The Bridge with Peter Mansbridge - Your Turn, and Then The Ranter Rates The Leaders

Episode Date: February 9, 2023

The first of a trilogy by the Random Ranter with his take on the national party leaders.  First up CPC leader Pierre Poilievre.  Your letters range from taxes to Danielle Smith to racism in Canada.

And hello there, Peter Mansbridge here. You are just moments away from the latest episode of The Bridge. Today's episode, your turn. And the ranter begins a three-part trilogy. Yeah, that would be the number of parts in a trilogy. Three. He looks at all the political leaders. That's coming right up. And welcome to Thursday, your opportunity, your chance to get your feelings in on some of the issues of the day, some of the issues that we've been covering here on the bridge. Also, as I tried to say in our kind of tease, the ranter is going to take a run at the three national party leaders, the three major national party leaders, beginning

this week with his take on the one who's leading in the polls. So we'll get to that in the ranter section of the program. But it's still as it has been since the beginning of this podcast, the major portion of Thursdays is an opportunity to hear from you and your thoughts. And I always appreciate reading them, reading them not only because it gives a reflection in some degree of the country's mood, because these letters come from different parts of the country every week, but also because there's a lot of

thoughtful stuff in these. They're not rants, they're not rants if you wish um they're they're the thoughtful comments about some of the issues that we've been looking at uh once again i tried to reflect new contributors to the your turn section each week so there are some repeats there always are um also i don't uh while I read all the letters that come in, I don't read all the letter on the air. It's usually just a segment of the letter, so we can move along and hear from different people. So let's get started. One of the interviews that I've been most proud of, certainly during my time on the bridge, but really overall in my career, was the interview we had on a Monday of this week with

Dr. Deborah Thompson from McGill University. And we were talking about Black History Month. And there's been a fair amount of reaction to that interview, mostly positive, but not all positive. I'll concede on that. But let me read, you know, a reflection of some of those comments. Jeremy Friesen writes, I'm not sure where Jeremy's from, because he didn't mention that. Tat-tat, as they say. I think it's Manitoba, I think it's Winnipeg, but nevertheless. Here we go. I appreciate your sincerity on your podcast, even though I don't usually see things the same way you do. I've been concerned with public education for a long time, and it seems to be getting worse quickly. There's a real push to

get away from exams, standardized tests, which are all normal classroom tests, and grading. This seems to be happening in the name of fairness and equity. Some people argue tests don't show real intelligence like Deborah Thompson did on your podcast. I'm sure these people think this will lead to more fairness, equity, and maybe a utopian society where everything is perfect. But that's not likely to happen. There are still a lot of jobs in our modern economy where education really helps, and without it, equity can never happen. Private schools are still pushing academic achievement, and that will only mean Canada's social mobility index will get worse instead of better. That's from Jeremy Friesen, and I believe Jeremy's writing from Manitoba. Gareth Wilson from Bowmanville, Ontario.

I drive home to your conversations each day along the 115 corridor to Bowmanville, and every day I learn something or have a moment to pause. Today was no different. As a 52-year-old white man listening to Deborah Thompson speak to Canadian black history was enthralling and thought-provoking. The idea of the race construct being born from the power dynamic of our colonial

past's attempt to divide and weaken the populace makes it even more astounding as to why many have yet to awaken to society's current level of divisiveness that often seems so depressingly prevalent. Although we cannot change the past, we can change our collective present and future. It is my hope that through introspection we will really see each other and draw on another vernacular that many hands makes light work, because this work is great. Here's another one. This one's from Julie Smith Allen in Lethbridge, Alberta. Hearing Professor Deborah Thompson speak about the reality of black people's experience in Canada

knocked the wind out of me. Many believe there is very little racism in Canada that we accept and welcome all. Professor Thompson pulled back the curtain and revealed what is really there. And I'm ashamed. This is such an important conversation for everyone to hear. Thank you.

