The Bridge with Peter Mansbridge - Your Turn -- More of Your Thoughts on The Middle East Crisis

Episode Date: October 19, 2023

After an intense two weeks of watching the Middle East on the edge of a full-blown crisis, you share your thoughts and feelings about what you've witnessed.  From who's to blame to what happens now? Plus other comments on the potential of LNG to WFH, work from home. And of course, the Random Ranter.

And hello there, Peter Mansbridge here. You are just moments away from the latest episode of The Bridge. Another week that has you talking. That's coming right up. And hello there, Peter Mansbridge here. It's Thursday, that means your turn, and you were busy this week sitting at the keyboard writing in to the Mansbridge Podcast at gmail.com. Quite a few letters, and not surprisingly, most, and the way we'll start today, most have been on the whole Israeli HamHamas conflict in the Middle East and the impact it's having on all of us. And it certainly has been doing just that. So let me get to your letters, and let me remind you, if you're a new listener to The Bridge or a new listener to Your Turn,

we get a lot of mail, a lot of mail. And I tend to, you know, I read every letter that comes in. Some of them make it on the show. Some of them don't. And that's purely just sort of how I find it interesting and also how we try to keep a relatively good turnover of those who write in. A lot of people write in every week, and that's fine. I don't have a problem with that.

But it's unlikely that you're going to get on every week. Also, it's rare that I'll read a whole letter on air. It's usually just snippets of it, and that way we can get many more people involved. So let's get started. The first letter comes from Salam Gwinnett, and she is writing from, where is she writing from? Victoria. My name is Salam.

I'm sure you know in Arabic that means peace. I was born in Jordan to Palestinian parents. I ended up in Canada after meeting a dashing Canadian Armed Forces captain while working in Dubai. Compared to a stereotypical Arab upbringing, my father was very liberal and supported my desire to leave the country. 25 years after meeting my now hubby, I still feel incredibly lucky to call myself Canadian. With that in mind, the blood in my veins is Palestinian, and I am heartbroken and horrified

at the level of atrocities on both sides. I'm appalled at the cold-blooded torture and killing of innocent civilians, and I support Palestinians' right to resist the Israeli oppression. What Hamas did is inexcusable and I do not know how people could celebrate that. I want to think that maybe they do not know how vicious the Hamas attack was, but I do not think that that was it. My favorite

Palestinian poet, Mahmoud Darwish, said that nothing, nothing justifies terrorism. I still remember images from the 1982 war in Lebanon. I close my eyes and I see the images of the Sabra and Shatila massacres committed by Lebanese militia who were supported and protected by the IDF, the Israeli Defense Force. Memories in the Middle East are long, and the hurt is very deep. My uncle was killed in front of his own children by Israeli forces, and I still do not wish that pain on anyone. Thank you, Salam, for writing. Kellyanne Hutchinson in Ottawa.

The Israel-Hamas war is absolutely horrendous, devastating, cruel and tragic, regardless of one's personal politics. The civilians on both sides and of both parties are suffering terrible atrocities. It shouldn't be a contest about which side suffers more or which side is committing the most horrific acts. They are all civilians in crisis and peril. Bud Taylor writes from Richmond, Virginia. That was a great interview with Janice Stein about the Middle East situation. Janice is with us on Monday, right? Janice used her depth of knowledge to

enlighten me. I loved her answers to your questions about what provoked this, what Hamas stands to gain, the politics of containment, and where this is going. Most interviewees I've heard are either in a rage against Hamas or an untenable defense of it. Janice quietly presented context and insight to explain the past, present, and future without judgment, except for her condemnation of the attack. Janice will be with us, as most of you know now, Brian Stewart is on sabbatical while he's writing his memoirs. Janice has agreed to fill in for him as often as she can, so she'll be with us weekly as well. Josette Sassoon. I think Josette is from Toronto. Today we listened to your guest, Dr. Janice Stein, who gave an excellent review of what is happening in Israel and the future that this

country is facing. It sounds like they will be forced to defend all three fronts. Scary. I'd like to know what Dr. Stein feels the Israelis should do to help the hostages be released and to try to get rid of Hamas. What about the rest of the world? Does Ms. Stein think that there is any hope for negotiations? I'm not knowledgeable and don't understand how one gets hostages, some 200, especially children, back to civilization. We're planning to talk about that issue of the hostages next week with Janice, if that situation is still a situation. There's no evidence that it's about to clean up and clear up anytime soon,

so we'll see. Scott Brown in Sussex, New Brunswick. After watching the attacks on Israel, after hearing the CBC dance around not calling Hamas a terrorist organization, it has left me for a loss of words. If your own country lists them as such for 21 years, and then for them to carry out an attack such as they did, and CBC to not have the courage to make a stand that only makes us look indecisive and weak as a country,

