The Bridge with Peter Mansbridge - A New Brain Drain -- And It's In Reverse

Episode Date: April 21, 2025

There was a time when Canada lost the best and the brightest in a "brain drain" to the United States. Is the reverse beginning to happen now?

And hello there, Peter Mansbridge here. You're just moments away from the latest episode of The Bridge. It's Monday. That means Janis Stein will be along. Among the things she's talking about, the brain drain. It's on a reverse. It's coming this way. We'll talk about that. Coming right up. And a little there. Yes, it's Monday and that means Dr. Janice Stein from the Monk School at the University of Toronto wants to talk about with her today, whether it's Russia, Ukraine, Iran, the United States, and a brain drain that's heading this way. We'll get to Dr. Stein in just a few minutes' time, but a couple of things to clear up.

First of all, we note with sadness the passing of the Pope, Pope Francis. I was there in Rome when he was elected as the new pope. And it was great hope given his origins, given his passion as a progressive, caring about immigrants, caring about the poor. He was still a bit of a surprise when he was voted as the new pope in the conclave at that time. But the night before, some of us had bumped into Francis, as he became known as Pope, on the streets of Rome. And as I said, at that point the night before,

nobody was really thinking he was likely to be the candidate that the conclave surrounded. But he clearly knew because he said to this group, the bump of Canadians, that bumped into him on the street, pray for me. I guess we should have taken that as a Street, pray for me. I guess we should have taken that as a clear indication of what was about to happen. Anyway, he is gone now and the process will begin for the world's Catholics and Canada's Catholics to see who will be leading them into the future. Challenging time for Catholics in Canada and Catholics around the world. Who will they pick? Where will that person come from? And what will their beliefs be? All that's going to unfold over the next few weeks. So sympathies and condolences to Catholics and to those non-Catholics who were fans of

Pope Francis and a lot of the good work that he did. The other issue that we always deal with on Mondays is to give you a hint as to what to expect for your turn on Thursday. Now we're in the week before an election. We've dealt with the election week after week over these past four or five weeks, and you've had lots of great comments. So we'll stick with that this week, but with a different angle. I don't want to hear who you're voting for. I don't want to hear any names. I don't want to hear, you know, Carney's this, Poliev's that, etc., etc. But I want to take a different tack for this final your turn before the election. So this is, this is what we're kind of looking for. How did you decide to vote in this election?

Not who you voted for, but was your decision based on party? Was it based on the candidates in your riding? Was there a particular policy that was key to where your vote is like little land and what was that policy or issue? Was it difficult to decide? You know, was your process of deciding any different in this election than how you decided in the past? Okay, so there are a lot of options there, right?

Not just one. You can pick one of those and give me your answer. So think about it. I'll run through them here again. How did you decide to vote in this election? Was it based on the party or was it on the candidates in your riding? Was there any particular policy that was key? Was it difficult to decide where your vote would land? Was your process of deciding any different in this election than how you decided in the past? So there are lots of options there for you. Pick one, pick two,

but don't forget you've got to fit it in a 75 word bucket. Not 76 words, not 77, 75 or less. And some of the most effective answers are usually you know 10 or less but there you go that's the major condition now there are others you have to have your answer in before 6 p.m. Eastern Time this Wednesday okay so you got a couple of days for this you You send it to the Mansbridge podcast at gmail.com. The Mansbridge podcast at gmail.com. Include your name, your full name and the location you're writing from. Those are all important. You've got to tick every one of those off. If you don't, you're not getting on. Okay. So let's hear what you have to say on that issue. And once again,

you've been fantastic during the selection campaign. It's helped us understand what's going on in the country. And it's still, you know, we're a week away. It's not decided yet. So keep that in mind. All right, there we go. Time for Dr. Janice Stein from the Munk School University of Toronto. I think you're going to find this program interesting. There are three topics. They're all good, they're all smart, they're all ones where we are constantly grappling with about the Middle East, about Ukraine, but also about the brain drain. You're going to find this interesting.

