The Bridge with Peter Mansbridge - Your Turn -- You Obviously Listen Closely!

Episode Date: January 12, 2023

You pounce on my inability to remember a movie title by pouring in the mail with the answer.  Your Turn on everything from taxes to F-35s, and then The Random Ranter enters the discussion on Ukraine calling on the west to supply the resistance with much better equipment.

And hello there, Peter Mansbridge here. You are just moments away from the latest episode of The Bridge. Fresh after his apparently successful call for more taxes, the renter decides to go after the West on Ukraine. That, and a lot of your turn on this day. And hello there, Peter Mansbridge in Toronto for this part of the week. Thursday, your turn. Lots of stuff, stuff from you guys this week. And you know what's really great about it? There are lots of people who are writing for the first time. We always get repeat writers, and occasionally I run the repeat writers.

Not all the time, because the option here is, the hope here is, to explore other people's thoughts as well, and so we do that. But today, this is mainly as a result, and I've got to acknowledge these people, because it's not like an issue of any particular kind. But the other day, if you've ever wondered how I put this thing together, you probably haven't wondered you've probably noticed very well that it's just a ramble right i don't write anything down i sort of say okay i'm going to cover this this and this today i talk about this this and this

and i'll pull some data that i might refer to but it's not like organized. It's not a newscast. I have to keep reminding some of you. It's not a newscast. It's just a podcast and it's just a ramble. You can do one. And I'll say that occasionally to some of you who write in and say, why didn't you do this? Why didn't you do that? Why didn't you say this? Well, you're not being balanced. You're not this. Start a podcast. Go for it. Do it. It's not that hard and it's not that expensive.

Anyway, the other day I was talking about aging. And I was reading from some story that I'd found somewhere in one of our end bits, talking about new drugs that were coming out that were going to expand one's life, looking for that ever-sought-after goal of being ageless, living forever. And off the top of my head, I suddenly said, and I hadn't thought about it until that moment in the podcast,

I said, you know, I remember this movie when I was a kid. There was kind of about Shangri-La, about this wonderful place that was hidden in the mountains somewhere where you never aged. You lived forever young. And what a wonderful movie it was. I couldn't remember the name of it. I just sort of threw it in there and moved on, and that was that. Well, there has been a torrent of emails from people saying,

I remember that movie. I loved that movie too. And so I want to acknowledge all these people who wrote in. I'm not going to read all their letters, but I'll kind of mention who they were. Liska Sorge from Diamond Valley, Alberta. On your podcast that aired today, January 10th, you mentioned a movie from your youth

that was set in a mythical Shangri-La. Might that movie have been Lost Horizon? The original release was in 37, but it had a couple of re-releases in 42 and 52, and later in other adaptations. The adventure does sound intriguing, as your podcast always is. That's very kind of you, Liska. Steve Loudon from Rattlestake Harbor, Norfolk County, Ontario.

Lost Horizon. Steve Willis from Ottawa. Lost Horizon. Is this the film you remembered? Marika Zonnefeld. Also from Ottawa. Also from Kingston, sort of back and forth. Marika, Lost Horizon with Ronald Coleman and Jane Wyatt, Frank Capra movie. Pam McDermott from Burlington. Found your movie, Lost Horizon.

Susan Cook from Trenton. I also loved that movie when I was very young and thought that it was the title of the movie was Shangri-La, so I Googled it and it came up with Lost Horizon. Maybe that was it. That was it. Some people even found posters. You see one of them on our website, our kind of acknowledgement on Twitter and Instagram today.

Kelly Karanidis. Lost Horizon. Brent Bush. Lost Horizon. It's originally from a novel, right, by James Hilton. Brent Bush is in Nanaimo. Neil Tobin, Lost Horizon. And Vince Tuss from Minneapolis, Minnesota.

