The Bridge with Peter Mansbridge - SMT - What's With Low Voter Turnouts?

Episode Date: June 8, 2022

Voter turnout -- it's not just an Ontario issue.  Bruce Anderson brings the SMT lens to this story.  Also, tomorrow is the start of the prime time January 6th committee hearings -- what to expect?  And Boris Johnson -- can he service?

And hello there, Peter Mansbridge here. You're just moments away from the latest episode of The Bridge, Smoke, Mirrors, and the Truth. Bruce Anderson is next. So I've told this story before, I'll keep it very short, but it is worth telling. Many of us who travel to other countries are often impressed with certain elements of election turnout. I've been to countries, I'm sure some of you have been to countries where people line up literally for hours for the right to vote. And in some cases in those lines, there are people in tears because they have the right to vote. Because they have the opportunity

to guide their country with their one single vote added to the thousands, hundreds of thousands, sometimes millions of other votes that take place. But they fought for that right to vote. In some cases, their parents died for that right to vote.

But they got it. And they are happy to exercise it. So all that is a prelude to the Ontario election last week. That sent back a second majority government for Doug Ford. What was the election turnout? There were 10.7 million registered voters in the province of Ontario last week. 4.6 million actually cast their votes. No big lineups, nobody crying in the lines because they were so excited to vote.

43.5% is what that works out to. Worst election turnout in Ontario's history. By far, only twice before have they been under 50%. Not twice before, twice now. 50 percent not twice before twice now once before and this one last week what happened is there any excuse for a turnout that low i mean we've heard the excuses we'll probably talk about them here for a moment but why why such a low tone turn out all right bruce let's hear from you on this well you know i think that there's no excuse on some level but so the search is for what's the explanation and i think the explanation for

me that makes the most sense is that there are a couple of factors involved. One is that we live in an age where there are more things competing messages on our phones and our our other devices asking us to look at something read something consume something do something buy something say something to somebody else and so the standard for motivation to do something specific goes up and the competition for your attention is higher than it has been in the past. And I think in that context, getting people to physically go somewhere, mark a ballot is a stiffer test. I don't know what we can do about that, except the various ideas that people talk about. Put a financial penalty on people if they don't or use more kind of advertising or nudge tools to encourage people to do it. I think those are all worthy of consideration. But the second factor that I think is going on is that what is the

natural level of motivation for any particular election normally motivation is highest when people really want to change when they're desperate to get rid of the bums who are in power whoever those bums happen to be throw the bums out how many times have we heard that that phrase over the years and so in a situation where people aren't that motivated towards that goal, the numbers tend to be lower. And when I was looking at the results from this election, I noticed that what happened was that the Liberals got roughly the same number of votes that they got in the last election. The Conservatives got about 430,000 votes less than they got in the last election. And to me, it's an oversimplification. But those 430,000 voters were a substantial number of throw-win-out voters in the last election.

And they just weren't motivated either to go back and say, I'm really happy with Doug Ford, or to switch to Del Duca or the NDP and say, I really want to throw Ford out. Ford managed to get to this place with those kinds of voters, where they said, I think he's going to win. It's not going to make me crazy. I don't believe the Ford is ruining Ontario messages because they seem kind of overwrought and i'm not talking about whether or not those messages are accurate i'm just talking about whether they're very motivating and if your opponents say something about you that voters think is kind of an exaggeration well let me let me put it this way they accept a certain amount of exaggeration. Well, let me put it this way. They accept a certain amount of exaggeration, but if it's an extreme exaggeration relative to what they observe, then they just tune it out.

And so I don't think the opposition politicians in this race were very compelling. I don't think the desire to get rid of Ford was very compelling. And I also think that when polls start showing that the outcome is foregone, that it's a foregone conclusion, then that also suppresses turnout. So a lot of things involved, but the big one for me was, you know, in a competition for time, the idea of going out to do something that you're not very motivated to do and where you think the outcome is relatively decided already,

there are other things to do with your time. That affords me the opportunity to raise a couple of things. You could get around that by, dare I say it, mandating voting in elections. I think it's called person dating. Person dating is right. Exactly. It's from Mr. Personsbridge.

