The Bridge with Peter Mansbridge - A Subversion of Democracy - Really?

Episode Date: March 23, 2022

Some critics, mainly Conservatives, say the deal between the NDP and the Liberals is a "subversion of democracy".  Just how well do they know their own country's political history?  Bruce Anderson on that with this week's Smoke, Mirrors and The Truth.  And COVID and masks -- we have the latest debate on that. 

And hello there, Peter Mansbridge here. You are just moments away from the latest episode of The Bridge. It's Wednesday. You know what that means. Cousin Brucey's getting all ready up in Ottawa. Bruce Anderson, Smoke, Mirrors and the Truth is next. Ah, yes. A new day has dawned in Ottawa. No fear of an election. Anytime soon. 2005. They cut a deal. The Liberals and the NDP.

People are still talking about it. I'm not quite sure why. I mean, it's kind of part of the democratic process. The parliamentary process, anyway. People are still talking about it. I'm not quite sure why. I mean, it's kind of part of the democratic process, the parliamentary process anyway. These kind of things, these kind of arrangements happen. Our history is full of them from all parties. In spite of some of the rhetoric you were hearing from the opposition party, the main opposition party, the conservatives who took great affront to all this,

which is interesting seeing as they've cut deals themselves in the past. Remember that secret 2004 deal between Harper, Leighton and Duceppe about parliamentary process and it included a line in that deal, that written deal, I remember Gilles Duceppe waving it in the air from Harper saying he was willing to accept the reins of power, take over the government if Paul Martin, who was the prime minister at the time, lost the confidence of the House. And that's, you know, just one example. There have been lots of examples in our past of

arrangements that have been made that kind of fall short of a coalition government like this one did that falls short of a coalition government there's no ndp in the cabinet so we'll see how it plays out these things are never guaranteed but there does seem a sense that the liberals may well have won the day yesterday with this, because I'm not quite sure what the downside is necessarily for them, but let's get into it. Because Bruce is the judge of all these things. He knows what makes sense and what doesn't make sense and he's sitting up there in ottawa the nation's capital where all the giant political brains reside they've seen it all before

they're bound to see it all again so sir what sir, what do you say? What does all this mean? Well, I think, Peter, this argument that it's somehow a subversion or a corruption of democracy is the stupidest and also a little bit dangerous. It's the stupidest argument to be made against it. It's completely false. It's baseless. But it's also a little bit dangerous. And it's dangerous in the sense that every time a politician says, who knows better, who says, like Patrick Brown said yesterday, he's running for the conservative leadership, that this is a subversion of our democracy, and that the will of Canadians has been subverted. You know, before what happened on January 6, in the United States, we might hear an argument like that and say, well, that's just a weak argument. That's just kind of lousy politics. That's not somebody who's got a better argument to make.

But it's not going to matter because it's such a weak and dumb argument. But now we have to hear it with different ears because we do know that misinformation and disinformation is a huge problem in many societies. And to some degree, it's become a bigger problem in ours. And we saw it in the context of the convoy of the truckers, the anti-vaxxers and all of that. And so when fully grown, fully formed, no better politicians say this is a subversion of democracy, they're playing with fire. I don't know

that it's going to matter to most people. In fact, I don't think it will. I think most people are going to go, that's just a stupid argument if they pay any attention to it at all. But there are going to be some people, the people that Patrick Brown is trying to reach in his campaign to lead the Conservative Party who are going to go, aha, another reason why we can't trust our system of democracy. And Peter, you know, what really happened is that the Liberals said, there's a bunch of things that we want to do. And we'd like not to always be wondering whether or not Parliament's going to fall. So when can we get them done? And where will we go to find the votes to support the bills that we want and the ndp basically said you know what we can support your votes provided you do a couple things that that your your agenda providing you do a couple things

that that we would like you to do too which include dental care and i think the liberals looked at that and said you know what we're not against dental care for people with with lower. We're not against what you're asking us to do. So why don't we agree that we're going to do this? And if we at some point disagree, well, we can cross that bridge when we come to it. I think it was far from a subversion of the will of the people. I think it was maybe one of the best expressions of politicians taking the will of the people, the mandate that they felt that they had, working with another party and saying, let's do stuff that's good for people. And I know there's a lot of people want to do the political math about it and, you know, who will get more votes in the near term or in the medium term or the long term? And, you know, there's no way of really predicting that. So many things that are going to intervene between now and the next election. But I think at a minimum, we can look at it and say, if you're a progressive voter and

you wanted the policies that Justin Trudeau campaigned on, are you going to be offended that dental care is added to that mix? Almost no chance of that, as far as I'm concerned. Are people worried about the fiscal situation? We talked about this last week. Maybe not as much as they could or should be, but we'll look at numbers in the next year or two and see how they're doing. And it'll either become an issue that bed that uh bedevils trudeau or it won't so no not a subversion of democracy an expression of democracy and uh i think a pretty

