The Bridge with Peter Mansbridge - Your Turn - The Ranter on Grocery Prices

Episode Date: September 21, 2023

Your thoughts on everything from the India story to the opening of Parliament to climate change.  Even a letter calling the host's comments "juvenile". Yes we air it all.  Plus the Random Ranter takes on the grocery chains.

And hello there, Peter Mansbridge here. You are just moments away from the latest episode of The Bridge. It's Thursday, that means your turn, your comments, your thoughts, your questions. And it means The Random Renter. And hello there, Peter Mansbridge here, back in Toronto, after a wonderful visit to Quebec City. You know, a city that has so much history in it. I was lucky enough to be in a hotel room that had this, kind of mentioned it yesterday, I think, this, you know,

beautiful view of old Quebec yesterday, I think, this, you know, beautiful view of old Quebec, old Quebec City, the wall, you know, overlooking the wall around the city and looking out towards the St. Lawrence to, you know, off to one side, the Plains of Abraham where in 1759 so much of the future of a young country was determined, initially determined. But, you know, there's so much more history there in Quebec City. You know, 1864, one of the conferences that led to Confederation was held right there in Quebec City. It was kind of the center point, really. I'm sure that some people who were at that conference probably thought of what was the package of regions,

not provinces yet, regions of this new country. The center was kind of around Quebec City. Some must have thought, hey, this would be a great place for a capital someday. Anyway, that was 1864. hey, this would be a great place for a capital someday. Anyway, that was 1864. 1943, we tend to forget this, a major conference during the Second World War, which was attended by Winston Churchill, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and Mackenzie King, the Canadian Prime Minister. Why was it a major conference? Well, among other things, it was one of the initial, at least the political planning stages, of the assault on Normandy, what became known as D-Day, almost a year later. In modern times, the Pope landed in Quebec City to begin, in 1984,

his 13-city tour of Canada, the first time a Pope had been to Canada. 85, the so-called Shamrock Summit, Mulroney-Reagan, which ushered in a whole new era of Canada-U.S. relations, which to some degree still exist today. So I love going to Quebec City, and I love going to Quebec City, especially at this time of year, because you're just launching into the fall season. And when the colors start to change in that area, it is spectacular. I'll always remember the funeral for René Lévesque which was in the month of November

and it was the colors were all changing and they walked behind the casket through the streets of old Quebec City and who was they? They was a reflection of Canadian politics. Not just members of the Parti Quebecois,

but members of all parties, federal and provincial. There was Pierre Trudeau, walking behind the casket of his, you know, arch-political enemy, René Levesque. Anyway, back in Toronto today. Back in good old Toronto. And we're marking the fall here because, hey, yesterday was day one of the Maple Leafs training camp.

It was also yet another day where the Blue Jays won their game. They're still in contention for a wild card spot in the American League playoffs, which come up in a couple of weeks. We'll see what happens on both those fronts. But today is not about me reminiscing about various things. It's about your thoughts, and not surprisingly, many of your letters this week to do with the emerging issue of the Canada-India situation. I'm just going to read a couple of the letters.

Some of them are, you know, they're kind of borderline in terms of the kind of stuff we want to read on air. Anyway, here's one. Daryl Arndt from Calgary. Politics aside, in this whole situation with India, are Canadian citizens not getting involved in other countries' politics? We have this Sikh group wanting separation, having votes on in Canada. We have an opposition leader wanting separation in India and is banned from India.

A float in the parade in Brampton depicting the assassination of the Indian Prime Minister by her Sikh bodyguards. We have had the African nation groups with protests against their country's leader that turned violent. My thoughts are, so you want to be Canadian citizen or not, and don't bring the country you left their problems here. Don't go about protesting what's going on back in a home country the way they have been doing it in the past. You poke the bear enough, sooner or later they are going to be biting back. There's been no leadership in Canada to tell these groups to stop it, as it will eventually cause some serious issues here and abroad. Listen, Canada is a country that has allowed protest, and you can see it like every weekend.

