The Bridge with Peter Mansbridge - Your Questions -- Our Answers. From The US Election to Brian Mulroney to Remembrance Day

Episode Date: November 5, 2020

A bit of catch up today while we keep our eye on the big story.

and hello there peter mansbridge here with the latest episode of the bridge daily what a week this one has been right um and we're still as we record this podcast today, it still, you know, hasn't been like declared who the next president is or the president-elect is going to be. Whether Trump will maintain his position or whether it'll be Joe Biden. It looks, at this hour anyway, that it's going to be Joe Biden. But as the yogi used to say, it ain't over till it's over. And it ain't over yet. But we thought we'd take a little bit of a break today in terms of we're going to talk a little bit about the U.S. election. But we're going to do it all through your words.

Because as always happens here at the Bridge Daily and the Race Next Door, the podcast within a podcast, you're not shy. You drop the odd line to us and we're going to read some of them today. And for that, especially for the beginning portion, which is some of your thoughts on the election, I've asked Bruce to join us from Ottawa, from our Ottawa studios of the worldwide Bridge Daily Race Next Door Network.

There he is sitting in his little office on. Hello, Peter. What is that? And the count goes on. Is that the third floor of your abode in Ottawa? Yeah, it's the world headquarters of my working life here in Ottawa. And it has been for months and months and months. But I'm lucky it's beautiful. As you all know out there, we are constantly challenged by audio.

I'm trying to make things right and get better. We've been using, of late, we've been using Zoom to connect us so we can actually see each other, but you fortunately only have to listen to us instead of watching us in our little homes. Bruce in his office in Ottawa, me in my office, our home offices in Stratford, Ontario. All right, so let's get to the first letter here

that I want to talk about. It comes from Julie Johnston, who wrote just in the last, I don't know, I lost track of all days this week, but she's written in the last couple of days. Here she goes. Hi, Peter. In listening to your day after the election podcast,

I sensed Bruce was experiencing something that happens to all of us at some point in our career when we question, what have I been doing? He's been polling for 40 years, and even he couldn't call this in terms of what happened on Tuesday night. Bruce should know that I don't think he got it wrong. He did the absolute best with the stats he had. But he's right.

It's the stats that are faulty. And just like every evaluation we all do at some point in our careers, pollsters need to possibly adjust their methods to reach those that were unreachable this time. And in 2016. so people like Bruce have better numbers to work with. I remember hearing the term leaners this time, and it was explained as the people who lean in and tell you they're voting for Trump. They don't say it from a distance and out loud, they kind of lean in and say, I'm voting for Trump.

They're not the rally people. They're not the MAGA hat people. They're the quiet, lean in and say it softly Trump voters. I would love to see those voters studied because I sense their trepidation at sharing their vote tells me the population the Democrats need to look at. Like so many others, now it's a long letter from Julie, I'm not reading it at all, but it's good, you know, and there's a lot of interesting thoughts in here, carrying on with what she says. Like so many others, my stomach was sinking all election night long, tightening before I went to

bed, and uneasy when I woke. I'm Canadian and have the knowledge that whatever is happening in the USA is not my government. But like many other people, I want what is good for all countries around the world. I want to see the hatred and vitriol that I see happening in the USA to stop. And I, like Bruce, believe that the lack of respect for the democratic process that we have all witnessed in several U.S. elections now, particularly this one, is cause for the world community to send monitors for the next one. If this was happening in Belarus or Chad or Argentina or any other country around the world, moderators would go in to ensure a fair election. And as a side note, why they don't have federal rules about the number of polling stations, set voting regions, ballots, counting, and basic processes for a federal election baffles me.

Non-U.S. non-partisan monitors should be there next time, and every time, until it's clear they are running fair elections and organizations like the U.S. Postal Service are not colluding to suppress votes. The incumbent is not calling for the suppression of votes. Political parties aren't installing fake ballot boxes, and maps aren't being redrawn to benefit one party over another. If that was happening in any other country, monitors would be on the ground there. All right, I'm going to stop there and get Bruce to weigh in on the various things that Julie said up to and including that last one, which is I think she was obviously listening to you.

