The Bridge with Peter Mansbridge - Your Turn - Ask Me Anything

Episode Date: May 28, 2026

The last week of the month means it's an "ask me anything" Thursday, and once again, lots of questions from across the country. Questions about journalism, about politics, about everything from Snowbirds to Donald Trump. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

And hello there, Peter Ransbridge here. You're just moments away from the latest episode of the bridge. It's Thursday. That's your turn. And this week, last week of May, it's an Ask Me Anything week. Lots of questions. Answers coming right up. And hello there as we roll to the end of another week.

Thursday, your turn. Ask me Anything week. And we got lots of questions. We'll never get. through all of these. But we do save them. We got a few from last month, starting with the first one from David Dunham

in Fort St. John, British Columbia. David writes, do you think that Caroline Leavitt, you know who she is, she's the Donald Trump press secretary, actually believes the stuff that she says at press conferences? Good question, David. I guess there are two possibilities here. And this goes for all of Trump's, you know, men and women who work for him.

One, Caroline Levitt has been drinking the Kool-Aid and she actually does believe the stuff, she says. Or two, she's too smart to believe it and she lies because she has no conscience or shame, just like her boss. I actually think it's option one. She's simply a true believer who has no doubt that. she's working for a brilliant savior of the United States, and that blinds her to every one of his weaknesses and lies. You can look at Michael Cohen, we used to lie and cheat for Trump because he believed in him

and only turned on him when he realized Trump wouldn't hesitate to dump him the minute he didn't need him. So that's what I think. But maybe she knows Trump is a crooked phony, but doesn't care because she has a nice job. Marilyn Wallace from Fannie Bay, British Columbia. Springtime brings the Canadian forces snowbirds to the Comox Valley on Vancouver Island for training. Under a bright blue sky, I recently spent a glorious hour watching their practice runs marveling at the incredible precision and daring maneuvers at such fast speeds.

As an aviation buff and enthusiast, are you also a supporter of air shows? You know, it's a good question, Marilyn. And it's funny, listening to you tell us about looking up and watching the practice runs reminded me of, and this goes way back, 1967 centennial year. The snowbirds were then called the centenaires. And they were based at Portagell Prairie in Manitoba that year. And so was I. I was in the Navy.

Sounds funny. I was in the Navy and I was based at Portia Prairie. But the sentinaries would practice every day in the spring of 1967 for the big year ahead. And there were same jets, the same Tudor jets as you're watching today in the Comox Valley. And it won't be for too much longer, as we know they've already announced they're going to replace the tutors. They've had a great life.

And they've performed air shows from coast to coast to coast and beyond for thrilling crowds in many parts of North America. But your question is, you know, they used to practice every day at lunch hour. And it got so routine that we didn't even look up to see them every day. But it was like a private air show every day for us. But how do I feel about air shows? You know, I love them when I'm watching them. And I really worry about them whenever there's an accident.

And sadly, there are accidents. And the horror that they create in the crowds that are there, the danger that they create in the crowds that are there. On those days, I go, really, is this what we should be doing? So I don't know. I know air shows have been a part of life since the beginning of airplane travel, since the beginning of flying. You know, those wild air shows with people standing on the wings back in the 20s, 30s.

You know, they thrilled crowds. and I can imagine Maryland sitting there watching hers in the Comox Valley looking up and obviously gaining the excitement that she gains. Kate Wilson in Toronto, approximately how many publication subscriptions do you have? What top three to five do you recommend and why? I think it's a real personal choice. People have to make their decisions on what they want to subscribe to. you know, because of the nature of my job, I subscribe to a lot of different things, all online.

I don't get any home deliveries anymore. I think cottage life is the only one I get that still comes to my home. But the ones that I rely on, I rely on the Globe and Mail, the New York Times, and a number of different papers in the UK. the Times, the telegraph, the Guardian. But I go into a lot of different newspapers where you can still get access.

You don't have to subscribe, you just go. But that's what I, those are the main ones. Washington Post as well. Pat Wharton in Vernon, BC, I wonder what you think of the huge amount of opinion pieces and podcasts that have cropped up. Do you think people realize they are not factual reporting, just that person's opinion? Well, we try to remind people on this program all the time. You know, this is not a newscast.