Scott's not about courage. It's about journalistic principles. CBC has them, has their own journalistic principles. But on this issue, on the use of the T word, the terrorist word, CBC is not unlike a lot of other networks and news organizations around the world who don't use it. And their explanation, I don't work for the CBC, so I'm not going to explain it to you, but just go on their website.

It's right there. Go on the BBC's website. It's right there. Go on major news organizations around the world. They'll explain to you how they use the terrorist word and how they don't. It's not to say that you've never heard the terrorist word on the CBC. You have, and you're hearing it now. It's the context in which it is used.

That's their decision. That's their defense. I used to be part of that. We used to debate it all the time internally. But I haven't worked at the CBC for almost seven years, so I'm not going to sit here and defend or attack their policy on this. That is their policy, and it is a common one in the news business. Does everybody have it? No, they don't.

But a lot of credible news organizations have the same policy. Moving on. Monique Condizella in Toronto. The feed of news regarding the massacres in Israel and Palestine made me think of past episodes of your podcast where you spoke of the dangers of deep fake news and whether there are any true leaders left in the world. The amount of disinformation regarding this tragedy has been abominable,

and the number of leaders trotting out the same tropes about this part of the world has been predictable and disheartening. Voices of calm and reason are paramount when faced with the human suffering we are witnessing, irrespective of where borders lie. Well, that was one of the reasons that we talked to Janice last week, and we'll talk to her again next week, because she is a voice of reason and calmness. Loich Leydan is in Ottawa, and raises an interesting point.

And this is the background to Iran and Iran's potential possible involvement in all this. Once again, nothing has been proven, at least as far as the Americans and the Israelis and others. And Canada's echoed this as well. Nothing's been proven about where Iran stands other than the obvious funding and supplying of equipment to Hamas. But this is what Loich Ladan writes. 20% of the population of Iran are Azeri, the same ethnicity as in Azerbaijan. Iran's national situation is already complicated

with the women's rights protests for a year now. If you add the wish of the Azeri community to part off Iran and join Azerbaijan, it would be a terrible blow for Iran's unity. Those Iran newspapers state that most of the weapons from Azerbaijan are imported from Israel. Iran cannot attack Azerbaijan or they could have a civil war. With Hamas attacking Israel, they limit the Israeli export of weapons to Azerbaijan. With Israel strikes back to Gaza, Iran unites its population against Israel. And as Janice Stein was telling you,

those attacks complicate the agreement between Israel and Saudi Arabia, the potential agreement. Another good friend of Iran. David Carrier from Ottawa. How many nations do you know of who are in a position to cut off water and electricity to another nation state? I can only think of one, and the reasons that allowed this to be possible have certainly contributed to the endless reoccurring horrors. The nation with the power here can and has to do better. Tony McKinnon in Hamilton.

It was so good to hear Dr. Janice Stein's views on this terrible situation in the Middle East. The wisdom of her insights cannot be overstated. I look forward to hearing from her again. Thank you for securing regular appearances from her on the bridge. She's been on the bridge for the last year in the segment we've called What Are We Missing?

So Janice, you know, I don't need to blow Janice's horn. I've been a big fan of Janice for a long time. You know, we've partnered on different elements for the last, well, since the mid-80s at least. Michael Wan in Toronto. I was quite sad to hear that Brian Stewart will be taking a break from the bridge, albeit for a good reason.

Brian has provided immensely knowledgeable and prescient analysis of the war in Ukraine. He will be missed. But if you can't have the Mario Lemieux of Canadian journalists, then you might as well tag in the Wayne Gretzky of Canadian political scientists. Janice Stein is a legend and the ideal person to keep listeners informed and engaged on insightful analysis of the conflict between Israel and Gaza.

