The Bridge with Peter Mansbridge - Your Turn on Coalitions and Poilievre, and the Ranter on Climate Change

Episode Date: April 13, 2023

After an Easter break you are back with your emails about the issues of the day from coalitions to Pierre Poilievre to the CBC.  And the Random Ranter makes his return by joining the discussion about Climate Change.  It's a packed episode.

And hello there, Peter Mansbridge here. You are just moments away from the latest episode of The Bridge. It's Thursday, your turn returns after an Easter some of the topics we've been discussing right here on the bridge during the past few days. During the past couple of weeks actually, because last week with the Easter break, your turn took a break. So did the random ranter, But you're both back this week. So let's get right at it. A reminder that the letters that are read are usually not read in their entirety. Some of you love to write. And you write great missives.

But they're a little long for this. So I try to kind of narrow it down to a couple of key sentences or a paragraph or so for most of your letters. I like to be able to use your name and where you're writing from because it gives this kind of flavor of the country at times on some of the big issues. The ranter remains anonymous. He gets that pass. I know who he is.

And I've given you the details on sort of where he comes from in the country and that he is not aligned with any political party. He's just a guy who has a good job, is a reasonable salaried person who enjoys life and enjoys ranting. And ranting he does, and he will do today on the topic of climate change, which we have been going in and out on for the past few weeks and will continue to do so. All right, let's get at it on your letters, on your comments.

And the first block of letters, first couple, comes from a story I told the other day about Flight Sergeant Peter Brown here in the United Kingdom. He died at 96 years old last December. He died alone. It was a sad story when it was told, and a lot of people got together and said, we've got to find his family. We've got to do it right when he has his funeral. And first hundreds, then thousands, now thousands of people from around the world have joined in the story of Flight Sergeant Peter Brown, who is one of the last black members of the RAF to pass at 96.

There's still a couple of others left. Peter Brown came from Jamaica. He was part of a group that volunteered. In his particular case, there were 12 of them who came over at the same time. And they trained first in England, then they were sent to Canada as part of the Commonwealth Air Training Plan where they were trained, and then they came back to Britain for service near the end of the Second World War. Anyway, the Peter Brown story now is the burial's been held off a number of times.

It'll now be held at the end of May in one of the historic cathedrals in Britain, historic churches in Britain. And there will be thousands of people there, members of the general public, members of the RAF, member of a variety of distinguished groups. The Prime Minister has spoken about Flight Sergeant Peter Brown. And I had a couple of letters from you about Flight Sergeant Peter Brown. So let's get it started. Peter Patel. I'm enjoying your podcast from the very beginning.

I've listened to most of them at my home in Fenlon Falls, Northern Ontario. It's near Sioux Lookout, Florida, and in India during winter when I visit and live in my ancestral village of 1,500 people. It's great that the British are honoring Peter Brown's service to the RAF. Wouldn't it have been better if he was honored and looked after during his later life when he was very lonely? Loneliness has become an epidemic that very few people talk about. We should try to discuss this with experts and implement ways where our elderly citizens can be looked after. Sadella Beasley. She's in Minneapolis.

Thank you for the story of Flight Sergeant Peter Brown, both uplifting and incredibly sad. One only hopes those organizing the event find a way to keep the movement going so the next Sergeant Brown does not spend his or her final years, months, days, hours, and minutes alone. As always, loving the podcast and the feature you've added to enhance the content and keep your listeners looking forward to the next episode. Is it time for another More Butts show?

Well, funny you mentioned that. More Butts conversation, I think this is number six, comes up next Monday. So just in a few days from now. That's More But butts on Monday PS I love this I love this PS from Sadatle Beasley in Minneapolis Bruce is my favorite