You made that same comparison. If this was happening somewhere else, we'd be up on our, you know, shouting boxes and saying, hey, we've got to send monitors there. But overall in terms of, you know, this is, Julie's obviously a very concerned person who worries about a number of factors in terms of what we've witnessed this week. What's your take? What's your advice? Well, Peter, I think the first thing is thank you, Julie,

for not blaming me for getting it wrong. That's how I like to say it. But it was a very thoughtful letter. And there was another thing, I think, in the letter that I really took note of, which was her comments about her daughter taking civics and becoming really interested in our democracy and how it works and that's one of the things that I kind of took away is I've been whenever I get a little bit distressed about the state of political life here in Canada or in other parts of the world, it's often because I look at people who've been in politics for a long time doing things that are diminishing the currency of public life. And I'm not against old people being in politics. I'm not against people being in politics for a long time. I've been around politics for a long time. But I do feel like one of the things that we know probably doesn't always work that well is if somebody gets into politics young and intends to stay in it all their lives. And I think, you know, it leads to a situation where people think that the job of being elected is really what being in public office is. They become kind of

preoccupied all the time with how do I raise money? How do I connect with voters? How do I figure out what voters want me to do? And I don't know that if you don't have any other experience other than a life running for office, I don't know if that really gets us the best combination of people in public life. So I don't love the idea that there are 80-year-old men kind of in the center of U.S. politics. I kind of feel like there have to be people who have an understanding of younger people, but I'm also a little bit leery of people who get into politics early and never intend to leave. I think we should be moving people in and out or hoping that people move in and out more in order to liven up our lives. But our political lives and impression of thinking

as issues evolve and generational interests change. And we're doing better at that, I think, in Canada than the United States is. But the United States has some very bright spots as well with AOC, for example.

But the other thing that I'm really struck by that's kind of less about the generational side of things and more just generally how are we dealing with public issues. In our work for several years, we've seen that about 30% of the public pay attention to public issues on a day in, day out basis. These are the people who watch the news programs, who read newspaper content online, who talk about issues with their friends or neighbors or family. And what we're really observing is that the other 70% don't. It takes something really, really, really significant

to intrude upon their regular lives and say, hey, outside of an election period, pay attention to this issue. And there have been fewer and fewer of those kinds of events and more and more other types of information and we say, these are the people who are following the issues, who are thinking about the arguments that they're hearing, maybe joining the parties, maybe joining civil action groups, that kind of thing, talking with each other. But then you get 65% or so, which is probably the turnout number that we're going to see in the US voting. It really kind of tells us that the other 35% really don't have a background of the last few years of paying attention. And that's their choice. But it does have some consequences. We talked about yesterday people grazing lightly at the table of knowledge and realizing that a lot of people just kind of said, well, I'm a red shirt.

I'm a blue shirt. Or I don't like socialism. Or I don't like socialism or I don't like racism and kind of really boiling everything down to something really small. And I feel that anxiety that Julie does in her letter. I think that it's hard for parties to overcome it. We've seen an increase to look like about 160 million votes being cast in this U.S. election, the biggest number ever, only 126 the last time America did this. And on the one hand, it's really tempting to say, isn't that great? Isn't that a sign of a really healthy democracy?

And on the other hand, you can look at it and go, well, maybe it's not. Maybe it's good that people turned out, and maybe it's good that a lot of people were motivated to turn out because they had strong feelings. But were their strong feelings really as well informed as we might like? And I know that sounds judgmental, and I don't intend it that way. I'm just thinking about it from the standpoint of what the longer term is. And let me just finish by returning to the question of young people. The way that young people think about public life and public issues is probably the only thing that routinely makes me feel really optimistic. And Peter, you and I have had the

