The Bridge with Peter Mansbridge - Your Turn -- The Carbon Tax Flip

Episode Date: November 2, 2023

Why am I not surprised? You had a lot to say about the Trudeau government's decision to change course, for three years anyway, on its carbon tax plan. The Random Ranter joins in too. Plus your thoughts on the Middle East, the CBC, and a lot more.

And hello there, Peter Mansbridge here. You are just moments away from the latest episode of The Bridge. Your turn. It's Thursday. It's your turn. And that means lots of comments this week on the carbon tax flip-flop. The Random Ranter has his thoughts on it too. That's all coming right up. And welcome to Thursday. Peter Mansbridge here. Yes, it's your turn day. Lots of comments. You know, I love your turn days. And it's also become extremely popular with you. The numbers have gone up considerably in the last year for the Thursday program, which I think is important because, you know, you get a lot of views on this show. It's

nice to fit some time in for some of yours as well. A couple of reminders, because I can tell we've got a lot of new listeners in the last while, the last few months, and it's worth reminding them that the rules of the game here are pretty simple. You can say your opinion on different subjects, and as long as they're not insulting of people, I'm happy to give them some airtime. Not everybody gets on simply because we've just got a space issue, but you need to include your name, your full name, and where you're writing from. That gives us a sense of, you know, the geographic diversity of our country and the diversity of opinion as a result of, at times, that geographic diversity as well. So that's what we do.

I read your letters. I ask often to keep them short. And some of you absolutely go along with that idea, but others like to write long missives. And that's okay. You can write it. You're not going to hear it all on the program. I usually look for certain elements from each letter and that's you know kind of my choice to take out what i want and uh and air it so that's what happens on on this program so if you can keep that in mind i can tell this week that there have been a few must be new listeners that don't recognize the names um and as a, some of you have forgotten to include both your names. Some of you have forgotten to include where you're writing from. So I'll give this one week pass on that.

So let's go. Let's get started. And not surprisingly, a lot of comments this week on the carbon tax flip-flop. Some are just angry. Some want to go sort of beyond the headline on, okay, well, what can we do? And the ranter is on that this week as well. So we'll hear all of that, but we won't hear anything unless I shut up and get going with your words.

So let's do that. Terry Sims from Victoria, British Columbia. Terry writes, as always, I love the podcast and supporting contributors on the carbon tax reversal of Prime Minister Trudeau. Firstly, this is maybe the dumbest thing I've seen him do. By giving a break to one portion of the country on this punishing tax and not the rest makes it obvious to me he seeks to divide us rather than unite us most heinous crime or heinous sorry uh crime for a national leader i can't imagine his advisors thought this was a good plan so he must have ignored them George Johanson. And George is writing from, I believe it's London, Ontario. George has a very lengthy letter.

But here's, to me, the nub of it. When people talk about a divisive Trudeau government, Western alienation and apathy and distrust towards governments. It's because of pathetic statements like this one from Minister Goody Hutchings. Minister Hutchings is the one who did the, hey, if you want change, you got to vote liberal. If you live in a liberal riding, we'd hear you on things like the heating oil issue. Anyway, George calls that pathetic. Bottom line is that government is supposed to represent the interests and needs of all Canadians,

not just those of Liberal voters. Joanne blank writes from blank. First, you were wondering if voters would consider blank, rights from, blank. First, you were wondering if voters would consider the Liberals weak if they adopted an idea that was floated by the Conservatives. I wouldn't. I admire people who listen to other opinions

and adopt them if they make sense. I agree that it is possible that they will be criticized for doing an about-face a year after they refused the idea of eliminating the carbon tax on home heating fuels, but that could be explained away with other factors that might not have been present a year ago. If this is the way to go, they should adopt the policy regardless of who expressed the idea first. Marilyn Grubb has this to say. She also doesn't include where she's writing from,

but my suspicion is she's from rural Canada somewhere. Listen to this. Thank you for your podcast. I listened to Fridays, that's last Friday, on the latest news of the Prime Minister cancelling the carbon tax for oil heating. I'm happy for those on the East Coast, but my rant today is farm organizations have been behind a bill in the House of Commons to cancel the carbon tax on drying equipment for crops and greenhouses. We're not able to control the weather and therefore must dry our crops.