Peaceful protest by different groups who originated or whose parents may have originated from different parts of the world. But Daryl's point of view is one that was shared by a number of listeners who wrote in this week. Here's another angle. Bill Archibald from Annisboor, Ontario. The unusual public accusation by Prime Minister Trudeau of possible assassination target of an individual residing in Canada by the Indian government raises a number of questions. Over and above PM Trudeau's claims of Canadian intelligence evidence, so far we haven't seen it, of this individual's accusations of foreign interference

in another country's internal governance, a fundamental question needs an answer. If Canadian intelligence was aware of the individual's foreign internal governance interference, why was this man not exposed as a threat to both Canadian and Indian sovereignty in his pursuit to establish separation of a new Indian state? The result of his elimination was not justified by a foreign government. However, it begs the question, why would Canada allow his activities

to plot against a foreign government without intervention? Canadian intelligence agencies need to explain their actions, or more importantly, their non-actions. Lauren Finlayson from Cumberland, B.C. writes on this, in terms of how the news dropped on day one of the opening of Parliament. The story of the day, writes Lorne, was not the opposition leaders' planned destroying of the Prime Minister, but the revelation of a possible Indian government involvement in the slaying of a Sikh activist back in June. By the time the Prime Minister rose in the House to discuss the matter,

all the schemes prepared by the leader of His Majesty's loyal opposition were about as interesting and relevant as last week's cricket scores. Careful. Cricket is a great game. I'm serious. I grew up watching cricket in Malaya. What was then Malaya, now Malaysia. Nevertheless, we get your point. The topping of the apple pie was when the Prime Minister, Aide Crowe, acknowledged that he should have worked on the housing crisis much earlier and then offered possible solutions, some stolen in the time-honored liberal manner,

right out of the conservative playbook. Well, that's true. The liberals have always been very good at stealing other people's ideas. And you know what? If they work, more power to them. Moving on, Bill Bishop from White Rock, B.C. Do we live in a post-accountability world where personal integrity is a political liability

and never admitting fault appears to make you faultless? It seems that if you apologize, you're just giving your critics a video they can play over and over to remind voters of your failure. You give your opponents proof that they are right and you are wrong. But when you dodge, deflect, and distract, you give your critics nothing and you keep your base happy. You can even flip the narrative and cast yourself as the victim. So is the loss of

political accountability a symptom of polarization or is it the cause of polarization? That's an interesting question, one we might think about that for some possible future Amoribuds conversation. Frank Hendrickson from Nepean, Ontario. I'm so happy that the bridge is back for another season. I really missed you and your guests during your summer hiatus. Like many others, I too wanted to comment on the ranters. Rant on housing.

RRR made some excellent points. We certainly seem to have become addicted to oversized monster homes. It's time for a professional tax, or excuse me, a progressive tax on large houses. But in one aspect, he's wrong. Large homes are not a financial boon to municipalities. In Ontario, property values are set by the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, MPAC. Research has shown that these homes are systematically under-assessed, so they don't pay their fair share of taxes and large lots are expensive to service.

It's driven by demand and developer greed. Another good argument for smaller homes is climate change. Large homes are not good for the environment. Lars Olsen from Calgary. I love the daily podcast and the signed copy of your book. My wife got me at the teacher's convention in Calgary. I feel smarter after every podcast, and that's a rare thing nowadays. Yeah, I was in Calgary not that long ago, and I signed a lot of books there at the Teachers Convention,

a huge convention in Calgary. You know, I love these trips around the country. It's a great opportunity for me to talk to people from different places, hear different thoughts, different ideas, different opinions about a variety of subjects, as there was in Quebec City yesterday, Calgary, I guess it's a month or so away back, which I thoroughly enjoyed. of the world proselytizing the doom of climate change, zealously espousing solutions at odds with the laws of physics and damning the heretics that question the rationality of it all, all the while living in big or multiple houses, driving big cars, flying all over the world to tell us how well they do it in other countries. Efficiency and diversity of our energy mix is a critical goal for many reasons,

including carbon footprint. There are available practical short-term undertakings and long-term solutions if we listen, but the calm, reasoned voices are drowned out in a room of ranchers. Well, you know, you could argue that from the opposite. You could say the calm, reasoned voices are those who are questioning our actions that lead to climate change. Nevertheless, Lars, your point has been made. Leo Bourdon of Ottawa.