Very much looking forward to hearing her regularly on the podcast. You got your wish, Mike. Next up is Harold Gold in Calgary. I'll keep my comments short and sweet. It was great to hear from Janice Stein on the Israeli-Hamas conflict. Too many newscasters and politicians try to simplify what is happening over there. Ms. Stein makes what is a very complicated subject much easier to understand

all the nuances of the situation over there. For reasons such as that, is why I enjoy listening to your podcast. Keep up the excellent work and look forward to hearing more. Listen, this is really nice that so many of you have said great things about Janice because she is pretty special.

James Doyle in Victoria. I wanted to thank you for the insightful conversation with Brian Stewart last week on the terrorist attacks in Israel. I did take issue with one point Brian made though, when he said he didn't understand why Hamas committed so much brutality against civilians and speculated that the Hamas leadership had tried to prevent civilian harm but was unable to maintain the discipline of its members. Brutality against civilians was not incidental to the attacks. It was the entire purpose.

Hamas has conducted numerous terrorist attacks since its founding, almost all of them targeting civilians, with the goal of maximizing civilian casualties. Suicide bombings, gunning people down the street, firing missiles into neighborhoods. Donna Edmonston from Winnipeg. I so appreciate your ability to add Dr. Janice Stein to the podcast as a regular while Brian Stewart is busy with his book.

Her knowledge and analysis of current global issues is unparalleled. She is truly a Canadian treasure. If your first conversation with Dr. Stein, it was just a couple of days ago on Monday, first conversation about Israel, Hamas, is any indication of future podcast quality, I'm encouraged and look forward enthusiastically to the upcoming Monday editions of The Bridge.

They won't always be on Mondays. There may be some on Tuesdays as well, but we'll see. Monday is the plan at the moment. Thank you, Dr. Stein. Norm Iron from, sorry, Derek Woods from Waterloo, Ontario. Last Friday on Good Talk, Chantel commented, last friday on good talk chantal commented no cause has ever been advanced by terrorism now i'm going to i'm going to frame this line from derrick for perhaps the first time i disagree with chantal while terrorist groups may not consistently achieve their primary strategic objectives,

there are many examples of partial strategic success, achievement of secondary objectives, and undoubtedly tactical successes. The anti-British violence during the American Revolution fits many definitions of terrorism and achieved the desired outcome. The early 20th century Irish Republican Army, often now called the old IRA, achieved partial independence for much of their country. One might argue that Jewish terrorists of the 1940s seeking the establishment of a Jewish state succeeded in that their violence led to the establishment of Israel.

Derek goes on, he has more examples, but we get the point. John Moreland from Port Wade, Nova Scotia. One thought occurred to me while Janice Stein was explaining the reasons for Hamas' attack at this time. Putin visited Tehran on July 18th this summer. It seems to me that encouraging war between Hamas and Israel, in addition to pulling in Hezbollah, could divert American attention and support from Ukraine.

Do you think that's a possibility? Well, sure. You know, a number of people have mentioned that, the impact. Brian talked about it last week. I guess it was last week. That this would have on the Ukraine war. Whether it was Vladimir Putin pulling the strings behind the scenes or not,

somehow I don't think so. Although I'm sure he didn't say, no, no, no, don't do that, if in fact he was even warned of it. All right, those are kind of a summary of support for having Janice help us out each week. And looking forward to talking to her again, probably for Monday of next week. Kevin Bender writes from London, England. Thanks for another great More Buts conversation. That was on Tuesday of this week, and it was on crisis management.

It was another really good conversation, at least I thought it was good, and clearly so did Kevin Bender. It is such a rarity in today's political landscape to have constructive and interesting dialogue between members or former members of opposing parties. These conversations remind me of another great podcast based in the UK called The Rest is Politics with Alistair Campbell and Rory Stewart. The description of this podcast ends with a line that says, bringing back the lost art of disagreeing agreeably. I think politicians on a global scale would do well to remind themselves of this lost art every once in a while. Absolutely, Kevin, you're bang on in that.