But the carbon tax has been costing farmers thousands of dollars. What I don't understand is how the Prime Minister can just decide one day to drop carbon tax for oil heat, but the farmers have to struggle and put up with people in power that are oblivious to what is really going on in the agriculture world. Just like the tariff that was put on fertilizer from Russia. Who paid it and who did it hurt? Not Russia, the farmers. Ottawa does not seem to respect the breadbasket in this country. All right, Marilyn. I bet most of the listeners did not know anything about the cost of running drying equipment for crops and greenhouses.

But they do now, thanks to your letter. David Pollard. Also no idea where David's writing from. I don't understand how a carbon tax lowers CO2 emissions. The tax puts up the cost of every single item I buy, not just fuel. The companies that deliver all items put the prices up on those items to cover their cost of the carbon tax. We the consumer have no way to pass on our carbon tax cost.

We end up paying most of the cost of carbon. The rebate helps. Canada produces 1.5% of the carbon world total. China produces 30 times the amount. Is this a losing battle? Al Short in Coldstream, British Columbia. I agree with the strategy that the Conservatives are offering is technology, not taxes. Canadians have very few options to reduce CO2 emissions.

We need to find new technologies to give people options to reduce their CO2 emissions. We need to find new technologies to give people options to reduce their CO2 emissions. We also need to get our society more comfortable with small nuclear plants scattered across the country. I am politically just slightly right of center. My biggest problem with the liberals is Justin Trudeau. Also, something I just read I thought would interest you, Alberta leads Canada in renewable development with nearly $4.7 billion in new projects since 2019.

You know, that is interesting. We have talked about that before. And I can remember doing stories. This goes well beyond 2019, back from 2019. I think it was in the early 2000s. Standing in southwestern Alberta, in the middle of the wind turbine fields, wind farms. And at that point, I think they were producing more electricity

through wind than any other place in the country. They were way ahead. And I think if, you know, correct me if I'm wrong, that most of Calgary's civic power was produced in those wind fields in southwestern Alberta. Now, once again, I could be wrong about that, but that seems to sort of reverberate around in that strange thing called the Mansbridge brain, that something like that was the case. Glenn McLaughlin from Regina, Saskatchewan. As you can tell, a lot of letters,

not all of them, but a lot of letters this week on this subject came from the West. Glenn writes from Regina. On Thursday last, the PM announced that heating oil would be exempt from the carbon tax. Okay, Mr. Prime Minister, but please don't state that this exemption demonstrates we are doubling down on our fight against climate change, when it can easily be shown you're doing the opposite. As I understand it, says Glenn, burning of heating oil produces about 50% more greenhouse gases than the burning of natural gas for the same amount of energy produced. Therefore, the carbon tax rate on heating oil was originally proposed to be about 50% more than the carbon tax rate on natural gas for the same amount of energy produced. By removing the carbon tax on home heating oil, while leaving the carbon

tax in place for the residential use of natural gas, the government is effectively rewarding the fuel alternative that produces more greenhouse gases per unit of energy. This is a direct contradiction of the government carbon tax policy and definitely not a doubling down on our fight against climate change. Dave from Alberta. Dave from Alberta. That kind of narrows it down, right? We're down to all the Daves in Alberta could have written this note.

But it's an interesting note. Here we go. From Dave from Alberta. One thing I haven't seen much discussion on regarding the change in the carbon tax for Atlantic Canada are the implications on the messaging they had been pushing so hard. Namely, that the vast majority of citizens, I believe 8 out of 10 is the number they have been using, are better off with the carbon tax and the rebate. This change in policy completely undermines that message as it implies one of two things. Either eight out of ten people in the

Maritimes are now going to be worse off not paying the tax and getting the rebate, meaning this policy change actually harms the people they are claiming it will help. Or the government knows that message was not truthful and removing the tax actually helps people as they claim it will. They can't have it both ways. And I think people should think about the implications of this. Thank you, Dave from Alberta. Sounds like one of those sports shows, right? Frank from Mississauga.

