The Bridge with Peter Mansbridge - Your Turn And The Random Ranter on Guns

Episode Date: December 8, 2022

The Ranter (should he be formerly known as "Random") has his take on the gun issue and so do you with Your Turn.  Plus a lot of other issues from why red and blue in US politics, to Donald Trump. 

And hello there, Peter Mansbridge here. It's Thursday. You're just moments away from the latest episode of The Bridge. Thursday, your turn. Random Rander, we got it all. Oh, we're getting near the end of the week. We're getting into mid-December. We're getting closer to the holidays. We can all feel it. Parts of the country, it looks like holiday time. It looks like cold and snow. Other parts, it's still, you know, struggling to get out of the fall.

We're kind of in that area, southern Ontario right now. One day it feels like winter, the next day it feels like fall. All right. It's Thursday, and that means your comments, your ideas, your thoughts, some of your questions that come our way during the week, and they're usually about, you know, the issues of the day or the issues of the last week or so. And we've got a wide variety of stuff this week, and of course we have,

because it's Thursday, we have our friend the Random Renter. But let's start with some of your comments. You know, it was funny, yesterday on Smoke Mirrors and the Truth, at one point we were talking about, you know, why are Republicans red in the U.S. and Conservatives are blue in Canada, and the opposite is true for Liberals or Democrats. You know, Democrats are blue in the States, red in Canada. So how did this happen?

You know, you go back actually decades and decades for the Canada one. It goes back, it's kind of on the British tradition, the colors that are associated with left and right. But not so in the States. They're different. And, you know, Bruce and I sort of said, we don't really know what in the States. They're different. And, you know, Bruce and I sort of said, we don't really know what's the answer. Knowing full well that that dedicated group of listeners out there

who listen to the bridge every day, or at least a couple or three days a week, some of them will have ideas, and sure enough, some of them did. People like Henry Waller wrote in. He'd done a search. He'd gone through some other podcasts. He found what he thought was the answer. It all started in the year 2000 as a result of the prolonged election discussion in the U.S.,

that they ended up, because of media and the way the media was portraying the story in its graphics, ended up with red for the Republicans, blue for the Democrats. Well, thank you, Henry, but, you know, as it turns out, that's not entirely accurate. Michael Williamson from Burling, Ontario, wrote in, Quick note to thank you for asking the red-blue question as it pertains to the colours corresponding to

Liberals, Conservatives in Canada and the USA. I've always wondered the same without the nerve to ask. I'm glad I am not the only one. I reflexively fall to blue conservative, red liberal because of my nationality, so I always must flip them in my mind when watching the U.S. media. Looking forward to the answer. Mark Parsons in Montreal. He's actually a PhD student at McGill. And biostatistics. Biostatistics. Part of his letter is, it seems that the red-blue distinction in the U.S. is quite recent.

It dates only from the early 2000s. Another one. According to what I've read, CNN and some other networks had started using the colors in their maps during that year's election, and the trend caught on from there. It was actually the New York Times that was first started in the 2000s. I believe that our colors here in Canada date to much earlier. I haven't done any reading on this, but I'd guess they're related

systems in Europe. As you well know, blue is typically the color of the right, UK conservatives, or Les Républicains in France, while the red is a more leftist option, UK Labour or the socialists in France. That's all true.

But when you do a deep dive, as the research team here at the bridge did, you find that actually it started in 1976. I've got a cough here for a minute, so I'm just going to mute my mic. Hold on. There. I'm back. Started in 1976 around the time of the Jimmy Carter campaign in the United States.

When NBC used a series of colored lights to pop up on their graphic wall to show who was leading in which state. And they chose red for Republicans, RR apparently, so the story goes, and blue for the Democrats. Now, I don't understand if it was RR, why it was BD, but nevertheless, they picked red first, and they assigned it to the Republicans in their lighting system. And that started to grow over time until by the year 2000, all the different media groups were using that.

