The Bridge with Peter Mansbridge - Your Turn - Why Bother Voting?

Episode Date: September 9, 2021

Another week of emails from you on the state of politics in Canada during this election campaign.  Questions, comments, thoughts from Canadians living at home and abroad.

And hello there, Peter Mansbridge here. You are just moments away from the latest episode of The Bridge. The Bridge, the election edition. It's Thursday. It's your turn. Your turn on The Bridge. Tim Horton's Smile Cookie Week is back, starting September 13th. For one week, the iconic chocolate chunk cookies topped with a pink and blue smile will be available at Tim Hortons restaurants across Canada. 100% of the proceeds from each Smile Cookie will be donated to local charities and community groups in each restaurant's neighborhood. Celebrating its 25th anniversary, the Smile Cookie campaign has raised more than $60 million

for charities, hospitals, and community programs across the country. Grab your Smile Cookie from September 13th to 19th, only at Tim Hortons. All right, here we go, Thursday. And we are, you know, this is a big day. We've got what, 10, 11 days till election day. But this is a big day. This could be a mind maker for a lot of people because tonight is the English language debate. There have been two debates already, the two French language debates. Tonight's the English one, the only one. And for a lot of people, this could be

the moment they decide who are they going to vote for or why they're going to vote the way they are going to vote. So this all comes at a time when things are still very close. Every indicator that I've seen so far would suggest that the difference between the Liberals and the Conservatives is basically the margin of error. So, in fact, it's kind of a virtual tie. The NDP is still placed very well in the low 20s. The Liberals and the Conservatives in the low 30s. So anything could happen.

So tonight's a big night you're gonna watch you're gonna actually watch the debate or you're gonna wait till everybody else has watched it and made their decisions and those decisions affect the way the media covers things they isolate certain clips from the debate. Some people just watch that. They can't afford two hours of their time to help them make this decision that they're going to make. That's okay. It's a free country. You can make your decisions as best you can. Listen, there was a moment on yesterday's Smoke Mirror and the Truth

where Bruce and I were discussing various things that have happened in past debates. And we talked about the debate 20 or so years ago. It was a French-language debate where the moderator fainted and caused the commotion around it. But we got a number of facts wrong in the retelling of that story. And so the bridge's policy is to, when there's some outrageous mistake, to correct it. And thanks to my good friend Mark Bulguch,

we're going to do just that so Mark sends me an email early today having listened to yesterday's podcast he says okay you guys your memory failed you the fainting happened in 1997. The moderator was Claire Lamarche. This was the French debate the night after the English debate.

That year in 97, they were reversed in order that we're looking at today, this campaign. Anyway, Ms. Lamarche fainted just off camera. No one knew what to do. None of the debaters moved to help her. There was supposed to be a doctor and an ambulance on site, but because of some bungling, there wasn't. A doctor in the audience helped her until an ambulance arrived and took her to the hospital where she recovered. There were 42 minutes left in the debate. And after negotiations between the networks and the parties, it was agreed to finish five nights later.

A 42-minute debate then occurred five nights after. And not much happened in that debate. As for Ms. LaMarche, she went on to a distinguished career, both first at Raja Canada and then at TVA. So there we go with the facts from the 1997 debate where the moderator fainted. Now, let's move on to the mail that came in this week. And it relates to a lot of different things, including debates. And a reminder that while I read all the letters that come in,

I don't read all of them on the air. You know, I pick a selection on a variety of different areas. Not only areas of interest and topic, but areas from different parts of the country. When you remember to tell me where you're writing from. So please try to recall and remember that. And there's no particular order here. They just sort of, here they are. So the first one comes, and I don't read all of each letter that I choose to put on the air.

I often read just a few sentences. Occasionally I'll read the whole thing, but not always. All right. Neil Rankin writes, from where? I don't know. Because he didn't say. Forget about having CTV, CBC, Global dictate the terms of the debate. Let's get three premiers asking questions. You know, now when he first mentions that in the letter, I went, really? Is that really what we want to do?

And then the more I thought about it, I thought, you know what? That's not a bad idea. That could be pretty interesting, especially when we have, you know, leaders representing different parties in terms of each, in terms of different provinces. That could be quite interesting because, as you know, when governments are formed and after elections and between elections, a lot of the debate happens between provinces and the federal government.