I often agree with the random renter, and last week was no exception. Isn't it about time that politicians do something about climate change? For most of my voting life, I'm 42, the Conservatives have spent much time attacking any plan on the environment while paying lip service to climate action. From the Made in Canada Kyoto plan to attacking Stéphane Dion's green shift as a tax on everything

to the now Axe the Tax campaign, can we hear something serious about climate change from the party that has a legitimate shot at forming a government? Having them at the top of the polls certainly hasn't convinced me. Okay. Monday of this week, we had Michelle Rempel-Garner on, the Conservative MP who is part of the committee,

the multi-party committee, looking at the impact of artificial intelligence and what Canada should do about AI in terms of possible regulation. Here we go. Shelly Egan writes, and Shelly is, where is she? I think she's in Toronto. No, sorry. She's in Fredericton, New Brunswick. Sorry.

Sorry, sorry. Not Toronto. Fredericton. Here we go. I'm extremely interested in AI and was looking forward to your program on this topic, but I stopped listening 30 minutes in because Ms. Garner's partisan bashing had become infuriating. If she's on the show again, I won't be listening. Next time, could you please consider getting an actual AI expert,

someone who doesn't have a political agenda? Shelly, trust me, if you think that was partisan bashing, then you clearly don't listen to politics in Canada. Because not only will Michelle Rempel-Gardner be on the show again, I trust her, and so do many of her Ottawa colleagues not necessarily from her party who have seen her work on this committee as non-partisan in fact she went out of her way in that interview

to credit MPs from other parties on the committee because they were all working together and it wasn't a multi-partisan bash session and neither was that interview I'm sorry we will have to just agree to disagree on that point I have no is she a controversial figure in Ottawa she has been and she's been extremely partisan on a lot of issues. Not this one. Anyway, she will be on the show again. I trust her assessment of the way this committee's going. Is she an AI expert? No, she doesn't claim to be. She claims to be a representative of the people working on trying to come up with recommendations for a position by Canada on AI. Your second point,

I don't have as much problem with. COVID numbers are rising rapidly across our country and elsewhere in the world, but most people are oblivious. Dr. Tam said a week ago that we should be wearing masks, but most people aren't, and provincial chief medical health officers aren't suggesting that they should. Mask wearing has been brought back in some hospitals, though, so that's a good sign. Could you please consider inviting a number of different doctors and experts on the program? Just last week, we had, you know, for the last two years, we've had four doctors

from different parts of the country talking to us about COVID, its impact, and how to deal with it. They don't all agree. They have different takes on things. And last week, Dr. Lisa Barrett from Halifax was with us, giving us kind of our fall opening on the COVID situation. So I feel good about how we're handling that. I'm not going to go through getting a whole different group of doctors. These four have been terrific, and the response from the listening audience has been great to them as well.

But I appreciate your thoughts on that issue. You're right, we're not going to lose it. Michael Fury from Dalmeny, Saskatchewan. I respect Michelle Rempel-Garner, but have to question one of her statements from the Monday podcast. She implied that the switch in the polls in favor of Pierre Poliev is because of the policy he has been promoting. I really don't see what policy he has been promoting.

It's been more like sound bites on the key issues, but no real policy. What I'd like to hear is what the good talk panel would have to say. Are the polls moving because of the soundbites, or are people just tired of the constant stumbles by the Trudeau government? That's the classic, well, it's a little bit of this and a little bit of that answer. But I'll touch base with Chantal and Bruce and see whether that's worth discussing further. Listen, the opinions of various analysts and political members are going to be different about this.

Why are polls moving? There has been some policy announced by the Conservative Party, and especially on the housing front, because the Liberals have stolen it, or at least part of the thinking behind it. So obviously, they've got to have something out there to steal, if in fact that's what's happened. What have we got here? That was Michael Fury. Here's Michael Harder. And I'm not sure where Michael is.

Doesn't say. Okay. Michael's letter is one of those classic on the one hand on the other hand so on the one hand a compliment i like the close access that you and your panelists have to the people behind the 30 second sound bites that mainstream media has reduced the news to i always appreciate the historical memories and recall that you and your guests have to separate what is just significant and what is going through the motions. Your podcast reminds me of the Zosky political panels.

