this year. The public opinion polling that I've seen and some that I've done show that there's a certain number of people who say it must happen immediately. And then there are other people who are saying the timing of the election should follow the needs of the country as it relates to this crisis right now. And it should be soon. So within that context, I think that a new liberal leader will have some flexibility. I think the 24th is a date that puts a bit of a kind of a milestone in place. And it wouldn't surprise me if an election was called before that date or was triggered before that date.

But I also think that the way that the Trump issue is unfolding and the needs of the country from economic management or the ability to negotiate or discuss with our neighbor to the south, those should probably take the priority over calculations of a partisan nature. And I suspect that they probably will. But yeah, it wouldn't surprise me if we have an election soon. It would surprise me if that election was held with Justin Trudeau still in the office of Prime Minister, though. Here's my prediction, not that it matters for anything, but assuming Carney wins, my prediction is the election is almost immediately and that it's unlike an election that we've seen in our lifetimes in the sense that the person who's heading the Liberal Party, heading the government as prime minister, spends as much time in the prime minister's office as they do in a campaign plane or travel in the country. With giving the appearance of we're in a crisis, I'm at the center of it, I'm going to have my small cabinet, probably half the size of the ones we're used to,

maybe with some new people in it, you know, from outside, and we're going to run this crisis. I'll campaign when I have time for it, but the major priority is looking after the country. Are you ready to join our cabinet? It sounds like you've got your portfolio in mind. Is it the same? Yeah, right.

I was going to take a different angle and say, Peter, I think you should be a campaign manager, because I think that's actually a really good idea and what they should do. When I see Carney out in crowds glad handling stuff i think that's not the image i think the liberals should be pushing of him i think he should have his sleeves rolled up tie on in a boardroom or the prime minister's office working and getting things done for canada i think that's the image they want to portray that he is the leader that can do that um so i think that's how they should focus on the conservative side to bruce's comments earlier that I'll now rebut, I'll now take that opportunity.

I'd actually agree on a lot of the conservatives need to find their footing again. They probably have dominated for the last number of years on narrative and messaging and message discipline. I don't feel they have that right now. They don't quite have that story together and they need to get that together. And that needs to be the contrast they drive. But again, I think that's the right approach for Kearney. Don't be the,

don't be the Justin Trudeau type campaign, be the guy that's going to sit down and get things done. That's my favorite kind of rebuttal. The one that is like, I agree with that. Just as a final point before we close this one out, do the, do the conservatives have a problem on their right flank? I don't know whether you read Paul Wells yesterday. Interesting piece talking about it.

This decade or this decade and last decade and the decade before? Well, more so right in this moment, as a result of everything that's happened in the United States and the appeal that is clearly out there to the kind of MAGA wing of the Conservative Party and whether Polyev runs the risk of losing that wing, you know, to whether it's Max Bernier as, you know, as mentioned earlier by Fred. Is there a potential problem there for the Conservatives on the right? There's a far-right fringe in Canada, and it's a fringe that tends to...

Last election, a lot of them went to the People's Party. A lot goes to the Green Party when the People's Party wasn't around. So it's not really a part necessarily of the Conservative coalition. So if that fringe leaves, it's not something that has tripped us up before in a significant way. I'd say the Liberals have a bigger problem with their far left, the NDP, which wins 20 to 30 seats. So I don't think it's a problem right now um because i don't think it's large enough to matter in fact i like that they're not in the conservative coalition to sit on the outside uh instead of being on the inside bruce you want a final thought on this

i think the um i i'm sure fred's right about the numerical importance of it, of that fringe in actual voting terms. is that any time a leading conservative says something that sounds like we desperately need a doge for Canada, it creates opportunities for the opponents of the Conservative Party to say, let's really worry that wound, to use the boxing metaphor. Let's dig into it. Let's see if we can make the Conservatives fight with each other from one part of the party to the other about it. Similarly, the language that Pierre Poliev will use about Donald Trump or J.D. Vance or Elon Musk

has to be tempered somewhat because of the knowledge that if he is too harshly critical, even of somebody like Elon Musk, there are going to be a whole bunch of conservative-oriented voters, and some of them will be bots that support the Conservative Party, that express outrage at that, that create the, maybe it would be an illusion, but sometimes these illusions, Peter, you know as a journalist, they kind of infiltrate the analysis of how an election is going. So the illusion of conservative voters reacting badly of Pierre Pauliev is too strident in his criticism of the U.S. president or Elon Musk or J.D. Vance. That can create a lot of noise and friction in an upcoming election campaign.

So in the past, the discipline that people like Stephen Harper were able to exert over the party is a lot harder to do in a world where social media is 24-7, nonstop, and it's combustible as hell. Good points. All right, right gentlemen that was a good one good smt for this week uh we'll see what the landscape is a week from now could be rather interesting thank you both talk to you soon thanks guys thanks peter and welcome back part two of uh the bridge for this tuesday smoke mirrors the truth was part one and a reminder if you weren't already aware of this you can always find smoke mirrors of the truth on our youtube channel of the Tuesday program.