That's correct. You're right. But you could, some countries have tried that or exercised that. I don't think that would go over too well here anyway and perhaps really not too well right now with the whole mandating vaccines. Disputes still, you know, bubbling out there. The other way is, you know,

everything else in our life is digital that we can, well, not everything, but a lot of things are digital that you can deal with from home. You do banking from home you can purchase from home you never have to leave home if you don't want to uh you can do everything on your phone or on your computer and i still don't quite understand why they're concerned about the security of an election system, a voting system that's done remotely online, which seems to be the reason why they're holding back on that idea, not just in Canada, but elsewhere.

I mean, you do your research, a lot of it online, and you have faith in it. Yeah you know the it isn't the like the as important as our polls are and i really want to stress they're very important they're very valuable and people really make important decisions based on them it's not the same as saying let's try this let's turn the switch on this thing and if it turns out mike schreiner is elected premier the leader of the green party in ontario well we'll just go that's what the numbers said so i think there's a different level of risk associated with this that isn't an argument for not doing it it's an argument for i guess what the technology market

would call beta testing try it out try it out in parallel with the traditional system, work through whatever bugs, make sure the security is as tight as it needs to be. But I generally agree with you that we're moving towards a situation where that's going to be more logical. I ran into a member of parliament the other day who, you know, held up her phone and she she mentioned to me she said i i can't believe that there's still uh folks in and around the political system who have a problem with the

idea of voting digitally from somewhere other than in the house of commons um and i think that kind of sentiment where you know back when that was first discussed there was a whole lot of well we could never do that there's a tradition it's important for people to kind of sentiment where, you know, back when that was first discussed, there was a whole lot of, well, we could never do that. There's a tradition. It's important for people to kind of be there in person and show themselves and everything else. I actually don't think we're going to live in that world 20 years from now. And I think that's probably true, as you suggest, in the case of citizens voting in an election. Here's another one. And I've heard this, you know, you hear it on talk radio, you hear it in your own life, you hear it from friends, and they say, I followed the Ontario election pretty closely,

and so I was involved, and I listened to the leaders but you know at the end of it all I couldn't take any of them I couldn't stand any of them and that's why I didn't vote because I thought they were all inappropriate for guiding this province at this time so I just didn't vote what do you you know what do you say to people who say that to you well um i understand that um and i have to say that i thought going into this election i'm not the world's biggest doug ford fan i didn't think that he was really qualified to be premier in the sense of really having a knowledge of the issues and taking governance that seriously. I thought he sort of arrived at the decision to get involved and run to be the leader of the province more as a, this

is the kind of the next step in my kind of celebrity politician, rambunctious populist career path. But I also thought it was hard to understand why Andrea Horwath was still the leader of the New Democratic Party, having proven fairly convincingly, to me anyway, in the last couple of elections, that she's not really able to break through. And i always kind of hesitate to be hypercritical of politicians for that but it is a part of the job to be able to communicate in a way that has stopping power and i don't think that she ever really had it and it was a surprise to me that she was allowed to continue to be the leader of the party after so much evidence had accumulated that she wasn't she wasn't really drawing you know attention to the ndp argument and i think that steven del

duca you know other than a couple of early uh eyebrow raising interesting policy ideas that he unveiled when the campaign was called seemed largely unknown and unnoticed in the run-up to the election campaign, which normally is a sign that somebody's really struggling to be able to attract attention. Now, all of that is harder these days, so I don't pretend for these politicians that it's easy and why are they falling short of the mark that I've just described as being important. It's harder these days because the amount of media resource that is devoted to covering politics generally is less than it used to be. And incumbents who don't want to have a big battle, who want a quiet kind of cruise towards another mandate,

they go out of their way to make sure there aren't very many dustups, not very many debates. Their candidates don't go to all candidate meetings. I don't like that, but I think it's a strategy that's, you know, increasingly common where an incumbent doesn't really want to have a combustible campaign. And it's hard for opposition leaders to do anything with that because you can stand up and say, this is anti-democratic. It's really annoying.

It should, you know, the government should be held to account. This is the way we do it. This is when we do it. But if the incumbents just don't want to go to those meetings, if they deny the opportunity to have a lot of interaction with the media where they can be asked hard questions, if they don't do more debates, then, as you know better than anybody, the news cycle moves on to something else. It doesn't keep on writing the same story of you're being denied the accountability that elections are supposed to furnish you every day, it tells that story once. And maybe again, three, four weeks later, but by that time the dice cast. There is another area and you kind of just hit on it in a way. We are so leader centric.