And Dr. Stein is the person to talk to about it. OK, let's get going. Stein is the person to talk to you about it. Okay. Let's get going. This week's conversation with Dr. Janice Stein. So Janice, I want to start off on, on the Ukraine situation because I've, I guess in some ways I've given up trying to understand what Putin's really doing and for that matter, what Zelensky's

doing and what Trump's doing on this story. Trump had said, you know, it'll only take me 24 hours to solve this. I mean, we all knew that was bluster, but we did assume that something was going to happen. But it doesn't look like anything's happening. What's your read on it? You're absolutely right, because Trump has not been able to get a 30-day ceasefire, which is not climbing Mount Everest to get a 30-day ceasefire, but he hasn't been able to get it.

So if we start with Putin in Moscow, I think Putin smells weakness. Trump's Trump label reversed, right? When Trump smells weakness, he goes for it. I think the shoe is on the other foot now. It's apparent to him that Trump wants this, that he probably wants it too much. And I think Trump feels that if he sticks to what for him are core ideological commitments, that he wants the control of those four occupied provinces and Crimea. And then he goes further again and again and says a change in government in Ukraine. He doesn't say this directly, but he says it 19 different ways that he can outlast Trump in this. And if you just for a second,

look at the last thing Trump did, which is, well, if they're not serious and there's some awful stupid people that don't want this, ceasefire. We use words like that, fools. Well, you know, if we can't get this done, we'll just move on. Well, who benefits if Trump moves on?

Putin thinks he does because if he moves on, the asymmetry between Russia and Ukraine is so obvious. And if moving on means cutting back on what the United States currently doing for Ukraine, that's a win for Putin. So in a sense, this is a great example of how Trump frankly has messed up the diplomacy. of how Trump frankly has messed up the diplomacy. If you want people to come to the table, you don't send a signal that you're leaving if they don't. What is actually happening on the support front between the US and Ukraine at the moment? A lot.

After that terrible interview with Zelensky in the White House, Trump cut off all military assistance. And what we now know, again, from a series that was some phenomenal investigative journalists, really outstanding, who spent a year interviewing generals and soldiers on the front line. What we now know, Peter, is that the military intelligence that the United States is providing on a daily basis with people at the combined headquarters in Germany is absolutely fundamental. They are providing targeting information. at the combined headquarters in Germany

is absolutely fundamental. They are providing targeting information. So the information comes in to the base in Germany, it goes right down to the commander level in the Ukrainian army. They give them coordinates of Russian targets. That's as close to having your finger on the trigger without having your finger on the trigger. And no European country has those kinds of assets, much less Ukraine. And when they cut off that military intelligence for that brief period,

after that interview, that was a period when Russia was able to move forward more quickly than it had been literally in two years. Is that all satellite intelligence? It's all satellite intelligence. It's all satellite intelligence because the United States has satellite coverage round the clock. It's an overlapping layer of satellites. So as one satellite moves off, the next one moves in, you have 24-7 coverage of the battlefield and really high resolution satellite. So they will send to Ukrainian commander, there was a platoon of Russian soldiers that are obscured by the

foliage, but here's where they are, here's their coordinates. That level of detail. When we were kids, they used to say, oh, the Americans can read a satellite from space, or read a license plate from space. Well, it turned out that was hogwash. But it sounds like today it's pretty close to that. It is close to that. It is. You know, I wouldn't, I mean, I haven't seen what the US military satellites, but we've seen now what the open satellites can do because there's so much, you know, these are private companies that share their satellite coverage. It's amazing. I wouldn't be one bit surprised if you could read a license plate from space. But that's what they're doing. And they cut that off in any way that is absolutely debilitating

for the Ukrainian army. What about other types of military, the hardware, you know, artillery shells, et cetera, et cetera, drones. All of that. Is that all still moving in? That's all still moving in, but there's a big but here. That is all part of that package that the Biden team pushed through just before they left office.