It's a podcast. And it usually, you know, becomes basically the opinions of the people who are on this podcast, whether it's me or whether it's Shantelle and Bruce on Friday. whether it's Dr. Stein on Mondays. You know the routine here. But, Pat, I think most people can tell the difference between factual straight news and what appears on podcasts and other platforms.

But not everyone does. Reputable newspapers have been very deliberate about labeling in recent times. The word opinion is at the top of the page or at the beginning of a column. But not so reputable podcasts have not made it clear, and sometimes they just out and out lie because they make more money that way. Info wars in the United States, for example,

a lot of people who follow these hustlers must assume they're getting the straight goods, which is a travesty. Elaine Braun and Brandon, Manitoba. I'm really concerned about provinces separating from Canada. What would that look like for our country? Does the entire province separate or would there be negotiations over land, Wouldn't it be bizarre to enter another country to travel to either end of Canada by car? What would happen to our national parks, crown land, indigenous land, and UNESCO sites?

This would be heartbreaking. All right. Here's my read on it. First, nothing would happen the day after a province voted in a referendum to separate from the rest of Canada. Presuming there was a clear question and a clear majority, and that part is not defined, but it presumably means more than 50% plus one vote. In fact, the prime minister said that just the other day. Then a negotiating process would begin. And what would no doubt take a long time? All the things you list and more would have to be settled. Compensation for federal assets like

buildings and land and currency and border controls. Some areas of the province might argue that they voted not to separate, so they want to stay in Canada. And if a country can be divided, a province can be divided. And of course, the rights of indigenous people who have treaties with the crown, who have to be negotiated. So you're right to be concerned about any viable separatist movement, but given that so far, no separatist movement has suggested anything but a legal break, it means following the Clarity Act and its interpretation by the Supreme Court. The process would take quite a bit of time. Jim Dole in Perth, Ontario.

What would it take to force a provincial election in Alberta? We've heard this raise a couple of times lately. Well, it's pretty straightforward. It would take Daniel Smith's United Conservative Party losing the confidence of the Alberta legislature. The last time I looked at the U.S. UCP had a nine-vote edge over the NDP, so five UCP members would have to jump ship and vote with the NDP in a non-confidence vote. Don't hold your breath.

There's a fixed election date in the province, which is October 18, 2027, which is almost a year after the referendum date. Dwight Powell in Saga Beach, Ontario. Apart from your career in broadcast journalism, are there two or three other professions, occupations, or endeavors you think you would have enjoyed pursuing? That's a good question. Well, you know, I wanted to be a pilot. That didn't work out.

I wanted to be an aviation. That did work out. I worked for an airline. That's how I ended up in this job. But I loved the airline business. And I still do. And for all the whining and moaning about airlines, I'm a big fan of most airlines.

And I still find it remarkable. Like right now, I'm in Scotland, right? I still find it remarkable when I get on a plane in Toronto and it says, you're going to land in Heathrow Airport. at whatever 635 a.m. tomorrow. And you know what? We land at 635. It's like eight hours away.

But the precision of that is something that always amazes me. Now, sometimes you're delayed. But most often you land. exactly to the minute that they suggested you would when you left another continent. Love it. Jonathan Finlis in Toronto. I'm an executive headhunter in Toronto. I walk by the CBC building every day on my way into work.

I remember hearing that in the late 1980s you were nearly recruited from the CBC for an anchor role at CBS. I'd be curious to hear what you recall from that process. who reached out, how did they make contact, and what was their pitch? Did you have to sneak away from your desk for an interview? No sneaking away. It was all, you know, above board. When they contacted me, CBS, wanted to talk, I advised my employer what I was doing and went from there.

now as it turned out as you know and you can read in my book off the record the whole the whole story about CBS who were for years great friends of mine and a lot of good friends there I'm I'm I'm you know very upset at what's happened at CBS in the last especially in the last year it's it's terrible now the head hunter business now there wasn't a headhunter involved in my situation. But it's an intro, you know, in the last book that Mark Bulgutche and I wrote together, how Canada works, one of the people we focus on is a head hunter. You might want to read that. It's quite fascinating.

And keep in mind, Mark's and my third book comes out this November, the noble profession. It's about teachers. You can pre-order at Simon & Schuster now, or you can wait until this fall when the book comes out. Great Christmas present. Roland Lewis in Gatineau, Quebec. The Canadian Constitution is a federal document for all Canadians.