The focus is always on the leaders. And people may, you know, people who say, I listened to all three or four of them, and I didn't agree with any of them. I didn't like any of them, and so I didn't vote. Well, the fact is, you're not voting for the leader. You're voting for the person in your riding. Yeah. And there are a lot of really good people who run for political office you know jerry butts was making the point earlier this week on the on the the more butts conversation number three about how the overwhelming majority of politicians he's met over time in from all

parties are good good people who just want to make life better for us. We may not agree with their policies, but they're there for the right reasons. And you see a lineup of a lot of those kind of people in elections at all levels, as we did last week in the Ontario provincial election and as we see in other provincial elections. And yet people make some of their most basic decisions about whether or not they're going to vote, not on the people in their riding, but just on the leaders. Which, you know, I understand that and the media the, the kind of people you elect on a local basis. And now people don't turn out to, you know, to town this province, is much less because of what's happened to the media in terms of ownership and employee numbers is much lower.

And so little coverage is given to the local race. But that, to me, is i'm part of the problem here like it's not like it's not like we end up discussing local candidates very often on uh yeah i remember all those tv interviews that you did with the second tier candidates and the people running for member of parliament in uh stratford oh oh maybe i'm thinking of someone else. No, what we used to do is after a general election, we'd bring three or four rookies, first-time members in saying, what are you hoping to accomplish? And that would be it.

We'd never hear from them again. Yeah, so once every four years or so. Exactly. Exactly. Well, look, I think there's something to that i think that you know on local elections turnout's often low but people do have a sense of who their local counselors are and one of the reasons that they do is they consume information about the services that they're provided with locally in a different way they're you know what when is your garbage going to be picked up?

Why is the street in such poor shape? And so there's an interest in knowing a little bit about your councillor if you're interested in local politics at all and kind of feeling good about them. Now, if you feel good about them, you still might not go out and vote because you'll figure, well, the incumbent's going to win because that happens so often in in local elections but i think part of the challenge for federal mp candidates is people don't know if they're going to be influential in their lives there's a reasonable chance as far as they're concerned the voters concerned that people will get elected to office, it may not have that much ability to affect outcomes because party votes will kind of be determined by the leader. And because the broad outlines of public policy at the federal level will be set by the party

and the leader and developed in the platform. And so there's a little bit of um i'm glad that good people are running but i don't know if when they get to ottawa they will necessarily make that big a difference in my life and that creates a little bit of a of a loss of interest i think it's it's unmistakably true that we live in a world where the easiest story to cover is the it's the kind of the highly charged is this person who wants to be at the center of things who wants to make all of the big decisions what makes them tick will they make mistakes are they if you test them will they react well do they have something really interesting to say that goes beyond what you always rail about, beyond talking points?

When you get underneath the surface, who are they? There's a natural interest in knowing the person who's going to run the organization or wants to run the organization that you're thinking about what's in their soul and so I think we gravitate towards that and we shouldn't beat ourselves up too much about it but it probably does behoove us all to say maybe we're a little too hard on all of our politicians and we shouldn't be so quick to decide that they don't have that much to offer. Because when we are quick to criticize collectively, over time, there's a lot of good people that don't decide to enter the ring, don't decide to get into public life. And that problem, as far as I'm concerned,

has been growing more severe over the years. All right. Good discussion. I think we've solved it. And by now uh people are already anxious to vote so we'll start seeing 90 turnouts at elections in the in the time ahead uh listen there are two we're uh we're moving along here but we have two other segments that i'd like to do on this so let me take a break come back and we'll get to the first of those two.

And welcome back. Peter Mansbridge here in Stratford, Ontario. Bruce Anderson is in Ottawa today. You're listening to Smoke, Mirrors, and the Truth on The Bridge. You're listening on SiriusXM, Channel 167, Canada Talks, or on your favorite podcast platform. I said there were two other segments. And the first one is really about something that happens, starts happening anyway tomorrow night. It's the primetime hearings in the United States on the January 6th insurrection in the United States, January 6th of last year, when the Capitol buildings were stormed, people died.