I think you're thinking of Lost Horizon. I love it. We are a community. We are this little community that gathers together most weekdays, and we talk about all kinds of important things, and every once in a while we talk about, well, let's just say it ain't that important. But if you want to dig up in, you know,

there are three versions, apparently, of Lost Horizon. They're all the same story. But if you're looking for that ageless moment, there you go. All right. Moving on with the deep issues of the day. Last week, the renter surprised me. Well, you surprised me, actually,

because the renter did his thing the ranter formerly known as random did his thing and called for more taxes that he wants to pay more taxes if you're going to get the services you want you got to pay more taxes and i thought boy, this is it. Get ready for the incoming. Head down to the basement. Get into the shelter. There's been hardly any incoming. It's overwhelmingly been support. Like this, Gene Wolting. Gene writes, I agree with the ranter that we should pay more taxes

to take care of the less fortunate. Ontarians should be ashamed to accept that MPPs voted a raise for themselves but did not increase ODSP to an acceptable level. There is no bias on my part. I don't collect ODSP, and I don't think I know anyone who does collect it. But I believe in the principle, I guess, is what Gene's saying. And if you're going to believe in it, you've got to pay for it.

Keith Anderson from Kincardine, Ontario. If we want better basic services, being health care, including long-term care for elderly and care for the disabled, education, including preschool child care, and security, military, police, judicial system, we need to properly fund those areas. The old saying, you only get what you pay for. And there's more. Sandra Thomas from Peterborough, Ontario. I'm a regular listener to your podcast.

Appreciate the measured and intentional discussions I hear from you and from your guests. I totally agree with last week's random ranter. Until we take care of the most vulnerable among us, our society will continue to face major problems. Even if you're not caring for the vulnerable and marginalized from a compassionate standpoint, it still makes total sense, even from a purely selfish motive. Numerous studies have shown that providing proper support upstream, at the source of problems, yields great savings downstream. When children are well taken care of and educated well, many of society's issues will greatly diminish. Happy, cared for, fulfilled people do not join gangs, suffer from addiction,

at least not at today's rates, commit violence. I think most of us understand that and, like the ranter, would pay more taxes to create a fairer and more equitable society. We would all be better off. One hindrance, of course, is seeing government corruption. But that is a topic for another day. Maureen Klink is in Regina. I knew I was heading to Pelican Narrows, which is a seven and a half hour drive from Regina, so I saved all your podcasts to binge listen to your full week on the road. I loved every day. It was fantastic to hear from Bob Woodward.

Wow, what that man has seen and heard. But when I got to the ranter, previously random, I had an epiphany. As I filled this email, sorry, as I titled this email, titled it, We Are Only As Strong As Our Weakest Link. As I titled this email, I've always believed that we as a society are only as strong as our weakest link. To think we can just ignore the fact that our social systems, health care system, justice system is completely broken is ridiculous to say nothing about how poorly paid our teachers and early child care workers are. And yes, we need to be willing to pay more in taxes to ensure we have a strong society. I wholeheartedly applaud the ranter in his views. Derek Dillabo.

Derek's in Ottawa. I appreciate the random ranter's take on taxes this past week. You rarely hear that type of understanding because the politically safe thing to say is that taxes are generally bad. In 1990, Brian Mulroney created the GST at 7%, replacing the MST. It was a politically courageous and economically correct thing to do. However, in an act of political short-sightedness, Stephen Harper cut the GST from 7 to 5, costing the Treasury close to $15 billion per year. Virtually every economist said it was a bad idea. Targeted tax cuts to those that need the money are obviously a good thing,

but giving tax breaks to those who do not is throwing money out the window when health care and other requirements are desperately needed. It helped win Harper election. But you're right. The argument from economists was it was a bad thing to do. Larry Larson from Waterloo, Ontario. I'd like to reply to your friend R2D2, random ranter, deliberate debater. I am in total agreement with his latest rant about paying more taxes.

I've absolutely zero issues with paying more tax if it means increasing support for the services that we now enjoy, especially as it concerns health care for Canadians. Having spent the first 27 of my 63 years growing up in the U.S., proud Canadian citizen since 2001, I can tell you from experience how very lucky I feel to have the health care we have here in Canada. Sharing stories with relatives and friends back in the U.S. about health care services that each of us has had on either side of the border, it makes me realize that I would personally be far worse off financially right now in the U.S., given the wonderful medical assistance that I have received over the past three years alone.