Just a few of the letters that came in as a result of Monday's conversation with Dr. Thompson from McGill. There were a few letters again this week on different topics that the ranter has had in the last, I guess, month or so. So let me rattle off a few of those before we get to what's actually a special or rant or rant this week. When I was young, this is coming from Tom Balkos. Tom Balkos or Balkos from Waterloo, Ontario.

When I was young, a common dinner table event was the debate with my dad. He would bring up a current event or view and wait for me to state my stance. Then, even if he agreed with me, he would debate the opposing view. At times, he would go first, and if I agreed, he would say, conversation is boring if we both agree. Tell me why our view might be incorrect. And I would have to formulate my opposition, even when I knew I didn't oppose. My dad is no longer alive, but I still challenge myself to think of an opposing view

whenever I listen to your podcast, especially the ranter, even if I disagree or if I agree. It has helped me through my life, and I challenge your listeners to try it. I'm asking that we attempt to argue against our views. It's tough, but it makes me understand the world a little better. That's so true. You know, that's one of the great things about debating clubs in schools and universities,

because sides aren't picked because of the way they feel. Sides are just picked at random. This is usually the case in most of the debating situations I've seen. And the sides are picked at random and say, okay, this is the view you're going to argue. And away they go, whether they believe it or not. And it is really a great exercise in thinking and constructing argument. So, Tom, I'm all in, and Tom, if you read my last book, Off the Record,

you'll find a little segment that sounds very familiar to what you say. So I guess parts, anyway, of our upbringing were similar. Doug Moore from Nanus Bay, B.C. I love people like Doug who always bracket their location like this. He says, Doug Moore in Neuse Bay, B.C., bracket, formerly born and raised Charlottetown, P.E.I. Okay. Love the island.

Love all the islands. Could be Prince Edward Island. Could be Newfoundland. Could be Manitoulin Island. Could be Vancouver Island. And Diggs Island. How many of you know where Diggs Island is? There's a question for you.

Go find it. I've been there. Remember it like it was yesterday. Part of our history. Anyway, Doug Moore from Nanus Bay writes, I listened to the ranter this morning and his comments on waste and couldn't agree with him more, particularly on government waste of taxpayers' money.

Now, I also recall from just a few weeks ago the ranter's comments on taxes and his view that we should pay more or higher taxes. I personally am happy to pay my share of taxes as long as my tax money is not misused. In other words, wasted. So I had difficulty buying into his earlier idea of paying the beast, as he describes government, more and more taxes. Perhaps the ranter can clarify. Actually, I thought he did in that rant, but nevertheless. Perhaps the ranter can clarify. Is he really of the view that we should pay higher taxes while at the same time acknowledging that we can all agree the government wastes them? Why feed the beasts more and more money? I can't square that circle.

All right, Doug. Patrick Wu in Calgary. I'm writing to simply suggest that the random ranter be renamed as the recurring ranter, especially since he isn't that random to us anymore. I love the fun we've had with this name. I mean, you could argue that he's the random ranter because every week his topic is different.

It's random. Sometimes it comes literally out of nowhere. But I will discuss this with the ranter. I kind of like the way that name was taken off. Here's another one. This one, too, is related to the ranter. It's from James Mills in Calgary. I listened to the latest rant about government waste. In part, the ranter called out the government's use of consultants. I have a lot of experience in this area. It is my experience

that consultants often provide a perspective or a specialization to government that does not exist within the bureaucracy. They provide valuable assistance in the creation and implementation of government services. I listen to the rants, and sometimes I agree, and other times do not. The ones I appreciate the most are those that are accompanied by reasoned arguments. The latest one, however, just seemed to throw out the notion that hiring consultants is simply a waste. It's a popular opinion, but not one accompanied by any factual evidence or reasoned argument. All right. And just to clarify, you love the addition of the random rancher to the program

because it does exactly what James was getting at there. It provokes people to think. It provokes people to come up with a reasoned argument, either against or for what the ranter threw out there. I don't agree with all the things the ranter says, but that's not the idea. The idea isn't, you know, please Mansbridge, and it gets on the program. The idea is throw something out there. Let's talk about it.