And so that's when it became red for Republicans, blue for Democrats. But not us. We're going with the way that history has taught us to do it. Just red for liberals, blue for conservatives. You could say red for left or port. Blue for right or starboard. Except it's green, isn't it? I don't know. Now we've got everybody thoroughly confused. But that apparently is the correct origins of red-blue in the States. Moving on.

Trevor Seyfried in Calgary writes, and this is more about sort of the way things are unfolding politically in our country the electoral map or the electoral map should tell you something the Liberal Party of Canada is so toxic here Alberta

that the NDP is often the second choice George Cahal was elected in Calgary Skyview Alberta, that the NDP is often the second choice. George Cahal was elected in Calgary Skyview, but he could have run for any party and been elected. He is popular in the northeast of Calgary, regardless of affiliation. He's a liberal. The anger, frustration, and division felt in Calgary is very, very real and is quite serious, as it seems that screw the West and take the rest is back. Now, this is all as a result of the Sovereignty Act in Alberta

that Trevor's writing this. But that's just one voice from Alberta. Here's another one, Grace Burwash. She writes from Calgary as well. My name's Grace Burwash. I write to you from Calgary. As an Albertan, I agree that Danielle Smith didn't think through the Sovereignty Act

before she brought it to the legislature. I think most Albertans would rather focus on inflation and health care than picking more fights with Ottawa. Sometimes it seems as if Premier Smith hasn't realized that being the leader of a province is very different from her previous job as a radio show host. I also have a question for Brian Stewart. What impact has the Russian paramilitary organization, the Wagner Group, had on the war in Ukraine? We actually talked about

this just not this week, but last week. Brian had a mention of that, but I'll mention it to him again and see if there's anything more to say than what we've already said. Gun legislation has been a big topic in the last little while, as you well know, and some of the controversy surrounding some of the statements that were made around the December 6th anniversary of the massacre of the Polytechnique in Montreal. Many years ago now. And I should give you a heads up, the ranter has to talk about guns today. Remember the ranter is, well, he's from the West. He makes no bones about that and about his history in the West.

He's not a partisan, doesn't belong to any party, just a guy. But he has some thoughts on the current amendments to the gun legislation. But first of all, some letters on guns. Pamela McDermott writes from Burlington, Ontario. I have hunters in my family and believe our resources and wildlife need husbandry, but also feel that for hunting to be a true sport, it needs to give the animals a fighting chance to survive. Hunting with military armament negates that.

I also have a deep understanding of violence towards women, the weak and the different. Therefore, I am glad my government is willing to restrict our access to military armaments. I'm disheartened watching the majority of Americans being stymied trying to walk back some of their gun laws by dark money, bad politicians, and other countries with their fingers in the political murky pot watching in glee as Americans lose hope, as mass murders become an epidemic for them. I don't want that for Canada. Spencer Stinson writes from Blenheim, Ontario. This on guns.

To start, I'm a gun owner that grew up in rural Ontario. I've hunted waterfowl and deer for 20 plus years on my parents' property north of Kingston. To pair with that, I'm also rather left of the spectrum, as are many long gun owners in Canada. I voted NDP my entire life based on my personal values and actually hope to see some NDP pushback on their support of the Liberals on this. Charlie Angus has already spoken up. Charlie's one of the NDP members from Northern Ontario, and he has spoken up on not liking the current, or parts of the

current legislation, amendments to it. I 100% agree with the ban on handguns, which is what the government originally sold C-21, that's the name of the bill, as. I don't agree with the it's my hobby argument, and there really isn't a use for them in my opinion. Are legal handguns used in most gang-related crimes? No. And we can argue about whether the government should be spending time on this now, but I still don't think banning them is a terrible idea. If it prevents one death, either from a mishandled firearm by a child or a violent partner, then it's done its job. This leads me to my next point about the politicization of C21. If the Liberals came out and said that this law is