And the rest is politics with Campbell and Stewart's a great podcast. And those especially who are interested in British politics probably are, if they're not already listening to it, you should be because it's great. Gary Westall from Picton, Ontario. You knocked it out of the park three times this past Monday and Tuesday with Janice Stein, Greg Ebel, who's the CEO of Enbridge, and Moore Butts. The first was informative and sobering regarding wars.

The second was spot on about using natural gas. And the third was insightful, informative, and entertaining concerning political crisis management and accountability. Mr. Ebel's citation of NIMBYism, not in in my backyard that's what nimby stands for if you didn't know already as one reason for stifling development brought to mind an acronym equation my colleagues and i used in our natural resource land use planning days in nova scotia nimby plus banana equals lulu otherwise known as not in my backyard, plus build absolutely nothing anywhere near anybody equals locally unacceptable land use.

That, my friend, helps make Mr. Evil's point of the great difficulty in getting resource projects completed in Canada. When combined with weak-kneed political leadership, well, we don't stand a chance. There were actually quite a few letters on Greg Ebel's appearance, the chair of Enbridge. That was on Monday, second half of the Monday show after Janice Stein. Alan Mendez wrote from Vancouver, nice to have someone like Greg on your show who takes a rational approach to oil and gas

and not just about Trudeau bashing. I remember in 2013, BC Premier Christy Clark pushing the LNG drive, the liquefied natural gas, and it looked so promising. Saw this article some time back, provided some insight into what happened, and he attaches an attachment on that. I think both business and provincial federal governments are equally to blame

for not getting on the LNG bandwagon quicker and creating an environment that would have enabled more LNG projects in Canada. John Dunn writes from Scarabray Branch in Calgary, sorry, Cowley, Alberta. My direct experience and the experience broadly of my LNG industry colleagues is that there's deep ideological opposition, indeed hostility, to all hydrocarbon development in Ottawa, no matter the environmental case for LNG.

Consider the current government's creation of the Canadian Energy Regulator, or CER, which replaced Canada's National Energy Board. The federal government's appointed CER board consists of nine directors drawn from academia, indigenous and Métis, law, new Canadian energy regulator who has direct experience and knowledge of hydrocarbon infrastructure, let alone the LNG business. Canada's oil and gas sector, the largest export sector and second largest contributor to the country's GDP, is not represented. Not everybody was in agreement with Greg Ebel. There were quite a few letters opposing.

Donna Lockhart wrote from Ennismore, Ontario, and kind of sums up in many ways some of the concern and criticism. Listen, with great interest, as you interviewed Greg, the CEO of Enbridge, a few comments, there's not much that is natural about natural gas, except it comes from the ground. When gas furnaces come on, they emit methane gas out of the pipe that exits your house. Big issue is what we heat our homes with, and he wants to

increase the use of fossil fuels. Why does he think Canada would be doing a good thing by offering liquid gas to China to help them replace coal-fired plants? One bad replacing a bad is just as bad. At a time when we can't reach our own emissions targets, why are we encouraging this unless it's to make money? By expanding into other countries, all it does is increase business profits and increase air pollution. And Donna goes on with other points as well, but you get the picture, and as I said, she wasn't alone in terms of the mail we got on that.

David Dennis from Fredericton. It's always strange to me that the solution to reduce greenhouse gases is spending government funds, tax dollars, on greenhouse gas producing projects rather than green projects. Let's get our house in order before we open up more production to help the rest of the world. The natural gas and the market for it will always be there later. Mr. Ebel himself said the demand for energy will only go up. And one more. Patrick Tallon writes from... Where are we here? And one more. Patrick Talon writes from L'Oriignal, Ontario. Your segment with Enbridge CEO Greg Ebel was insightful and optimistic.

As I became enthusiastic about this opportunity, I thought about what Chantelle Hébert said in one of the first good talks of this fall season. After a trip to Europe, she reflected that we can't build anything anymore in Canada. A grand plan like Mr. Ebel's will run into intergovernmental feuds, the Canadian need for full consensus, and a trophy that has affected our mega capital projects. Atrophy. A trophy. Atrophy. All right. A few comments on the random ranters last couple of weeks. We got Dennis Moore in Wellington County, Ontario. Regarding the ranters' commentary on work from home, I have to say that I wholly agree. I've worked remotely over 15 years as an IT professional and it has been

transformational. Prior to this, I had a position that required me to travel to the GTA, Greater Toronto, each day. That four-hour commute took a huge financial and emotional toll on me and my family. Since the transition, the vehicle that I purchased around that same time has fewer than 100,000 clicks on it, and I feel great that I don't add to that traffic congestion and environmental impact each day. Also, the mental toll that daily journey took, which often required me to decompress when I got to and from work, is gone.