Why can't we find a democratic way to get rid of the notwithstanding clause that certain premiers insisted on, including in our Charter of Rights and Freedoms? Well, actually, there is a democratic way to change the Constitution. It has an amending formula. The general formula is that the change needs to be approved by the House of Commons, the Senate, and at least seven provinces representing at least 50% of the population of Canada. That's called the 750 rule. It means that provinces with large populations will typically need to approve a change

in order for the amendment to succeed. However, the change cannot happen without some support from provinces with smaller populations. Constitutions are foundational documents and are built to make change difficult. Some parts of the Constitution would have to meet an even higher standard to change than the notwithstanding clause.

For example, if Canada wanted to change the role of the king, it would need the support of all governments. Annie Boucher in Ottawa, I'd love to hear a beat-by-beat description of how breaking news coverage would unfurgy fold. From you getting the call to you getting on air. You know, I've covered so many breaking news stories over my career, but probably still 9-11 is the best example. The entire news service leaps into action.

As soon as it's become clear what a major event is, that day, 9-11, September 11th, 2001, I was actually, that morning I was at my doctors having my annual physical when my pager, Beeper, remember those, went off, and it was actually Mark Boguch calling me. It was the head of the specials area at that point. And he said, there was a plane crashed into one of the World Trade Center towers. You've got to get in here right away. and so I did by the time I got there, the second plane had crashed. So before I got there, CBC morning, Mark Kelly, was on the air, and news specials producers got involved immediately with the on-air production

that would be like Mark. While others started getting a bigger control room, calling appropriate technical people, directors, etc. Assignment desk would start sending crews to appropriate places. Researchers and chasers would start hunting for people who know something so we could put them on the air as part of our live coverage. More editorial people in the control room and the newsroom to find information to funnel through

to me. I was by then at the anchor desk. And some people started planning long-term coverage because we know this is going to require coverage for a long time and none of us can work 24 hours forever. So even though everyone wants to come in right away, some are told to go to sleep. Come in later. That gives you a rough idea how things get started. Judy Minar in Halifax, Nova Scotia.

In the late 90s or early 2000s, my daughter and I were following a breaking story on CBC. You were on vacation, but came back and appeared on CBC, not in a suit, not freshly shaven. We were so reassured to hear you and loved the rugged look. However, we cannot remember what the story was. Well, I do. It was August 2003, when we were all still freaked at any kind of weird things that might be happening because of 9-11.

That was a blackout in a large part of the North-Eastern U.S. and most of Ontario, and there was a lot of world attention on that worrying whether it was some kind of terrorist action. It wasn't. There was an accident. Evan Panton in usually in North Vancouver but he's writing this time from Whitehorse During your time at the CBC

When you were the lead anchor on the election night desk Was there a federal election you covered That particularly engaged Or even caught you off guard as the results were coming in I can imagine that 93 for example Must have been quite something to witness firsthand With the collapse of the progressive conservatives Remember they went down from a majority government

under Brian Mulroney to two seats under Kim Campbell. You know, even on that day we weren't surprised. We were surprised they went down to two, but, you know, I can remember Alan Gregg, who was the, you know, the best pollster in the country at that time, without question. And he had told me that day that his forecast table showed only two seats for the conservatives and we all went yeah right sure Alan they're sure enough that night it were two seats but most nights on election nights we're not surprised by what the result comes because of polling

because of the models that we look at because the rehearsals we do um for the three or four days before an election we test out all our facilities all our facilities all the networks do this. They test out all our facilities. They test their computers. They test their reaction time on the part of their journalist to react to certain things. And over those days, you have a number of rehearsals and you program your computers to punch out a possible scenario, a likely scenario for that day. So you might have, you know, a lot of, you know, a liberal majority, or you might have a conservative majority, or you might have a minority of one of the parties. That's just to sort of get you ready. But you go through all the possibilities. So when the actual

real voting takes place and the real results come through your computer, you're ready for almost anything. So there's no real surprise. And, you know, there are surprises on individual writings. But the big picture, not so much. Carl Weeb in Winnipeg. This question is inspired by James Moore. In the course of your career, which politicians have you noticed raising

above partisan politics was put their party aside to work for Canada above their political party? Well, James is a good example, isn't he? And so is Jerry Butts. In the Moore-Butz conversations,

the whole idea of that which has lasted a couple of years now is to go beyond partisan politics and try and use their expertise and experience to explain what it's really like, you know, in the corridors of power. It's hard to get others to do that. It really is because they always kind of slide into the partisan nature of politics and they can't resist taking shots. Every once in a while, you'll get a lot.