intended to reduce violence on all levels, for example, in the case of domestic homicide, then I could potentially get behind some of it. But the constant show on Parliament Hill about this doing something for battling crime shows they are entirely out of it. But the constant show on Parliament Hill about this doing something for battling crime shows they are entirely out of tune. Ian Hutchinson writes, and he's from Grey County, Ontario. Now, if you listened to Smoke Mirrors and Truth yesterday, you heard Bruce talk about this, this issue about a promo code from the CCFR

that has caused a great deal of discussion, consternation, and people are quite upset about it. The CCFR's promo code was not directed at the massacre at Polytechnique. It was directed at Poly-Se-Souvien. Poly are a gun control advocacy group, and these two groups view each other as mortal enemies. CCFR certainly holds some radical positions that I'm sure many Canadians disagree with,

as do Poly, who have suggested that civilian firearm ownership in Canada should be completely banned, and that hunters and sports shooters are more dangerous mass shooters because they practice regularly. So, I'm assuming Ian is right here about the code and where it came from. But it has certainly been interpreted by many, wrongly it appears, that they were talking about the Polytechnique massacre by using that as a code. Now, I mentioned a few moments ago that the ranter wants to talk about guns this week. And in a moment he will.

But there have been some letters about the ranter. And I've got to tell you, we started this, what, two months ago? As an idea. Let's try this and see how people react to it. And I've got to tell you that it's been like 95% in favor of the ranter. Not in agreement necessarily with the ranter, but the whole idea of having this element on the Thursday show has been a popular one. And, you know, I'm happy to say that.

You know, I'm glad it's working for those of you, and it's making you think, making you argue, making you disagree with the ranter, or agree. Anyway, Charlotte Fennell, Sherry, she writes from Lindsay, Ontario. I'm curious about something. Is it my imagination, or is the serious advertisement announcer at the beginning of your podcast and the random ranter the same person? Now,

early on I said I'm not going to get in the game of saying it is or it isn't this person or that person. But I will tell you this, it's nobody from Sirius XM. Sirius XM, which broadcasts The Bridge daily at noon, Monday to Friday, on Sirius XM channel 167 Canada Talks. So, Sherry, there's your answer on that. Derek Dillabo writes, After listening to the random ranter this week,

I could not help to think of that ever-present guy at the end of the bar who, after a couple of beers, starts giving his opinion on just about anything and everything, just loud enough for all of us to hear. Now, that may not be a fair assessment of Double R as being a semi-professional ranter. That is his job, to rant. However, here is a job, to rant. However, here's a challenge for our random friend. Does he have anything good to say?

There's a cesspool of grievance just about everywhere you look, so rather than RR diving in head first, let's hear something positive from his point of view. Does he like Trudeau's socks? Elizabeth May's glasses? Puppies?

Christmas? Anything? Come on, Mr. Rant, or chin up. Put on a happy face. The world is not that bad. Tell us a joke. Spin a yarn. Crack a smile.

Throw some good vibes out into the ether. You can do it. I read that to the ranter yesterday and said, you know, maybe next week it's our final show before the holidays. We do a two-week break over the holidays. Maybe you want to throw some good cheer out there. Was his reply. But we'll see what he ends up doing. Here's the last letter on the random ranter this week. This may well go down as one of my favorite all-time letters. It comes from Wade Hall in Toronto. When I first heard about this segment,

I assumed multiple random ranters would fill this slot. Given that we now have a regular ranter, I submit that he is no longer random and may merit a new name. The I like it. Okay, time to get serious. Because the ranter, formerly known as Random, wants to talk about the gun issue. So let's give them a platform. I got my first gun as a birthday present when I was one year old. By the time I could actually shoot a gun, I already had a full complement, a 22, a 12 gauge shotgun and a 30 odd six hunting rifle.

Our family dog was not a pet. He was an imposing, ice breaking, tough tough-as-nails Chesapeake Bay Retriever. I was excused from school for a week during duck season and another week during deer season. And the rule was, if you shot it, you eat it. And we ate lots of it. So it's safe to say that my family was firmly a hunting family. And growing up, I loved it. Now I don't hunt anymore, but it's not to say that my family was firmly a hunting family, and growing up, I loved it. Now, I don't hunt anymore, but it's not a personal choice.