And there's more. Sadella Beasley, who lives in Minneapolis. Happy New Year, Peter. As always, loving your show each and every episode. In my honest opinion, you can still call the ranter random because the topics about which he rants are random. Okay, good reasoning. Looking forward to your next book. And Bruce's even more.

I didn't know Bruce was writing one. We bug him that he should. But yes, I'm in the final editing process of my latest book. It should be out this fall. Sheila Kinzel from Calgary. I've thought of emailing many times while I listen to the podcast on my walks, but never get fingers to keyboard when I get home.

Well, today I am, after listening to the random renter. My thought was, he's 100% spot on. I'm 100% okay with paying taxes to maintain our social services, and it's our government's job to make sure those tax dollars are spent accordingly. That is a whole other conversation. I'm actually in agreement with many of his rants, because even though I've lived in Alberta, originally, excuse me, from Saskatchewan, since 1980, I've always been a Canadian first, and I'm sick and tired of so many Albertans

only thinking of themselves and not our fellow Canadians. Sheila Kinsell from Calgary. You know, Sheila, in my experience, there are a lot of Albertans who feel exactly the same way you do. And part of the issue is that we tend to typecast people from different parts of the country in certain ways, and it's not right, not fair, not accurate. Patricia Provo.

This is what I meant, you know, how surprised I was that there were so many people who were saying, yeah, right on, ranter. I'm ready to pay more taxes. Patricia Provo writes, I really agree that we need to pay more taxes. It's nearly impossible to get an appointment at the clinic. Higher taxes are the one way, the only way that the problem can be solved. Nobody wants higher taxes, but let's face it, we are the much better off in Canada than in other

parts of the world that I think it's time that we took outside, that we look outside and learn from countries like Denmark and Sweden and other Nordic nations that are of comparable size to Canada. Let's face it, living in one's car is not an option in February in frigid temperatures in Canada. That's why it's necessary to have a stronger social safety net, especially for those not fortunate enough to load up on private medical insurance. Okay, you're saying, Peter, come on. You must have had one email that didn't agree with the ranter.

You're right. We did have one, and it came from Edmonton, from Don Robertson, who often writes, he doesn't want any doubt about where he stands. He starts off, the wheels on the ranter's bandwagon have been getting a little loose lately, and last week when he said he wanted to raise taxes to help solve some of the problems of this country,

those wheels have fallen off completely. Well, not according to all those letters I just read. But nevertheless, Don, here's your point. There's too much time and energy and money wasted on senseless idealism with endless excuses and tiresome cliches. Haven't people heard enough talk about things like revenge and retribution? Toxic culture used to refer to bacteria in a petri dish. Now it describes our education system, our sports, and our military. Enough, please. The only way our country is going to survive and succeed is by giving people a good education and by developing worthwhile, sustainable careers,

which in turn will increase wealth and health, psychological as well as physical, and will improve the quality of life for our individuals and our society as a whole. I think most people agree with that, Don, but you know what? It costs money to do it right. We can argue about waste that exists within the system and it does, there's no question about it every year the auditor general says

hey, you're wasting money here here and here and here and that stuff's got to be cleaned up is it enough to deal with all the problems? maybe, I don't know. All right, so that was your reaction to last week's rant by the ranter, which surprised me. Now, I think now's the time to play this week's rant.

This is totally different. The ranter goes international. He decides it's time, this week, to raise the issue of Ukraine. And to raise an issue that's, well, some people are going to find interesting. His issue is the West isn't doing enough to help Ukraine. They're doing things, there's no doubt about it, but they're not doing enough. They're not doing the right things. Now, not everyone's going to agree with this one either.

In fact, we get the odd letter from those who say, you're not listening to enough viewpoints on Ukraine. In fact, we get the odd letter from those who say, you're not listening to enough viewpoints on Ukraine. And you're buying into the NATO line, the West line, the Canada line, the whatever. You've got to have a broader look. Well, those people are probably not going to like what the ranter has to say either today. But we'll see. Why don't we find out?

Here he is. Remember, you know, a couple of letters mentioned. Remind me again who the ranter is. Well, I've never told you who the ranter is. Other than he lives in Western Canada. And I've always described the West as sort of between Thunder Bay and Victoria. Okay? It's a big area.