There has been no movement in Congress on the next package of military assistance for Ukraine. There's no package ready to go. So there could be a gap there, artillery shells, and it's not only artillery shells, it's anti-aircraft missiles, Patriot missiles, a few of them just below that. That's the other unique American asset, which is the capacity to help the Ukrainians defend their cities against the onslaught of Russian drones and missiles that have come despite the 30 day ceasefire.

And by the way, despite that Easter ceasefire that Putin just unilaterally announced. So. Go ahead. You know, I don't know when I heard that statement, if there's enough ambiguity in it, yeah, go ahead. You know, I don't know when I heard that statement, if there's enough ambiguity in it, Peter, I just want to make this point. If people, if there are fools

who do not understand the ceasefire, the advantage of a ceasefire, well, if you're Zelensky, you're very worried, but possibly if you're Putin, you're just a little bit worried when you hear that. And that's why we got that announcement of the 30-hour ceasefire for Easter. You know, I had to almost laugh a little bit watching the debate last Thursday night when the issue of aid to Ukraine, if the Americans pulled back completely, what would Canada do?

Ukraine if the Americans pull back completely, what would Canada do? Um, I mean, let's face it, there's nothing we could do to fill that gap. But I suppose along with European nations, we could do something to help fill that gap. But how far even could that go into filling the gap the Americans are providing? We can't do anything on our own here. You know, our socks are needed, but how far could the broad coalition of Ukrainian supporters go?

So I think the Europeans could do much more now on artillery shots. I think they could do more and Britain and France are key here. These are the two key suppliers on longer range missiles, which just crossed the Ukrainian border. You know, they're not like attack them, but they're almost, they can be, they're almost as long range as attack them. Those missiles that the Biden administration authorized to attack Russian bases just over the border when Russian troops were massing.

So they, the Europeans can do a lot and they are gearing up to manufacture more. But that'll be two years, three years to keep the supply of artillery shells coming. So they can do a lot Peter, but they can't do it all for sure. And they can't provide, I would say bottom line, what has been most valuable is that tactical military intelligence, which is coming 24 hours a day.

You know, it's a really interesting argument, uh, which will probably happen after all of this is over. What makes you a combatant? Do you have to have forces on the ground? Or if you're providing this level of, this is targeting information. Detailed targeting information. Right. Detailed targeting information. Let me ask you, just before we leave Ukraine, let me ask you a logistical question. I mean, when we talk about sending all this stuff to Ukraine, whether it's artillery shells or missiles or what have you, how do we get them in there? It's not like we're flying stuff in.

No, and that's a really, that's a really, really interesting story too, because it shows you where deterrents has helped in all of this. Right? Anyway, we don't talk about that. So it gets flown to Poland, to Romania, the ones that are perfectly safe, really, to Ukraine. It then gets put on trains to the border or on trucks and it gets driven over the border and gone. It gets transferred to Ukrainian trucks and it gets driven over the border. The Russians know that, right? There's no mystery here. You can't hide that. So if Putin were truly confident that NATO would not come to each other, that NATO members would not come to each other's defense, if a Polish convoy or a Czech convoy were attacked,

he would do it. So we've talked a lot about how Putin's nuclear threats have deterred the United States above a certain level, but it's equally true that that rock solid statement and attack on any NATO member on their territory would mean an attack against all of us. And that's Article 5 territory where collective self-defense has actually deterred Putin. Yeah, but see, what I don't understand is once those convoys cross the border into Ukraine from Poland or from wherever. Why isn't it open season for the Russian targeting of those convoys then?