Chantel is clearly The smartest No mention of me I just sort of hang her on I'm just the host Who gets beaten up every week By those two. Bruce is my fave because at least once per episode,

he sneaks in a zinger that makes me literally LOL. Yeah, fine, Sadella. I'll tell him. I'll tell him he's got a fan in Minneapolis. Anne-Marie Klein writes, same subject, Peter Brown. I wanted to respond to your story about the funeral plans for the UK war veteran Peter Brown. While I am in a full agreement that he deserved recognition for his service and should rightfully be given an honorable send-off, it actually stirred in me some resentment for how the UK tends to focus on

ceremony and symbolism instead of actually addressing underlying issues that create these situations. I was reminded of Captain Sir Tom Moore and his incredible fundraising for the National Health Service during the pandemic. He was knighted by the Queen and deservedly praised for his efforts, as were all the frontline workers that were clapped for each night. It seems to me that all this pomp and spectacle would seem more genuine if the UK government would follow up with specific steps to ensure that other retired vets have access to support services, not to mention funding their treasured National Health Service properly, so fundraising would be unnecessary. These grand gestures are merely empty distractions to appease the public

while hiding their unwillingness to take concrete action. Strong words from Anne-Marie Klein, and you know, Anne-Marie, you could use some of that criticism right here at home as well, you know, home talking about in Canada. There are concerns about how many of our vets are looked after in their later years. All right, enough on that subject. Moving on to something we just talked about yesterday, Bruce's latest data looking into how Canadians really feel about Pierre Polyev, and it was pretty good for Polyev. They like to hear what he's saying. They think he's talking about things that matter to them. Patsy Minnis writes, most of my adult life, I've been a

progressive conservative, and so to listen today to your conversation with Bruce Anderson regarding his Polyev polling numbers fills me with complete despair. How this country can succeed and prosper with a person at the helm who is so full of anger, who seems to have no vision for the country or looks to the big picture, and today does offer no constructive solutions or policies. Not a formula, in my opinion, which brings out the best in people. Code Clements, Cherry Grove, Alberta. I don't think voters will ask how you will do it to Polyev.

Polyev just makes statements that CBC is state-run. Most believe that here in the West. He knows voters are ignorant and have no time to check, nor, frankly, the ability or willingness. Wow, you sure think a lot of your fellow voters in Alberta and other prairie provinces, Alberta and Saskatchewan, have been criticized lately for not a lot, a little bit, by saying the West includes everybody, you know,

basically from the Ontario border to BC. And some British Columbians say, we're not really part of the West. We don't associate with Alberta, B.C. and, excuse me, Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba as much as we associate with ourselves. The Rockies are there for a reason. They divide us from the prairie provinces. So be careful of what terminology you use. Okay.

I don't know. I have a hard time with that one. Anyway, Code Clements goes on. As far as political junkets to other countries, we talked about how they're all paid for. Well, not all, but certainly some of them, including the one right now to Taiwan, is paid for by the host country.

And really, is that right? So Code says, as far as political junkets to other countries with all the surreptitious happenings as well as statements which are so obviously not true or based on any fact you and I are correct to ask if these are appropriate. We ask ourselves is there conspiracy

behind these junkets? I always ask myself how far I'm willing to stretch this conspiracy BS. All right, code. Nancy LeBlanc in Toronto. Please do not feel reluctant to speak about the CBC and please keep up the discussion.

It is needed more than ever. I mentioned yesterday when the CBC came up as a result of some of the things Paulieva has been saying about defunding the CBC. I said, I've always, you know, after a 50-year career at the CBC, I've always been reluctant to get into a discussion about the CBC because it felt like it was a conflict for me to do that. I've been out of the CBC for six years. I think I've been inside the building two or three times in six years. I've done the occasional documentary, done usually independently, but done and aired eventually on the CBC.

One of them was just nominated this week for a Canadian Screen Award, Arctic Blue from last year. But I have nothing to do inside the CBC anymore. I'm not part of the corporation. I'm retired. I'm a retired pensioner. That's when I hear from the CBC when there's pension news. So that's why I've been reluctant,

but I kind of let loose yesterday on a few things. Anyway, your podcast, this is going back to Nancy's letter, sorry Nancy to interrupt you there, your podcast with its legion of wise and independent commentators is well suited as a place to discuss the future of the CBC

and how certain politicians like Pierre Poliev are targeting it. Indeed, your podcast is one of the few broadcasting forums in the country where the subject of the CBC can be credibly and publicly debated. The CBC can't do it, other media platforms are conflicted, and social media is flooded with hot takes. Your podcast is a place of calm, reasoned discussion and features guests of national stature

who can speak to the value of the CBC and other issues with good judgment and temperament frequently missing elsewhere. Yeah, I think, you know, I think you're right. We've talked about it a couple of times about the CBC. It is a real, you know, it's a worthy debate. Public broadcasting since its inception by a conservative government in the 1930s has changed over time, obviously, as I said that yesterday. Some people don't think it's kept up with its original mandate.