get lucky and get someone who's in politics. Usually it's somebody who's now outside of politics who will use their experiences to help you try to understand what the system is like. Those two, though, I think, are great examples. James Lischoff in Tafino, BC, beautiful Tafino, BC, has reconciled. I'm of the generation that grew up in Canada with a deep sense of guilt about what we have done to indigenous peoples. I am now wondering if my guilt and the guilt of many other Canadians has, as David Frum has said in his Atlantic essay titled, Good Intentions Gone Bad, has now put Canada's sovereignty and future prosperity in doubt. My guilt has now been confronted with the Cowichin decision in BC.

Okay, so briefly the Cowichin case took 11 years, including 513 days of hearings to work itself through the courts. Ultimately, the Supreme Court of BC ruled the Cowichin tribes had never surrendered their territory and therefore still have Aboriginal title to it. That's a great deal of Richmond, BC. The tribes have said over and over again that private property owners are not going to lose title to their land and homes, but some people are still worried about it. The courts have reaffirmed that Canadian governments must face their constitutional obligations to indigenous peoples

through negotiations in good faith to reconcile Aboriginal title with existing fee simple title. Those negotiations must balance the rights of both the Aboriginal title holder and these landowners. Solutions might include compensation, voluntary land purchases, or shared jurisdiction that do not disturb private property rights. All that said, in the example you use, I actually don't think reconciliation has gone too far.

Don't think that at all. Gaytan Caron in Valdor, Quebec. That's in the Abitibi-Tamie-Tamink region, about six hours north of Montreal. While our national media struggle to survive and public funds are used to keep them afloat, our politicians are using social media like X, Facebook, and recently YouTube to disseminate their non-urgent messages.

This seems illogical and counterproductive to me. I imagine a 24-hour delay between posting on these platforms and our traditional media could help. What do you think? Do you see any other solutions? Well, Gaitan, you do point out an interesting phenomenon, but if you're asking me how to stop it, how to get politicians not to use platforms

they sometimes rail against and use platforms supported by tax dollars, I guess the answer is public pressure. I can't see a law to stop them, but I can't imagine a party promising not to do it. Man, we're more than halfway through. See, this is the thing about ask me anythings.

It takes a long time to go through this because you're asking me something I've got to answer it, right? Or try to answer it. Okay, let's take our break. We'll come back. It's the random ranter. We've got the random ranter, of course. It's Thursday. So we'll do that, and then we'll get back to some of your letters.

We'll be back right after this. And welcome back. You're listening to The Bridge for this Thursday. It's your turn day. and today's being the last week of May, it's an Ask Me Anything Day, and with lots of your questions. You're listening on SiriusXM, Channel 167, Canada Talks,

or on your favorite podcast platform. Glad to have you with us. Thursdays also mean the random ranter, and it is time for his rant for this day. What's it about? It's about artificial intelligence. Get ready for the ranter. Here he comes.

There's no. sitting on the sidelines with AI. You can early adapt with it, you can let it tell you bedtime stories, or you can go to sleep at night clutching your wooden shoes, dreaming of throwing them into the virtual machinery. AI is impacting all of us whether we like it or not, or whether we even use it or not. Now, admittedly, I'm not a fan of AI. I think it's great for some things, but I chafe at any thought of using it to write for me or worse, think for me. And I have no interest in interacting with it like it's a person of any sort. Now, if you talk to your chatbot, I'm not judging you. I'm just sad for you. And if AI is your financial consultant or your psychologist, then I wish you very good luck.

Because as far as I'm concerned, artificial intelligence is nothing more than the illusion of intelligence. It's an insidious version of a chatty Kathy doll where once you start pulling its strings, it starts learning how to pull yours. At its very core, it's a product that generates profit for its Silicon Valley masters by charming you into interacting with it and to keep interacting with it. It's not objective or empathetic in any real way. It's a synthetic sycophant that gets you to plug another quarter into it by mirroring you, validating you, and making you feel good. Whether the information it provides you is right or wrong is besides the point, because either way, it'll deliver it with the over-brimming confidence of a teenage boy.