I mean, there's only so many ways that they can get the stuff into the bases they need to man. That's a really good question. And so the real question is who's driving those trucks, Peter? How much risk are you gonna take? Who's driving those trucks, Peter? How much risk are you going to take? Who's driving those trucks? Are you going to get non-Ukrainian, NATO member countries providing the driver and the protection for those trucks? Do you want to cause that kind of incident? And every single time there's been a Russian missile

accidentally, and it really is accidentally, hit one of those convoys on the other side of the border, there's been howls of outrage from NATO members. So this is all about risk tolerance. And what Putin is really showing us, he's not willing to run any risk of attacking personnel, equipment, anything of NATO members, much less doing that on NATO territory. That's a good news story for NATO, if Trump would only understand it. Okay. I want to move to another story,

but in that part of the world, not far from there, and that's the whole situation with Iran. You know, a couple of weeks ago, you kind of hinted to us as we were talking that there was something going on, there's something happening in terms of Iran, US, Israel. Well, it turns out you were as you so often are, exactly right. A great piece in the New York Times over the weekend. The details exactly the lead up to these talks

that we talked about last week that are going on between the US and Iran about Iran's nuclear future really and the Americans adamant that they cannot be allowed to build a nuclear weapon. Well, what turns out to have happened in fact is that Israel wanted to attack Iran and was adamant about going through with it, but they knew they would need American assistance. And when you read through this report in the New York Times, it appears Israel was operating under the assumption that in fact the Americans, Trump, would give them that assistance and more than just sort of saying it's okay, go ahead, but more than that even. What happened when you read this piece,

clearly somebody got cold feet and it wasn't the Israelis. No, it's an astonishing story, Peter, and when that equipment was moved, it was done under the umbrella of we're pre-positioning done under the umbrella of we're pre-positioning, you know, stealth bombers with that are capable of delivering 30,000 pound bombs. That is the largest bomb in the American arsenal. And what it does is bust through bunkers. But that was said, we're moving that into the region because we're engaged in this air campaign against TUTIS. Well, that's what, when I saw that, I thought that doesn't make sense.

That's a level of sophistication plus another aircraft carrier. So General Corilla, who has been back and forth in the region, is retiring in three or four months, has really built a relationship of trust with the RDF. And Netanyahu, let's come back to this, all comes back to him. Netanyahu has wanted to go after Iranian enriched uranium. This is what it is. It's highly enriched uranium that is buried deep beneath the

ground in many sites across Iran, plus their centrifuges. They have advanced centrifuges that are enriching at very high levels. That planning got fairly far advanced, as you just said. And one of the things that really struck me when I was reading the article, we all remember when Netanyahu got this second visit to the White House. That was after the United States imposed 17% sanctions on Israel. And everybody said, oh, well, he's coming to negotiate over the sanctions. No, he wasn't. He called and Trump said, I'm not talking to you on the phone about Iranian plans. You come to Washington. And that's when he told him, no, we're shutting it

down. I want a deal if it's possible to get a deal. That's what stopped it. Now, as usual in the Trump White House, a group around that supported the use of military force, but a group that was very concerned about Tulsi Gabbard, the new director of national intelligence, Suzy Wiles, his chief of staff. And I have to ask myself, she must be going on instinct, Suzy Wiles, because she doesn't have a background that would allow her to make a judgment about that, really. On the other side of it, Marco Rubio, the Secretary of State, Mike Walz, the head of the National Security Council. But this was closer than I think anybody else understood. And it's

because there's this window in the Danielle's terms. Their air defenses have not been replaced because the Russians can't do it yet. And they are vulnerable to an attack. Now how many to an attack. Now Khamenei understands that and that's why he finally loosened up and authorized these indirect talks. So that's the context here in which these talks are now taking place. Two months says Trump, if we get a deal that's great, that's what I want, but if we don't get a deal, there's a military option looking in the background. Now, if I were doing the strategy, which I'm not because I don't believe there's any military solution

to the Iranian nuclear program, I think it would fail. But if I were doing it, I would set it up this way. So if somebody knew, I would set it up this way. So if Khamenei knew I would leak the information about these talks with Israel, so that when Khamenei has to make some really hard decisions now, it's against the background in which he knows there's serious consideration of war. But they didn't do it that way. I can tell you that. Give me chaos there. You mentioned one thing that is in this article in the New York Times that