Others feel it's gone off veering one way or another. Excuse me. So, you know, it is a legitimate debate. I'm happy to have it. I'm just not sure I'm the right person to kind of moderate it. But anyway, nevertheless, we'll keep watching on the CBC because clearly public broadcasting is of particular interest to me. Perhaps this version of public broadcasting that we're currently witnessing

may not be in line with what my thinking is, but that's just me. Moving on. We talked, I had a great good talk last weekend i got a ton of reaction to it on whether or not the liberals and the ndp are heading towards some kind of more formal arrangement and people weren't shy about offering their views i'm just going to read a couple of them here your talk with this is from fiona Fiona Gilchrist in Belleville, Ontario. Your talk with Chantelle and Bruce today offered an interesting look at how future federal governments in Canada

might trend towards continued cooperative coalitions of the left. There's a mouthful. Thus, we end up with basically two parties polarized at either end of the spectrum, left and right. We see how well that arrangement has worked for our southern neighbors. Where is our centrist party? The middle is a vacuum these days, and when I heard Bruce say the political center constitutes 80 percent of voters, I wondered yet again why a new party has not sprung up to fill the void. I was prepared to move my liberal

vote to the conservatives next time round if they had elected a more centrist leader such as Jean Charest, but by putting Polyev in power, the party showed it has drifted too far from my taste. Now I feel homeless, and if Bruce is right about his voter instincts, which of course he is, that's according to Fiona. It's another one who sees Bruce is always right. I suspect I'm far from alone. Is it too hard to hold a middle line? Where could that middle party come from? Might the Liberals drift back?

Any chance for the Conservatives to do so? How could a new party be formed? Good questions from Fiona. Susan Morales in Whitehorse, Yukon. I'm a partisan progressive. I like having a choice between NDP and Liberal in the voting booth. Node emerging. Bring on coalitions.

Jerry McDonald from Grand Prairie, Alberta. Since the turn of the 21st century, the two mainline parties have both transformed quite dramatically from their 20th century predecessors. The old big-tan traditional Tory progressive conservative party is no more, having been supplanted by a new, more doctrinaire, more ideological Conservative Party with its roots in a curious mix of deregulating corporate libertarianism and evangelical social conservatism. The Liberal Party under Justin Trudeau has, in the meantime, shifted sharply leftward from its forebears, infringing on traditional New Democrat territory, especially in non-fiscal areas of public policy, embracing marriage equality, cannabis legalization, and medical assistance in dying, to name a few. But in my view, this posture is unlikely to endure long past Mr. Trudeau's tenure as Liberal leader. In fact, there is probably room for them to shift to the right on economic and fiscal policy

while remaining more activist and progressive on social issues, squeezing the Conservatives into a narrow strip of hard-right, climate-change-denying conservatism that isn't all that palatable to the vast majority of the Canadian electorate and allowing the NDP with more pragmatic policies inspired by its far more successful provincial wings to supplant the Conservatives as the natural alternative to the Liberals. That's interesting, Jerry.

Okay. My old friend, Jeffrey Oliver. I've never met Jeffrey, but I feel like I know him. Jeffrey's always on a ship somewhere. He works on freighters and transport ships, and he's usually flying the North Atlantic, moving stuff back and forth between North America and Europe. He sends this from his geophone.

Trump's call to arms and Marjorie Taylor Greene's attempts to rally a raucous, gun-happy crowd to protest sure does tempt the media and viewers into thinking they could catch another January 6 type event live and unedited. I wonder how many viewers were dreading or hoping to see something like that. Think of the ratings that would get. Life is about ratings. It seems to me that a lot of the wind is blown out of many of the presenters' sails when it comes to Trump. I get the impression that few want to cover him and few want to watch coverage of him, but the big news stations are, as you said, afraid to be the first to stop the coverage. I don't know where the line is on covering Trump.