It seems evident that the President of the United States at that time, Donald Trump, was involved in at least a number of ways in the things that happened on that day. And this committee has been trying to get to the root of it. Now, some of the committee members have said, what we have based on a year, more than a year of interviews is going to blow the lid off Capitol Hill. They are convinced they have the real story and the proof of it. Now, I'm always a little, you know, cynical about these things in terms of

what they promise and what they deliver. I heard this morning at least one take on what the first hour or two is going to look like of this initial primetime hearing, which is tomorrow night, 8 o'clock Eastern. And the first hour is opening statements. Well, if anything is going to drive viewers away, it'll be an hour of opening statements. They've supposedly hired a producer to make this

interesting on a visual and content way. they've supposedly hired a producer to make this interesting on a visual and content way. Not only interesting, but compelling and something people want to hear, no matter what side they are on this. Well, that's the challenge. Because if this goes in the tank, that's over. That whole story is over. And those who are still siding with Trump will move on and proclaim victory.

What are your expectations for tomorrow night? Well, I was just listening to you and I was thinking, ah, Peter. Peter's older than me. But Peter and I. Considerably. Considerably. thinking ah peter peter's older than me but here and i considerably considerably we come from a generation that watched the sam irvin watergate hearings and by the tv standards of that day that was great tv it was now sometimes i find it on youtube and i look at it again and i go it wasn't that great tv there was There just wasn't that high an entertainment standard generally around us because right now I don't know if I'd watch it at any length because, yeah, there were some long, dull parts of it.

Oh, there are some really long, dull ones. I mean, there were only a few exciting moments. The John Dean testimony, Alexander Butterfield, when he revealed there was audio recordings inside the Oval Office. But overall, you're right. It wasn't that exciting. So, you know, the thing that I took away from that is that I'm watching these clips and they're the highlight reel clips of the Sam Ervin hearings because the pandemic I watched almost everything I think I watched pretty much everything that's out there but so I think that what will happen with these hearings

is that there will be a few like us who will kind of settle in with a you know a bottle of beer and some popcorn and go i'll watch a bunch of this this could be interesting to me but a lot of people won't a lot of people will wait for uh the clips that get analyzed it gets trapped they get trafficked on social media there will be some because there's a lot of energy behind this and i do believe that well there may not be enough new stuff to make hours of compelling tv this would be the framework that you would use kind of to analyze it like how are we going to make this several hours of tv exciting i don't think there'll be that but there will be some things uh that come out that will make people go oh that's really ugly that that happened um now whether or not the people who believe the

election was stolen from trump they're still going to believe the election was stolen from trump all that's going to happen is they're going to go well trump was right to try to deny the steal or stop the steal um and so the evidence that he was trying to stop the steal won't make them go oh well now i hate him they're gonna go yeah you know it was stolen uh so it will it will shock and and amazed some people but america is so polarized into trump was awful he tried to steal it he never should have they'll look at this evidence they'll go yeah i was right he tried to steal it he never should have any pro-trump people will go it was stolen and good for him that he fought and so the people in the middle however small they are uh will be titillated amused amazed shocked offended surprised by some of the facts and i'm kind of looking forward to hearing what

those are but i don't think it's going to change the overall complexion of america as being a pro-trump or anti-trump society. You know, it's funny you mentioned Sam Ervin, who was the chair of that Watergate committee, that met for months, months. This one is meeting in prime time in public session, I think for just six sessions. That's like today's equivalent of months, though. Yeah, in our 24-7 world you're right

but sam irvin was this you know like i'm just a plain old country lawyer type guy uh not too terribly exciting in his uh persona but ended up for those who became the watergate junkies watching this guy was a hero. And he was helped by the fact he was a Democrat. And the Republican, Howard Baker, was his deputy chair. He became the linchpin to it because he came out eventually against Nixon. And that changed everything. So you're looking at somewhat a similar situation here where you've got the Democrat, you know, not too exciting to the point where I wrote his name

down, left a piece of paper in the other room. I can't remember what his name is. And then you have Liz Cheney as the deputy chair, the Republican who has been outspoken from the get-go. I guess there's another Republican similarly outspoken, Adam Kinzinger, right? That's right. So the only Republicans there are going to be on the same page largely as the Democrats about this. I do think that's a really important difference.

This is not going to feel like those hearings that we heard that we saw um last year in the uh in the impeachment conversation where there were a whole lot of apologists for for trump who are showing up you know denying certain things and and challenging the testimony and that sort of thing. This is going to be testimony that Liz Cheney has said is chilling. She says it's going to be evidence of an extremely well-organized effort. They've called Mark Short, who was Pence's chief of staff, I believe. Now, they wouldn't be calling him. I mean, they've put 500 days of work in. They've done 1,000 interviews in preparing for this.