So it could be interesting. So I, you know, sometimes you think about these things a little, for a little longer and you come up with some interesting ideas. And I think Neil Rankin actually has an interesting idea there that might be worth pursuing. It's not going to happen this election, but maybe some other election. Networks are always looking for new ideas, especially when they're getting hammered, it seems, from everywhere else. That could be an interesting one.

All right, Carol Edwards writes from who knows where, because Carol didn't tell me. However, she did say, I love your podcast. Now, there's more to her letter than that, but that's a great way to start. So refreshing to listen to true journalism in action. Everywhere else, it feels like the journalists are spokespeople for one side or another and are not presenting the unbiased report. That may be a little bit of a generalization, Carol. I guess I'm old-fashioned that way. Just wanted to check on something. Did you say there would be two French language debates and only one English? Did I hear that correctly? And if so why would that be well carol we actually on this refreshing podcast

i have mentioned that before and and explained it but i can explain it in a hurry here there are two in in uh french language debates because they're the networks aren't all together tv i wanted to operate separately they didn't want to operate within the group of networks that were proposing the French language debate, which was the one last night. So they created their own. And because TVI is the most popular network in French-speaking Canada, the leaders wanted to be a part of it.

And so they agreed to it as well as the main one. In English Canada, the networks were all together, and I don't know that anyone else proposed a debate, but if they did, it wasn't accepted by the parties. They just wanted to do the one, which is tonight, so it's everything all in on the one debate that takes place tonight. Okay. Spencer Stinson writes from who knows where.

You guys have really backed off on letting us know where you're writing from. You've got to remember. Hi, Peter. Great to have you and the team back for the election. I really enjoyed your Northern coverage as well. Your book recommendation by Larry Audleluke was a great last-minute birthday gift for my wife. I know you've probably heard enough about polls, but I was wondering if you and Bruce can comment on how the method of polling

factors into the waiting for a poll, if at all. You know what? This is ringing very familiar, this letter. Did this make it on the last week's show as well? Listen, it's an important topic, so if you missed last week and it was on last week, then you're not going to be upset about hearing it again this time around. This issue, Bruce touched on it yesterday, actually, on smoke mirrors and the truth. But this whole issue of the difference between

polls and how different polls are weighted and the different methodologies is an issue it is an issue in the polling industry they know it and while that industry is somewhat loose on terms of its relationships between the different uh polling companies I think there's an agreement, at least in some parts, that they've got to kind of get at this because, you know, there are all kinds of issues around polling right now. You know, the traditional method used to be door-to-door. That's how the original pollsters used to do it. That stopped. Then it was replaced by landline phone calls. now nobody answers their landline or they don't have a landline which leaves it into internet polling cell phone dialing all of this and there are real problems with response times and response at all on the part of a lot of different people.

So I've always maintained that it's hard to mix all these polls together and come up with a tracking version of a number, but that's still a popular thing to be doing, and a lot of people do it. But I think we're at a point, and Bruce even hinted at it too, we're at a point where pollsters really need to consider the way they are approaching this business. The research and analysis that companies like polling companies do is an important part of the, not just the political system,

but more importantly to the business system in Canada and the United States and different parts of the world, try and get a sense of trends and what people want. So we'll see where it all ends up going. Did you hear that? That's especially for one particular listener, and we'll get to that soon. Robin Ward. She's a frequent writer to this podcast.

During this election campaign in our household, we have been wondering about the two Aaron O'Toole's, the Aaron O'Toole of the conservative leadership race and the current Aaron O'Toole. The two O'Toole versions don't seem to jibe. Is his current campaign a bait and switch? We've wondered. I'll get you to vote for me, then go back to my true blue conservative ways? This is a kind of common question that's asked these days around Aaron O'Toole, but it's been asked of many politicians of different stripes over the years. Do they say one thing to get elected within their own party at a leadership convention and something quite different when they're trying to get elected by voters at large

and in the in the general election and it's just not a canadian thing you see it happening in the states all the time through the presidential races and senatorial races but robin's quite correct it is has been asked quite a bit around Aaron O'Toole ever since he ran for the leadership of his party. And one, that he seemed to be taking what some feel were extreme views within the party to attract the right-wing vote, and now he's moderated those views. So it leads to that question, who is the real Aaron O'Toole?

And Robin says, just wondering if you or Bruce or Chantel might have thoughts, who is the real Aaron O'Toole? Maybe I'll ask that tomorrow on Good Talk, Bruce and Chantel, after tonight's debate. Robin did tell us where she was writing from.