He's been indicted once 34 times he's going to be indicted a bunch more times in the next month or two at the most

it's quite a spectacle spectacle this guy was the former president of the United States

allegedly the most powerful man in the world is he going to end up in an orange jumpsuit

behind bars for 10, 20 years on espionage charges? I mean, really? That's a hell of a story if it happens. Can't ignore that. Anyway, two more important things, like where is Jeffrey today? While we're listening to that. Jeffrey's home base, St. John's, Newfoundland.

He's currently downbound on the St. Lawrence. Now, how many of you know what that means? He's downbound on the St. Lawrence. It means he's heading out to sea. He's downbound. Now, you look at a map and you think downbound must mean, oh, he's heading down towards the Great Lakes. No, that's not what he's doing.

Downbound means he's heading out to sea. Got it? I have to keep reminding myself of that. Alvin Annes writes, I'm listening to your podcast and discussion on 60 minutes you mentioned senator joe mccarthy being interviewed by edward r murrow and murrow saying you have no shame i don't remember that interview but i did see a video session i think of a senate hearing and it was another lawyer i think that was representing a person that mccarthy charged with being a communist who made that statement.

Maybe it was both of them. No, no, you're right, Alvin. In fact, the day after I said that last week, I corrected it on air. It was not Edward R. Murrow, totally undressed McCarthy. And he said a lot of things about him. But the quote that I used, you have no shame, was actually a U.S. senator in a Senate hearing against Joe McCarthy in the witness chair.

And it was, do you have no decency? Something like that. So anyway, I got the quote wrong and I got the person who said it wrong. But other than that, I had everything right. But thank you, Alvin, for reminding me. And so for those who didn't hear the initial correction, there's another one.

Rob McAllister in Binbrook, Ontario. I love this. First, the mandatory suck-up. I'm relatively new to your podcast and I'm very much enjoying listening to you and your guests, particularly Chantal, Bruce, and Brian, on my daily six-kilometer walk. Good for you.

My goodness, it seems like the four of you have been a part of my life for too long a time dimension. Yes, it is too long a time to mention. Yes, it is too long a time to mention, but it's fun, and we love doing it. The 60 Minutes Marjorie Taylor Greene discussion piqued my interest enough to have read Mark Bulgich's piece in the Toronto Star. Remember, this was stirred by my good friend and co-author, Mark Boguch, wrote a piece in the start. My immediate reaction was that 60 Minutes made a deliberate decision to expose to as many Americans as possible just what a vile, cancerous, whack job MTG truly is. I hold the same opinion of Trump. Some of you agree with Rob on that, that it was a deliberate attempt to expose her for what she is.

Others feel I should never have given her the time. Ian Hamburg in Brandon, Manitoba. I used to live in Brandon. Not for long. It was only a couple of months, but I lived there in 1967 or the early part of, yeah, I think late 67. When I was working for a little airline called Transair, it was a regional airline and one of its flight routes was Winnipeg, Brandon, Regina, Saskatoon, Prince Albert. It was a milk run, right, on a DC-3.

And they sent me out to run the little office in Brandon for its, you know, whatever it was, one flight a day in, one flight a day out. And I enjoyed it. I love Brandon. I remember I used to spend a lot of time, with only one flight a day, you could spend time sort of kind of looking around.

I used to go out in the wheat fields around Brandon. It was one of the bases of the old Commonwealth Air Training Plant. It was out there in the middle of nowhere, in the middle of a farmer's field. There had been a runway there. There was a little shack that had been the middle of nowhere, in the middle of a farmer's field. There had been a runway there. There was a little shack that had been the air traffic control of its day and a hangar all falling down, you know, like falling apart, being used for grain storage and stuff like that. But it was history.

It was our history. Now, I'm sure it's long gone, that place. It was just outside of Brandon. But those were dotted all across the prairies, right? Because to those in pilot training, Canadian prairies was like one big runway, right? It was flat. No major obstacles.

And a lot of young men trained in places like that little place in Brandon, Manitoba. Okay. I'm babbling again. And when one babbles, one rants. But there's only one random ranter. Well, random to you, not random to me. So that's why some of you have tagged him the ranter formerly known as random. Okay, what's he got to say today?