Wow, you couldn't get a bigger compliment than that. I'll just leave it at that. Okay, now the rebuke. You said there's no evidence of President Biden's guilt for impeachment. If there is, bring it on. Sir, this is why I seek out left-leaning conversation. I don't know what that means. To have the perspective of a different person,

not to have credible doubts about an issue. Laptop emails, a 40-year reputation of biden selling his influence and his bragging of having the ukrainian prosecutor fired dismissed by you with juvenile comment aha so quickly went from the con the compliment to the you're just a juvenile commentator. Let me tell you something. You're never going to hear me supporting Donald Trump on anything. He's a fraud, a con artist, etc., etc. And now he's got whatever it is, 80 or 90 charges against him

and the indictments that are before him. And he could end up in jail for years. He could. I don't know whether he will or not. But those are actual charges based on evidence. The Republicans themselves, some Republicans, are the first ones, and you saw it again this week, to stand in front of cameras and say there is no evidence against Joe Biden

that we have uncovered so far. Maybe they will. They won't through sham hearings like that took place yesterday in Washington. What a joke. What an embarrassment. Anyway, here's the main point, Michael, on this issue about me and my positioning. This is not a newscast. It's a podcast. And after 50 years of basically being unable to say the words I think before expressing an opinion. When I was in the role as a newscaster at the CBC, a rule that I 100% agreed with then and still do now,

I didn't have opinions on anything. I just laid out the facts as we knew them. Let you decide for yourself. This is a podcast. And most of this program is about opinions, just like I'm reading your opinions now. Doesn't mean I have to agree with them. Doesn't mean you have to agree with mine. And that's fine. But I'm not going to call you juvenile for dropping a note that offers no evidence on Joe Biden. Will there be evidence? There may well be. There may well be.

It may be connected to his son. As far as his son goes, I couldn't care less what he does. I'm sorry, I didn't see that he was running for anything. He's not politically accountable for anything. The son. What was in or what wasn't in his laptop, I couldn't care less. Unless it points to real hard evidence against his father. So far it hasn't.

According to Republicans themselves, who think this whole thing is a sham. Some of them. Anyway. who think this whole thing is a sham, some of them. Anyway, it's a whole other Benghazi. We know the playbook. Good luck. Derek Andrews writes from Fredericton, New Brunswick. Your guest, Michelle Garner, was quite right in that Canada is way behind on assessing this risk, AI, and will be forced to follow in the footsteps of

other countries and world governing bodies, but we will not be unique in that position. The vast majority of the countries on the planet will be in the same situation over the next decade as things progress at remarkable rates. Your guest identified this as a foundational issue. She's correct again. I, however, would take this one level up and suggest the hardest part of this foundational issue. We'll be attempting to explain what has happened, what is currently happening, and where we are headed to the average everyday Canadian.

It's a lot to get your head around. Okay, Percy Phillips from Portage to Prairie, Manitoba. Love Portage. Lived there for a year. Peter, is it not curious that the Liberal government dragged its feet and ragged the puck for months on investigating China's interference in Canada's elections. Then the inquiry into foreign interference is announced on the Friday of the

CPC policy convention. Its mandate is wide and not just China, and the timeline is rather short. It's not going to be thorough by design. This is not a serious government. The PM's announcement in Parliament that the minister of a Sikh Khalistani in Surrey, BC is linked by credible allegations that potentially links the government of India to this act allows the PM to huff and puff and politically challenge the channel from, change the channel from how unaffordable life has become in Canada under the Liberals. Combine that with calling the large grocery retailers into Ottawa to come up with a plan to stabilize food prices by Thanksgiving as pure political theatre. If any political party was serious, they would tackle supply management that distorts the basics of food prices for Canadians.

But regionalism reigns supreme because most dairy farms are located in Quebec and Ontario. All right, Percy. That was a good rant, Percy. And I'm serious. It was. It was a good rant. Speaking of rants, let's bring him on.

Here he is, our friend. What do we call him again? You know, I forgot last week, and some people were wondering, especially new listeners. The random rancher comes from the prairies, okay? We haven't identified him beyond that. He's a prairie guy.