She's writing from Edmonton. Don Hobsbawm writes from central rural BC. He starts off, dear Peter, may I call you that? Of course you can call me that. That's my name, Peter. Having spent the past four months in a drought, two of them with serious fires all around and smoky skies, smoke, mirrors, and the truth has some new meanings.

My wife introduced me to the bridge, and while I enjoy much of it, the Arctic, radishes, the repartee, I am tremendously disappointed with its almost complete absence of Western content and concerns. Nary a word have we heard about the extreme fire conditions in B.C. that are only now beginning to wane, and the federal government's extremely feeble efforts there. They did manage, however, to send all of about 400 Canadian Armed Forces personnel to assist. Not one leader has bothered to visit fire-afflicted areas in comment,

and no one on the bridge has mentioned that as far as I know. The letter goes on, but let me just take a moment here. You're right, Don. We haven't spent a lot of time on the fire situation in Western Canada and the Western United States. We have mentioned it, but we haven't spent a whole show on it. And we haven't, you know, we've dealt with the concerns surrounding it, which include, you know, climate change, but we have not spent as much time as perhaps we should have on that story.

Picking up the letter, nor do we hear about how that monolithic rest of Canada feels about the constant pandering to Quebec. That's a constant. We've heard of that issue for decades. Discussion of the now deceased yet draconian Bill C-10 and its partners C-11 and C-36 proposed mostly for Stephen Guilbeault's audience in Quebec, he's a member of the Trudeau cabinet, and a sellout to big telecom companies in Canada,

is an area we'd like to hear more about as a huge concern to all thinking Canadians. Now, on that, Don, we have spent time. We spent a whole show on it. Not during the campaign, but before the campaign started, earlier this summer. The bridge is fun to listen to, and remember that out west, we all know that elections are settled by the time we get to find out who the east has decided which government we will have.

We are much of the rest of Canada, and while not monolithic, we deserve some attention too. Okay, I used to live in Western Canada, I know that feeling. But really, Don, things have changed. For starters, all the voters in the prairies,

Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta, their results are counted at the same time as Ontario, Quebec. Okay? And BC is only a half an hour after that. In the old days, it used to be hours difference between central Canada and the western Canadian provinces in terms of the vote counting. So things are all being decided at more or less the same time. And let me also remind you,

and it looks like it's shaping up to be exactly the same this time, of the last six elections, four have resulted in minority governments. And minority governments aren't settled, in terms of the real breakout of this, before all those Western seats are counted. And the same thing's shaping up to be this time around. Who will form the minority government? Will one party have the hammer in terms of a minority government, in terms of bringing it down or supporting it?

Those kind of things are going to be decided right through to the end of the evening. So I think it's a little unfair to use that criticism still, because things have changed but can't disagree with you on some of the other points peter todorovic he's in etobicoke peter writes hi i'm a regular listener to the podcast who really decides what the particular party's policy is, especially during an election.

Do the party leaders decide on their own, or is there a group of wealthy elites who stand to gain, deciding what to present? Are we, the Canadian voters, watching something real or a never-ending soap opera? And why does the media, especially television, not hold the leaders to account for past failure to keep promises, but instead give the leaders free airtime for unsubstantiated empty rambling? On the last point first, Peter,

you know, that's not, that first of all, it's a real overgeneralization. And second, I don't think it's fair. I think a lot of the questions, if you watch the daily scrums of all the leaders, is challenging them to defend their positions or explain their positions, especially when it comes around to them having, as you call them, past failures to keep promises.

Those are constants, have been throughout, not only the campaign, but before the campaign. Your other question is really a good question about party policy and who decides what it's going to be? Well, the parties meet in convention, and they vote on party positions. And those party positions, the leaders are not bound by them. They don't have to take those into a campaign. They are what their party stands for. But if they choose to say something differently, and I think you can just look at the Conservatives, Aaron O'Toole is saying something different about climate change

than his party said in convention just a few months ago. So in the end, the leader can make the decision on what the party's policy is going to be. It can take a little from party platforms, take a little from his own platform or her own platform, and that becomes the policy that they run on. Now, is there a group of wealthy elites standing in the background of these different leaders?