opportunity to work on a project for about a decade now. And I know you've been involved with a lot of young people through various things that you're involved with, internship programs to bring people, young people in to work on Parliament Hill. Every year when my family had an opportunity to do that, the sense of excitement that we see in all the people who apply and the people who come here and participate like that, and their brain power and their optimism really does make me feel really good about things. And I think that's a more broad phenomena. There are a lot of young people who are feeling the system doesn't work as well for them as it should. And I think they've got reason to feel that way. But I think they're

going to take the steering wheel soon. And soon is not soon enough sometimes. Let me, let me pick up on a couple of points. They don't directly relate to Julie's letter, but I think you, you really responded to it in ways that I can't. And it was, it was really good. Here are the two points I'm going to touch on. You mentioned that the turnout rate will probably be somewhere around,

you know, in the low 60s or mid-60s. And quite frankly, that's pretty damn good for the U.S. because they've had a hard time getting over 50% of the eligible voters and sometimes a lot less than that. So something inspired people to get out and vote this time. But 65% is like 65%. That's like not even two-thirds of the population and a third left. Now, we're kind of in that range too.

On a good election these days, we're somewhere in the mid-60s. Now, I mean Canada in terms of its turnout rate. Let me just put this in some perspective because those of us who've been in countries where they never had the right to vote and then they suddenly got it they fought for it they you know they protested for it some of their parents died for it but they got that vote and in those countries the turnout rate is like almost a hundred percent like people stand in hours. You know, we made a lot of fuss this week

about how people were standing in line to vote. Man, that's nothing in some of the countries I'm thinking of, in other parts of the world, where they had to go through this long period of fighting to have the right to vote. But they cherish it. It's their ticket into democracy. It's their ability to have a decision made about who's going to govern them.

And when you see people standing in line, crying because they've achieved that right. And then you think about, man, why can't we motivate people here like that? Because in the end, what's being decided on those days is how you're going to be governed and, in fact, how you're going to be living as part of a country that is electing a new government or re-electing an old government. But either way, you're in there, you're participating. You know, as somebody who we both admire, John Turner, used to say, you know, democracy doesn't happen by accident. You've got to participate. And that can be in the simple act of voting

or it can be in more than that. It can be running, you know, for election. It can be doing some public good in terms of service within your community. But you've got to participate. And so voting is part of that. Now, the other thing I was going to mention, and when I look at the craziness that's unfolded since Tuesday night when they started counting ballots and the different, you know, court fights that are going to happen and have already been threatened and the lawsuits and this and that and the other, that happens in our good neighbor's country but doesn't happen in our country partly because we have a uniform system like with everybody operates under the same rules from one end of our country to the other

where in the states they operate under rules that are set by individual states so you've got like 50 different sets of rules and you have these bizarre situation where you you saw arguments on this part of the same party and the same candidate to stop the vote in one state and keep counting in another state i mean it's just crazy so you know i mean listen our systems are are very different and i'm sure there are advantages to the way the American system works over ours. But there are also advantages for our system over theirs. All right. Let me move on to the next letter.

I don't know why that bell keeps ringing. It's got something to do with my messages that come in by email. And no matter what I try, I can't stop it from impacting on the way I'm recording this. So I'm sorry about that. Robin Ward writes from Edmonton. Hi, Peter. Thank you for the thoughtful and insightful podcast during the U.S. election campaign period, and also for this morning's podcast. And I assumed Robin was going to immediately then move into a whole series of things that I'd said. You know, little nuggets of great thoughts that I'd come up with during the podcast.

Silly me. Here's what Robin said. I appreciate many little nuggets of wisdom from this morning. People graze lightly at the table of knowledge. That was a good one. That was Bruce. People hear what they want to hear and disregard the rest. That was Bruce. Actually, it was Simon and Garfunkel, but it was Bruce who quoted him. Do you know which song that came from? Boxer. Great song. The Boxer?

Yeah. Did I ever tell you my Simon and Garfunkel story? When I first started, I was a DJ at CHFC in Fort Churchill. And the most exciting day of the week was when the new 45s would arrive. And on this Friday, when they arrived one week, was Simon Garfunkel, Bridge Over Troubled Water. I listened to it. And it ran like

five minutes and twelve seconds. Something like that. Which is really long in those days for a piece of music. Most 45s ran like

two minutes. Minute 57 to 12 would be a long one. So I listened to that and I said this song will never make it.