It's really just life intervening. But to this day, the smell of gun oil floods me with great memories of being out in nature with my dad and his friends, driving endless miles listening to the radio, talking about life, and cooking what we shot on a Coleman stove. Hunting is a lifestyle, and generally speaking, hunters are not the problem with guns. But as we move towards new levels of gun control, we risk criminalizing hunters who in some cases may have owned their guns for generations. The government is looking to mold their new gun controls along the lines of legislation in Australia, which bans all semi-automatic rifles. Now I don't have an issue

with that, because in my family we only used bolt action rifles. My dad was pretty adamant in driving home that a rifle can kill from miles away, so every time you squeeze that trigger, you need to aim and think about where the bullet is going if you miss. Semi-automatics make it pretty easy to spray some lead without thinking. But that said, the overwhelming majority of hunters are responsible, including those who opt for semi-automatics. And an outright ban on their hunting rifles would impact them much more than it would affect crime. Personally, I think this is politics. But I don't know how the Liberals benefit.

A broad gun ban will play well in the cities. But with urban crime, the problem isn't hunting rifles. It's handguns. Taking away hunting rifles from innocent hunters isn't taking guns off the street. It's taking guns out of safes. And it plays right into the Conservatives' hands. The Liberals will secure more votes in the street. It's taking guns out of safes. And it plays right into the conservatives' hands. The liberals will secure more votes in the GTA, but to me, you don't need to make your point on the backs of law-abiding hunters. Keep it simple. Ban handguns and ban obvious assault

style rifles like the AR-15. When it comes to crime, handguns are the big problem. They're not for hunting, they're for concealing. Into target shooting, why don't you try archery? And gun collectors, maybe try collecting something that isn't deadly, like beanie babies. Or if you need to get your gun fix, hook yourself a ticket to the States, and maybe make it one way. Batting handguns and obvious assault rifles would cause some pushback for sure, but it would largely take hunters out of the equation and it would put the conservatives in the position of having to defend handguns and assault rifles. That said though, Australia is on to something. I think that if you really truly want to stop mass shootings, then restricting

semi-automatic rifles is a step in the right direction, and that includes common hunting models. But if hunters aren't the problem, then maybe there's some halfway measures we can take to lessen the impact of the new legislation on them. Instead of an outright ban, how about banning new semi-automatic sales and restricting the sale of used semi-automatics? At the same time, you could start buying them back voluntarily, all without criminalizing their possession. Hunters won't love it, but they also won't be blindsided by it, or more importantly, criminalized by it. Well, there you go.

The ranter, formerly known as Random. His take on guns. I'm sure I'm going to hear from some of you on that one. So don't be shy. All right. We're going to move on. We've got kind of a potpourri of letters. There's all kinds of different topics.

We're going to get to them right after this. And welcome back. You're listening to The Bridge for this Thursday. That means it's your turn. We're getting your letters. You're listening on Sirius XM, Channel 167, Canada Talks, or on your favorite podcast platform. Tomorrow, Friday,

we're back on the YouTube channel for Good Talk, so I didn't want to miss that. You can get the free link at my bio on either Twitter or Instagram. Okay, moving on with your letters. And as I said, there's quite a few of them on different topics. Jeffrey Oliver writes from St. John's, Newfoundland. I've been wondering and waiting for you, who loves airplanes, airports, and military stories, and who once was a hopeful naval aviator.

That's true, we don't talk about that. To mention Top Gun Maverick. This leads me to believe you haven't seen it yet. You know what? I did see it. And I thought it was great. Now, I'm a Tom Cruise fan. I don't want to get into a debate about that, but I like Tom Cruise for his acting abilities.