Let's see how you feel about it. And the ranter does have this particular style. Once again, he has no background in broadcasting, no background in journalism, no background in politics other than being a concerned citizen. He doesn't work for a party. He's never run for office. He's not a former citizen. He doesn't work for a party. He doesn't, he's never run for office. He's not a former politician.

He's not a journalist. He is, as I've said before, he's just a guy. He's just a guy out there who has thoughts. And sometimes those thoughts crash into each other. They conflict. But he likes to talk and he likes to, he likes to turn a phrase. And he's had some great lines. He's had some great lines I wish I'd had. Anyway, speaking of the ranter, it's time to bring him in. And so this was the idea.

As I said, the rander's not, he's not a journalist, he's not in politics, but that doesn't mean, just like you, he doesn't have thoughts about politics. And he has particular thoughts about the qualities of leadership and the politics of running for office. So he's been looking at the three major national party leaders, and he's decided to do a little take on each one of them over the next couple of weeks. And we had to decide, well, what order are we going to go in? Well, he decided, let's go in the order of public opinion. And that makes some sense. Consistently in the polling data that I've seen, including the last election, the leader who gathered the most votes and is gathering the

most support in public opinion poll today is the leader of the Conservative Party. So the idea would be, okay, we'll start with Pierre Palliev. Next week, it'll be Justin Trudeau. And the following week, although he's the number four leader in Parliament, because the Bloc Québécois is the third most supported party in the House of Commons. But the fourth party is truly the third national party leader, and that, of course, is Jagmeet Singh. So over the next three weeks, the ranter is sort of at the potential halfway mark in this parliament. It's going to take a run at each of the leaders.

So head to the basement, party leaders, because the ranter is after you. He's coming. And let's get started with the random ranter's take on Pierre Polyev. I learned something today while reading the news. Turtles, believe it or not, can breathe out their butts. Seriously, it's true.

And while the article didn't mention that turtles could talk out their butts, it still inspired me for today's rant topic. Pierre Polyev. I'm not sure how seriously Pierre Polyev is going to be taken come election time, given his penchant for outrage and overstatement. I know his base loves when he relentlessly goes after Trudeau, but at this point it's become a game of you name it, Polyev will clutch his pearls over it. His outrage? It knows no bounds,

and it's getting old. If he wants to present the Conservatives as a viable alternative to the Liberals, then he needs to present the Conservatives as a party with ideas and solutions worthy of forming government. They need to earn it. But instead, all he's offering is outrage and overstatement. He's not doing himself any favours calling Vancouver hell on earth or saying liberals want to outlaw all civilian gun ownership. It's just not factual. And worse, he doesn't offer solutions, just outrage. It's getting ridiculous. At this point, I wouldn't be surprised if Polyev blamed Trudeau for the weather, because if we know one thing about him, it's that he loves to rain on Trudeau's sunny days. And what's with the Canada is broken stuff? I'm betting somewhere someone has printed that one on a red hat.

He's relentless with it. Canada is broken. Canada is broken. Like it's a vocal exercise or a nasty secret drinking game. But that said, I don't entirely disagree with him on it. But the biggest example I can find of Canada being broken is his own party. Because the Conservatives? Well, they're surely broken. The old reasonable party of fiscal responsibility has been swallowed up by the angry social wing of the party who are primed for a good old culture war. And that's the last thing this

country needs. I've always thought the role of opposition was to hold the government's feet to the fire while offering alternatives, but I'm not hearing alternatives. I'm hearing anger bordering on hatred. It's a great way for him to motivate the base of his party, but it's a horrible way to try to woo other voters. Because to form government, Polyev is going to need more than just his base. He's going to need the mushy middle of swing voters. And they're not motivated by anger if anything they're motivated by fear and while polyev has anger in the bag it's pretty clear to me that he's the object of fear for many voters in the mushy middle trudeau well he's the devil you know it's pretty hard to be scared of trudeau even when he was rocking that el diablo covid