Hi, I just want you to know I'm a first-time caller. I'm just joshing you there, Dave. I thought it was a good letter. But try to remember, give me your full name and tell me where in Alberta you're writing from. I always like to hear those names. As I mentioned at the top of the program,

our friend the Random Rancher has some thoughts on this carbon tax issue. So let's hear what he's got to say this week. I'm 100% pro-carbon tax. I have no issue with it. It's revenue neutral. It's just a transfer of wealth from those who pollute the most to those who pollute the least. I mean, I don't know what the big deal is. 60% of households are

getting more back in climate action checks than they're paying in tax. And if you aren't one of those households, maybe it's time you thought about your carbon footprint and made some changes. But you know, in fairness, that's easy for me to say. I live in a city, I own my own home, I have means, and that gives me choices. But there's a lot of people out there that don't have choices, that don't live in cities, and that don't have means. So as we work towards meeting our climate change goals, we really need to be cognizant that it's not a level playing field out there. Not everyone can afford an electric vehicle. Not everyone can afford an electric vehicle. Not everyone can afford a heat pump. I mean, let's be honest about it. Not everyone can afford a roof

over their head or even food right now. Times are tough. We absolutely need to address climate change, but we can't let that battle further divide our society into urban versus rural, or haves and have-nots. Sadly, I think we're failing on that front. If you are living on the margins, our approach to climate change mitigation is doing you no favors. I mean, if you're heating with fuel oil, it's probably not because you want to. It's because you have no other choice. If you're driving a bathed-out Chevy Silverado for work that fogs for mosquitoes everywhere it goes, well, it's probably because you can't afford the $60,000, $70,000, $80,000

to replace it with something better. But for those who can afford it, well, there's at least an extra 5k in it for them if they pick out something electric. And even then, it doesn't have to be electric. I got 5k for buying a plug-in hybrid. The reality of the situation is that there's a lot of people far more concerned with just making it day-to-day than we care to admit. And those people are not too concerned with their carbon footprint. And no carbon tax or climate incentive is going to change that. So the government needs to come up with

something better. I mean, I like the carbon tax, but it's a baby step. What I'd really like to see is a climate change plan that factors in the needs of the needy. A plan that addresses not just the urban-rural divide, but the divides that exist between regions. I believe climate change is a monumental crisis for all humanity, and to stand a chance at fixing it, we're all going to need everyone pulling on the same rope, and not just the ones who can afford it. There you go, the random ranter for this week. And a reminder, especially to our new listeners on the podcast, the ranter is from, how do we want to narrow this down?

I used to say when we started with the ranter more than a year ago now, that the ranter was from Western Canada, somewhere between Thunder Bay and Victoria. That's been narrowed down over time. The ranter is from the prairies. The ranter is not a broadcaster. The ranter is not a journalist. The ranter is not a politician. The ranter does not work for or advise or help any of the political parties.

The ranter is just a guy. Just a guy who has a reasonable job. It's a good job. As he went through the list, he can afford things. He has his own house. He lives in a city. So he lays out exactly sort of where he's coming from. But I also thought in this particular rant,

I don't agree with him every week. Some weeks I really strongly disagree with him. But I thought he made a pretty good case this week for where we are and how, at least in his case, with what he's got going for him, what he thinks should be done. So good for him. That's the random ranter this week. Not going to take our break yet because some of the, we've got two other areas.