Today's topic for the random ranter is climate change. And here it is. A few weeks ago, Mansbridge threw the subject of climate change out there. And well, I'm looking to weigh in because I think the whole issue can be boiled down to one thing. Cost. Every time a good is produced, a crop is yielded, every time you turn on a light or hop in your car, there's a cost to the environment that you are most assuredly not paying. It's not just the carbon you spew in the air. It's the microplastics you flush into the rivers every time you do your laundry. It's the fabric dyes from your $12 t-shirt. It's the Timmy's cups, the packing peanuts, and those perfectly manicured lawns. I mean, just think about what it must take so that you can have corn on the cob at Christmas or Christmas oranges in July.

It all comes at an environmental cost. And who's paying that cost? Well, that would be the bank of mom and dad. That's right, mother nature and father time. Us? We're the 38-year-olds living in our parents' basement, sponging off their goodwill. Yep, we're the deadbeat kids who never think to clean up after ourselves. Well, Mother Nature has reached her limit, and Father Time, he can only forgive so much. We need to start paying the true cost for everything we do. Now, the problem with that is that it directly flies in the face of our brand of capitalist consumerism. We're used to those $12 t-shirts.

We're used to driving places. And we're used to indulging ourselves. I mean, I'll give a shout out to the burgers at A&W. I gladly pay extra for that delicious grass-fed beef. But I'm not so sure I'll be able to afford it once the price of all those grass-fed cow farts get added to the price. And look, I know that's a crass example, but it doesn't change the argument. Look at what 7% inflation is doing to us. People are losing it. What happens when they

have to cut their meat consumption in half, or the dollar store becomes the $20 store? What happens when they have to cut their meat consumption in half or the dollar store becomes the $20 store? What happens when people figure out they can't have it all and in fact they need to have less? This is a huge problem because at its core climate change isn't just about pollution or just about carbon emissions. It's about capitalism. It's about the very way we live our lives. But you don't hear a lot of that talk. Instead, we're presented with some concoction they call green capitalism, with the idea that market forces can somehow adjust to fix everything.

Well, I'm sorry, but I'm not buying it. It's a smokescreen because they're not telling us we need to stop buying stuff. They're telling us we need to buy different stuff. And that different stuff? Well, I'm not so convinced it's any better for the environment than what we have now. I mean, they're not telling us to buy less cars. They're telling us to buy electric cars powered by strip-mined toxic lithium. We're all in on LED lights because they save energy, but they don't last forever or even as long as advertised. And when you dispose of them, they leach carcinogenic gallium arsenide into the environment. Well, as far as I'm concerned, green capitalism can kiss my arsenide because the solution is simple. We need more clean energy and we need clean ways to make it portable.

We need to consume less meat because our meat addiction is driving deforestation and desertification. We need to buy less stuff and we need to be prepared to pay more for it. Lastly, we need to reconcile all of this and be happy about it. Frankly, I'm not giving us good odds because, well, we don't like paying more. We don't like getting less. And being happy about it? Not a chance. You know, no matter what you think of the random ranter,

you gotta admit, he does have a way with words. He has the odd zinger in every one of his rants. Anyway, climate change. I said we weren't going to forget that topic, and this week we pop in with the random ranter on his thoughts. Okay, I'm going to take a quick break. When we come back, we'll have more of your turn. And welcome back.

You're listening to The Bridge, the Thursday episode. That's your turn and the random ranter right here on SiriusXM, Channel 167, Canada Talks, or on your favorite podcast platform. Let's get back in our final segment to a few more of your letters. Ian Enright in Calgary. My wife and I really enjoyed last Thursday's edition of Good Talk. That was the day before Good Friday, right? We ran a day early last week.

It prompted a great discussion in our household regarding an important decision we must soon make. We live in Alberta and found Bruce and Chantal's assessment of the Alberta political landscape spot on. I have a seemingly no-win scenario on next month's voting booth. I do not trust the NDP with fiscal matters. I do not trust the UCP with social matters. And now it's becoming increasingly clear that I cannot trust Danielle Smith's judgment with any matters. She shows an alarming trend of incident after incident,

which illustrates her determination to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. The provincial Liberal Party long ago imploded, as did centrist parties such as the Alberta Party. I am a man without a party. Julie Smith-Allen in Lethbridge, Alberta. I'm writing about your discussion with Paul Polango on April 3rd regarding the Mass Casualty Commission report. I understand that Polango is a police expert. He's not a police expert. He's an author who's written about the RCMP a number of times in award-winning books and is an investigative journalist. That's what he is.