struck me as odd. And it's that point where Netanyahu phoned Trump and said, you've got to support me. You've got to support me on this. We're ready to go. And Trump says, I'm not going to talk to you about this on the phone. You've got to come over here. I'm going, this is 2025. Is he really concerned that somebody's listening

on his phone call? No, no, no. No, these, they have, unless he was talking, you know, you never know with him, he could have been on a line that wasn't completely secure. He could have been on his golf cart. I mean, that's the only way that things really make any sense because they have secure rooms and their communications are completely secure. You know, there was something, so unless he was somewhere where he shouldn't have taken that call, and who knows where that call took place, this makes no sense. But if you remember back to that meeting, there's Netanyahu

sitting next to him, and all of a sudden Trump says says, Whoa, we're, we're, we're still open. He talks with Iran on its nuclear program this Saturday. And that was one uncomfortable looking prime minister. He probably found out about it a few minutes before that meeting. And you could see the unhappiness on his face. It was, again, it was a moment where everybody could see the distance between Trump and Netanyahu in public. You just had to read their body language. Did Trump orchestrate that? Who knows? Well, everybody better understand that if in fact,

it comes down to an attack, an Israel, US attack on Iranian nuclear facilities, this isn't like taking out some terrorist leader in an apartment building in Tehran. This is a big deal. This is basically bombing a mountain with these 30,000 pound bombs to get deep enough to destroy the underground facilities.

And you know, that's why in some ways I found the article so disturbing. It's not one now. It's at least two where the centrifuges are buried deep underground. But in addition to that, just think about this, there is uranium that is enriched to 60%, which is high radioactive content

that is buried in sites around the country. This would be an all declaration of war against Iran. There's no question about it. And even those who, let's just, again, even those who are most strongly in support of this, says it would buy a year. A year. Because nuclear know-how is in people's heads. And there's a very educated and advanced scientific community in Iran. They have been working with nuclear technology now for 25 years. That doesn't go away, Peter. So I, as I just said, I cannot see any rationale for a bombing campaign backed up by commandos, which was the original plan that could actually go in on the ground and

get underground and destroy these facilities. I think that is just an enormous risk and I think ultimately it would fail. But the Middle East would go up in flames. It would go up in flames. What does this story and to a degree some of this Ukraine, Russia stuff, tell us on what we're learning that is happening in the background, but especially this Iran story, Israel, US. What does this tell us about the fact that so much stuff is getting out of, you know,

is being leaked, is getting out. I mean, the New York Times, you got to look at this piece folks. It's long, it's detailed, there's a lot of stuff in it. And they had a half a dozen of their top reporters working on it. This wasn't something one person stumbled over in the middle of the night.

There's a lot of detail here. What does it say about how leaky things are in the Pentagon and the state department in the White House? You know, it's an amazing article, Peter, and I looked at who the reporters were, because how did this stuff get out? So one, you know, very well, Maggie Haberman, she has been very well, Maggie Haberman, she has been in, she spent now what, nine years around Trump and has just incredible sources inside. And on the Israeli side is Ronen Bergman, who has broken every big story. He just has two or three reporters like that who have incredible access inside. When a story leaks like this, it's being leaked though. It's being leaked and it's being leaked by people

who wanna make sure this does not happen. That's really what it is. So there's somebody around Trump who's actually supportive of the president's position here because he stopped it. And Susie Wallace, who's very powerful in that White House, didn't want it. Somebody in that inner circle, meet this.

And I think very much is the Israeli military, most of them do not want this, do not want to do this, do not believe that it would succeed. And that's where Berman sources are. So you put those two people on the story. Anybody who was watching this over these last two, three weeks, you knew something was up, but you didn't know what it was. And these reporters, Eric Schmelz, a really, really good reporter on national security issues. You did, but they, but people leaked on anything nuclear in the Middle East. Peter, you don't, it's not that you have good sources.

Somebody has to be motivated to live. So at the end of the day, did Trump do the right thing here? Yeah. Well, he did the right thing. Yes. From my perspective, absolutely. But it's what he does the next day. That's going to matter.