It's too long. That was the end of my DJ days. I thought you were going to say we should rename today's episode of The Bridge, The Bridge Over Troubled Water. That's right. It's a great name for a podcast. That's a very good idea. Maybe that's what I'll put out in terms of our little promos on Instagram and Twitter.

All right. Here's the third, yet another great nugget. Political parties may become AI robots and learn from the response they'd get. I think that was you too. Yeah, it was. Not you too, but you as well. You too sang a different song.

And finally, he gets around to somebody other than you, but it's not me. It's from Bruce Heyman, the former U.S. Ambassador to Canada who we had on earlier. I guess it was last week. But he was interviewed on The Current this week, and he said, never underestimate how important something is to someone else,

even though it may not be that important to you. That's a great piece of advice. Because I think we all tend to dismiss stuff that we don't think is important to us. Yeah. And not recognize the fact that it's obviously important to the person who said it. It is a great piece of advice. And I was thinking about this point this morning when I was thinking about how Mitch McConnell is probably going to continue to be the leader of the Republicans in the Senate. And the likelihood that at least at this moment that there's going to be a Democrat Joe Biden in the White House. And, you know, people have been kind of writing me and calling me and talking about whether

or not gridlock is really what we have to look forward to. And I don't really know the answer to that, obviously. I don't think any of us do. But one of the things that would have been easy to observe about Mitch McConnell in the last few years is he was pretty intransigent. He was going to take Trump's agenda and he was going to make it his agenda and he was going to make sure that the Senate, even when they had to hold their nose and do things that were completely inconsistent with things that they had said before, such as endorsing or processing the appointment of Justice Amy Coney Barrett.

He went ahead and did it. He went ahead and did all of those kinds. So did Lindsey Graham. And when I look at Mitch McConnell and I was kind of remembering that he won his seventh six year term as a senator this week. Seventh six-year term. It kind of goes to my point about that's a long time to serve. Do you really think about other people that much, or do you end up only thinking about how much money you need to raise to fend off the next challenge and to extend your longevity in that house. Power for its own sake, not much interest in finding common ground across the aisle. And so when I think about the Senate, if it remains Republican and remains led by Mitch McConnell, I worry about this question of will this iteration of the U.S.

political system consist of people who think about what other people think about, or at least are able to kind of imagine that there's a legitimacy to their point of view and try to find some common ground. So that gets me a little bit down. But then when I think about Joe Biden, I get optimistic about that. Not because he's a Democrat, necessarily, but because he's been there for a long time, too. But one of the things that's most notable about him, if you ask other politicians who've served with him in his party or in the other party is that he always tended to want to work across the aisle. He was that guy who was known for that skill and that interest and that aptitude, maybe more than anything else, at least in certain long stretches of his career. And he's campaigned on the basis of we need to unite the country.

He's campaigned probably on the basis that he's going to be a one-term president, which changes the psychology of whether you go in every day and you're already kind of figuring out how do I build the blocks for my next campaign and the money that I'm going to need to raise and that sort of thing. And he's probably even more thinking that way because I can't think of a time, certainly not in my lifetime, obviously, if you go back to the Civil War, America has been more disunited,

but it's really disunited now. And so if you're Biden and you're thinking one term and you've always been that, I'm going to cross the floor, I'm going to think about what the other people are thinking about. And I'm going to try not to be judgmental about it all the time. I'm going to try to figure out a way to move things forward. Because the country's really had a belly full of people at daggers drawn all the time and the last thing I'll say is that the line

that our writer picked up which is that if we don't if humans don't reverse the course that our parties are on this is the US comment really they will just become machines that weaponize everything every day

that they can because it raises more money and it produces more angry people. And so humans have to stop that. And I don't have great faith in Mitch McConnell, but I do have some faith that Joe Biden might take a different approach. Let me tell you something that you actually may not know. But, you know, I totally agree with you on everything you said about Mitch McConnell up to today. Especially on how he acted in this last four years. I think most of it was more self-motivation