Not to mention the expense of thousands each year spent on fuel and vehicle maintenance. Spencer Stinson in Blenheim, Ontario. I think the takeaway from the ranter should be that when possible employers need to provide a flexible work schedule for all of their workers, obviously settings like trades and shift work cannot adhere to this. But general office settings can. One of the positives from COVID was my office going predominantly work from home. With my wife and I as new parents, this freed up commute time for me to spend way more time with my family. Being an engineering company, we actually used the experience to collect data around work efficiency and productivity across our workforce. The data showed we were more productive when people were given the freedom to work from home and work flexible hours. So our management said, why would we change something that's working? Where I'll disagree with the ranter is I think the camaraderie is still important. So a hybrid model is probably the best formula if it works for employees.

And Brian Wagner from Calgary. I think the point that if the work can be done from home, that there's no point in going to the office misses the mark a bit. As a manager, I would not want my team to be seen or to see themselves as only an assemblage of individuals working on tasks. To the contrary, I think there is a strong value add to having people work in the same place physically, even if only some of the time. The ability to develop the depth of informal social connections that go into developing a team that does more than just complete tasks assigned by the manager is not easily replicated solely through work-from-home tools. I accept that the era of always working in the office is truly over in many workplaces,

but let's find a balance and not lose sight of the value of meeting and working with people in person. You know, I tend to be with Brian on that. I think offices where there's no opportunity, or work, where there's no opportunity for people to be together and bounce ideas off each other and just simply have a relationship with each other is not a good thing. Greg Damasio in Waterloo, Ontario. I'm a bit behind on the podcast,

but I've just listened to the recent Good Talk and the subsequent Your Turn where you discussed the pronoun issue. One thing I've been struck by is that despite the prominence and controversy that surrounds this issue, I've not yet heard from someone with a deep knowledge on the relevant

issues. Excuse me. For example, a psychologist who treats trans or non-binary youth, a sociologist or historian who studies gender issues or social movements, an equity, diversity, and inclusion professional, a trans or non-binary identified individual with lived experience, or better yet, someone with some combination of the above. Okay, Greg, I'll definitely keep that in mind. Chuck Hansen, he wrote a really long letter on this subject of both the discussion that we've had and the ranter had on this pronoun issue. Here's what he says. I'm just a short excerpt.

I'm writing today in response to the discussions by the ranter with respect to transgender children and the issue of parental notification. You had mentioned last Thursday that most writers agreed with his position, so I thought I should send in a letter politely disagreeing with it. I do agree that schools should be safe places for all kids. However, I think that we can provide that without socially transitioning children, without their parents' consent, when weighing such a decision, it would be important to know what the risks of such an intervention are.

These are serious issues that a child may not have the capacity to understand when requesting to socially transition at school. Parents need to weigh in on the mature aspects related to sexuality, reproduction, and the lifelong social aspects that social transition may lead to. All right. So that's a view on the ranters.

Those are comments on the ranters' view on a number of different subjects, which always brings us at this point on the Thursday program to the ranter and whatever he's ranting on this week. There's one topic he's probably discussed more than any, and that's electric vehicles. He is a believer in electric vehicles, the potential of electric vehicles. He doesn't see that they're there yet, and he's made a number of points about it. And it always provokes the EV enthusiast to write in and argue about the rancher's position. Well, get your pens ready, folks, because he's going at it again today. And his target is the issue of charging time, charging your EV.

You ready for him? Well, of course you are because it's Thursday and you want to hear what the ranter has to say. So here we go. When people talk about EV charge times, they're always talking about level three chargers and just assume we all know what that means. Or maybe they're always talking about level 3 chargers, and just assume we all know what that means. Or maybe they're counting on us not knowing. I'm not sure. So let me break it down a bit. The typical level 3 charger charges at 80 kilowatts per hour, and the average EV has a 40 kilowatt hour battery. So math being simple, you can fully charge it in half an hour. And that's pretty good. But here's the reality.