It's the execution of this. This is okay. I'm it. So let's just spend one more second on this. See Wyckoff, who's the opener, right? Richard Torch, real estate agent, he opens the door, says, all we have to do is make sure you don't have a nuclear weapon. But you get, you have, so you have to bring down your rich, enrichment levels to what it was under the Obama agreement,

which Trump says was the worst deal ever in history. And you're gonna have to export those stockpiles of enriched uranium. That's what was in the original deal that Trump walked away from. Well, of course, a slew of criticism from the Hawks. Within 36 hours, Trump undercut him and said, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, that means they have to give up their nuclear program completely. And we have to do something

but the missiles. Well, that's a no-go for Iran. Now we had a meeting, we had a meeting in Rome, just to round out the story, we had a meeting in Rome which went well because it was just about, frankly, in plain English, go back to the deal. With a little bit here and a little bit there, but go back to the deal that you walked away from, sir. That's what was actually talked about. And the Sultan of Oman, because this is being mediated by Oman, he's what was actually talked about. And the Sultan of Oman, because this is being mediated by Oman, he's on his way to Moscow to talk to Putin.

So if that doesn't connect up all the threads we've been talking about this morning. We're gonna take our break. We got one other topic to talk about and we'll do that right after this And welcome back Peter Mansbridge here along with dr. Janice Stein It's our Monday episode and we're talking a variety of different international stories and about to be a

domestic one here in a moment. But first, let me remind you, you're listening on SiriusXM, Channel 167, Canada Talks are on your favourite podcast platform. Janice, of course, is the director of the Monk School at the University of Toronto, a world-recognized school of dealing with international affairs, foreign affairs, bringing students with great teachers to the forefront of understanding international politics and international affairs and the developments, the kind of things we talk about every Monday with Janice. Um, over the weekend, I don't know how many of you subscribe to air mail,

but it's an online magazine based out of New York. Graydon Carter is the publisher Canadian. Um, but who's made his mark in the, in the U S for years now. Um, he has a piece in air mail this weekend that talks glowingly of Janus, as we all do. But it's about the monk school and the fact that in the last couple of months it's suddenly attracting some absolute top notch new professors, new teachers, new people who are trying to influence the minds and the thoughts and the ideas of the students of the future who will be guiding who knows which country and where on things international. What is happening that suddenly these people, I can guess, but

you tell me Janice, why these people are saying, are picking up the phone and calling you and saying, I'm ready to come to Toronto. So in a particular case, two of the four that we've attracted, but that started, because these take time, these kinds of senior recruitments, they're complicated, they're not easy to do, started before Trump was elected, but he was on the horizon.

The others, at post-Trump, and I think there's no, The others are at post Trump. And I think there's no, and my phone is ringing off, Peter, frankly, and from some of the best universities in North America. As they look really at two big things that are really worrying them. One is the general apprehension

an increasingly authoritarian style of government. That's the politest way I can say this, but there are students, there's these universities have students whose visas are being pulled back and the university's notified at night and the university's notified in the morning and if they don't remove those students from their premises, these universities are liable. Well, I haven't met a colleague yet who's okay with that, frankly, regardless of their politics. They're just not okay with that and And they're not okay with the lack of due process. And they're not okay with being complicit in actually doing this. And so that's a big

part of it. I think the other part of this is this unprecedented sustained attack on the research infrastructure of the big research universities. You know, it's a hundred year tradition of research, which really took the United States. The United States had colleges, but took the United States into the stratosphere in higher education. The United States has by far the best higher education system in the world. You know, China has three or four universities and then there's Cambridge and there's Oxford and there's a few in Europe, but all over, and we have one in Canada that gets into that group.