He's nonpartisan. He does not belong to any party. He does not work for any party. And if you've listened to his rants since early last fall, you can see he's pretty, he scatters his criticism right across the spectrum. So you can buy into that. But here he is. The topic this week for the Rander is Ukraine. I don't understand how some world leaders can push for a peace agreement in Ukraine.

I just don't see any way there can be a peace if Putin stays in power. I don't know much, but I do know it's a fool's game to negotiate with a liar, especially one who's a war criminal. I mean, the guy has a very clear track record. Any peace with Putin will at best be a temporary ceasefire. But I get it. People are scared because the guy is a wildcard and he's a wildcard with nukes. Even the leaders who support Ukraine are scared. And that's why they're so reluctant to up the ante when it comes to supplying heavy weaponry. No one wants to escalate the situation, so every round of aid seems to be incremental in its lethality and capability. This latest round of support amounts to what are essentially light tanks from the US, France, and Germany. Before that it was range limited HIMARS systems and before that it was

around a Soviet built weaponry and modern shoulder launch systems like javelins. We've never given the Ukrainians what they've asked for main battle tanks and fighter jets although it looks like there's some movement on that front finally as Poland has just announced, it's going to provide a company of leopard tanks. But either way, bravo to the Ukrainians. Like a whole country of lethal MacGyvers, no matter what they get, they figured out a way to kill Russians with it. Maybe in addition to everything else, we should be sending them duct tape. I mean, they're amazing. No one saw this coming.

No one gave them a chance. but somehow they're more than making it happen. And their success, it's put world leaders in a real pickle. They're terrified of Russia becoming a power vacuum. So they're trying to figure out a way where this ends with Russia intact. It's been a whole year of walking the fine line of giving the Ukrainians just enough to hold the Russians in check without completely backing Putin into a corner. Meanwhile, every day, Ukrainians continue to pay the price with their lives. I don't know what NATO's plan is. Are they hoping someone on the Russian side or some kind of act of God takes Putin out? Because good luck with that. Those Russian oligarchs seem very,

very accident prone lately. Lots of hot tub incidents and sudden falls. I mean, they even took out the sausage oligarch. But I digress. All I want to say is that no matter what weapons the Ukrainians receive, no matter what NATO does or doesn't do, the situation is hard-boiled to escalate. The damage to the world order is done. Russia has lost face, and at the same time, they've awoken NATO. New members are joining, and existing members are finally spending the money to modernize. I mean, it's not a coincidence that after years of procrastination, we just ordered a fleet of new F-35s. The Russians are running out of allies, ammunition, and personnel. They

can't sustain their rate of fire when it comes to artillery, cruise missiles, or attack drones. They're going to need to further mobilize their economy and their population. And this time, it's not going to be criminals and powerless to say no minorities. It's going to be suburban ethnic Russians. Putin is running out of options. Escalation is inevitable. So instead of waiting for the Russians to escalate, we should be giving the Ukrainians what they need to seize the initiative and force the issue. The long-term results of this war have yet to be determined, but in the short term, the Ukrainians are doing all the heavy lifting. It's time for NATO to give them the weapons they need to finish the job.

There he is, Random Rantor, with his thoughts on Ukraine. All right, we're going to take a quick break. We've got lots more, though, of your turn, your letters, your thoughts, your ideas. And we'll get to them right after this. And welcome back. You're listening to Your Turn on the Bridge for this Thursday. You're listening on Sirius XM, Channel 167, Canada Talks, or on your favorite podcast platform. Tomorrow, Friday, Good Talk with Chantelle Hebert and Bruce Anderson.

That one will be available on our YouTube channel so you can get to watch the exciting moments that take place visually in the production of The Bridge each day. All right, back to your mail. We started this week off with a discussion about uh harry and megan and harry's new book spare and that was if the numbers are to be believed um that apple puts out in terms of uh podcast numbers that was a highly listened to episode. But, you know, strangely enough, not a lot of mail,

which usually indicates either you agreed with everything you heard or maybe you listened to it at triple speed that you're sick of the royal story. Possible. Anyway, we did get a couple of letters. Rick Moreau writes from spruce grove alberta the prince and megan have a net worth of 60 million dollars before any book or netflix revenue so no need to start a go fund me for them not everybody was happy with the way we portrayed the story, felt we were unfair to Harry.