Well, I don't know how wealthy they are. I don't know how elite they are. But they all have people who were working closely with them on formulating policy and promises and campaign platforms. And many of them have other jobs when the campaigns aren't on, and they represent different things, whether they're consultants or bank people or oil people or environmental people or whatever they may be. So you're scratching on something important there, Peter.

And hopefully that gives you some idea of what I think on this. Connor Whalen is emailing from the Blue Mountains in Ontario. Great area. I've been enjoying your podcast a lot with everyone you have on. I've been listening to much of your coverage during the election campaign and a couple of back and forths with Chantel and Bruce regarding the media got me thinking. I know you don't like to generalize, which I agree can be unfair, as there can be large differences with great journalism throughout.

But I was wondering about your thoughts on the future of media organizations in Canada in comparison to the U.S. organizations. Many people believe that large organizations are becoming more and more polarized, with many accused of becoming much more left-leaning and many accused of being much more right-leaning. It is interesting to see what's happening in an age of growing independent sources of media. Connor, it's a good question. We've touched on it a number of times in the last couple of weeks in various conversations, but I think post-election we should do a show on this because it's much more than just one answer here.

It's a good discussion. So I'm going to file that away, and we will take a run at it, Connor. So thanks for that. Connor was writing from the Blue Mountains area. Correct. Keith Brady. Keith is never shy about criticizing me or the program. And he's not shy today.

I'm not sure that Keith told us where he's writing from. I don't think so. No. Peter, I noticed you rolled out the old canard suggesting that if you don't vote, you cannot complain. In a democracy, you have the right to vote, but you also have the right not to vote. Choosing the latter option does not exclude your ability to voice your displeasure of government.

That right is covered by free speech. Nobody ever said you couldn't do that. All I said is, and I still believe it, and it's no old canard to me, it's the real deal, is that in a democracy, part of your responsibility is to participate in some form. You can run for election if you're really upset about the government in power, or if you're really in praise of the government in power, you can run. The least you could do is vote, and that's what I feel is important,

that you are part of the process. And my comment was only that if you don't vote, it's a little hard to listen to you whining before and after an election about any particular party and how they end up doing. You have the power in your hand. If you choose not to use it, that is your right.

But free speech or not, I just have a hard time listening to those who didn't bother to vote. And don't tell me that they didn't vote because they just were so upset with the system. Most people who don't vote don't vote because they're too, you know, they may not get time off from their work, even though they're supposed to get that. But they just don't want to walk down to or drive down to wherever the

closest polling area is that's for them in their district. Don't have the time. I think you can make the time. Listen, there have been times where I haven't voted, and I'm not proud of that. I think it's important that you vote. Anyway, let's take a quick break, and then we'll come back with some more of these.

But we like to give the opportunity for a breather in the middle of your turn. This is your turn on the bridge. Starting September 13th, Tim Hortons Smile Cookie Week is back. From September 13th to 19th at Tim Hortons Smile Cookie Week is back. From September 13th to 19th at Tim Hortons, 100% of the proceeds from all Smile Cookies purchased will be donated to local charities and community groups across Canada. In the last 25 years, you have helped us raise over $60 million.

And in 2020 alone, Smile Cookie Week brought in $10.6 million while helping over 500 community organizations. You can participate by grabbing your own Smile Cookie Week brought in $10.6 million while helping over 500 community organizations. You can participate by grabbing your own Smile Cookie at Tim Hortons restaurants across Canada from September 13th to 19th. You're listening to The Bridge with Peter Mansbridge back with Your Turn on The Bridge, our election editions. Hope you've been enjoying them. We've got a tremendous amount of reaction to The Bridge's election editions, whether it's the insiders on Monday, the reporters on Tuesday,

Smoke Mirrors and the Truth on Wednesday. This edition, this episode called Your Turn, Your Opportunity to Talk on Thursdays and then Fridays of late, it's been Good Talk with Chantelle Hebert and Bruce Anderson. And, you know, I got to say, for all those who say the election campaign is not interesting to them this time around, boy, listeners to this program are sure finding it interesting because the audience numbers have gone up considerably during the election campaign. I'm sure it'll remain that way over the next week or 10 days as we get around to the actual vote.