One is still on this theme, but moving over to the heat pump issue. And then we have a couple of letters on the Israel-Hamas war. But let's deal with heat pumps first of all. And the first letter comes from Percy Phillips. Percy's from Portage of Prairie, Manitoba. Air heat pumps are not effective at extremes in Canada's prairies, but geothermal heat pumps, they are. I have several friends who do have them functioning here in Manitoba. The limitations of electric vehicles start with the cost, the limited range,

especially in extremely cold weather, and the requirements for more infrastructure for charging stations publicly and at home-based locations. Plug-in hybrids might be the best practical options, but they too are not free, and that option is a real premium in cost. As nice as it is for an academic to say the world is going green electric, I do not want to freeze in Manitoba in the wintertime of exposure and carrying an emergency kit in my vehicle from October to March and never run less than half a tank of fuel in cold weather. I'm not buying an electric car any time in the future.

They are simply not practical for the wide variety of uses that most Canadians have, but make a great second or third car for the wealthy. All right, Percy. Daryl Arndt from Calgary. What have you heard or know about heat pumps? From what I've read and heard, there is a minus 20 degree Celsius rule for them. Had furnace service last winter, and I asked the tech about heat pumps,

whether he is biased or not, I don't know, but his response was they're good to 20 below and suited for places like southern BC and the lower mainland. Also read a newspaper article from a well-known writer in Edmonton that some insurance companies will not insure your house if using heat pumps only to heat your house. Frozen pipes once 20 below is the issue. I don't know whether that's the case, but Daryl certainly was influenced by what he heard in that article. Also on the Roy Green show, someone from Saskatchewan emailed in and stated that he has a heat pump and it's only good to 15 below.

Not sure if this person had a secondary source of heat. What is the true story on this? Well, we're all looking for the true story, right? I'm not a heat pump expert. But, you know, I know how to use Google. So I plugged in, do heat pumps work in cold weather? Here's the answer from Josh Jackman, who works at the Eco Experts. You can find them online.

They have all kinds of things. So somebody asked Josh that same question. Do heat pumps work in cold weather? Here are the headlines from his answer. Air source heat pumps work at temperatures as low as minus 25 Celsius. Ground source heat pumps provide consistent heat in all weather. Heat pumps are still three times more efficient than boilers when it's below zero degrees Celsius. Actually, let me read a little bit more from what he has to say.

Although heat pumps cost a little more up front than some other heating methods, they are able to turn electricity into three times as much heat. But air source heat pumps work by drawing warmth from the air just outside your house. So what happens when winter hits and the temperature takes a dive? It says, if you read on, which we're not going to do here, but this will give you a hint. You know how to find it now. We'll explain how heat pumps keep going through the cold weather

when you should and shouldn't worry, and what you can do to avoid your heat pump freezing in the winter months. All right? So there you go. The Eco Experts is his website. All right. Switching topics from energy to the Israel-Hamas war, which has been the constant story for the last almost month now.

Peter Burbage writes from Kingston. Does the IDF know where the hostages are and how to avoid harming them? I wonder if Hamas knows that alive hostages have more value and may be protecting them. Nevertheless, I'm concerned that hostages are at grave risk from Hamas and Israel. This topic in question is being avoided as far as I can see. Well, it's being avoided because I sure don't know where the hostages are being hidden. Janice Stein doesn't know where the hostages are being hidden or imprisoned. We don't know. Does the IDF know? Well, if they do, they're certainly not going to have a news conference say,

we know where they are. Here's where they are. Put up a map. If they know where they are, they're going to be too busy trying to figure out how to get them out. And I think they've achieved that in at least one case earlier this week with a raid and a release of one Israeli hostage. But there are more than a couple of hundred. Are they in harm's way? Absolutely. It's a war

going on. Michael Tetelbaum writes, he has a very long letter. Michael is definitely into

this story and has concerns about a number of things. He took issue with something that Janice

Stein said the other day. Janice said that the purpose of the attack by Hamas

was to take hostages but they quote lost control of the operation to some degree, unquote. I think what she was suggesting there, which has been agreed to by a number of people, that rogue elements within Hamas, you know, took some of this to a level that went beyond the original plan. Now, whether that's true or not, we don't know.