He's not affiliated with any political party. He doesn't work for any political party. He is, as we like to say, just a guy guy just a guy who gets anxious about different things and likes to rant and we give him that audience and you sometimes agree with him sometimes you don't let's see what you think today today. We all know something is rotten at the grocery store, and I'm not talking about the produce. I'm talking about the prices. They're rising at almost double the rate of inflation. And the grocers, well, they're raking in record profits. And it's not fair because food is not a luxury. It's a basic need and the prices are making it desperate times for many. Food banks are being overwhelmed and talk to a grocery

employee and they'll tell you food theft has never been more of a problem. It's bad. But if you listen to the grocers, it's not their fault. It's the suppliers. It's the global economy. It's the war in Ukraine. It's the drought in California. And you know what? I'm sure all of those things factor in. I mean, Galen Weston seems like a trustworthy fellow when he's on TV selling me some President's Choice fancy appetizers. Which brings me to my main topic. House brands like President's Choice, Compliments, or Kirkland. How does that work?

I mean, a huge part of the problem in the grocery industry is the lack of competition. But my question is, how are house brands affecting competition on the shelves within the actual stores? From my oatmeal to my raisins, I love the house brand stuff. And I'm not the only one. House brands account for significant sales. So it leaves me wondering just how motivated stores are to sell products that compete with their own. I mean, how does Kraft compete with President's Choice when it needs Loblaws to sell its product?

And when Loblaws can make a better profit on selling President's Choice, how motivated are they to try and sell Kraft? At the end of the day, for the consumer, it's often the higher price of the name brands that justify the choice of the more profitable house brands. And who's setting those higher prices? I wonder. But hey, at the end of the day, what do I know? What does anyone know? Because the grocery industry is just one great big uncompetitive necessity of life.

I mean, they already got caught colluding on bread prices. What else are they winking and nodding to each other about? We'll never know. And sadly, nothing is going to change until we get a government that's willing to stand up to big business and do something to actually help consumers. I'm not talking about BS PR stunts like Trudeau's grocery baron summit. I'm talking real action because Canadians are getting squeezed at every corner of their lives by competition killing cartels. From cell phones to the big banks to the airlines to our groceries, the

affordability of life has never been more of an issue in this country, and the control of those markets has never been as concentrated. It's funny to think of the G-Shucks pie-peddling Galen Weston I see on TV as an oligarch, but that's exactly what he is. There you go. The random ranter for this week on high grocery prices and some of the issues behind it. I'm sure you're going to have thoughts on this one. Don't be shy. Drop me a line. We'll include it, perhaps, in next week's Your Turn. The place to write? The Mansbridge Podcast at gmail.com.

The Mansbridge Podcast at gmail.com. And if you want to go on my website, by the way, thepetermansbridge.com. Thepetermansbridge.com. You'll see some stuff about my new book, which comes out in the middle of November, but they're taking pre-orders now at Simon & Schuster or at your favorite bookstore. And it's called How Canada Works. And it's another collaboration between myself and my good friend, author Mark Bulgich. We wrote Extraordinary Canadians together a few years ago.

So this is the new one. It's a good one. I think you'll enjoy it. Read about it on the website. Okay, we're going to take a quick break. When we come back, more of your letters right here on the Thursday Your Turn edition of The Bridge. And welcome back.

Peter Mansbridge here in Toronto. You're listening to The Bridge on Sirius XM, Channel 167, Canada Talks, or on your favorite podcast platform. Alright, let's get back to your mail for this second and last segment of the Bridge for this day. Ed Fontaine from Vancouver. Thank you so

much for giving us more NBits. Yeah, we got back to NBits a bit this week. Ed says, reminds me as a child, the local fish and chip would at no charge give generous portions of the end bits of the cooked fish. Yummy. Doesn't fit news items, but very much appreciated. Yeah, I remember those end bits at the grocery store.