They wouldn't be calling in a witness like Mark Short if they didn't know that what he has to say is going to really impact people on some level. It's going to be really noteworthy. And the story that I've read is that he was told of a threat against the life of Mike Pence the day before the insurrection and spoke to the police authorities, the relevant police authorities. I think it was the fbi about that um and i think that kind of evidence first of all i i think he's if they're inviting him to testify it will be to present something like that and he'll feel like he's obliged to do it under oath and and i think

that evidence will surprise people because it will reinforce the idea that Trump knew that there was a risk to Pence. And he didn't do anything to stop it. And he may have done some things that helped make it more real and more intense. So I think there'll be lots of interesting evidence. And I think it will be different because the Republican voices defending Trump will be not there. And then I wanted to know what you thought, Peter, about the fact that Fox News, which is America's biggest cable news network, has decided that they're not going to cover this live. They will cover it, but through the lens of their analysts and their panelists and their, in air quotes, journalists.

What do you think about that? Well, I see they're putting it on their business channel, which has considerably less viewers than their regular news channel, which, as you say, is the most watched news channel in the United States. Hey, listen, like everything else they do in their primetime hours, it's political. It's pretty clear how they operate. I mean, you see their hosts at night and what they have to say about everything from guns to January 6th. It doesn't surprise me. they have to say about everything from guns to uh to january 6th so i don't see all of that

did you see all of that email traffic between mark meadows they yeah and and sean hannity about you know can you you know pump out this story about turnout over here and hannity's asking questions about what states do you need it to be heard in and running through all of the states. And Hannity basically just sounds like he's taking orders. Yeah, the irony of it is that relationship between the right in the United States and the leaders of the Republican Party is exactly what the critics of the CBC and some of the private networks say in Canada, that there's a, you know, direct line of communication between the liberals and, in the CBC's case, CBC News, which is a load of crap.

And that's the kindest way I can put it. Somebody was there for 50 years i would know if there was anything like that and there never was and as far as i'm uh believe there there still is not um and and god help us if there ever was uh but it's just total garbage uh and i always get a kick out of it because what happens when the conservatives take power, as on occasion they do, then the liberals say the same thing. They say, well, you know, the CBC is taking orders from the conservative prime minister's office. That is equally a load of crap.

But I digress. Benny Thompson is the name. All right? He's the chair of the January 6th committee, Democratic senator. And in some ways, just like Sam Irvin, kind of a guy, he's like quiet, focused, determined, accomplishes usually what he sets out to accomplish we'll see how he does tomorrow he well he'll be better known after this that's for sure so this is a chance for him to establish what kind of voice he has right true he's not in it for himself like sam irvin wasn't never in it

for himself he was in it to try and uncover what had happened in Watergate, and one assumes that's what Benny Thompson's in this one for. Okay, final segment. Gee, I've lost track of this, Bruce. Maybe you can help me. Who's the Prime Minister of Great Britain? I'm sorry. I heard you say for the last two years that, what was his name? His name, his name was Bojo Boris Johnson, that he was history. He was gone. He was finished. He was going to resign. You've been saying that for two years now. Let me just check. Who's the prime minister of Great Britain? britain well i don't know i don't have my tv on i'm not dialed into uh the bbc right now but um for now anyways boris johnson oh there's the uh you know even a broken clock is what's the

saying is right twice a day yes yeah so you just keep that you know keep that powder dry because one of these days he won't be the prime minister i don't disagree with that one day he probably has something to do with this party gate scandal which isn't really the only thing i think it's probably more a function of the fact that his caucus doesn't really love his leadership. And the size of the vote against his leadership by his caucus, if it happened here, you very well know, would result in the leader leaving. No leader in our system would be able to survive that kind of vote. And really knowledgeable local observers on the ground in the UK, like our good friend Andrew McDougall, it's pretty clear about how wounded Boris Johnson is. So I like that you're on the record saying Bojo will be prime minister forever, as long as he wants to. And I'm on the record saying he's wounded. And one day this is going to come to a story end for him.

There is no doubt he's wounded. Oh, I see you're changing your story now. No, no, no. Listen, he's been wounded for a while, just like the leader of the opposition is wounded for swigging beer during the pandemic controls on supposedly no parties at Westminster. The fact that it was a secret ballot, I think, is really interesting. I'm not arguing against a secret ballot, because it tends to get out the true feeling of that caucus.

