Front Burner - Wab Kinew takes on separatism and big-tech

Episode Date: June 3, 2026

Manitoba Premier Wab Kinew is planting his federalist flag, wading into the Alberta separatism debate and making the case for a major new nation building project in his province. Today we speak to the former journalist, and first ever First Nations provincial Premier about keeping the country together, the need for stronger tech regulations and Indigenous consultation.For transcripts of Front Burner, please visit: https://www.cbc.ca/radio/frontburner/transcripts

Let's see if Toronto advisors know their group insurance providers. Oh, excuse me. Who has extensive expertise in both traditional group benefits and special risk solutions? Um, Beneva. That's right! Who offers adaptable plans that cater to businesses big or small? Beneva. Correct!

Who gives you access to the latest health trends and... I know it. Beniva. Looks like people are starting to know Beneva pretty well. I knew that too. You're stronger with the right partner, Beneva. This is a CBC podcast. Hey everybody. I'm Jamie Poisson. Today we're talking with the premier of Manitoba, Wab Canoe, a former journalist.

Canoe made history two and a half years ago becoming the first First Nations premier of a Canadian province. And he has been making headlines recently, waiting into the conversation about Alberta separatism, national infrastructure projects, and indigenous consultation. Premier, thank you so much for being with me. It's really great to have you today. Yeah, thanks for having me on your show. So I think I have to start with the issue that's looming over the country right now, separatism. You have often spoken about the need for unity amongst Canada's premiers, especially in the face of trade tensions with the U.S., but that unity is really being stress tested right now over Alberta Premier Daniel Smith's decision to hold a referendum on separation. You are calling for a pause on referendum talks for at least a year, right?

And just how would that solve, you think, the fundamental fractures here? Well, I don't think there should be a referendum at all, just to be very clear. Pulling off for a year or two, I guess, is just a way of phrasing it to try to recognize some of how some people are feeling in Alberta. But no, I love Canada. And somebody's got to stick up for our country. A lot of people will in the coming months. But I think the best thing is if just there was no referendum at all. And we were just focused on Canada and focused on fighting Trump and focused on content.

continuing to be the best country out there. I want to ask you about an exchange between you and the Premier of Alberta last week. So during the closing press conference of the Western Premier's meeting, you kind of jumped in when Premier Smith said that the court was wrong and anti-democratic when it ruled that the government had failed to properly consult first nations around the referendum question. But we want to make sure that we have a very clear understanding of what the duty to consult really means and what it doesn't mean, and I think at the moment there's a lack of clarity on that.

She was saying essentially that the duty to consult should be applied to major projects, not citizen initiative petitions, etc. And you've talked a lot about... Sorry, I'd like to respond. So I think we know that that is not correct. A lot of what you just said there, Premier Smith, specifically... Why was it important for you to speak up in that moment? Well, I love Canada, and I don't want to see campaigns to break it up.

In particular, I don't want to see campaigns to break up Canada that are based on fake news. And that description that you just repeated there is not true. Like, that is not an accurate description of the facts, as I explained in that clip. The court wasn't ruling that the duty to consult should quash the people trying to gather the petitions for the referendum, right? The court ruled that the way the UCP handled the referendum law required them to fill the duty to consult. So separatists are mad right now in Alberta. They should be mad at the UCP for the way they bungled the referendum. Bigger picture, if you're going to try and break up the country, don't do it on false pretenses.

I was watching that exchange just through my computer screen. I wasn't in the room. It felt a bit tense to me. Did it feel that way to you? No. Okay. How come? I just, could you elaborate for me a little bit?

Well, I mean, we had a similar conversation earlier. So Daniel Smith, Premier Smith, would know what I was going to say if she went down that road. Yeah. So I don't know. Coming out of that conference, Premier Smith said that. Rather than lecturing Albertans about what they should and should not do and should believe and should not, and would like to see other premiers, give, as I am, reasons to feel confident in the Western partnership and reason to feel confidence in Canada. And I just, what is your response to essentially the accusation from the Alberta Premier that you're like lecturing Albertans?