I remember chicken livers used to be an end bit, at least at the grocery store we shopped at. And you could have a bag of chicken livers for nothing. And frying chicken livers was fantastic. What a meal. And in my youth, back when I was making $225 a month, a month, chicken livers became a staple. Erwin Corabo from Winnipeg writes, Peter, I was just listening to your Tuesday podcast

and your description of lost pets while traveling by plane. It brought back memories for me many years ago. My wife and I were flying on Air Canada from Winnipeg to Montreal for a family visit. We decided to take our dog Buddy along. After we parted ways with him at the Winnipeg airport, we boarded our flight confident that Buddy would be coming along for the ride in cargo. Halfway through the non-stop flight, a flight attendant approached us saying she had bad news for us. For a brief moment, we assumed the worst, thought Buddy

had not survived. As it turned out, he was never put on the plane. We were told he would be put on another flight, but this time he ended up on a flight to Toronto and would be transferred to a Montreal flight. He finally arrived in Montreal 12 hours later. We never did understand why he did not make it on the Winnipeg flight, and of course, in the many years since, we have never flown with a pet again. Michael O'Reilly in Barrie, Ontario. He heard our end bid on the Tank Museum in Bovington, England. The Tank Museum in Bovington is home to the world's only running tiger tank, which they run twice a year in public. Tiger Day, spring, and Tiger Day Spring and Tiger Day Autumn. You just missed autumn this year, as it was three days ago. The museum also has associated itself with the game World of Tanks.

In the past, I don't know if they still are. The game is fairly popular, and the museum's YouTube channel has often posted videos about the various tanks in their collection that are in the game. And the reason this came up, because it's the most visited on YouTube museum in the world, by far. That's the Tank Museum in Bovington, England. This is funny. Joanne Van Vulpen, Sundridge, Nova Scotia.

I was thoroughly amused by your reluctance to repeat Mark Miller's description of Pierre Polyev. Remember, he used the term, which I caution the audience and I do again, serial bullshitter. Anyway, Joanne writes, I've just read two books this summer where the word you fear offensive was being discussed as a scientific term. The first book was If Nitschke Were a Narwhal by Justin Gregg.

Wonderful book, by the way. I quote from the chapter entitled, To Be Honest. The term bullshitting is a legitimate scientific term. It was popularized by the philosopher Harry Frankfurt in his 2005 book, On Bullshit. Oh, boy. And used in scientific literature today to describe communication intended to impress others without concern for evidence or truth. Among others, Greg referred to the book

The Life-Changing Science of Detecting Bullshit by social psychologist John Petrucelli. So I read that, too. Perhaps Mr. Miller was not using the word scientifically, but I think there's adequate evidence to justify that he was. Well, that's probably more than you wanted to know about BS, but there you have it. All right, getting down to, I think, the last two letters. Just checking here.

Yes. No, I think this is the last one. There we go. It's a long one. Mike Thornton. Paris, Ontario. It's been a while, but I figured I'd lend my two cents on what I see flight attendants, my colleagues, dealing with on a daily basis. I'm an airline pilot for one of the Canadian major airlines.

Mike's written before. Great guy. Appreciate his thoughts. And he's responding to another end bit that we read the other day about the number of flight attendants who are quitting work because of the unruly nature of air travel these days and the passengers they have to deal with, partly that reason. Mike writes, I believe it to be true that post-pandemic things have gotten worse for flight attendants in regards to dealing with passenger disturbances. This goes back to 2020 when masks became mandatory on board aircraft and in airports. Flight attendants were the ones who had to enforce mask wearing. Failure to follow this rule many times resulted in an unruly passenger scenario. Unfortunately, there are many people out there who do not take cabin crew seriously and ignore the briefings that the flight attendants give. These briefings, be it wearing a mask or keeping an aisle clear during taxi takeoff and landing, are government laws that are put in place for everyone's safety. To put it simply,

flight attendants are just doing their jobs, and when a passenger refuses to follow a simple rule that abides the law, it can cause a problem. I'm sure we all agree that traveling by air isn't a smooth process. It can be fatiguing, stressful, and annoying. When a passenger's patience runs out, the flight attendants are usually the first people they see in a uniform, and they are the ones who get the blame and anger. It's a hard thing not to take personally, and I've seen plenty of tears shed by my colleagues. It's worth remembering that flight attendants work long hours, while many are working for minimum wage during a time of rising costs.