But by far, these are the great universities because of the research that they do and the commitment to free and independent inquiry. You look at what's going on at Harvard right now at the university where Trump froze $2.2 billion. And what's really stunning about it is, first of all, it was messy like everything else that Trump does. The letter doing that with a whole set of outrageous demands

wasn't supposed to be sent, but somebody sent it anyway. Well, okay, keep going, right? Every single story has this sloppy, sloppy, messy execution. And it kills you in the end, messy execution. But beyond that, there was no process. Usually there's a consequence, a fine, a lack of accreditation. You make some charges, there's an investigation,

there's some process, and then there's a result. That's what the rule of law is all about. That's not what's going on here. There's no process. It's going to come back. This is going to haunt the United States. First of all, this is the worst own goal you could imagine. If you think about the huge lead the United States has in commercializing advanced technologies, it comes out of this 100 year tradition. But beyond that, Peter, so what's the rule of law? Investors globally are looking at this

and they're saying, come on, without the rule of law, if you can do this to universities, if you can turn around to the chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank and say, you're fired or I want you out as soon as possible, that's just code for the rule of law is not working in the United States. And ultimately foreign investors are going to turn away from the United States if this keeps up. I'm just trying to understand the degree to which this happened. I mean, is happening now. We used to talk about the brain drain to the United States, right? Is this kind of a reverse intellectual brain drain that's happening?

Yeah. Yeah. There's no question that if this goes on at this level of intensity, and you know, there's a great historical precedent for this, Peter, and I'm not drawing a quibble. I mean, I am absolutely clear between Nazi Germany and the United States. We're not there yet. Hopefully never get there. But intellectuals fled because German universities were the German and English universities were the two great centers in the 30s. German intellectuals fled 38, 39, 40. And they changed American higher education. You can trace back to that influence of refugees. That's the beginning of the true period of greatness in American universities. These were the best minds.

There is a brain drain. There's a lot of interest people. So the kind of calls I'm getting are, I don't, I haven't made a decision, but I'm just want to talk to you. Do you have any jobs? So it's exploratory. Let's stay in touch. And could I come as a visitor?

It's those kinds of conversations. You know, I really hope that the next prime minister of this country, whoever it does, makes a big bet on this country in the future and creates a hundred chairs across this country for the very best people who now see Canada as a rule of law country with academic freedom, where they can take their students and take their labs. And we should be going for broke. This is a once in a hundred year opportunity for Canada, if I could do it so could lots of others.

We just need the government funding. We could leapfrog, it was transformative in the United States when it did it. Well, there's no doubt in my mind that you will be making that case to whomever is the winner a week from now. We're going to know their plans and whether or not there's an opportunity for this because clearly, as the way you put it. This is an enormous opportunity for Canada and there seem to be some willing minds on the other side of the border to take advantage of it if it's offered. Janice, we'll talk again next week.

At that point, it'll just be people will be out voting and we're close to knowing what the outcome is going to be. It's going to be interesting. Thanks so much for this. We'll talk again soon. See you next Monday, Election Day. Dr. Janice Stein. Isn't that stuff interesting about the potential for this reverse brain drain?

It's already started, but it just started. But where it could go, the opportunities that exist for whomever the new government is, with people here for the expansion of knowledge and the understanding of what's at stake in our world is better than it is for them at home right now. So we'll see where all this goes. And we'll see it probably fairly quickly. Tomorrow, right here on the bridge, it's smoke mirrors and the truth. Bruce Anderson, Fred DeLorey in for their final time before next week's election.

We'll get a sense from them as to what to expect and what to watch for over these next few days. I like that age-old question. It happens every time in a debate like this or in an election campaign like this. What can we learn from just looking at where the leaders travel to in the final days of a campaign? Are they trying to shore up their vote? Are they trying to expand their vote? Does it signal they're in trouble or not in trouble? We'll have a look and we'll talk to them and ask

them for their sense of where the Liberals and the Conservatives are in these final days of this 2025 election campaign. I'm Peter Mansbridge. Thanks so much for listening today. It's been a treat. As always, if you missed the top of the program, go back and listen to it on your podcast in terms of the question of the week. You've got till Wednesday at 6 p.m. Eastern time to get your answers in. Talk to you again in just under 24 hours.