Well, I said what I meant and I meant what I said and I encourage people to look at my commentary, which was don't have a referendum. And why don't you, if you're upset with Justin Trudeau, who's no longer the prime minister, why not just take a look at the country and see if we get these pipelines built? There's obviously a ton of focus from the federal government to try to build a pipeline going west. And in Manitoba, we're very interested in building up a pipe to go to the port of Churchill. Both of those things would help Alberta in the future where there's already pipelines currently exporting Alberta energy that go through our province and others. So we are doing a lot right now, and I'd like to see us do more in the future. So, yeah, I think that's a positive message for Alberta.

I want to get to the Port of Churchill in a couple of minutes, but just before we do, BC Premier David Eby reacted to Alberta's recent energy deal with Ottawa, which essentially paved the way for that pipeline that you were talking about to the West Coast. He said that Canada needs to stop rewarding bad behavior. We cannot have bad behavior decide who gets engaged with by the federal government. We need to hold this country together. We need to fight for this country. And that Premier shouldn't get their projects prioritized by threatening to leave the country. If separatists, separatist premiers, others get all of the attention of the federal government.

Do you agree with Premier Eby here? Is Ottawa rewarding bad behavior? I think Ottawa, meaning Mark Carney is what I interpret you're asking about. He's got a tough job right now with what's going on. And I think he's doing a good job given the cards that he's been dealt. Myself, it's not really about Premier Smith and I or Premier Eby and Premier Smith. It's about Albertans and it's about Manitobans and it's about Canadians. And I love this country.

And I think the thing you got to remember is that like the vast, vast majority of Albertans love Canada too and want it to remain part of it. So if anything, I'm just trying to help give voice to what I think is a, a. sizable silent majority in that problem. Yeah, I just, do you think that Alberta, though, is getting special treatment right now? Well, it should. We should all get special treatment based on what we bring to the Confederation. But more than Manitoba, because of their threats to, you know, have this referendum. Do you think their pipeline is being prioritized over, over your projects that you, that you want to push forward? No, I love Albertans. And I love Canadians and I love Manitobans. So I'd positive way is to try to bring people together.

And, you know, if you wanted to talk politics, and I mean like you in the general sense, not you specifically the host of this show, if you want to talk politics, that's a recipe to continue arguing forever. But if you want to build something, we just roll up our sleeves and get to it, that's how you bring people together. Well, let's talk about the project that you're into, which is, as you mentioned, I'm into a lot of the projects for the record, but yeah, we got one in Manitoba that we're Churchill, let's do Churchill, right? It's at the top of your, Fairfrey to say, it's at the top

of your national infrastructure project list. But there are a lot of challenges with this potential project, right? You would need expanded rail systems for heavier freight. You'll need all-season road access. And right now the highways end 300 kilometers away from Churchill. And then there's the port itself, which will also need to be kind of year-round, right? It's only open for about four months a year right now. And given all of these challenges, do you think you've put a lot of backing into our project that, well, I know many people think has a very slim chance of going forward. That's just the haters who have other projects. They're trying to back. There are haters out here. I mean, haters in your province, certainly.

You got to understand, like, everybody who talks to media, like, they have their own secret project in their back pocket. And so they're like, oh, yeah, Churchill never happened. But, you know, this other port or this other project. you know, that's where it's at. It's kind of funny. It is very political. Everyone's jockeying for position. The most serious challenge, like, of the ones you listed, like, the first two would get built as a matter, of course. And the most serious logistical challenge is the ice. But here's what I would say to people, like, on the climate change front, it is very clear that this shipping lane is going to open by the end of the century. And so this shipping lane will be used by the end of the century. in the coming decades. So the question is for us, knowing that, how much economic activity do we want to

pull forward into our time? Or do we want to just kind of wait and let that happen in the future? I think, you know, given what's happening with Trump right now, given what's happening with Alberta's desire to export more energy, I think we should open the shipping lane now. The federal government continuously talks about how they've got like 16 to 20 ice breakers on order that they'll be taking delivery on in the coming years and for the next decade. So let's put some of those to work opening up a shipping lane. It's all good to use icebreakers to patrol the coasts, particularly the northern coast. It's all good to have icebreakers to keep shipping lanes open for places like the Port of Montreal. So why not the Port of Churchill