than protecting Trump because he wanted to stack the courts, not just the Supreme Court, all of them. And he used Trump basically as a foil to get there. But I'll tell you something else about him. He has a good relationship with Biden, and Biden has a good relationship with him. So let's see where that goes. Because there's an opportunity here. I was actually thinking of it the other day when it seemed to become clear that the Republicans

were going to maintain control of the Senate, which may in fact be the best thing to happen. Because if they can controlled both houses, the partisan nature of Capitol Hill would have just been over the top. It may still be, depending on what happens in the Senate. But if there is Democrat House of Representatives, Republicans control the Senate. And there is some kind of common bond to want to find out what they can work on together to achieve some progress. That could be a really good thing,

because it would take the partisan stuff out of the way, at least for a while. They've got big things in front of them. They've got the pandemic, they've got the economy, and they've got big things in front of them they got the pandemic they got the economy and they got to get their act together and i think one of the first people that biden sits down with from the other side is gonna what it will probably be his old i don't know whether friend is the right word but his old acquaintance with the where who they have worked together in the past on, that could actually really have an impact on the way this,

if it's going to be a Biden government, unfolds. Here's the other thing I was going to say, because I also agree with you about, you know, people being in position for an extremely long time in politics and, you know, election after election after election. That would add up to like, whatever, 42 years for Mitch McConnell if he serves out the full six years here. There are always exceptions to this rule, and you know some of them,

and I know some of them. I mean, I can remember in the 60s covering a re-election campaign of Stanley Knowles, the NDP in Winnipeg North Center. And he'd already been around for 20 years, and he'd be around for another 20 years. Here was a guy who never forgot why he was there. It was always to try and make life better for others, right? Not himself. And, you know, I used to go and watch him on the line at the rail yards in Winnipeg, handing out pamphlets, often by himself, you know, during an election campaign,

and talking to these guys like he really knew them and that he understood their issues. And there was somebody who, until the day he died, was a creature of Parliament and somebody who believed in the system and tried to use the system to its best advantage. And I know, Bruce, you could probably rattle off the names of more than a few others as well. So, you know, there are always exceptions to that and arguments against the possibility of some form of term limits for MPs or what have you. But anyway, I thought I'd throw that in. Here's the last one of the election set. And it's more of a statement than a question. And it's from one of our favorites who writes into the podcast. It's Bonnie McMillan from White Rock, British Columbia.

Love that name. Good for you, Peter, to secure such a true statesman and Canadian to offer his perspective on the upcoming U.S. election. I have always admired Brian Mulroney, irrespective of party affiliation. And tonight's comments by him, he was our guest last week, last Friday night and then through the weekend, tonight's comments by him just solidified that opinion. He has known Donald Trump personally, plus many other USA presidents.

I particularly appreciated his candid and thoughtful introspective analysis on each one. His comments on George Bush senior were touching. Bruce Anderson's questions were spot on. Well, you know, I mean, you didn't have to throw that in Bonnie. Made for lively conversation.

Your podcast always enlarge our perspective on the world of politics, either on our own country or across the border. Tonight's was a gem. That's from Bonnie McMillan. And I read it because, I don't know about you, but I had a lot of people mention the Mulroney podcast to me in terms of listening to him, and it wasn't the same kind of Brian Mulroney that they'd been used to listening from the past.

Podcasting is kind of a liberating experience in many ways. And he seemed to, you know, I think you mentioned it the other day, like very relaxed, very laid back. But also blunt and honest in his assessments of stuff. Yeah, yeah, very freewheeling. I love that letter, not just because my questions were spot on. Thank you, Bob. But I love that because, you know, when you and I first talked about getting some guests to join us for a conversation, one of the things that occurred to me was that we know, you know, because of the work

that we've done and some of the relationships that we've built up, we know quite a number of people who have a lot of interesting things to say. Some of them are people who are a bit controversial, like Brian Mulroney. And so going through the thought process of, well, if we're going to have this kind of controversial person on, how much kind of resistance or criticism are we going to take if we don't challenge them on something that they say? Are people going to hold us responsible in some way for that? And I think we just came to the right conclusion, which is we're going to have people come on and have conversations with us. And it's not a situation where the point is to challenge them.