Okay, back with your turn, your letters that have come in by email to themansbridgepodcast at gmail.com, themansbridgepodcast at gmail.com. By the way, while I have you, if you go to my website, thepetermansbridge.com, there's a little, I was going to call it a lottery. It's not really a lottery, but it's a chance for, to first of all pre-order my new book, Off the Record, which comes out October 5th, but also to get your name in the hat for signing,

bookplate signings for that book. They will select, Simon & Schuster will select, out of the pool of pre-orders, so just those that come in this month, in September, 50 signed bookplates that will go out to you. But you can follow it all online at thepetermansbridge.com. Okay? Not petermansbridge.com.

Somebody had already taken that. Thepetermansbridge.com. Mike Size. He gives quite a bit of background to himself, first of all, before he makes his point. So I'm actually going to read that. My name is Michael Size. I'm 38 years old, born and raised in Elliott Lake, Ontario.

Spent the mid-90s in Williams Lake, B.C., the late 90s and early aughts in Edson, Alberta, my college years in Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario, and now I live in Bruce Mines, Ontario, with my wife and two children aged 13 and 11. I'm a registered practical nurse, and I work at a long-term care facility. Seven of my 11 years there were spent as a frontline nurse and resident assessment instrument coordinator, and now I just do frontline nursing, as I also sit as the president of my union local. Bombardier. Seven years in the 49th Field Regiment based in Sault Ste. Marie from 2006 until 2013. During the war years, the Afghanistan war years. My political views have swung from the liberals to the conservatives and reform in my teen years to the NDP most of my adult life. Back rightwards to the PPC as a protest, the People's Party.

And now I sit comfortably with the Conservative Party under Aaron O'Toole. I consider myself somewhat of a red Tory, and I mostly align with the Joe Clark, Brian Mulroney style of conservatism. I was also raised in a religious household. I guess you can say I have been a lot of places and experienced a lot of things, making me a well-rounded individual. And I agree with that. Good for you. Mike, you've really, you know, you've really been around. I enjoy political commentary and discussing politics in general. I've been listening to your podcast since the beginning. Well, I stopped for a year, but I recently started listening to it again.

I really enjoy your talks with Chantal Hébert and Bruce Anderson. It makes me feel like I'm a kid again in the 90s watching CBC. It's familiar to me. It's comforting for me in a way when compared to other talk radio and social media. The rhetoric and hyperbole floating around out there in the ether is stifling. But your show is like a nice little oasis to escape it for a while, while still being able to enjoy the political commentary. It's a breath of fresh air.

I really appreciate the fair and balanced approach you take to the issues being discussed. Though it is your show and you can say what you want, you still try to be balanced and nuanced. Thank you for not retiring completely from public life. Boy, it's been a long way from retirement, let me tell you. Chantel is just the best, isn't she? That's all I can say. I love the witty banter you all share with each other, the respect you have for each other. It's clear and it is nice to hear. Okay, what a great letter to be able to read.

And, you know, Mike, I love that you laid it all out there for us about your background, and not only in work, but in life and in politics. And it's great to see people who change through life, but are also influenced by the different policies of the different parties at different times in their life. So, Mike, good luck to you. Here's, we've got a few left here. This one comes from Andy McMillan in Switzerland.

Can't tell you how I have a, remember a minute ago I was telling you those noises, which i occasionally do hello peter can't tell you how happy i was to find your podcast earlier this year hearing your voice takes me back to watching you every night with my parents now gone in their living room dad munching on rye crackers with liverwurst mom Mom, I love liverwurst. Mom reading the province and listening to you. She was a news junkie. I listen to you while I work in a beautiful valley up near the French border. I work with noisy bushwhackers and chainsaws,

so I wear headphones with Bluetooth connection to my phone. It's so nice to listen to Mr. Canada while I work. However, I do have a suggestion. Please, for the love of broadcasting, Peter, sort out your sound. Maybe put a sock on that hypersensitive mic. It amplifies every single lip smack. But even worse is the dodgy sound quality

of your interviews. Man, he likes to set me up. I felt so good there. Now all of a sudden, kapow. Anyway, he did just buy my new book off the record on Audible. A lot of you complained last year that I didn't do an audio copy of the book, not just the print edition. Well, this year we did an audio copy.

So if you want to actually hear me read the book, you can order the book that way. It'll be on sale at your independent bookstore, Indigo, of course, who are big supporters of this book, and I assume Amazon. But you can also just go online to thepetermansbridge.com. It'll connect you right away. You can get on to picking up the audio copy if you wish.