as well? The Carney government has given this a couple of years to kind of get all of these challenges sorted out here four years, right? If not, I guess the idea is that the port expansion won't go ahead. It took 12 to 13 years. I don't know if it's an ultimatum, to be clear. So, like, I think that's the prime minister's target. And I'm the one who interpreted as we need to do it by 20. Well, just. Yeah, I'm the one who's put that spin on it to be clear. Let's even talk about it as a target, right? It took 12 to 13 years for both the Trans Mountain pipeline and Kitamat to be planned and approved. And just, you know, this is for about four years is what many people would call a completely undoable timeline here. Is this a polite way of Carney telling you this is not at the top of his

national priority list? I don't know. You'd have to ask the prime minister that. Well, I mean, you talked to the prime minister way more than I do. Like, do you think that this is at the top of his national priority list? He keeps mentioning it. It's in the federal budget this year. So it seems like that I can. But it's not, it's notably. not one of the nation building priority projects on the list. Like, do you think they're squarely behind it? I do. I've had a number of CBC journalists try to jost about what's on the list.

And if you ask the feds, they will tell you that nothing's on the list right now. So we're in the running. I think there's maybe 11 projects that are consistently mentioned as nation building projects and nation building strategies. And Churchill is one of them. So we're going to use that window of opportunity to open an economic corridor through the north. So if you wanted to build something fast, what I would suggest is one, you get indigenous nations on board and provide regulatory certainty. So if you had a pipeline that was

entirely within one provincial jurisdiction, as this one might be, that could help provide a regulatory pathway going forward. And then the other thing is you probably want to structure the construction phase in a way, maybe similar to what we did in Manitoba with the Manitoba Minnesota Transmission Project, where we had multiple contractors working at the same time, and there was an incentive structure baited in so that if one contractor finished their length of the transmission project, they could take over and take money off the table, basically, from the other contractors who were moving more slowly. Other countries do things like this. Russia, China, other countries do this.

they decide on a big goal. They put their best minds. They put the biggest, you know, policy heavy weights on to things. And then they get them done. We've been threatened by the most powerful nation in the earth for the past year. And like what's our response to that be to be to just like throw up our hands and say, oh, we don't do difficult things in Canada? I refuse to accept that.

Instead, I think, you know, you should respond to this historic. moment and say it's never been done before, well, now is the time to do it. And there's engineering challenges. Get the engineers ready. There's transportation and logistical challenges. Get the logistics experts in here. You're getting quite a bit of pushback from First Nations groups in your own province, right? Which ones? The Garrison Seti, for example, the Grand Chief of the Northern First Nations advocacy organization, Manitoba. In Manitoba says, any new projects must respect and protect treaty rights. Jerry Daniels, Grand Chief of the Southern Chiefs Organization is concerned about the long-term environmental sustainability of energy projects in the North. Clayton Thomas Mueller, member of the Cree Nation, if these groups oppose the building of pipelines.

They're all working with us, though. The premise of your question is incorrect. They're concerned. They're concerned, right? If they end up opposing. But I didn't hear any criticism of Churchill there. Well, if they're proposing the building of pipelines of North. Northern Manitoba, or a pipeline in Northern Manitoba. No, but what I'm telling you is that the folks that you named, the elected folks in particular, Garrison Sotie and Jerry Daniels are working with us. But if they end up opposing a pipeline project, what happens? Well, it's completely hypothetical because they're working with us. Do you think that they would, that they would, that they will inevitably support one if it goes ahead? They're working with us right now. They're involved in the Manitoba Crown Indigenous Corporation, which is our joint venture.

with indigenous nations to build this project. But do they not have, they have concerns though, right? Current concerns. They might be working with you right now, but they're raising those concerns to you. I'm concerned by your question, to be honest.

You have people who are actively working with us to build this project, and you're trying to characterize them as opposed to it. Okay. I mean, here's sort of a quote from Clayton, Thomas Mueller. We need to mobilize to protest

these carbon-intensive proposals and false climate solutions that Mr. Canoe is proposing. It is also extremely insensitive to be talking about pipelines being built across the permafrost of the North and trade corridors to Churchill at the same time as 21,000 climate refugees from Manitoba have registered as evacuees with the Red Cross. That's from last summer. And so I just, if there is opposition to this. That's an environmental activist, though. The environmental activists are always going to have their sake.

Okay. So just to be clear, you see no. hurdles here to building these pipelines, to building these pipelines when it comes to indigenous opposition? Well, no, I don't think there is indigenous opposition. Okay. I think you're inventing that for the sake of your question. Okay, good. That is good to know. I'm not trying to invent it. Just trying to get some clarity. their group insurance providers. Oh, excuse me.