I'm not particularly interested in what else he does in his life, but I like the way he acts, and I loved both Top Guns, including this one. Somebody who's flown in an F-18 and tried to think I could do the kind of things that those amazing pilots do. Watching Top Gun was a thrill. And jet pilots who I've talked to, including my friend Chris Hatfield, the astronaut, who was a Top Gun himself, says it was a great movie and was realistic. So I'll take his word for it. Peter Harbin writes from Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, and he writes a long letter

with a whole bunch of different things in it. And I'm just going to read one, and it's on the question of bias. I know this is something you're defensive about, I assume in part because of the wackos that you and your former CBC colleagues have had to put up with over the years, most of whom are deluded into believing that the Liberal Party have installed a cabal of operatives to ensure favorable coverage. Whereas I don't believe anything so nefarious,

I do think there's a clear tilt in how and what the CBC reports. It's not explicit and not politically partisan, but the values of the organization clearly diverge from the right-of-center crowd and are more aligned with progressivism. You know, listen, here's where I agree with you. There are lots of progressives in the CBC, and you can hear their voice if you choose to. And you want to hear it as well as you want to hear conservative voices

in any debate and discussion about the news of the day. And that happens. That's how you end up with good programming. Is there a tilt? Well, I'm sure if you're looking for a tilt, you can probably find it somewhere. I always thought and argue today and have argued on this program that because of the good mix of people who were involved in the decision-making process, we didn't have that. And we sure as hell never had anybody from the top down telling us what to do, you know, and pushing a certain angle.

And I mean, you know, from management or beyond. That never happened. Gus Livingston writes from Dunville, Ontario. I enjoyed hearing about Jonathan the tortoise. This was on St. Helena Island in the South Atlantic. I enjoyed hearing about his 190th birthday. Just wondering, when you reported on his 100th birthday, was it as big a deal as his 190th? Oh, you're funny, Gus. But to answer the question, it was. It was a pretty big deal. I remember it well. I remember reporting on that. Sharon Morrison from Yellowknife Northwest Territories.

I'm reading this simply because we're approaching the holiday book season. I downloaded Off the Record. That's last year's book from me. Last week when I was traveling, I must share with you that my reading experience was enjoyable, insightful, and authentic. Thank you, Sharon. By authentic, I mean that hearing your voice to describe your real-life experiences

made it real for me. That's very kind. I'm reading this simply because if you're looking for a book out there, I know it's a year old now, and Extraordinary Canadians, the book I wrote with my buddy Mark Bulgich, is two years old now. But they're both out there. They're both still in the bookstores. They're both selling well.

And you should pick up a copy if you want. And whether you pick up the text or the audio copy off the record, hopefully you'll enjoy it. But it's there. And this Christmas is a little different. You don't have to order online. You can go to the stores, right? Wear a mask if you're in a crowded store.

William Manolakos. Bruce Anderson's opinion. Where's William writing from? He is writing from Maple, Ontario. Bruce Anderson's opinion that the inquiry, the Emergencies Act inquiry, didn't change opinions is probably correct. My own did not, which is incompetence does not justify the invocation of the act. The inquiry reaffirmed my view that everyone involved simply messed up. Using analogy from entertainment, this was not James Bond versus Spectre,

or Rebel Alliance versus the Galactic Empire, but Dudley Do-Right and Snidley Whiplash. All right. John Bean is in West Vancouver. He makes a good point. Some of your listeners may be unaware of just how much Canada is doing in our normal, understated way to support Ukraine. According to the Kiel Institute for the World Economy, which sees itself as the research institute in Germany for globalization issues, it's Kiel, K-I-E-L, if you want to look it up. It's got a website.