But you know, the world is a lonely place. If you're out there feeling unseen, AI will certainly see you, and it'll provide you with a nice jolt of ego stroking, you're so insightful, dopamine. But none of it is real, hence the name, artificial. But that doesn't stop the early adapters out there who are pushing the limits of AI with absolute zeal. They don't care about any of the ethical implications of AI gone bad,

not the revenge porn, not the fraud, not the deepfakes, or not even the massive job displacement. They don't care that we now live in a world overflowing with misinformation where we can't trust what we read, what we hear, or what we see. But here's the thing. That's not where the threat of AI ends, because its growth depends on two things, two things that we need to survive, two things we already don't have enough of. Electricity and fresh water. Those data centers need a lot of power to run and a ton of fresh water. keep them cool. Now, as much as AI needs those precious resources, so do we. I mean, electricity

powers our world. And now more than ever, we need affordable power. We don't need to be competing with giant data centers driving up the prices for everyone else. AI is already gunning for our jobs. Does it really need to drive up our electricity bill too? And as bad as that is, It's even worse when it comes to water because we need that one to survive. I mean, we live in a country with 20% of the world's fresh water, and even we have issues with depleting our rivers and aquifers. The last thing we need is a bunch of mega data centers, putting more pressure on our supplies,

just so some ultra-rich tech bros can level up to being Uber-rich. Now, I know I'm painting a bit of a dark picture of AI here, but I've actually got some hope for the future, because I feel like people are starting to wake up to the downsides of it, the same way they came out of the EV ether from a few years ago. Remember how those early EV adapters seize the narrative and prophesies and impending all-electric future? But once the general public gains some experience with that future, the pendulum quickly swung back. I think the same thing is starting to happen with AI. people are starting to see the limitations, measure the costs, and recognize the threats.

And look, I'm a big believer in young people. So when I see the news coverage of their negative reactions to AI boosters at their commencement ceremonies, I feel unheartened. And there are future, not some technology. So if anyone sees AI for what it really is, it's them. And they're booing. There you are. the random ranter with his view, his current view, on AI. We'll see whether that changes over time.

But he usually catches a wave or starts one. Back to your letters here on Ask Me Anything. Wade Hall from Toronto. Wade writes, Trump changed U.S. politics in a way only he, could. Carney changed Canadian politics in a policy, excuse me, Carney changed Canadian politics in a way only he could. When Carney was running for liberal leader, he promised substance. The pundits said voters don't pay attention to substance.

Carney has stuck to his policy first strategy. So far, Canadians are paying sufficient attention to conclude he's doing a good job. Is Carney reinventing Canadian politics by reassertion. By reasserting the value of policy. Hmm. I guess what you're really trying to get at is whether voters might be paying more attention to policies than they pay to charisma. I'd be reluctant to leap to that conclusion,

but I'd be willing to go halfway there. I think it's very difficult to be elected if voters just don't like you. Mark Carney may have been elected because Canadians decided they liked his policies better than what the other guys were. offering, but, you know, I think most people also find him personable. He seems like an okay guy. So he had the entire package. Policies voters liked and a personality voters liked. I think

that's what it takes in modern politics. Now, it's only year one. Let's see where we are a year from now on those feelings. Austin Ziegler in Toronto, we've heard your favorite film, Casablanca, what's your favorite NFB film? Long one and a short one. Well, I'll tell you my favorite short one. It was a 1958 film by the National Film Board called A Visit to the Parliament Buildings. Guess who the stars were? My sister and I. I was 10. We were the two leads, two kids go into the parliament buildings. We did it all, including meeting the prime minister,

John Diffenbaker, in his office. Long one? Well, we now call it a miniseries. The Champions, the three-part documentary made by Donald Britain, a fantastic filmmaker.

It was on Pierre, Elliot Trudeau, and René LeVec, from their university days in the 1950s to 1986. It was, and still is, a completely observant. Resorting series.

If you haven't seen it, you should get it. If you did see it, you might want to watch it again. The Champions Karen Demmon in Vernon, BC. I'm curious to know if your family and friends weigh in their opinions on your podcast. Are there any rousing discussions around the dinner table? Because some of those discussions get quite rousing.

We've called a moratorium on certain things and try to discuss things where we don't end up throwing dishes at each other. Patrick Chung in Toronto. There are a few vacant seats in the Senate. Would you be interested in Prime Minister Carney? Asked you? If the answer is no, do you think the Senate is still valid?