People like Eric Lantry from Victoria, he wrote, you fail to acknowledge that the royal family played a vital role in this saga. You only mentioned as they modernize, and they may be archaic, but not acknowledge their many years of faults. There's a huge book of bad things the royal family's done. That's okay, but acknowledge it if you're okay, if you're going to attack the other side. Okay, I mean, I think we've had different times on this program, this podcast,

gone after the Royals on a lot of different things about the way they've done. I think the key to at least my comments the other day on Harry and Meghan is, look, Harry says a lot in his book, and for some people, a lot of stuff they didn't really want to hear about, like how he lost his virginity and that kind of stuff. But the point I was trying to make was, in spite of all the things and all the kind of slags of other members of the family, Buckingham Palace has not denied one thing in the book, as far as I can remember.

They haven't denied anything. They've said, oh, you know, we've got to be more understanding, and, you know, it's not completely fair, it's not a great assessment of, well, we didn't see it quite the same way, but they haven't denied anything. I guess they're just trying to bury it. I still got a trickle of letters over my comments a couple of weeks ago about Hockey Canada. And Robert Bjarnason linked the Hockey Canada story

to what Bob Woodward had to tell us in his interview about his latest book on Trump. And here's a line from Robert Bjarnason's note. As sporting organizations get entrenched in their own self-importance, they would be mindful to heed Mr. Woodward's message of beware pomposity. Good point. You heard the ranter a moment ago mention the F-35s, the decision by Canada to buy 88 F-35 fighter jets at a cost of, over its lifetime, $70 billion. $19 billion up front john bean writes from west vancouver i suspect that the f-35 is yesteryear's technology i expect that

we would have been far better off purchasing 88 of the world's most sophisticated drones rather than 88 fighter jets there are likely few missions that an F-35 can accomplish for Canada that can't be done by a drone operated by a skilled pilot sitting in an office chair. Cheaper, less risk to pilot, longer time, longer time, dwell time. Not sure what that means. You know, it's funny, in my little makeshift studio here in Toronto, I have right behind me one of the part of one of the first drones that Canada used

was in the Afghan war when I was there in 2003. They were just starting to use these drones and on every it was they were small relatively cheap and used more for uh observation than anything else but every time they landed it ripped off the prop and that's what i have right behind me one of the props from from that, one of the props from one of the drones that I was watching and doing a story on. Jamie Wren is a student at Carleton University studying public policy, and he's written a great letter. It's a relatively long letter, and I'm not going to read it all, but I will read one chunk of it, which I think is really an interesting way of looking at this because one of the things we talked about in our discussion the other day with Bruce was the procurement process and how long these aircraft last.

Anyway, here's what jamie wrote in there i want to touch on the service life of military aircraft the main limiting factor as you likely know is flight hours and the stress that puts that puts on the airframe canada's running into that problem now with the cf-18s as one of the last operators of legacy hornets that's the cf-18s. As one of the last operators of Legacy Hornets, that's the CF-18 name, we are having to buy spare parts from other countries and the number of operational aircraft have decreased over the past decade. Countries like the U.S. mitigate this by doing longer production runs, but that is much easier to do when purchasing 300 to 600 of an airframe than when only purchasing 88 in our Canada's case. As for the B-52 that I mentioned this, it is more so the exception, not the rule, when it comes to this, as you are correct in saying that when it finally is retired,

it will likely have served for at least 100 years. Think of that, 100 years. The difference here is that it has gone through eight production variants and many retrofitting programs, which overhaul the technology and or engines, making almost an entirely different aircraft than the first ones that took flight in 1952. Furthermore, fighter technology and avionics have evolved much faster and to greater extents than those involved in strategic bombers. And Jamie's right about that.

When I wrote back to Jamie, I said, don't forget about the DC-3. The DC-3, which was built first, I think, in 1935, it's still flying. And it's still flying in many parts of Canada's north. So you're looking at what's that you know 130 years 140 years 150 years the dc3s will be with us forever and i have fond memories of many dc3 fights in the canadian. And they're still in the Canadian Arctic. Moving on. Tony Lamparitz from Tilston, Manitoba.