beard but that said he's got his own set of issues that I'll be going after in next week's rant. But this week, it's Polyev. Now, I'm not going to lie. Polyev has a real talent for painting dystopian liberal futures and contrasting them with conservative futures that feel a lot like Reaganomics gone wild. His endgame seems to be getting his anger and outrage to take wider root beyond his base, but his overstatements are often a bridge too far for reasonable people. I, for one, would like to see Polyev start talking about policies

and start presenting himself as a viable leadership alternative instead of the boy who cries wolf, because right now he's living up to the one big fear I have of him. And that's the fact that he's never had a real job in his life. He's always worked in one way or another for the party. He's a creature of the political swamp. And just like a butt-breathing turtle, it's the only life he's ever known. The Random Renter. And he will return next week. He'll take on Justin Trudeau.

And the week after that, he'll take a run at Jagmeet Singh. So he's going to be all over the board. But you get a taste of what he's going to be all over the board, but you get a taste of what he's going to be like more than likely because I haven't heard any evidence that he's in love with any of our political leaders these days. But we'll see. I don't want to prejudge him. Okay, we're going to take a quick break. And when we come back, we'll get back to your letters. But first, this.

And welcome back. You're listening to The Bridge, the Thursday episode, which, of course, is your turn on The Random Ranter. You're listening on SiriusXM, Channel 167, Canada Talks, or you're listening on your favorite podcast platform. We also should mention that on Wednesdays and Thursdays, The Bridge is also available on our YouTube channel, so you can kind of watch it in production. Some people find that exciting.

I'm not so sure. It's not exactly highly produced television. But it is what it is. And it's available. And we've got quite a list of those who subscribe to the YouTube channel. If you're looking how to get it, it doesn't cost anything, by the way. Just go to my Twitter or Instagram profile, and you'll see the link there, and you can connect that way and subscribe. All right,

back to the Your Turn segment and your letters. Don Stone in Edmonton has written more than a few times. Alberta's Premier showed a lack of respect for the office of the Prime Minister. Sharing a greeting with Prime Minister Justin Trudeau was such a feeble handshake. Danielle Smith should take a lesson from former Prime Minister Stephen Harper when he shook hands with Vladimir Putin. I disagree with your policies, but I will shake your hand, paraphrasing one of Harper's sessions with Putin. It showed class and respect to one another as leaders. Thanks so much for your hard work, time, and bringing the knowledgeable people on your broadcast.

You know, Putin and Harper had a, they didn't have a great relationship. And Harper went right after Putin on Crimea in one of those handshake moments. I know there's been a lot of discussion about the Daniel Smith handshake with Justin Trudeau. I don't know what was happening there, but it does make a pretty strange picture. Ian Burgess, in your end bits the other day, you referred to Nazi soldiers in your piece about hidden gold in Arnhem. I'd like to get your opinion on this, but it strikes me that there has been a bit of revisionist history over the last 50 years or so.

When I was young, it was the Germans and the Axis powers who fought against the Allies in the Second World War. Now it seems that the Allies' opponents were Nazis, or sometimes Nazi Germany. This strikes me as peculiar. Undoubtedly, many of the German soldiers who fought in the war were ardent political Nazis, and of course the Waffen-SS were statutory Nazis. However, the Wehrmacht, the army, was not a political army. I'm sure many of its officers and soldiers joined the Nazi party, irrespective of their political views, for the good of their careers, but it strikes me as disingenuous to label all the Germans who fought in World War II as Nazis.