The answer is no, and it's an easy no. There's a mandatory retirement age in the Senate. 75. And I'm 77, so there's no way even if I wanted to go in. I will tell you that I was approached by somebody who could make the suggestion. And this was when I was of age, and I said, no. I like what I'm doing. And I drew the line at that.

that was never an option. But I, you know, I'm still, I favor the idea of a house properly represented that is an opportunity for second thought on legislation that's going through. Rob Crow in Thunder Bay, Ontario, I had the opportunity to visit Churchill, Manitoba in 1981 while working for the Canadian Grain Commission.

One evening at a local watering hole, a Canadian Royal Legion, I experienced my first mugout. A local resident leaving the city was being honored and presented with mugs, many of them customized and usually full of beer. As outsiders, we were invited to stay and participate with the send-off. Did you have a mug-out when you left Churchill? I didn't, not an official one like the ones at the Legion. Now, those were usually for people,

who were there longer than a couple of years, which is, you know, I was there not quite three years in Churchill, loved every day I was there. But I never had a mugout, but those were popular evenings. Ken Malegas in Regina, I believe more so than in the past that politicians or party or government spokespersons either make unfactual statements or outright lie.

Have you ever called someone out on either an unfactual statement or a lie? Is it a responsibility for reporters to do so? Absolutely. You know, it's important for reporters to challenge your assumptions that are being made by politicians making statements and whether that assumption involves facts that are incorrect or something that appears to be a lie, then journalists find ways to ask that question.

It can get messy and it can get ugly and it can get tense, but that's part of the job. You may want to ignore this one, is the advice from my good friend Mark Bullock. Kathy Dodge and Smith, Kathy Dodge Smith in Oakville, Ontario. I think this is going to sound very rude, and I do not expect to hear it on one of your podcasts while you're hearing it now. I love your program, listen to it regularly, but I am intrigued by your habit of dropping your I-N-Gs in favor of words like going, coming, goinga, thinking.

I know you did not speak this way when you were the news anchor on CBC, and as far as I can tell, none of your guests do so. So I'm very curious to know why you are choosing to speak this way. I didn't know I was. I didn't know I was dropping. I'll have to work on that. You know, I'm getting older. This is a podcast. It's not a newscast.

It's not the precision wording that you find in a newscast. It's casual conversation. But I'll keep that in mind. Jeff Fisher in Riverview, New Brunswick. Thinking back over your your broadcasting career and your time since departing the national, which world or Canadian event has had the most impact on you or still resonates with you in a significant way?

There are lots. You know, there's the, you know, we mentioned 9-11. Obviously, that had a huge impact on all of our careers. The Berlin Wall coming down. You know, Mark and I got there, I don't know, day or two days after, it's really started to appear that Europe was changing, the communism was fading, that Germany was about to be reunited, that had a huge impact, covering natural disasters like the tsunami,

those things have a huge impact. Nice stories, happy stories. You know, I was in, I was standing outside Buckingham Palace the day Charles and Diana got married. I was standing outside Buckingham Palace the day Diana was buried covering those stories had an impact. Lots of different stories. Here's a couple of questions that, well, let's, you know, maybe we can answer these together. Let's see. Man, we're already running out of time.

Terry Wasalinka and Regina writes, we see leaders dance around questions from the press all the time. This must be incredibly frustrating for reporters. I'm curious if there's a single question you asked someone that your frustration with the response really stood out, or is there a specific question you wish you could ask a specific leader, past or present, that they would have had to answer honestly, clearly and completely.

Yeah, I'd like to ask Donald Trump why he lies. If you got him in the right moment, he probably would tell you. And his answer would probably be that if you lie enough, people will believe it. They certainly have with him. Cindy Zampa in Erdry, Alberta. Is there a question you did not ask of anyone you've interviewed, but looking back now, wish you had? Or conversely, is there a question you did ask,

but afterwards regretted asking? No, I mean, I think you leave every interview wishing that there was more time or there was more opportunity to ask other questions or you were able to pursue a line that you had to move off of because of time. Interviews are tricky things and we all go through different periods of how we do interviews. You know, I don't go in with a list of questions anymore. I used to do that and found myself focusing more on the list than on the questions. I'd like to do an interview like I do every Monday morning with Janice Stein. We have a very rough idea of what we're going to talk about. Like we're kind of focused just on Iran this week.