Level 3 chargers don't grow on trees. And when you find one, it may or may not work. And you may or may not have other options. But that's okay, because you can just level 3 charge at home, right? Wrong. Because unless you feel like spending at least 50 grand to install one, that's not going to be an option for you. So when we're talking about charging EVs on the day-to-day, we're talking about level two chargers. They're not expensive and they're good for around seven

kilowatts per hour. That means your average EV is good to go in under 6 hours. But the problem is, what if you don't drive an average EV? What if you've got a top-of-the-line F-150? Because that one's 18 hours to charge. And the new Hummer? That's 28. Which all brings me to the point I want to make. EVs are limited when it comes to how fast we can charge them. Not just by the batteries themselves, but by our infrastructure.

A bigger battery on a bigger car does not solve the problem. So instead of looking for ways to charge them faster, we should be looking for ways to get more range out of what we already have. Because when it comes to range, the issue isn't so much the battery, it's the car. The focus needs to be on efficiency. That means smaller, lighter, more aerodynamic cars, and that means we need to dial back the performance a bit. Nobody needs a car that can go 0-60 in 2.3 seconds, and nobody needs a truck that can out-tow a locomotive.

What we need is the average EV to have a 20 kWh battery with a range of 250 km. Build them like that, and you won't need a ton of infrastructure to support them, and you won't need a ton of time to charge them. But that's not the road manufacturers keep heading down. They don't care about efficiency. They care about performance because performance sells. Performance is sexy. And when you wrap it all up with a green ribbon, performance is downright intoxicating. But I think most of us know intoxicated decisions, they don't usually work out. out the random ranter now come on ranter who do you know who's like recently bought a hummer

really f-150 maybe hummer not so much if you can afford a hummer you can probably afford the 28 hours or whatever it was to get your battery charged. Okay. Or the 50 grand to have your own charger. But that's just me. The ranter gets his rant. Again, on EVs. Good for him. We're going to take a quick break. When we come back, some more of your letters on a variety of different subjects as we quickly breeze through the your turn for this day but back right after this and welcome back you're back for the final segment of your turn for this week, for this Thursday. I'm Peter Mansbridge.

And you're listening on Sirius XM, channel 167. Canada Talks are on your favorite podcast platform. Glad to have you with us. Okay, more letters. Trevor Barry writes from Saanich, BC. I'm not entirely sure I understand the nuances differentiating the three different opinions between you, Bruce, and Chantel

on the whole business of unidentified public servants briefing reporters. Chantel and Bruce sort of ganged up on me because I have some problems with some aspects of that kind of situation, where the speakers speak behind a cloak of anonymity. Anyway, what Trevor says, what I do know from 15 years in provincial bureaucracy is that there has been an erosion of professional public service expertise

speaking truth to power, and in favor of professional communications speaking politics to the public. But what's worse, this has happened alongside a hollowing out of policy expertise among the political class, and it worries me. All right, Trevor, interesting take on that. I will say there were a lot of people who sided with Bruce and Chantel. Don't have to make them identify themselves.

They're public servants. They're not there for that. Here's a really interesting position from Chris Waddell. You may remember that name. Outstanding journalist with the Globe and Mail. Award winner at both the Globe and then later at the CBC, where he was the bureau chief in Ottawa for the CBC. Chris wrote me about this. He'd been in the gym.

He's a former director of the School of Journalism at Carleton University. And he was working out in the gym listening to the podcast. So here's what he has to say. And I find this really, I hadn't thought of this angle. Let me find where it starts. The transparency discussion was interesting, and I share your point of view on it. Someone should be speaking on the record, and to my mind, that should be the