But he did not give the circumstances of the mass shooting the respect it deserves. Polango said lawyers would get a shot at Lisa Banfield in upcoming civil suits. Get a shot at? When we're talking about 22 people who were shot to death, then he belittled Justin Trudeau for looking sad when he arrived at the commission, like someone had stolen his cookies.

Sad or somber is the appropriate response to the murder of 22 people. Polango was tone deaf. Well, we pointed that out. Listen, Paul is a journalist with a background in the history. He's broken lots of big stories, and many of them to do with the RCMP. Is he perfect? No. Is he controversial? Yes. And I've said that before, and I say it whenever I've had him on the program.

I enjoy most of your guests, Peter, but I think you should find a different police expert, he's not a police expert, for future discussions, preferably someone more emotionally intelligent and empathetic. Okay, we clearly disagree on Paul, but I respect your right to have your opinion. Tim Pierce from Pickering, Ontario. Long-time listener, first-time caller. Listen to every episode while doing my morning walk.

Great insight. Well done. First off, I know many great guys and gals who are great Mounties. In my view, the RCMP organization, due to its size and overwhelming bureaucracy, often lets these police officers down. The RCMP is just too big to meet the need of Canadians today. Similar issues around poor police service delivery by the London Met were recently identified, and it includes a story about how that operation

had to downsize, in a sense, to be more effective. Jackie Smart from Keswick, Ontario. It's on the shores of Lake Simcoe. I keenly listened to your Your Turn episode recently and enjoyed hearing suggestions about how listeners have made a contribution to reducing their impact on the climate. I wanted to share what I feel has been my best contribution to the cause, removing chemical-laden cleaning products from our home.

No longer do I purchase a cleanser specific for the bathroom, another for windows, another for floors, and on and on, and instead repurpose jars and bottles to mix up combinations of vinegar, lemon juice, washing soda, green bleach, and many common ingredients found in my pantry to achieve the same, if not better, results for a fraction of the cost. Some of these items are sold in brown paper packaging, or I take my own containers to the bulk store and top up there. Dave Young in New Westminster,

BC. Can you please explain to me exactly what we're talking about when we say China has interfered with our elections? I mentioned this yesterday on our program. I've had a few letters like this. When I hear this, I have visions of China giving fake Canadian IDs to people so that they can vote illegally, or causing traffic jams in strategic locations to try to keep people from getting to their polling station, or worse, influencing people who are counting ballots to destroy some ballots or overmark them so that they become spoiled ballots. I realize that none of these are what has actually

happened, but don't be so sure of that, as they'd be in very inefficient ways of interfering and would have only a very minor influence unless done in impossible numbers. I think the hope here is that whenever the former Governor General makes a decision on how we're going to further investigate this, hopefully it's a public inquiry, that should produce the answers to your questions, but it's a good question. Linda

Anderson in Regina. Indigenous people have strongly protested recent legislation in Alberta and Saskatchewan. The Saskatchewan First Act. They say their treaty rights are being attacked once again. They have good points, just as the AFN chiefs did. It all contributes to racial conflict in our time. Of course, my assessment of the Saskatchewan legislation

is it is politically motivated, poorly constructed, time-consuming, and financially wasteful piece of work, especially if there is a court battle. This is as a result of the statements by the Justice Minister in answering a question from AFN leaders about how the provinces, the western provinces, have special rights on the ownership of natural resources and whether those rights were given to the prairie provinces without the consent of Indigenous leaders. That's caused concern, let's say, on both sides of that discussion. Carolyn Auckland Thompson from Calgary.