Flight attendants are only actually paid from when the aircraft pushes back from the gate until a parking brake is set upon arrival. That means for all those delays a passenger may have at the gate during bad weather or maintenance delays, the flight attendants are not being paid. This is unfair since some of the toughest scenarios they deal with on early passengers are during these times. It's easy to see why the job appeal is waning. For me as a captain, I support my crew as well as I can by keeping passengers informed during delays and backing up my cabin crew when they need it. I think it's important to remember that your crew, from the pilots to flight attendants to ground staff, are trying to get you from A to B in the safest and quickest way possible. A delay is usually a safety-related issue. Please give us your patience and we'll

get you where you need to go. Sorry for the long letter. Best regards, Mike Thornton, Paris, Ontario. Don't be sorry, Mike. I'm glad you said all Mike said. Mike had a PS. I've been flying the De Havilland Chipmunk as a volunteer pilot of the Canadian Warplane Heritage Museum this summer, and it's been an amazing privilege to fly such an iconic Canadian-built airplane and take museum members for rides. Our chipmunk was built in 1956 and served up until 1971, including at CFB Portage from 1970 until it was struck off strength. I remember you saying to Bruce during Smoke, Mirrors and the Truth one day that you flew chipmunks in your stint in the Navy. I've always wondered if you've ever flown the airplane in the museum collection.

I invite you to come check out our chippy sometime, or better yet, come fly it with us. Well, I'm a member of that museum, the one that's the Warplane Heritage Museum in Hamilton. And yes, I flew chipmunks. And Mike was good enough to include a couple of pictures, including a cockpit shot. And I look at that and I go, my God, I flew that? They let me fly that? I did my single-engine flying training,

basic flying training on chipmunks at Barrie, Ontario, Camp Borden. That's where the chipmunks were based at that time, when I was there in 1966, 67. Then I went to Portage and flew multi-engine planes for a while until they caught up with me. But the chipmunk was fantastic and remains fantastic. Mike's quite right. It's an iconic Canadian-built airplane, amazing in aerobatics.

It could pull, I think, like 6 or 7 G. I can't remember exactly, but, I mean, it did all kinds of things, loops and rolls and rolls off the top of a loop, all that kind of stuff, which was fun, but sometimes costly if you weren't ready for it. Anyway, it's great to see that. I probably will try and pop down and either see Mike or just do a walkabout of the chipmunk in the hangar near the Lancaster, the historic Lancaster.

Only two left flying in the world, one here, one in Britain. And I'd been up in the Lancaster out of Hamilton three times. And my father was in Lancaster during the Second World War, more than 50 missions, DFC, the whole bit. And I took my dad to Hamilton to see that Lancaster, and it was an emotional time. But I've also taken my son, Will, who works on this podcast on occasion,

doing the social media stuff. And we've all been up in a Lancaster. And I like to think that there are probably very few families in the world where three generations of the Mansbridge family have flown in a Lancaster. And it's pretty special. And, you know, you still see the Lancaster up and about around Toronto doing, you know, the odd tour. They fly from Hamilton, they come to Toronto, they circle the CN Tower, and they go back over Niagara Falls

and then into Hamilton. And people pay for the opportunity. It's a great old plane. You can hear it coming from miles away. It's so loud, those four big engines. It's quite the performer. But thank you to Mike for sending all that information along, and thank you for what you had to say about the situation on board aircraft.

I mean, I fly a fair amount for getting around the country and around the world, and I've been lucky because I've never seen any of these incidents. Have I seen upset passengers about various things? Sure. I mean, I think that's normal, and usually the flight attendants are very adept at handling that and taking sort of the angry out of the comments.

Okay. Kind of leave it at that for this week. Another good edition. Thank you so much for your cards and letters, even those ones that maybe get a little upset at either me or one of the comments on the program or one of the guests. That's what this is all about. Get a chance to air your feelings and your grievances. Obviously, I don't get to all the letters.

I read them all, but only X number of them get on the air because we have to fill a particular time slot. Tomorrow, it's your good talk. Good talk with Chantelle Hebert and Bruce Anderson. Lots to talk about this week, as always. We'll be here for that on Friday's edition of The Bridge. I'm Peter Mansbridge. Thanks so much for listening on this day. Talk to you again, 24 hours.