My opinion? The Allies were fighting against the Nazi government. They were fighting against Hitler. And I think there was a recognition that not all members of the fighting forces that were operating under the direction and obedient to their Nazi government, not all of them were Nazis. I think that is a recognized fact. But I don't have a problem saying the Allies, for many of us are parents or grandparents,

were fighting against the Nazi government of Germany. Donna Giroux writes, On your Monday, February 6th podcast, you mentioned having trouble losing weight. Yes, my pandemic pounds. About 15 months ago, I started intermittent fasting, lost 40 pounds at approximately a pound a week and keeping it off. I also cut out most carbohydrates due to pre-diabetes diagnosis. Using both of these solutions, I have lowered my blood glucose and A1C counts. My doctor is satisfied with the glucose levels. They are below the pre-diabetic range.

She's told me to not lose any more weight. My body has stabilized at an acceptable weight. You know, I tried intermittent fasting for, I guess, about a month. And yes, I did lose some pounds, but I didn't enjoy the process. I mean, Donna writes, a typical day I have a mug of tea in the morning, eat at 12.30 and 6.30, and do not snack in between. And no, I don't feel hungry, nor do I count calories. I remember when I tried it, I was desperately hungry for the first week or two, and then it did sort of, you know, I got used to it, but it just didn't, it wasn't me.

Didn't like it. I don't know, maybe I'll try it again. I'm not sure. Neil Sundin, who's the retired deputy chief of Regina Fire, he wrote a great letter. Short, but has a picture. Good evening, Peter. Enjoyed the discussion with Brian Stewart regarding the latest on the war in Ukraine. Shortly before retiring last September from Regina Fire, I had the privilege of helping organize good condition firefighting gear to be sent to Ukraine.

I was thrilled to receive this recent photo of two Ukraine firefighters donning some of the safety gear that we sent. It's a very small gesture, but was honored to help in a way we could. Please share with Mr. Stewart if you'd like and keep up the great podcast. Well, thank you, Chief. It's a great picture. It's two fellows, two, I guess, Ukrainian firefighters standing next to their engine, all're not smiling. That doesn't surprise me. You can imagine what they've been through, what they've seen, what they've witnessed, what they've tried to do to help in this last year. But they're there and their connection with how Canada has responded to the Ukraine situation and how individuals have responded.

We know what the government's done. We know the money it's spent, the equipment it's moved over. But this picture is, it's gold. Love it. Don Mitchell from Regina. He wrote a letter on a number of things, including what he headlines as the Netherlands Archive Day. Very nice to see that some countries are mature enough

to allow confidential elements, documents, to be released to the public after the appropriate amount of time. Unlike Canada, where it seems we've taken control of the warehouse from Raiders of the Lost Ark and put up every roadblock imaginable to limit access to information. What Don is talking about here, and it includes, I guess, a five- or six-year-old article that talks about the millions of documents that are in the Canadian archives that are not being released for various and varying reasons, even though they're decades, many decades old, and will give us some sense of the times that they were written in, but our history.

And some of that is obviously war history. So I agree with Don. I've never understood why stuff has to be kept secret for so long. One of the arguments is, well, you've got to wait until everybody who was involved in that time or these decisions has passed. I don't know. I don't know whether that's needed in the majority of these cases.

Most of the times these things are actually looked at, people say, well, this could have been released 20, 30, 40 years ago. of these cases. Most of the times these things are actually looked at. People say, well, this could have been released 20, 30, 40 years ago. Just release it. But it's not like there's a continuing process of looking at this stuff in today's eyes. So, Don, I have some sympathy for your argument here. Not that it matters what I think, but I just do. Dory Barber. My name is Dory Barber, and I'm a police officer in northern Ontario. My family and I live in Nipigon. That's one hour east of Thunder Bay.