Nobody knows that except Hamas. But that has been suggested by a number of analysts. And so Michael quite rightly says, what evidence does she have that the slaughter in which Hamas engaged wasn't intended? Surely the methodical and bloodthirsty massacre they committed cannot be said to have been part of the plans, to not have been part of their plans. I don't think Janice was saying this was going to be a nice, clean attack.

No, she agreed it was a bloodthirsty attack. The issue was, did it go beyond what the original intent had been in terms of its nature? As terrible examples, when the Hamas terrorists threw grenades into a bomb shelter located by the grounds of the music festival that was filled with people, does that constitute lost control? When the terrorists went from house to house in kibbutzes murdering people while apparently randomly taking hostages, was that a loss of control

to some degree? Unfortunately, there are too many other examples of depravities and atrocities that I think can't be characterized in that fashion. One more letter on the Israel-Hamas situations from Don Mitchell in Ottawa. Yesterday in your talk with Janice Stein, you both mentioned the number of deaths of civilians in the Gaza Strip. While one death is too many, these numbers were produced by the Hamas-run Health Authority, the same authority that claimed 500 dead from the Israeli strike on the hospital last week, all of which has been proven to be false. Well, there's still issues about the hospital and how it was hit. There's

clearly a firm belief on the part of a lot of people, including the Americans, that it was a misguided Hamas rocket, which may well have been the case. But I don't think there's been a definitive decision generally accepted by the international community as to what exactly happened that day. But one thing that is clear, and you're quite right on this, Don, is that there's no evidence that 500 people died in it. Did people die? Yes, but nowhere near that number. Don's conclusion is, I think the media should put the caveat of unverified beside every claim made by an organization associated with Hamas. And I think that is a point worthy of major consideration. I think we've seen enough things in the past month that have turned out not to be true in different claims made by different people.

And we should be very careful about how that is characterized in the future. So I agree with you on that, Don. Okay, time for a break. We've got kind of a potpourri of comments from you coming up right after this. And welcome back. You're listening to The Bridge, the Thursday episode. It's your turn and the random renter right here on Sirius XM, Channel 167, Canada Talks, or on your favorite podcast platform. We're happy to have you join us from wherever you're listening.

And here's somebody we haven't heard from for a while. Aaron Conser, Sherwood Park, Alberta. Here we go. Electric vehicles are a step on the right, and this is kind of a potpourri of comments from different places for the final segment of the program today. Electric vehicles are a step in the right direction for climate change, but I don't think they're the only step we need to make. There needs to be a large increase in charging stations, and even then,

EVs won't be the best choice for everyone. Climate change has many causes, so we need to take a multi-faceted approach to trying to solve it. I think expanding the EV landscape needs to be paired with expanding transit options, building more bike lanes, and keeping remote work a viable option. However, I do believe that rapid charging stations need to be built at a faster rate so the demand of electric vehicles can follow. Elizabeth Bossman in Mississauga, Ontario. This is about the Alberta pension plan discussion. The failure to consider that benefits paid out by the CPP

accrue to the individual and not the province, the issue of portability and the fact that some people who worked in Alberta collect CPP in a different province individual and not the province, the issue of portability and the fact that some people who worked in Alberta collect CPP in a different province does not seem to have been considered in the proposal put forward by Alberta. These are important issues that would need to be addressed in a fair and equitable manner if the people of Alberta ultimately decide to withdraw from the CPP. I think more discussion of these issues by the media would be very helpful to all Canadians. We've talked about this proposal a couple of times on the bridge,

and we perhaps will do more, but generally speaking, I hear what Elizabeth is saying, she wants to see a wider discussion, not just on the bridge, but throughout the media on this topic, because it could impact all Canadians, not just Albertans. Jason McLaughlin, North Vancouver. Canadians are smug about the level of partisanship inherent in CNN or Fox, but the truth is that CBC News follows in a similar vein when covering Canadian politics. Coming from a taxpayer-funded news agency, this is an anti-democratic and, frankly, embarrassing.