Director of Communications for the relevant minister, or the Director of Communications for the department, depending on the issue. The problem, I think, can be traced to one of the worst decisions news organizations have made in recent years, allowing the people who should be speaking with journalists instead to answer questions with emailed responses. Just a sec. Got a little tick in my throat. The emailed responses almost never answer the question being posed, and of course a journalist has no opportunity for a follow-up

when faced with a response that is usually anodyne, drivel, or talking points. As a result, the journalist's questions are not answered, and there's no transparency, yet journalists often use the emailed response in their stories to show that they've asked for and received a comment, regardless of its value or whether it's enlightening the audience. From the minister or the department's point of view, this is perfect. The emailed response creates the illusion of openness and availability without any of the risks of follow-up questions or challenges to what they're saying. At the same time, it allows the director of communications to decide they

don't have to speak to a journalist, as they can just respond by email. So they don't, and there is no one speaking on the record who can be questioned on their responses or be held to account for what was actually said. Perhaps some of this could change if news organizations decided they would no longer accept or quote emailed responses, but would only use comments from interviews. That, in my mind, at least would be a very positive step to try to create the much-needed more transparency about journalism and how journalists do their jobs. Well, good on you, Chris, because I think that's a pretty good answer. It's not exactly what we were talking about, but it centers around this whole issue of transparency

and the attempts to avoid accountability that have become a part of the professional political system, all parties, especially the party that's in government. A few comments about the apple-picking Pierre Palliev we talked about yesterday. David Prime writes from Ottawa, Another good discussion with bruce today i always look forward to hearing the thoughts from you both on the political issues of the day after listening i made a point of looking for the orchard interview of pierre polliev that you

discussed what struck me about the clip was not so much the combative responses but the complete and utter disrespect he showed by loudly smacking away at the apple through the back and forth seemed to be a very deliberate thing to have done, particularly since it was posted on the CPC social media. In other words, the Conservative Party's social media site. I find it an odd thing to promote, given how they've been working so hard to soften his image. Well, that's all true, but I can tell you that most of the comments I've seen have been very positive for Polyev on the way he conducted that Apple Orchard interview. I'm not going to go back through it all again, but you should. It's easy to find. Just Google it.

A couple of other comments, though. Matthew McDonald in Ottawa writes, I was listening to your podcast Wednesday, and you mentioned the interview with Mr. Polyev and how you thought he was rude to the journalists. I said there were moments when he was. I did say quite a few things about Polyev's performance, including how he performed the night before I spoke

at the real estate convention in Ottawa and how he hung around for more than an hour after his speech and people loved him for doing that. Anyway, you fail to play the clip in its entirety when he compared him to Donald Trump and other verbiage that would set most others off the deep end. I'm glad he didn't allow himself to be bullied by this so-called journalist. You could debate who's bullying whom or whether both were bullying each other.

And refused to be pushed into a corner. He was calm, cool, and the apple looked nice and crisp. Yeah? Is there any wonder that he's leading in the polls as people become tired of the current virtue-s virtue signaling PM and what comes out of his mouth? Okay. Pierre's Apple situation. I was just listening to you and Bruce talk about Pierre Polyev's impoliteness to a reporter who asked him things that were rather caption or Captain Obvious, but Pierre gaslit him and pretended they weren't. I actually had a different reaction when I first heard the footage because I recall a female Globe and Mail reporter asking him similar things and he was much more aggressive and rude to her that he was with this mail reporter.

I just wondered if you or Bruce had any thoughts on whether he appears to be harsher with women than he does with men. This situation seemed to exemplify a sense of this theory. As a minimum, I was surprised that you didn't raise the Globe and Mail reporter because it was also carried much in the news at the time, sure was, including on this program.

We did a whole segment on it, including running the exchange. But we're talking about two exchanges. I don't know whether you want to leap to any conclusions about how he handles men and women differently, if in fact he does. I mean, he's not a fan of the media, let's face it, unless they're in the pocket. And he resists the media, and he's challenging with the media.

And I have no problem with the challenging part. If you're going to make a claim in an interview inside a question, you better be able to back it up. Some people say, blah, blah, blah. I don't buy that. You can't ask a question that way, and you can't answer it that way either. Phil Weiner from Hamilton. Oh, running out of time here.