And there are going to be some people who are going to be offended by somebody who's, who's joining us and they're not going to like that choice that we made. Sorry about that. And, and so be it. And, and I did hear from people who were interested in the fact that we talked

with Brian Mulrooney and who actually listened and said they enjoyed it, including people who don't agree with Brian Mulroney and didn't agree with some of the things that he said. But I like the idea that we have guests with different perspectives on and that we have a respectful conversation. That's certainly the version of politics and talking about politics that I kind of grew up with and believe in. And I'm happy that our listeners like it. Again, I'll let you go because I know you've got to get going. You've got another appointment coming up in the next few minutes. But I'll tell you some good news. We got a special guest tomorrow for the podcast,

for our Friday podcast, which, of course, will be available throughout the weekend. In fact, podcasts are always available. If you didn't hear Mulrooney last week, you should listen to it. It was pretty good. It was very good. And you can get it just by dialing back a few episodes

and you'll see it from last week. But tomorrow, and this would be, this is like putting the old gang back together. Bruce and I are going to be joined by Chantelle a bear. And I can't wait to, you know, she is,

she, I'm probably asked more about her when I travel the country than any other person that I've worked with. What's Chantel really like? That's a constant, no matter where I am in the country, East, West, North, um, all those years, uh, since I first asked her to be on the At Issue panel. Way back, I can't even remember when it was. I think it was in the late 90s.

And then Bruce was on it as well. So it'll be great to get back together with Chantel and talk to her about any number of things, not the least of which may be kind of where things sit in her analysis with the media right now, especially after the U.S. election coverage. So we'll be talking a little bit about that. Anyway, Bruce, that'll be tomorrow. I know we're going to let you slip away here now.

We'll carry on with some other mail. But thanks for doing this today. We'll connect with you and Chantal tomorrow. Take care. Okay. Bye. All right. So let's keep going then in terms of what else we've got on the letter front.

This one comes from Carolyn Black in Waterloo. Peter, very excited about your upcoming book. Are you going to be doing virtual book signings? Signing book plates that can be added to the front of Extraordinary Canadians. That's the name of the book. The book comes out next Tuesday. And I've already been doing a lot of pre-release publicity with various television interviews and radio interviews

and newspaper interviews, and appreciate the fact that people who've actually read the book are very big on it. They're very happy. Some of the early reviews are terrific. There's going to be the Globe and Mail on Monday is doing an excerpt of one of the chapters of Extraordinary Canadians. The book is, you know, it's pretty simple in concept. Mark Bulgich and

I, my co-author, focus on 17 Canadians who we have found extraordinary. And most of them you've never heard of before. But you will have heard of them after you've read these stories on each of them. So that's Monday in the Globe. Monday's podcast, I'm going to have Mark on, Mark Bulgich, and we'll talk about the book on the eve of its release. So Carolyn's question is about virtual book signings I've already pre-signed a lot of books that are going to certain groups that ordered big quantities

of the book actually from the publisher and I will find ways to do others as well it's a little tricky given the pandemic I'm not sure how that'll work. Book plates is one way, but you still go to then move the book plates around, but we'll look into that. Thanks for the idea, Carol. Okay. This is a long one. I'm going to read some'm going to read some of it not all of it

um hey this is a long podcast already maybe I'll save this one I'll save this one because it is actually a really long one um and it came from the other side of the world so that's good one because it is actually a really long one. And it came from the other side of the world.

So that's good too. The worldwide reach of the Bridge Daily. I'm just going to read a portion of this particular one. It comes from Melissa Hillman in Sydenham, Ontario. And this gets us in the proper thought process for next week, next Wednesday, November 11th. Both of my grandfathers served in World War II. My father's dad in the RCAF and my mother's father were the Stormont, Dundas, and Glengarry Highlanders.