Instead of fighting back, they should take a long look in the mirror and figure out the reasons why a sizable percentage of the country agrees with defunding the CBC. There's a couple of letters on the CBC. I'll say something when I finish reading them. Joanne Van Vulpen in Sunridge, Nova Scotia. When I hear someone accuse CBC of being a tool for government propaganda or that our taxes are being wasted when there are more serious issues to fund, I feel deeply frustrated by their lack of knowledge. When political leaders promote the dissolution of an institution that strengthens democracy,

we should be very concerned about their vision for our future. The only worthy political debate about public broadcasting is how best to ensure that the institution operates with integrity. Though correlation is not causation, public broadcasting is integral to democracy. Zach Shalala in Moncton, New Brunswick. What was the CBC thinking in deciding to run the story questioning the ancestry of Buffy St. Marie? Is this the type of smear journalism we can now come to expect from our national broadcaster? What did they have to gain by trying to defame the octogenarian Canadian

icon? I still consider myself pro-CBC and increasingly anti-CBC Canada. But things like this don't help the cause. Okay, look. You know, I get a lot of letters about the CBC, and I get a lot of questions about the CBC. I spent most of my life at the CBC, as most of you know. I was there for almost exactly 50 years. I think it was just under, like 49 point something years.

And I'm very proud of the time I spent at the CBC. And I'm quite willing to argue with people about different programs that I was involved with or what have you. But I haven't worked at the CBC in almost seven years now. I don't answer for the CBC anymore. I was chief correspondent for CBC News and therefore was asked a lot of questions and was quite willing to answer, concede, defend, what have you. But in today's world, I think it's best if I kind of try to stay neutral.

I have strong feelings about the CBC. I have never shied away from the fact that the CBC needs to be clearly thinking about its mandate, what it's doing, its leaders. Somebody wrote and said the CBC should be more careful about who it picks to be at the top of the CBC, the president. The CBC doesn't make that choice. That's made by the government of the day. They choose the leaders who will fill that top job. You know, the president, the chairman of the board, the board members.

That's all decided by the government of the day. How much money is afforded to the CBC is decided by the Parliament of Canada. They vote on that every year. Right? So that's the way those decisions are made. But leadership is critical to the future of the CBC. And as I've said, and as Bruce has said, I think we are at a critical point

for the future of public broadcasting in Canada. And all Canadians should have a view about this and make those views known. So there we go. Jim Livingstone writes from somewhere, I've long been irritated by politicians of all parties that propose that all the world's ills can be solved by their common-sense solutions. While this proposal sounds appealing, I find it to be nonsensical. If the world's problems could be solved so easily, there should be no problems by now.

To propose that no one in history has had common sense is a naive distraction. So what is their common sense solution to racism, homophobia, climate change, etc., etc.? To maintain that no one has thought of common sense solutions before is misinformed, simplistic, and naive. I have yet to hear anyone propose what their common-sense solutions are. The world is a very complex place, with complex problems that require complex solutions. Ken Peleshock in Listowel, Ontario. Not to add to the heap of mail the random ranter is about to receive regarding his views on trump

he took off on trump last week but yet this is the only letter in what was one of the highest rated ranter rants of the last year this is the only letter that it provoked i believe history will view bush not trump as the turning point and the beginning of the collapse of Western civilization. Specifically, I think Colin Powell's UN speech was when the population cynicism took over. Before that, there were skeptics and conspiracy theorists, but I believe 2003 is when distrust of the news and government became mainstream. That said, I'm Gen X, so I have no perspective on the impact of Vietnam, Nixon's impeachment, the JFK assassination,

and their effects on the Western psyche. I believe if not for W, there'd be no Trump, and Putin wouldn't have been so bold as to invade Ukraine. Yvonne Himstra in Kingston, Ontario. My husband and I listened with great interest to Good Talk last Friday, as we usually do, and I noted that Bruce admitted to being stumped as to what a proactive, big idea the Liberals could come up with that would get them on the offensive as opposed to the defensive,

as many of their recent announcements seem to be. I wondered about the idea of a universal basic income that has been bantered around for quite some time, and even by some conservatives. Would that constitute a big idea? Would love to get the panel's take on this. Okay, we may think about that at some point. I think we did talk about it. This was about six months ago, but maybe we'll take another run at that.