Anyway, what I told Andy in Switzerland on his tractor, whatever he uses to cut the fields. Sounds wonderful, doesn't it? It sounds like the sound of music. There's Andy out there listening to my lip smacks. I try to warn Andy that I listen. He's not the first person to complain about this. Sometimes I do get too close to the microphone.

And it picks stuff up. But it is, you know, it's still, this is a hobby. I'm doing this out of my, I was all by myself. This ain't like the old CBC days. Surrounded by fantastic technical people. This is me on my own with a little board in front of me, and I try to monitor the levels and all that. Anyway, thank you, Andy. I appreciate it, and I will work hard at trying to correct that problem.

Al Leger from Bob Cajun, Ontario. Bob Cajun. correct that problem um al lege from bob cajun ontario bob cajun i've been a long time fan follower of you since i was knee high to a grasshopper you bring a canadian flair to broadcasting and journalist journalism which bridges all opposing views on subjects of concern nationally and internationally i'd be remiss if I didn't highlight my anticipation every week to your weekly podcast with Chantel and Bruce at the helm of bringing forth their political views. By far, Chantel has always hit a chord with me with her non-partisan, intellectual, and down-to-earth views.

She highlights that Canadian voters are very sophisticated even though they may not hold a degree in political science. She gets it, and she's not afraid to step on anybody's toes, including yours and Bruce's. You betcha she's not. I've followed her since she became a regular guest on the at-issue portion of the CBC's The National Nightly News. She's the Judge Judy of journalism. Thanks, Al. Where are we here?

You know, a lot of you wrote with kind of your views on how you feel about the election, where your vote is likely to end up. And, you know, they're all good. They're all good emails, good comments. You know, I was going to read some of them, but, you know, I've decided not to, and I don't want you to, any of you to take this personally, but it, it just be, it ends up sounding like a free time political broadcast by doing it that way. So I, I,

I'm going to pass on that idea if you don't mind. Cause it just, you know, it didn't, you know, when I was reading these over initially, I thought, okay, these are good. But I found them a little, a little bit much. They didn't work for me. But I do, you know, i appreciate the fact that you are venting's not really the right word but laying down your views because that's all part of the process right when you sit there and write down okay this is how i feel about this party or that

party this leader or that leader it it it is part of the exercise that leads towards you deciding when you have that moment in the ballot box or the cardboard area that's kind of roped off for you to do your vote in private. It gives you the homework, gives you that opportunity to really lay it down as to why you're going to do a certain thing. Because that's a treasured moment that you have to make a decision on the democratic process, to make a decision about where you're going to place your vote. Well, we're all getting close to that moment now, right?

Tonight is a big night, the Thursday night, the debate. And I'm sure many of you will be watching that, especially those of you who perhaps haven't decided yet how you really feel. Most people have decided. Most people say that it's too late now for them to switch their votes. They've made their decisions, no matter what they might witness in a debate. But there's another portion, not insignificant portion, who could be swayed by what they see on a night like this.

And they'll get their opportunity almost immediately, because advance polls open this weekend. Tomorrow, I think, is the first one. And a lot of people are going to use that advanced poll opportunity because they don't want to be crowding in on the final day. There's also a mail option. You're going to have to look at your different options to make your decision.

But it's rapidly heading into crunch time on this election. You may feel strongly that we shouldn't have had an election. Well, the fact is now we have one, and it's an opportunity for you to make your decision. So on that, we're going to leave it for this week, or this week's edition of Your Turn. There will be one final your turn next week which will be the last one before uh d-day decision day voting day

election 21 decision 21 canada votes 21 know, all these different catch names. And then what is, for most media organizations, the most important night of their year, sometimes of their four years, election night. That's where journalism is called upon to be at its top, top of its game, in bringing home the decision that Canadians have made about the way they want to be governed. All right, tomorrow, good talk with Chantel Hébert and Bruce Anderson.

And you saw the theme through a lot of these letters. People love Chantel. People love Bruce. People love good talk. And that's what we'll have tomorrow. Obviously, it'll be heavily dominated by our take on what happened on the final debate,

but also on what's likely to occur through the final 10 days and how the different parties are positioning themselves for that. So you won't want to miss good talk, whether you're listening on SiriusXM Canada Talks, Channel 167, or wherever you get your podcasts. I'm Peter Mansbridge. Thanks so much for listening.

We'll talk to you again in 24 hours.