And for those of you who have ever made the all-Canadian drive from Western Canada to Eastern Canada, you go through Nipigon. I really enjoy your podcast and miss you tremendously on The National. Oh, thank you. That's very kind. I find your topics somehow on the podcast to Oh, thank you. That's very kind. I find your topic somehow on the podcast to be just what I am curious about myself. And like almost everyone

else who writes in, particularly enjoy the conversation with Chantal and Bruce on Fridays and the political incisiveness that is often present. I'm offering as a suggestion if you would consider a good talk on a Friday surrounding the changing nature of crime in Canada. It's certainly not scientific, but I have observed tremendous changes in my part of the world where I am a police officer. In my early career, I've been an officer almost 20 years now, it was rare to arrest people with handguns. Now it's much more commonplace.

The drug issues have just absolutely exploded, as well as homelessness. In our small town, in particular, given the harsh winters, I never observed homelessness until this year. I'll talk to the gang and see whether or not we can see an issue on that in the future. Joseph Murdoch Flowers in Nicalavit, Nunavut. Peter, I've heard you use the phrase Central Canada to describe Ontario and Quebec. It is a misnomer. I know it's a phrase that has traditionally been used referring to these two provinces. However, I respectfully

suggest that this phrase should no longer be used in this manner as it erases the north. The center of Canada is close to Baker Lake, Nunavut, and it is definitely not found along the Windsor-Quebec City corridor. This is actually, Joseph, an old argument. And I'm not going to say I disagree with you because I've made that argument myself when I lived in Churchill, Manitoba, south of Baker Lake. I'm trying to remember. It was like a couple-hour flight on a DC-3 to get up to Baker Lake. But when I was in Churchill, I used to look at a map and say,

hey, you know, we're much closer to the center of Canada, the actual physical center of Canada, than they are in, like, Winnipeg or wherever. But nobody listened to that argument then, and I'm not sure too many are going to listen to you now, Joseph, but I hear you. Man, I remember some days in Baker Lake in the winter. This is going back into the 60s, and it was cold.

When you complain about the cold in southern Canada, I tend to forget what those days were like. I can remember being outside at Baker and at Rankin, where it'd be minus 50, minus 55 with the wind chill. And you'd be wearing like multi-layers. You'd be wearing long underwear. You'd be wearing pants, and you'd be wearing thick wind pants. And you might as well have been naked because it would cut

right through you. It was cold. But it was cold at the center of Canada. And that's Joseph's point. Corey McQueen is from Hamilton. I write because today would have been, this was a couple of days ago, I write because today would have been Gord Downie's 59th birthday. Your chapter on Gord

and the hip at the end of the book was great. That's at the end of Off the Record. I always was very moved by your small kiss with him at the end of your last interview with him. Gord wouldn't do the interview, and he wouldn't meet people unless they agreed to give him a kiss in those final days. I'm not a die-hard hip fan, but I find that when I return to their music,

it gives me a sense of home that no other artist or group can. He was like a poet laureate for Canada, man. Hey, man, the hip. Do you have a favorite hip song? Mine's probably Bob Cajun, with its extended instrumental outro where I can almost see the constellations revealing themselves one star at a time. That may well be my favorite too. But they're all favorites.

David Harrison writes from Toronto. He's one of these fellows that likes to write in about the way we pronounce words. Advertisement. Please, oh please, let's not abandon our Canadian pronunciation with the emphasis on the second syllable. Please. Advertisement. Advertisement.

Disinterested. Both you and Bruce used it to mean having a lack of concern for something polling, for something which was polling. But you do mean uninterested. For disinterested means not having a vested interest in something. No skin in the game, as it were. Over and out. David. David.

Okay. You know, I used to get lots of letters back in the national days about the way certain words were pronounced. And people still write to me because they don't like it when I say harassment instead of harassment. Well, if you look in a dictionary, you'll see both are acceptable pronunciations of the word. I always felt harassment and still feel today that harassment is a better way to pronounce that word. You don't say embarrassment. You say embarrassment.