Question regarding the air defense system that Canada is purchasing from the United States to donate to Ukraine. I'm wondering if this equipment will be returned to Canada after Ukraine has no more use for it, hopefully sooner than later. I asked the question because I think I heard you say on smoke that Canada does not have a service to air missile system. Would or could Canada benefit from having such a defense system? I don't remember making that remark. Maybe Bruce did, and I'm not sure if it's true. But nevertheless, on your point, I mean, a donation is usually a donation. You know, when I donate to a charity, I don't expect

to get the money back when they solve all the problems. But I don't know what the architecture of that deal was. Terry Walsh also has a Ukraine question. Over the holiday break, I went back and listened to some of the initial episodes of The Bridge when the Ukraine conflict was starting. I came across an episode where you interviewed Alexei Harin. I had listened to this episode when it first came out, but had since forgotten about it. I came across an episode where you interviewed Alexi Haran. I had listened to this episode when it first came out, but had since forgotten about it.

I was wondering if you've heard from Mr. Haran since last February. He's a professor, right, at one of the universities in Kiev. We talked to him a number of times. But I haven't talked to him lately, and I probably should check in. I have not heard anything to suggest that he has been in any difficulty other than the natural, obvious ones that occur in a city in the midst of a conflict. You know, Cam Beefus writes from Edmonton. This is about all the discussion about Alberta's place within Canada, Danielle Smith's Sovereignty Act, et cetera, et cetera,

and arguments over energy. Here's how Cam offers his, what he calls, two cents. Most Albertans want a clean and safe environment. You have to sell it to them using the language they like and understand. Instead of the just transition, sell it as protecting and ensuring Alberta energy prosperity. I'm bad at acronyms, but you get the idea. Gotta stop red flag language that is easily twisted, even if it's corny. I think we can all agree to that.

Bruce was saying, right, yesterday that maybe the word was wrong, the transition term. Here's a good one. Walter Franchick from Bracebridge, Ontario. And he's right. This has come up a couple of times. I'm writing to correct what I believe is your mistaken pronunciation of, this is what I called it, Minesing, a rural community northeast of Barrie, northwest of Barrie. I've heard you refer to it a couple of times when identifying the home of people who have written to you You call it Mindsing If it's the community to which I think you're referring, the correct pronunciation is

Minising, like Ministrone, or Minister The first I is soft, always a pleasure to hear your fine work Minising Minising, Ontario Soft, always a pleasure to hear your fine work. Menacing. Menacing, Ontario. Tim Drowan from Hamilton, Ontario. I'm surprised that you have not done a show on the bridge, on the shooting in Nova Scotia of 22 innocent people, including one RCMP. A fellow Hamiltonian, Paul Palancho, and I know Paul,

has written a book about the shooting entitled 22 Murders. He would be an excellent guest on your show. You're right. I mean, we've mentioned this incident, murder, a few times, but never in detail. And you're right, Paul's never been on the program. But let me think about how we might work. We might consider that.

Melanie Wambolt. Melanie's from Halifax. And this, too, is on the hockey thing. Because I said, you know, I have a hard time watching junior hockey after the various things, not just one incident, that we've heard about from Hockey Canada. The admissions and the basic resignations or firings, call it whatever you want, of all the board of directors of Hockey Canada.

Anyway, Melanie writes, I can only watch and support women's hockey now. I cannot imagine women and girls supporting a culture of superiority and acceptance of abuse like men, unfortunately, all too commonly seem to have done. Janet Molnar in Victoria. If I hear one more political commentator say, with skyrocketing interest rates, well, maybe not. But I will implore Peter to say something about this.

So whenever I hear this phrase, I think back to the early 1980s when interest rates were really high, at least 18% for a mortgage. So let's keep this in perspective. In 1982, my husband and I purchased a five-year-old home in a nice neighborhood in a small town in Alberta. The interest rate at that time were 18% to 20%. We were so happy to be able to take over the existing mortgage of the seller at 14%.