Daniel Guillaume in Calgary. Really enjoy your podcast. I don't always agree with the views, but that's okay. I like hearing other viewpoints. In high school, I was taught that Neville Chamberlain was a good prime minister on any typical Sunday. Unfortunately for Great Britain, he was most definitely not a wartime prime minister. Churchill was the right man at that specific hour.

The world we have today is very different than when Justin Trudeau was first elected. It's dangerous. War raging in Ukraine. Now war in the Middle East. Perhaps war at our doorstep. Our doorstep. Next, sunny ways at a darkening hour

seem rather out of step. Oh, here's another one slipped in on the CBC. Matthew McDonald in Ottawa. I do think the corporation needs to rethink who is hired and making the decisions at the top. They have more than $1.3 billion of taxpayers' money. They can certainly be trimmed with a smaller executive branch or at least a public audit to see where all our money is being spent. You know, CBC is audited and every once in a while a special audit from the Auditor General's Department.

Gus Livingston from Dunville, Ontario. Can we already hear something from Gus in this program? Can't remember. Anyway, on Tuesday you mentioned that the National Health Service in Britain was concerned about heart attacks, especially among men, and therefore wanted to conduct blood pressure checks at barbershops. Well, here in Canada, I believe the more accurate indication of a healthy heart would be to check your blood pressure just after you exit a grocery store with a week's worth of produce. Perhaps a free sample of aspirin with each purchase wouldn't be a bad idea.

Christine McDonald in LaSalle, Ontario. Difficult to pick just one episode this past week. They were all informative, thought-provoking, and gave me a desire to go deeper into a topic. I first discovered Janice Stein from the monk debates. Was thrilled that she's now on the bridge. Feeling so well-versed on my country, its position in the world, and the world itself.

Much thanks and appreciation. Well, that's very kind of you. Thank you, Christine. Getting down to the last couple here. Kathy Ahern writes from somewhere. Enjoy your show and echo others who send you positive feedback. A note on screening. If you offer a population-wide screening,

such as blood pressure screening at a barbershop, you have to program capacity to deal with the folks with whom you identify the problem. Without a referral or program, it's not effective, and I would question whether it's even ethical. I worked as a public health nurse and then as an executive for nearly 40 years. Be careful what you wish for. Right now there is a significant shortage of family physicians. Adding screening programs without recourse to a consultation, if needed, is bad practice and policy.

All right, Kathy. Here's the last letter for this week. Tom Smith from Antigonish, Nova Scotia. Somebody had written in a little while ago about the speed at which I talk. Basically saying I'm slow when they adjust the speed of the podcast. Tom writes from Antigonish. Tom's my kind of man. I don't find you to be a slow talker, Peter. Maybe I'm a slow listener.

I don't know. But I regularly find pausing to reflect on what's being said and rewinding dialogue to make sure I get the implications of what's being said. I'm sure some people can consume the content more expediently than me, but my view is that your delivery is perfect and informed by a lifetime of explaining complex things to wide ranges of people. Keep up the excellent work, and thank you for your service. Thank you, Tom. Great to hear from you today.

Nice way to end the program. Tomorrow, it's Good Talk with Ch Talley Bearer and Bruce Anderson. Hope you'll join us. Lots, as always, to talk about. Thanks so much for your letters this week. Great to hear from you. Remember next time, full name, location you're writing from. That's it for this day.

I'm Peter Mansbridge. Talk to you again in, well, in 24 hours.