It's just that part. First kind of half hour is on our YouTube channel. So you get to see Bruce and Fred in the spin room on that. But here on our second half, a couple of reminders. First of all, Thursday is your turn. And the question of the week, which we put out yesterday, has already received a lot of initial reaction in terms of people writing in their thoughts. The question was, what are the qualifications,

as far as you're concerned, to be a politician? A number of people wrote and said, qualifications or qualities? They're kind of two different things. Yeah, they are. Pick the one you want or pick them both, but still keep it condensed, all right? Paragraph, no more than a paragraph. We hold true to that qualification, if you will, or that quality of the letters that come in. So you write to themansbridgepodcast at gmail.com,

themansbridgepodcast at gmail.com. It should be in, it has to be in, before 6 p.m. Eastern Time tomorrow. That's Wednesday. Include your name and the location you're writing from, and once again, keep it short. Paragraph. What are the qualifications as far as you're concerned, or the qualities, to be a politician? And it's a good question because we're all going to be voting soon. You know, there was a provincial election

last week. There's a liberal leadership race this week where those who've joined the Liberal Party for the race get to vote. But then after that, shortly after that, I think, there's going to be a national election. So we'll all have that. We'll be looking for the right kind of politicians to represent us in the Parliament of Canada. So there's your letter for the week.

We should get to it. Okay, here's our end bit for this week. And this is interesting. I think it's interesting, especially for those who, you know, I get the odd letter suggesting, not odd from the sense of odd, but the occasional letter suggesting, why don't you have this as a topic? Or why don't you have this person as a guest? Or why don't you have this as a question of the week?

And in fact, this week's question of the week came from you, our audience. It came in over the weekend from Nola Marion, who suggested that question about politicians. But I also get the odd letter, or not odd, the occasional letter, saying, you know, I think the technical quality of your podcast is not that good. And I'm sorry that there are people who feel that way. I try to use the excuse, and I know it's in today's day and age, it really is just an excuse, that this is kind of a hobby, this podcast.

I do it from my home. And because I travel a lot, one day my home is in Stratford, one day it's in Toronto, one day it's in Scotland, one day it could be in Winnipeg or Vancouver or Calgary or as it was last week in Petawawa. I put the forces base there. And as a result of the travel, I use a little travel kit, and it's a very small little operation. And because it's usually done out of a hotel room, or at best a hotel

room, the audio may not be quite as good as normal. And even normal isn't good enough for some people. But wherever I do it, there's one common thread. I use a microphone. Well, guess what? One of the most significant innovations in recorded music, I'm reading from the New York Times here, took place a reading from the New York Times here, took place a century ago in New York City, a hundred years ago, just last week.

Art Gillum, a musician known as the Whispering Pianist for his gentle croon, entered Columbia Phonograph Company's studio to test out a newly installed electrical system. Its totem was positioned in front of him, level with his mouth. It was a microphone. This was the moment when the record industry went electric. By the end of the year, a writer for the Washington, D.C. newspaper, The Evening Star, marveled at the capitulation of the world's leading musical artists to the power of the microphone.

Hollywood sound revolution with talkies wasn't far behind. Today a performer's microphone and the technique they use can help define their sound. Yet no plaque marks the spot where Gillum made history with the first commercially released electrical recording. Carrying on here with a little more from this article, because I find it fascinating.

I mean, you can only imagine the number of microphones I've worn, or have sat behind, or stood behind, over my, whatever it is now, years since 1968, when I first was behind a microphone. It's written by Ludovic Hunter Tilney in the New York Times. It goes on, Archivists of the oldest label in the world, now owned by Sony Music, cannot confirm the studio's exact location.

The best guess is a site now occupied by the Rose Theater, the Jazz at Lincoln Center venue in Midtown Manhattan, where Columbia's offices once stood. The current building, a vast glass complex in Columbia's Circle, or excuse me, Columbus Circle, is also home to the recording studio for Jazz at Lincoln Center's in-house label Blue Engine Records. The biggest early singing stars came from classical music. In 1902, Enrico Caruso was the first to make a million-selling record, an aria from the opera Pagliacci. His loud, rich voice covered up the surface noise inherent in the disc.

Fred Geisberg, the British producer who persuaded the Italian tenor to be recorded, wrote in a 1944 article for Gramophone magazine. Well, that was another era, eh? But I kind of like that. A hundred years ago, right now, first time in front of a microphone. And where would we be without microphones today. Just think how they've changed our world,

not just in music, not just in oratory. Every part of it. The spy business. All right. That's going to wrap it up. Tomorrow, of course, is our Encore Wednesday program. And because we're in this moment where things are changing like almost daily, I think we will stick with a very recent recording. Let's go with, we will replay yesterday's conversation with Janice Stein.

Lots of mail on that one again. As always on Mondays, Janice has you talking. And here we break down that incredible moment in the White House Oval Office last Friday with Zelensky, Trump, and Vance. So that'll be tomorrow's Encore Edition. Thursday, we're back with your turn. And you know the question of the week. We're looking forward to your answers.

And the random ranter will be by. The ranter's been stuck on Trump and things Canada-US for the last while, and I see no reason to take him off that rant. That's what we're all talking about. That's what we're all talking about. And then Friday, of course, good talk with Chantelle Hebert and Rob Russo. That's all coming up as this week progresses. But that's it for this day.

I'm Peter Mansbridge. Thanks so much for listening. We'll talk to you again in almost 24 hours. Thank you.