I was very alarmed when you said that within eight years our lives could be extended significantly. This is an end bit based on some research here in the UK actually a little while ago. Our poor planet and societies couldn't bear the burden. When the world population was only three or four billion and people lived to be 40 to 50, this seemed like an admirable goal. Not now. Our present-day population is putting too much stress on the planet's resources

to provide enough food, clean water, minerals, ore, etc., since too many countries follow the consumer philosophy, buy more, buy bigger, buy the latest, don't fix, replace. Some people in France are upset because they're being asked not to retire until they're 64 instead of 62 because there's not enough money in the pension funds to support them as they have agreed to in their contracts. This would just be the beginning. For the health of pension funds, we may all be expected to work until our 70s, if we are well enough. Speaking of health, whose lives will be extended? Perhaps you'll have to prove a genetically clean bill of health in order to engage in the

treatments that will allow us to live longer. Our support systems couldn't bear the burden of supporting unhealthy aging people who need surgeries, joint replacements, medical support because of dementia and Alzheimer's. This is already a big cost. There's no use living longer just to be a burden on society. Let's just live active lifestyles, eat real food, and keep our minds engaged and healthy. This will extend our lifespans long enough. I don't know.

What are we saying here? That if there's some kind of solution to live forever, or live till 1,000, or live to 200, or live to 150, we're going to keep it a secret. We're not going to tell anybody because there aren't too many people around. I'm not sure that'll work either. But I hear what you're saying, Carolyn. We've got to clean up our act here. It's kind of what the ranter was saying, Carolyn. We've got to clean up our act here.

It's kind of what the ranter was saying, right? We've got to clean up our act. Two different reasons there, but same theory. Marilyn from Greenwood, Ontario. I'm a retired nurse who saw the best and the worst during my career,

but have maintained a positive mindset and believe in the best from people. This was shaken recently as I read about a number of privately owned long-term care homes being sold for condo development. This at a time when the provinces are trying to increase bed capacity for the growing number of seniors who need care and free up acute hospitals beds the developers who i congratulate on their success perhaps could become part of the solution and do the required renovations and become proud owners of ltc homes and not hide behind numbered companies it would be a win-win situation that would strengthen our human society we or loved one may be in need of this care someday and it's healing for society to know it's done

and available. I'm getting near the end here. Glenn Roach in Spaniards Bay, Newfoundland. I enjoyed your story of the National live inside the Arctic Circle when you described how the technicians had to slowly turn the dish to keep the signal due to the ship moving. I chuckled. I was instantly transported back to being a kid,

sent to the attic to move the rabbit ears so Dad could get a better picture of the Leafs game. Too much I'd hear from downstairs. Turn it back, slowly. Okay, that's good. I know that's far removed from what your technicians were doing, but I got a great memory back that I haven't thought about in years. Those were the days, Glenn. Those were the 60s. Those were the days when the Leafs were winning cup after cup after cup, and there was good reason to make sure you had a good signal.

Well, those days are coming back. Mark my word. Here's the last letter. It comes from Erwin Correbo in Winnipeg. Peter, in listening to Smoke Mirrors and the Truth last week, I learned something about Bruce Anderson that now informs me on why he and I seem to hold the same worldview on many of the subjects you discuss in your twice-weekly discussions with him. Perhaps our common history of both being Montreal Gazette delivery boys

and our youth not only earned us spending money, but helped frame our intellectual approach to solving the worldwide problems. I wonder if his eventual career as a pollster started when he had to drop into each house on his route to collect the money owed by the Gazette subscribers. No doubt he must have had an opportunity to chat with subscribers, ask them if they were satisfied with the delivery service he was offering.

I'd be interested to know in which part of the island or the surrounding suburbs he delivered his papers. Perhaps we both delivered in Ville Saint Laurent, where I grew up. Do we really want to know more about Bruce and his paper route? Maybe. I'll make sure he gets that. Okay, that's it for today. That's it for this week. That's it for your turn on the ranter.

For what are we, the second week in April? The weather's getting better. You can almost see summer over the horizon. Let's hope we enjoy it. Tomorrow, it's good talk. Chantal and Bruce will be back with more on something. And a reminder, next Monday, the latest More Butts conversation. It'll be a good one, whatever it's about.

That's it for today. Thanks so much for listening. I'm Peter Mansbridge. We'll talk to you again in 24 hours. Thank you.