In terms of military and financial aid to Ukraine by sovereign nations, Canada ranks number four behind only the U.S., the U.K., and Poland. As of October 3, 2022, Canada has given more than Germany, France, or any of the other 44 countries that the UN says are in Europe except for Poland, which has stepped up. Ashley Armstrong writes, where's she running from? I think she's in the Ottawa area. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think you've addressed Doug Ford's Bill 23 and its impact on the Greenbelt and the GTA and surrounding areas. I'd love to hear this legislation discussed on your program,

as I have many concerns on its impact to green space in Ontario, risks to protected forests and wetlands, impact on agriculture, and if this really is the most thought-out strategy to deal with the housing crises amidst a climate crisis. Finally, I also worry about how this will impact future destruction of protected green space in Ontario, but also across Canada. That's from Ashley Armstrong. Scott Clement in Ottawa also. He writes kind of same thing. I haven't heard any talk on the bridge about just how severe Bill 23 from Doug Ford will be to already declining biodiversity in Ontario.

We have protected green belts in Kings County being purchased by developers a month before the announcement that it will be opened up for development. Yeah, that kind of smelled, didn't it? You're both right, we haven't discussed this on the bridge so far. I'll talk to some of the people who are on the program to see if we want to get into this. You know, I want to make sure there's a national interest in whatever we talk about, and sometimes there is,

sometimes there isn't. But I think this could well be seen as one with real national interest, so let's have a look at it. Sam Obermeyer writes from Washington. He wants to add to the list where we've had this going for a couple of weeks, where people clap when they land in an airplane. He says Cuba does this. I went to Havana for the first time just last month and was

surprised when everyone started clapping upon landing. The same thing happened on our return flight to Florida. I asked what was going on and was told Cubans always clap upon landing to thank the flight staff. One other tidbit, if you want to buy any food at the Havana airport, they only take euros and Canadian dollars. Cuban pesos and American dollars aren't accepted right now. On my next trip, I'll be sure to take some loonies with me so I don't miss another lunch. Yeah, I know, it's a first world problem. It sure is.

Couple of letters on our favorite personality, Donald Trump. In a hundred years, this John Clifford writes from London, Ontario, in a hundred years or so, once the horrors of Trumpism have all been documented, Americans may actually look back on this period with some small degree of gratitude. However incompetent and ham-fisted, Trump has succeeded in lancing an ugly wound on the underbelly of that once great city upon a hill, revealing that racism, anti-Semitism, misogyny, sexism, and religious intolerance are all still alive and continue to corrupt so many.

Such a deep and long-standing wound can only begin to heal once it has been opened, fully exposed, and allowed to drain. Yikes, what an image. Ramesh Duxit from Brampton, Ontario writes, I've read about a dozen Trump books. This is a result of we did a thing about books and it appeared that fiction was taking over. There were more sales for fiction and more increase in sales for fiction than for non-fiction books. And part of the reason

to blame from the publishers was the Trump books have depressed people. Anyway, Ramesh writes from Brampton, I've read about a dozen Trump books, including Confidence Man by Maggie Haberman. I was very surprised about how boring this offering was. It was simply a dispassionate list of things that happened and read like a Wikipedia entry. Boy, it's not often you hear anybody trash Maggie Haberman's writing. And I was shocked to hear that Mike Pence's book didn't meet sales expectations, the shocking part being that some literary agent actually thought anyone would buy this book. People on the left feel he's spineless, and most people on the right agree. On his book tour, he could only muster a tepid milquetoast rebuke, even to those calling for

his own execution. I really don't know who would be interested in paying to learn the innermost thoughts of such a mollusk. Really handing out the compliments today there, Ramesh. I don't disagree on Mike Pence. I have no time for Mike Pence. Anne-Marie Klein writes from Toronto. With regards to non-fiction being less attractive to readers I was wondering if perhaps the overwhelming amount of revelations about current events and personalities

coupled with the misinformation and disinformation added to the daily news feed over social media and other news feeds haven't resulted in the public wanting to hear less about real life subjects and events. I've certainly turned away as a result of the barrage I see on Twitter and find the books I currently have on my wish list and on hold at the local library are all fiction at the moment and I suspect I'm not alone in wanting to turn off the real world to indulge in some good storytelling. Yeah, you know, I can see that. Hey, you want good storytelling?