But people like harassment. And I think I'm the last one standing who says harassment. And I will continue to say it. You know, I did a thing on expiration dates the other day. John Forte from Victoria writes, thought you might get a kick out of the attach. Your expiration date podcast didn't address salt, a major oversight by the New York Times author.

I'm wintering in Florida and just finished off the record. Found it thoroughly enjoyable. Thank you. But he sends a picture. He sends a picture of a jar, I guess he found in a local store, of salt. And on the outside it says, formed by the primal sea more than 250 million years ago. 100% uncontaminated.

But John adds, just my like, 250 million year old salt and it expired two years ago. Timing. Oh dear. timing oh dear laura or mesher peter i'm a huge fan of your podcast listen daily yesterday you read a letter from a lady from tiny ontario you indicated that you wished you had looked it up well i can share a little about the township of Tiny. Lady Sarah Maitland, wife of Lieutenant Governor of Upper Canada, owned three Newfoundland dogs, Tiny, Flows, and Tay.

Three adjoining townships in Simcoe County are named after her three dogs. Tiny, named in 1822, is located in the southern Georgian Bay region, and Tay and Flows are now referred to as Springwater Township. I'm a dog lover, as you are, and I am, and always found this interesting and thoughtful that I'd share it with you. All the best. Keep up the great work. Thanks so much. Laura Ormesher in Toronto. There you go. There's your little bit of geographic history. Let me just make sure I've got time for these next three. Dennis O'Sullivan writes about health care funding.

What we have now is a classic finger-pointing exercise by which provinces claim they are not furnished the funding necessary to provide outcomes their residents expect, and in turn, the federal government critiques provincial decisions as to use of funds provided. Overlap is never a good policy. I say this with some years of experience in middle management, and in particular, defining management methods and procedures. Imagine if public schools and roads went through the same kind of funding turmoil

that we see with health care. Two letters left. Henry Peel, in Port Perry, Ontario. Mr. Peel in Port Perry. Don't pop your peas. As I listened to your talk with Bruce about the term just transition, I was practically gobsmacked

that neither of you associated the term with the same Justin. Excuse me, with the name Justin. Most people want something done about climate change, and I applaud all efforts to make change. Call me a cynic, but to me it is obvious that with this term, the liberals are also spinning this to gain political favor with the electorate and bolster their chances in the next election.

Yes, I call you a cynic. Believe me, they're not going to win any extra votes by using the Justin name more than they already are. I do think that there's lots of, there are lots of examples of using the just phrase in dealing with issues. It's got nothing to do with this prime minister's name. But that's your view. That's your take.

And it's your turn. Last letter from andrea brassett in ottawa i tried cleaning out my mom's pantry this week it turns out she was fresh off monday's podcast on expired food peter says they're still good she says after digging out bags of expired flour and oats from my throwaway pile. Nope, we can't keep them, she says. Excuse me. Nope, we can keep them, she says, restoring two jars of unopened mustard to their place at the back of this cupboard. I realize the original source for all this trouble is the New York Times,

but my mom's a loyal listener, so I'm blaming the bridge for my extra effort and the three bags of expired food I was forced to bring home. I'm planning to tackle my mom's garage this spring, so if the bridge has any intel on expired paint, I'd very much appreciate some advance warning. Okay, Andrea. Here's what I'll tell you about paint from my own experience. If it's been in a garage, unheated over a winter, toss it.

Now, I'm sure I'm going to get all the painting experts writing in saying, no, no, no, no, Peter, that's an old wives' tale. Most old wives' tales are pretty good, if you ask me. Anyway, that's been my experience with paint. If it sits outside for a winter or in an unheated garage or shed, get rid of it. Okay.

That wraps it up. Another exciting Thursday. Your turn, the ranter. And the best thing about Thursdays is tomorrow's Friday. Good talk, Chantal Hébert, Bruce Anderson. They'll both be here, and we'll have lots to talk about, because we always do. Thanks so much for listening today.

Talk to you again in 24 hours.