And we don't go beyond that. We start the interview and it's just a conversation. And it's a conversation that leads to some places, not to other places. sometimes you wish you'd ask a couple more questions. Sometimes you think you maybe spent too long on such and such an angle. But for the most part, what I love is having a good conversation with a smart person where I learn things.

Jim Smith in Ottawa, did you ever have a conversation with Edward R. Murrow? And what was your takeaway from that conversation? Jim, you know, I'm 77. I'm not 97. Edward Aramorrow, who was the legendary godfather of CBS News, a man would he be rolling over in his grave watching CBS now? Edward Armarrow died in April of 1965. I was 16 then, so I was still in high school.

so no I never had a conversation with Edward R. Murrow. I wish I had. I wish I could today because I would love to know what he thinks about how they've bent their knee. Let's get a, try and get a couple more in here.

Michael Williamson in Burlington, Ontario, you have an interest in competitive sports, so I was wondering outside of coverage of the Olympics, have you ever considered or been offered a role in media covering sports. In hindsight, do you wish you had? After this week, after upsetting some of the Oilers fans with our comment the other day

about the Stanley Cup finals, it's probably a good thing I haven't gone into sports. I have nothing but admiration for my friends in sports. I did a lot of work with Brian Williams, with Ron McLean. These guys are like consummate professionals. They are amazing. And they know their stuff.

And so I was lucky enough to work with them. But from the news background, not the sports background. And enjoyed every minute of it. Francois de Plessy in Calgary. Have you considered a subscription approach to monetizing the podcast as opposed to running ads? I'd be more than happy to kick a few dollars your way on a monthly basis to not hear those annoying ads. Okay, I don't decide on ads, but, you know, this program is the property of Sirius XM, the satellite radio service. and they determine what ads are placed on the program and where they're placed.

And in some cases, they're very different in different parts of the country. So, and the continent, you know, because the bridge, this program is heard right across North America. And we like having a continent wide audience. Megan Caney in Sims Settlement, Nova Scotia. I've never heard of Sim's settlement. But apparently it's about an hour west of Halifax. What's making you laugh right now? A TV show, movie or podcast, maybe some stand-up?

Who's making you giggle all of the above? You know, there's a lot of comedy out there. Some of it's kind of rough. A lot of it's very edgy. A lot of it's political. and we need to have the ability to laugh at ourselves and to others, you know, in a constructive way. So I'm, you know, I'm not going to mention one thing in particular because I love to laugh. I laugh at myself and I laugh at others.

Henry Wall and Listerwell, Ontario, that's just north of Stratford. and when I'm in Canada, that's where we are in Stratford. Do you hold the same religious beliefs that your parents taught you growing up? If not, how did you make the decision to change your beliefs? My parents were Anglican, and so I classify myself as Anglican, but we're not practicing. They didn't. My father used to go to church a lot before the Second World War, where he was in the Royal Air Force.

We were in Britain. We were all born in Britain. My dad was in the REF. He flew a lot of missions. And he was decorated by the king for his bravery. And he told me once that he had a hard time believing in God as a result of the things he saw. and that's always held with me.

Didn't say he didn't believe in God. He had a hard time believing in God. And I understand that. Well, you know, I can't understand what he went through, what he saw, the friends he lost, so much so that he determined that he couldn't make friends because of the fear of losing them. He was in bomber command.

It was an incredibly high rate of death. And some of the things I've seen, you makes you wonder too. If there is a power, if there is a God, how could he or she let that happen, what you just witnessed, whether it was some kind of natural disaster

or a war, what have you? Once again this week, we have a lot more questions. They're here. and a lot more that are still coming in. And I just want you to know we will save them. Because we have one more before the summer break. We'll be the last one in June,

which will be another Ask Me Anything. And I'll make sure we get as many in that time as I can. I hope you understand why we don't get as many letters in on and ask me anything week as we do on a number. normal week, simply because you're asking me questions, so I've got to answer them, and I ramble. And sometimes I drop my I-N-Gs at the end of words. I've got to work on that. All right, that's going to do it for today.

Tomorrow, it's Friday, and it means good talk with Chantelle A. Bear and Bruce Anderson. There's another wild week in Canadian politics. and we'll sum it all up tomorrow right here on Good Talk. Hope you'll join us. I'm Peter Mansfisch. Thanks so much for listening. Talk to you again in 24 hours.