Because nobody had to declare where they'd come from. And I'm sure if there was a secret ballot, as sometimes there is in Canada, but if there was more commonly held, if the Liberals held a secret ballot today on the leadership of Justin Trudeau, I would imagine that ballot would probably, the result would be different than if it was a not secret ballot. But nevertheless, you're right, he's definitely wounded. But this is Boris Johnson who spent a life under the gun of accusations against his trustworthiness and his honesty, and they, you know, have always had good reason to raise those questions. But he still worked his way up the line, Mayor. You know, he was, you know, a leading correspondent and a journalist who managed, while making up stories, to still move on up the ladder. Then he became Mayor of London.

Then he became an MP. Then he became mayor of London. Then he became an MP. Then he became a cabinet minister. Then he became the prime minister. And through every one of those, he was under attack. Now, I'm not promoting. You're a fanboy. No, I'm not a fanboy. I'm not a fanboy.

All I'm trying to say is this guy knows how to weather a storm. And while, you know, it was a similar storm that took down Margaret Thatcher, who won her confidence vote but was gone a couple of months later. Theresa May, same thing, won her confidence motion, was gone a few months later. Now he's in the same situation. Will he be like those two? Or will he find somehow some way to hang on? And that's all I've been saying for the last couple of years is don't count them out.

No, it's fair. And I, I give you credit for that. And I think that it's good that you're sort of modifying your position a little bit because you've been kind of lucky with that that whole idea of these kind of these politicians that have this kind of crust around them that is so hard that they don't get put off by things that would if they happen to the rest of us make us just want to go and hide our heads in shame and run away from the job and say why am i putting

myself in this situation and we've had politicians like that in canada and we've you know it's been um it's always interesting to see how thick the skin of some of these people in public life can be and he's got some pretty thick skin uh just like Trump has pretty thick skin. I don't think that ends well at the end of the day, but whenever the end of the day comes, I guess is really what we're debating. And I think it's probably sometime before the next election. You know, I don't think Trump has a thick skin i agree with you johnson does i think you know he's offended but he doesn't sort of quit is what i'm saying i guess he's he can take a lot of incoming and he's sensitive to it and offended by it and he reacts to it

but you don't ever get the sense that he thinks maybe i'm the problem maybe i'm doing something wrong and that's kind of what i'm talking about yeah no i okay i think you know perhaps we are on the same vein there okay so it's prediction time um a week from now a month from now will he still be prime minister? Whatever your prediction is, I'll just say sooner. It's like the price is right. I just need to be on the right side of your extreme pro-bojo kind of prediction. So you put it out there and I'll say one day less. Extreme prediction.

I've been right on every prediction so far about Boris Johnson. I will say this, he will not be prime minister forever. All right. You know, one day less than forever. No, I don't think he's going to make it to the next election. And you do. Why don't we just leave it at that? That's probably not a bad way to look at it at it all right i think he needs a turnaround he needs something to happen that could go drastically in his favor or overwhelmingly in his favor i don't know what that could be but if it did it might calm the waters a bit for him all right now mind you he's still got to get through this week um i'll bet you a new four iron that one that like the one that you got that birdie with on

13 and crude and bay that's the best i'll get you another one of those you get me one if i'm right actually there was a two iron that i used on number 13 of crude and bay perhaps one of the hardest holes to golf. Ever created, yeah. Ever created, exactly. All right. Good discussion. And unfortunately, you seem to still be in the wrong. But you've been given opportunities to get out of it. Can't blame you for that.

That's true. Okay. Bruce will be back, of course, on Friday withiday with chantelle a bear who will set us straight on all things that we have to suggest that's good talk on friday tomorrow is your turn so your opportunity to weigh in on any of the issues you've heard here once again i don't use all the letters that come in because there are lots of letters that come in, but I do look for new voices and interesting points that you have to make. Not necessarily ones that I agree with, but interesting points nonetheless and worthy of discussion. So I look forward to that. The Mansbridge Podcast at gmail.com. The Mansbridge

Podcast at gmail.com. That is where to write. I'm Peter Mansbridge. Bruce Anderson's in Ottawa. Thanks for listening on this day. We'll talk to you again in 24 hours.