Who has extensive expertise in both traditional group benefits and special risk solutions? Beneva. That's right. Who offers adaptable plans that cater to businesses big or small? Beneva. Correct. Who gives you access to the latest health trends and... I know it. Beniva.

Looks like people are starting to know Beneva pretty well. I knew that too. You're stronger with the right partner, Beneva. Have you ever wondered how clean the seats on the TTC? I found like chicken bones or like bed bogs. Or why so many Toronto restaurant bathrooms are in dank basements? Sometimes it's the most sketchy things. Like when you go down, it's like, what is this?

I'm Hayden Waters, a reporter and producer on the podcast, This is Toronto. From breaking down Doug Ford's obsession with the island airport. We have to bring Jets in. To being inside an iconic Toronto strip club in its final hours. We go beyond the headlines of the day and get to know Toronto in all its big, beautiful, frustrating, wardy, fascinating glory. So find and follow us.

This is Toronto. wherever you get your podcast. Let's move on to some of your domestic policies. Your government has been making headlines for a couple of different tech policies. And I want to talk to you about the ban on social media and AI chatbots for teens under 16 in Manitoba. This is something that the federal government is seriously considering. And Saskatchewan Premier Scott Moe says that his province studied this, but ultimately decided against it. Part of the argument is that the province has acted, that if the province has acted alone, it would create this kind of patchwork of rules across the country that would not be helpful. And just why did you come to a different

conclusion there? Social media is harming our kids. It's harming our whole society, but kids are most vulnerable because their brains are still developing. And we have the capability to act as a province. And so I think we have the responsibility to take action to protect kids. So, I've spoken to Minister Miller and folks at the federal level. We have a good working relationship. I wish them well. But when you look at anxiety, depression, body image issues, potentially even worse forms of harm to kids,

which I don't need to name, I think everybody knows. And then you weigh that against passing the jurisdictional buck or pointing at we need time. Like, no, we're going to take the time to do it right. But at the same time, we're not going to look for excuses to take action on something that is very, very damaging to young people. And I think we would all agree also damaged our society. Can you tell me more about how you think it's going to work exactly? Like, I've heard you talk about bringing in a commissioner or a regulator whose job would be to get the tech companies to comply with the ban.

And then just how confident are you that a provincial regulator will be listened to? I know Australia is having a heck of a time with this right now. Yeah, I think we're looking at quite a bit of a different approach compared to what Australia is doing. Yes, we're thinking about implementing a commissioner. And the point there is to have the sort of regulatory back and forth that exists in every other sector of the economy. And the big social platforms and AI platforms are, there's a lot of publicly traded companies in there. And publicly traded companies, or they're about to IPO. And publicly traded companies don't like having regulatory or fines hanging over them.

And so I think there would be cooperation just as other companies in the broader economy participate with provincial regulatory. And when you get that back and forth, you might see a conversation, like consider alphabet that owns YouTube. And you could say, well, that's a social platform and it's causing harm. But then the commissioner could come in and say, but, you know, are you willing to create a platform like YouTube player for education, which has no, which currently exists for the record, I'm just giving this an example of something that they could do within the realm of plausibility.

could you create YouTube player for education that has no infinite scroll, that has no auto play, that has no recommendation engine around it? So basically you remove all of the harmful, addictive parts of the technology and you make that safe for kids. And then you have a big publicly traded company that's like, yeah, well, that's relatively straightforward for us to do. It's basically just like providing the version of YouTube that was initially available to the public. and that allows us to avoid nasty stories and fines and regulatory compliance headaches. So I think there's a pretty clear path forward. The provinces regulate contract law. We regulate consumer protection.

And we're bound by what is in the best interests of our children. So all these companies have terms of service agreements. All of these companies engage in business practices. I think we're going to argue that some of these business practices are unfair when they target young people. You've probably heard the stories about Instagram. Pretty soon after preteens join the platform, get exposed to all sorts of wild, wild content that is ultimately harmful to them. And so I think that we'll use those tools to take action on an area that we know is going to be very, very harmful to young people in the future.