So please, let's not talk about skyrocketing interest rates, just increasing interest rates. And let's wait and see. Yeah, I think that's a good point. We've made it a couple of times. We certainly talked about those early 80s interest rates more than a few times. I remember them well. I had a bargain at 12%, I thought. And until the mortgage company went into receivership, that created a bit of a mess. Caroline MacArthur in Madeira Park, BC. I'm wondering if you would consider tackling the topic of bullying

and berating that we see in our House of Commons. Bad behavior in the House has been happening since I can remember, and I'm now 70. I think this is unacceptable, leftover from the British Parliament, and it needs to be stopped. Actually, Carol then wrote back a little later saying, you know, why don't they hire a monitor with a gong and every time somebody steps out of line,

the lights flash and the gong goes off in Parliament. It's probably not a bad idea. There were more than a few letters about this issue of management consultants and how much money the government spends on them. A couple of quick notes. Mark Russell writes, why does government rely on management consultants? Consultants are hired for several reasons, but achieving results is rarely the outcome, and more often consultants become the barrier to innovation, improving processes, or the related system supporting government service delivery?

Now, Mark, I think you can appreciate a comment like that. Would we meet with some blowback from those who believe that consultants play an important role, but at a time when the amount of money that consultants have been paid by governments is coming out, people are wondering. So I hear your concerns, and I think they should be answered. Tom Smith writes, I'm not sure exactly what is commonly considered a consultant, but I can tell you that during the Harper years, far, far more than several million dollars per year was spent on consultants. I myself worked at an ad agency at the time,

and just that one agency, and the federal government retains many agencies, had multi-million dollar annual contracts. True, I'm not sure ad agencies fall into the same category as consultants, but I hear your point. And, you know, people get concerned when they know that there's a huge bureaucracy supporting government, public servants, many of them brilliant young people who've chosen to dedicate their lives inside the public service rather than the private sector. And the questions are raised about why do you need more?

Why do you need outside agencies to do the work that you thought your public servants were going to do? Jeff Ewell in Toronto. He's on this issue of life expectancy, how long we expect to live. And he wants to remind people that, in fact, we've made great leaps in the length of time people live. From infant to corpse, we have far superior care

than the generations before. Childhood vaccinations, COVID vaccination within 18 months of the emergence of the virus, antibiotics, improved living standards, lower poverty rates, and a near endless list of advances in medicine and treatments. It all adds up to support a perspective where 82 years old is now an early departure point. This is truly amazing and I'm very thankful for the resources in place in Canada that support this reality. Here's our last letter of the day. Comes from, well, from somebody we've, as I said, a lot of letters this week from people who've never written before,

whether it was about Lost Horizons or whatever it might have been about. Excuse me. Adrienne Hill, who we have heard of before. Adrienne's got a good letter here. From Crystal Beach. It's in Ottawa. So, Peter, my parents and older brother left London and immigrated to Canada, something you know about.

Yeah, exactly what I did. Our family are nobodies. We were poor. No connections, no inns, no references, nothing. And yet all I needed was my school marks and LSAT score to gain admittance to one of the very best law schools in the English-speaking world. Same for my older brother, going to McGill to become an accountant, and my younger brother into the University of Toronto Medicine, where he was a gold medalist. As a lawyer, I paid up to 63% income tax back in the 1980s.

As an old retired guy, I still pay 35% on the income from my savings. And I've never once begrudged a penny I've had to pay. This country gave my brothers and me opportunities we could never have enjoyed anywhere else in the world. Thanks, Adrian. Important words. I've said this before, and I know many of you believe it too. We're a great country. We enjoy debate and discussion about public policy and the way we're governed,

and it's important that we do. That's what democracy is all about. But every once in a while, we need to remind ourselves of how good we have it. How much better we have it than so many other places in the world. And we do. We do.

All right. That's it for this day. Tomorrow, Friday, Good Talk, Chantel Iber, Bruce Anderson. I'm sure we'll find something to discuss because we always do. I'm looking forward to it. Remember, it's available on SiriusXM, on your podcast platform, and also on our YouTube channel. So that's it for this day.

I'm Peter Mansbridge. Thanks so much for listening. Talk to you again in 24 hours.