Always enjoy your insight, blah, blah, blah, blah. I saw the PR clip you referenced during the podcast Wednesday and his similarities to Pierre Trudeau. Pretty well overwhelmed me. I thought his attempts at producing comic relief to some critical items in his portfolio were just outstanding. The inflections, the body language, the boorish apple-eating cycle, and his abuse of the interviewer were over the top. Although he was not trying to

be a funny guy, it came out that way to me. Felt sorry for the poor interviewer, in fact, but then again, as you mentioned, the reporter was so poorly prepared with proof of references that for a bit I thought, hey, maybe this reporter was part of the setup. Well, I doubt whether he was, but he certainly became part of the setup when they put it on their social media channel. Douglas Johnson writes from Vernon, B.C., Pierre Palliev was in Oliver, B.C. this week and will be a contested writing.

In what appears a rare occurrence of a reporter attending an event and asking questions, black press still just took Pierre Polyev's statements on several issues and just reposted them. Wouldn't surprise me if there was a handout. On climate, we have our own provincial carbon levy here since 2008, and acts the tax in B.C, introduced by the Liberals in 2019, is pure disinformation. As some of us know, and surely the news media, or at least an editor, knows, if they're going to post something like this below, and it includes the article,

is there an obligation to note there is no federal carbon tax in BC? Okay, quickly. Peter, let's read. Stop coughing. I love this one. Dave Kellett from Lakeville, Ontario. Over the weekend, I watched the new Mr. Dress-Up documentary, which you had small parts in. It was a wonderful look back into my childhood during this crazy time

of crisis, between the crazy inflation, climate change, and the war in Israel. I can't even understand. It was nice. It was fun to do that. When I was doing it, I thought, I wonder if anybody's going to watch this. Well, it turns out a lot of people watched it, and a lot of people really liked it, the whole documentary style that was done on Mr. Dress Up,

and it's won awards already, so good for them. Annika Clark writes, My name is Annika, and I'm writing from Victoria. I just wanted to write and say how much I love listening to Good Talk every Friday. I'm in my third year of political science, and Chantel's, Bruce's, and your analysis of current events helps me so much with having a deeper understanding of events that we talk about in the poli-sci classes.

After each episode, my dad and I will continue the debate and talk about what we liked and what was thought provoking from it. Thanks, Annika. That's great to know. Bill Newman in Aurora, Ontario. At the end of last week's Smoke, Mirrors and the Truth, Bruce suggested, in good fun I assume, that you start each podcast with a confession of the things you got wrong and wondered about a name for the segment, How About Peter's Penance? In my view, though, your inadvertent and rare inaccuracies, are you related to me, are unworthy of note compared to the blatant and intentional falsehoods circulating out there.

Well, that's true. Rodney Daughtry from Vancouver. This morning I listened to Friday's Good Talk, specifically to the debate around the attribution of sources. My takeaway was less about the specific topic and more about its nature. These were the words that came to mind. Respect for each other. A willingness to listen.

Civility. Open-mindedness, measured response, a sense of perspective, disagreement without disdain, and finally and hopefully, a model, an example for others. Thank you for your continued work. It's greatly and sincerely appreciated. That's nice. Yeah, if only Chantel and Bruce were the same as me in all those aspects. Just kidding. Doug Yarnell from Warman, Saskatchewan.

One thing I was wondering about is why our politicians, regardless of party, never address our country's debt other than continually adding to it. I realize that the last three years have been challenging, but we were in debt as a country before that. Deficit spending and continually spending money to other countries can only last so long before we are all living in our cars under an overpass.

Final letter, Julie Hutchinson, and it's on the housing issue. We don't need homes. We need less condo developments and fewer subdivisions. We should be focusing more on decent apartments and or co-op housing in our cities or towns. We need housing for people in cities that will probably never own a house. We need nice places to live close to where they work. Many can't afford the costs of cars or the transit prices they would accumulate by moving out of the cities. It's so often that comes back to housing, right? Our discussions. And it is a critical issue out there for so many Canadians. You know, the world is afire with all kinds of things happening,

and we're focusing on those often. But when it comes down to it, it's housing, it's inflation and grocery prices, and it's health care. That's what most Canadians want addressed. All right, that's it for this day's Your Turn. Tomorrow, it's Good Talk. Chantel and Bruce will be back, and I'm sure we'll have lots to discuss because we always do.

Thanks for your letters, and thanks for your attention and listening on this day. I'm Peter Mansbridge. Talk to you again in 24 hours. Nice, eh? Did you like that music? How about this music?