Off the record, available at your favorite bookstore. Some great storytelling there. Now, mind you, it's all nonfiction. But I think you'll find it entertaining, if you haven't already. Shameless plug for my book, for last year's book, and for Extraordinary Canadians that I wrote with Mark Bulgich two years ago. And guess what? We're in the middle of writing another one right now for Simon & Schuster, and it'll come out next year.

I can't tell you anything about it yet, but I'm sure you're going to hear about it from me in the next year. All right, time for our last letter. This is someone who's been writing to me for a couple of years. I'm a big fan of hers and her family's because she sends not only letters every once in a while, but pictures. I've never met her, but I feel like I know her. She's fast to correct me when I make mistakes about things in the Arctic, but she's also fast to sort of keep me filled in on stuff and telling me stories.

Her name is Dawn Katzik. She's from, I hope I get this right, she's from Pondinlat, which I've been to many times. But she also lives most of the time in Iqaluit. And she's got a wonderful family. If you follow her on Instagram, she's always telling stories about and showing stories about the family and the fun it has and when it goes out on the land. Anyway, her email this week is about her dad. So here we go. A few weeks ago when my dad came in for just a couple of days we took him around

for shopping anything he needs that is not always available in pond inlet he can take home to pond inlet my mom called me up and said make sure your dad watches the news at 6 p.m. We had to hurry up a bit and drop him off to my older sister's house. He wanted to visit her too. Next thing I know, everyone in Pond Inlet is cheering, expressing their joy, posting stuff online. The Baffin Land iron mine

was completely rejected by the ministers for the phase two project. This is one of the mines on Baffin Island near Pond Inlet. And it's been a controversial thing. On the one hand, it creates jobs, much-needed jobs, for that part of Baffin Island, but it also creates problems, certainly in terms of the environment, as far as there is concern on the part of some people in that area. So back to Don's letter. People of Pond Inlet started a parade of cars and snowmobiles around town. It's a good old tradition in the north.

My father told me that fish, seal, narwhals, and other animals started disappearing right away when the mine started long ago. He asked to travel even farther to hunt. It's very strange. It's very strange. It's usually abundant. That's how I remember it. P.S. People still use masks up here in public, hospitals, airports, stores, even if the mandate has been lifted.

Well, Don, you're not alone. There are people who are pulling their masks back out again and putting them on again, as we've had a real bout of the flu in many parts of the country and some resurgence in COVID as well. But thank you for telling us that story. I imagine that, you know, that kind of parade of cars and snowmobiles in Pond, which is a great little community with a lot of energy and beautiful vistas.

Looking across at the old glacier field, it's a great little community. I was just there a year and a half ago. Working on that documentary on the Arctic. Anyway, thank you, Don. Appreciate it, as always. That's going to be it for this week's Your Turn we're back tomorrow of course with Chantelle Hebert and Bruce Anderson for

Good Talk and that is available once again as a podcast on Sirius XM and also you can go to our YouTube channel to find it there as well and you get to see the what it looks like as we sit in our little homes or offices

and put together what is usually our most popular podcast of the week, which is Good Talk on Fridays. Next week will be our final week before we take a two-week break over the holidays. During those two weeks, it'll be best of the bridge from the last half year, and there's a lot of great shows. I do want to tell you that on Monday, this coming Monday, we have the Moore-Butts conversation number five. Jerry Butts, James Moore,

two people who totally understand politics from the inside, who get together with us every once in a while. This will be our fifth conversation this year. And the whole idea is to be totally nonpartisan, but to bring us, you and me, excuse me me into the inner sanctum of Canadian politics. Find out what really happens. Tell us what we didn't see,

what we don't know. And that's the idea from a former Conservative Cabinet Minister in James Moore and a former Principal Secretary to the Prime Minister, Jerry Butts. So you've got the Liberal, you've got the conservative. That's Monday's show.

And next week, we'll have a string of great shows, as we always do. Look forward to it. All right, that's it for this day. I'm Peter Mansbridge. Thanks so much for listening. We'll talk to you again in 24 hours.