So just to be clear, like you're really wanting to focus on changing the behavior of the platforms themselves? No, I want to ban social media. for kids. Yeah, no, I get that. Yeah, but then you also want them to change their own behavior? Yeah. No, I think these social media companies have created a few extraordinarily wealthy men in America at the expense of the rest of our civilization. There is no argument in favor of having social media for kids. So let's start there. Right now, these big tech platforms have no regulation, which was designed with them in mind. The only regulation for the tech industry was designed for Web 1.0, not Web 2.0.

And so let's start in the area where it's completely non-controversial, where we know that there's a harm to children and we need to fix it. And then we'll take it from there. You've also brought a lot of attention to the issue of surveillance and algorithmic pricing, where businesses offer different prices based on consumers' personal data. Manitoba has put legislation forward to try and stop those practices. And I just wonder if you could tell me, more about why you think that this is a priority?

And just do you also have proof that surveillance pricing is actually happening in Manitoba? Well, think of a tech platform that has a carrot in its logo. And you've got your answer. Instacart. I mean, I know that there's lots of research on, well, there's some research that this has been happening in the United States. How about the app where you order a vehicle that has a black icon? Uber, yeah.

But I mean, the data. How about the airlines? I'm with you. The evidence that I've seen is, I've seen some of this, I've seen, I've seen the, the evidence of this in the United States, but, but nothing here. So I'm just, I guess one question I have is, is do you think you may be going out and spending time and energy trying to find a solution to a problem you don't have? No, I'd flip that on its head and I'd say prove to me that the airlines, the ride hailing apps and the grocery delivery services are not engaged in surveillance pricing. Can you prove that? No, but I have no.

seen any evidence that it's happening here in Canada, right? I haven't seen any hard evidence. Well, it is. Well, look at the, look at the airlines. I'm sure you and everyone listening to this have had the experience of getting quoted different fares, right? You could be sitting right next to somebody who paid a different fare on an airline. That is predatory pricing. That's surveillance pricing because they're using the cookies on your device to figure out what to charge you, right? And it has nothing to do with like an open market, you know, free market, find an equilibrium price that demand meets a supply at. This is just an algorithm that's targeting you for your demographic information and is going to charge the maximum price that you're willing

to pay, which is very different from the invisible hand that Adam Smith was talking about. This is, in fact, the invisible tech surveillance economy at work. Yeah, I mean, sorry, just that's really interesting what you're saying there because, you know, my understanding about how the airlines work is just like it's not necessarily an algorithm using all of your data to target you very specifically. It's like if you get closer to the flight, they raise their prices. That can be part of it. Certain seats are different prices.

I'm not saying I like it, but like is that what you're looking to go after? Yeah. And this is extraordinarily popular for the record, too. I'm going to talk to you about crime. You have shared pretty candidly some of your views on crime and public safety last year after the Supreme Court of Canada decided to not impose mandatory minimum prison sentences for possessing child pornography because they prevent judges from individualized sentences based on the facts of the case. For example, one situation put forward could have been that an 18-year-old receives an intimate image of a 17-year-old from a friend. You said about sex offenders, quote, not only should you go to prison for a long, time they should bury you under the prison. You have said that you are bringing down the hammer

on drug dealers and that there should be no mercy for drug dealers. And some people, as you know, especially from the legal community, have taken issue with these comments. A spokesperson for Manitoba's criminal defense lawyer said that you're uttering populist talking points that come from the gut and questioned whether that actually helps society deal with these kind of complex issues. And just are you concerned it all about how comments like that land? No. You want to tell me a bit more about

why? Well, like when I go to the hockey game and I don't agree with the call, I might say something mean about the ref. Right. Is that helpful though? That's life. Say love you. Okay. Do you like what the ref does all the time when you watch sports? No, I don't. Of course that. But, you know, I guess a premier might be in a different position than somebody watching a hockey game.

Yeah. I just, yeah. So on that, I'll give you a, how would- Consider, judges are not elected. Should they be accountable? Now, I'm not interfering with the justice system. I'm not trying to release somebody or lock somebody up who would not otherwise be released or locked up, right?

And in fact, people would laugh at me in the justice system if I try to. to interfere. They wouldn't allow me to do so. Right. So there's no interference going on here. But should a judge hear that the general public is losing confidence at times in the administration of justice in our society? Yes, they should. And I'm a democratically elected representative. And one of my rules is to give voice to how people in my province, my constituency, my country are feeling. And that is perfectly appropriate. in the separation of powers that we have. The judges don't have to like it.