My paternal grandfather never left Canadian soil. His efforts were part of the ground crews who supported aircraft patrolling the waters on our east coast. My maternal grandfather, however, traveled to Europe with the Glens and fought alongside his brothers-in-arms on the beaches of Normandy, then through France, Belgium, and pushed through to Holland where victory was finally declared. It took him 50 years to even speak of the war. He bore his battle wounds beneath two thick layers of intertwined anger and humor, the two competing for opportunities to rear their heads through most of his adult life.

In the fall of 1993, he had been invited to attend the 50th anniversary of D-Day celebrations, planned for June of 94 in Normandy, and suddenly all these stories came flooding out. Sadly, despite his plans to attend, airline tickets purchased and hotel rooms booked, he was unable to go in the end. He'd suffered a stroke a few months before they were to leave,

and despite his attempts to recover, a second fatal stroke extinguished his flame that summer. Flash forward to 2015 when I was visiting my grandmother, his widow in London, Ontario. It must have been the springtime because she was changing the seasons in her closet and was sorting through the things that would be stored in her cedar chest.

She called me to her bedroom and indicated she had a favor to ask. She then produced a bundle that was neatly folded and wrapped in tissue paper. As she pulled the paper back, bright red, crisp white, and then a deep, dark black woolen fabric was revealed. My brow must have been furrowed because she looked at me and held my wrist and explained that she should, should she die, she didn't want anyone to get the wrong impression, that the content of the package was my grandfather's, and she never knew what to do with it, so she just had it at the bottom of her cedar chest for decades. I don't think my look of confusion was erased, and so she unfurled it, revealing the rather shocking unmistakable symbol of a swastika emblazoned on a richly

colored Nazi flag. What the hell, Grandma? Spoils of war, she explained. Granddad and his men had liberated it from a building in Holland on VE Day. She had pictures, too. Evidently, my grandfather, the gruff, larger-than-life man who I'd never once seen take a single picture, let alone happily pose for one, had carried a Kodak brownie with him throughout his European tours. And Melissa attaches some of the photos, including a picture of my grandfather and his buddies with that very flag snapped moments after they freed the municipal building of it. My grandmother died the next winter, having succumbed to pneumonia just after midnight the day after her 90th birthday.

I told my father, a historian in his own right, of her package and her cedar chest. He has plans to deliver the flag back to the Glens, whose regiment is based in Cornwall. Quite the story. She ends the letter by saying, Many thanks, Peter, for your podcast, for your voice of reason and comfort through this time, and for reminding us all, as we live through these historic events,

that there are events of times past that are important to remember too. In memory of my grandfather, who would always steal my french fries with a mischievous smile under the Blue Water Bridge. John Frederick Gale. Thanks, Melissa. Next Wednesday, Remembrance Day. Might have to find a different way

of remembering on that day. And obviously I've seen a lot of Remembrance Days and many outside the National War Memorial in Ottawa doing the broadcasts. And these days I tend to walk down to the Cenotaph here in Little Stratford, just like they have Cenotaphs memorials in towns big and small right across the country. And if you get that moment next Wednesday, maybe you'll head that way too. All right.

That's the letter we're going to leave you with on this day. Lots of things coming up next week. Tomorrow, Chantelle Hebert. Monday, Mark Bulgich on my, mine and his new book that comes out on Tuesday. Next Wednesday is Remembrance Day. And in the background to all of that

we have the continuing story south of the border and the continuing story that has no borders and that's COVID-19. Stay well. Stay safe. Remember the things we always remember.

Wash your hands. Stay socially distant. Avoid big crowds. Smile. And wear a mask. Right? All right, until tomorrow. Until Chantelibare.

We'll talk to you in 24 hours. And of course, that is in honour of the fact we are very close to finding out who that song will be playing for in the future. In the meantime, that's it for the Bridge Daily on this day. I'm Peter Mansbridge. Thanks for listening.