The criminal defense lawyers don't have to like it, but they should be willing to hear critiques of the justice system when we live in a time where the general public is, in many cases, losing confidence in the administration of justice. I know you just said that you don't think that you're interfering, but you also publicly criticized, a judge's decision to grant bail to a driver involved in a fatal crash. Actually, if you go back to my comments around that time, I think you'll find that I was speaking in general.

Okay. You feel like you were saying that the bench, you were kind of coming off of that. You were coming. I mean, I listened to them. You were coming. It really did sound like you were kind of coming out of that decision, the fatal crash decision. But my point holds. You said that judges need to.

No, I don't think it does. If I'm speaking in general, on a specific case, then I'm speaking in general. And it is appropriate for an elected official to give voice without interfering in the justice system to the general public's frustration with what they perceive as not just. But when you, I'm genuinely curious to hear this answer, when you do that, when you say like that the bench needs to make decisions based on the world as it is, right? Doesn't that make sense to you?

Do you worry that, like, a premier publicly kind of lecturing judges undermines public confidence in the independence of the judiciary? They're supposed to be independent. They are. They're completely independent. But don't you think the judges should make decisions for the world as it is? Like, isn't that what justice is? It's a question of ethics applied to the real world? Yeah, I mean, yeah.

So you agree with the point? I think, no, I'm not agreeing. It's not my job to agree. I'm not talking how you agree. Yeah. Which is fine, right? It's okay to say judges should make a decision for the world as it is. And if people are curious about why I might say something like that, I started life on a reserve.

Okay? There is no police detachment on a reserve where I live. The nearest police detachment would be. potentially an hour away, you would have police officers on patrol, great officers who I love talking to and have a good time with. But if a judge were to decide to release someone into their community, does it make sense to apply the same standard as you would in downtown Toronto, where there's going to be police service right around the corner, as you would in northwest in Ontario, where the nearest police station might be an hour away, or half an hour away,

is the case maybe? Does that make sense? I think it does make sense to consider the world as it is and to consider the, and this is all abstract. I'm not talking about anything that actually happened in my community, not at all. My community is in Ontario, in fact. It's not in Manitoba. But I'm just giving you an example of how, yeah, people in the general public are smart. The average Manitoban is smart. The average Canadian is smart.

And if you hear them time and time again saying that they wonder what's going on in the justice system, well, they're probably not completely wrong. probably is something that needs to be examined there. And you know what? The judges and the justices have a very, very important role to play in our society. And in many cases, they are going to be making decisions which are unpopular, but which are right and which are just. It's not a popularity contest. But all I'm doing is giving voice to the fact that, well, on the flip side, there does need to be accountability. And the way the accountability for justice's work in our system is not through votes and not through the public having a say, but it does work by judges having to reflect on the decisions that they arrive at, which can, I think, properly include comment that is being

made in the public, including by elected officials. And if you straw man the argument there, you're free to, but I think people who take that argument in good faith would agree. Can you just tell me a bit more on your views on crime and public safety? Like how would you kind of boil them down and articulate them? What guides them? I think safety is the fundamental responsibility of government in a society. Okay. Have you always thought like that?

Probably have thought about it most clearly since I read that in Tony Blair's recent book and stole it. Oh, okay. Okay. Look, we have gone through a bunch of criticisms today in this interview, but we haven't mentioned that you are pretty popular right now in Manitoba. Your approval rating is something like 60%. It's the highest in the country at the moment. I just, I wonder how you would describe your politics and the kind of politics that you're doing. Well, I just hope that I'm serving the people of Manitoba correctly.

Hope Manitobans feel good about our province. It's a beautiful place. And it's full of wonderful people. It's got a tremendous future. So hopefully people feel like I'm taking their perspective seriously and helping on issues like health care and the economy. A lot of people online would like to see you run for prime minister at some point. Do you want that job?

I want to get reelected in Manitoba. I got an election next year. What about after that? There is no after the next election for politicians. There's only now to the next election. Okay. Well, I didn't hear no. But Premier Canaan, thank you so much for this.

Really appreciate it. Okay. Thanks for having me out. All right. That's all for today. A very big thank you to my colleagues in Manitoba, Ian Frays, and Bartley Kives for their help here. I'm Jamie Poisson.

Talk to you tomorrow. For more CBC Podcasts, go to cbc.ca. I'm going to be the next.