good day for progressive voters i don't know it's a terrible day for conservative voters either because it gives them a little bit of time to get their stuff together which they seem to need yeah it uh i mean if it true, it gives them three years to be organized and ready for the next election. Okay, I guess there's kind of two ways to look at this. One way is, in some sense, the way you're suggesting, which is ever since the last election, we've heard a lot of thoughtful people say, across the political spectrum, you guys, meaning the men and women of the House of Commons, you guys have got to get your act together. You've got to figure out a way that it's not always firing shots

at each other, that you actually find a way to work together to get certain things accomplished. And we've heard that a lot. You i you hear it you see it in your data i you know i get i get i don't get as much mail as you get data but i get a lot of mail and you see it running through the mail no matter which side people are on so that's one way of looking at it. And those people who were asking for that should be happy. You know, they should be happy that there's at least some attempt here to get things done. The other way of looking at it is, and I have, I've received some of this mail this morning. Oh, the liberals have sold their soul to the NDP. The NDP is going to be running the government.

It's a socialist government now. And these aren't crackpots. These are reasonable people who are saying this. All right? Or at least they feel they're reasonable. So I'm looking at that agreement and I'm trying to figure, well, where exactly is it they've sold their soul? Because, as you suggest, much of this is kind of what was

in their platform not all of it i mean there is stuff the dental care thing is is new and there was some resistance the idea of going down that route uh but it's really this seems like a real time phased study oriented way of getting into dental care if you're going to get into it but aside from the dental care thing is there something in there when you look at that agreement or what we know about it so far that there's a soul selling going on here from either side no i don't see it that way and and i think that i hear that kind of comments every once in a while that you're alluding to peter and and in what they sound like to me is that there are people who've been active in partisan politics and they have a team sweater and if you have a red team

sweater sometimes you're you know you look at that orange team and you, you're pretty frustrated with them. You don't like them. You're unhappy that they, you know, win seats that you feel like you should win or take votes away from the coalition that you're trying to build. And those feelings can run deep. And I know that there are people in parliament on the liberal benches who, as much as they have real problems with the Conservatives, also have real problems with the kind of heckling and the questions that come at them from the NDP benches. But here's the thing, as far as I'm concerned, these are people who are deeply involved in partisan politics, for whom it's kind of an everyday, every hour thought process. That's not most Canadians. Most Canadians look at, I think, just in the run up to

the last election, I remember doing an analysis of what we called the butterfly voters. And the butterfly voter is a voter who's going to consider two or three parties before they make a final choice. And there's a large number of them. And they're not people who kind of go, well, if the NDP have a say in what the government's doing, then all bets are off for me, right? There are people who are like, I don't know, dental care doesn't sound like a terrible idea.

I worried about the fiscal situation, but there's not that much I can do about it. And if I don't want another election, and we all went through that process last year of hearing how many people didn't want an unnecessary election, then let's see how this parliament works. Let's see what happens. And we'll kind of judge it at the end of that process. And I think that's a perfectly reasonable place for most people to be. I think it's only the hyper-partisan types who decide, I have to be against this because there's some cross-pollination of parties that makes me feel that the tribalism of politics that I enjoy or I participate in is kind of threatened, as opposed to the policy ideas that I care about are being

championed or are being undermined in some people's cases. What I didn't hear from conservatives, other than a worry about the fiscal situation, which they would have had about Trudeau anyway, I didn't hear them say,, that it was illegitimate. And I don't buy that argument. And I don't know any reasonable person that does buy that argument. On the other hand, I'm somebody as you are, that cares about climate change. I happen to like these $10 a day childcare deals. I don't need it. But I know lots of people who could really benefit from those. I think both of those things are policy areas where with three more years to have been established, it's going to be hard if the conservatives win the next election to roll back the clock on those. And I think that's a good thing. And I think a lot of progressive voters, a lot of climate concern voters

will see those as being useful accomplishments to come from this deal, if this deal holds, as I expect that it will. You know, on the cost factor and the potential increase in deficits and debt and all that as a result of a deal like this, I can understand that argument. And I think if Conservatives

are trying to get back in that fiscal column that they used to be in before the last election or two, then I get that. And there's some truth to it. I mean, you look at our history, and you can go through the Tommy Douglas years when the Pearson government was in minority in the 60s um you know that to keep the ndp support on social policy that cost money 72 to 74 same thing again with um david lewis as the ndp leader and pierre trudeau as the uh as the NDP leader and Pierre Trudeau as the prime minister and what that cost.

It was probably going to cost something in 79-80 when Joe Clark was prime minister of minority government to keep the NDP's support. But it turned out they never got to that position and were defeated on the first budget. They might have thought of trying to bring the NDP into some conversation at that time to ease that pain. So I get that. What I don't get is there, you know, we talked, I don't know, a month ago or longer along with Chantel about the fact that we didn't think enough of our history, Canadian history and political history was being taught in schools and kids didn't really kind of understand the process

and things that have gone on in our past. Watching some of the politicians yesterday, including, you know, one leader specifically, a couple of leaders actually, they didn't seem to kind of get our history either, or they were conveniently ignoring it. There's a lot of that. This is part of our process. It's not just our process.

I mean, look across the pond. Look at Britain. David Cameron, a conservative, got a guaranteed four-year run at power by getting the support of another party and in a formal coalition and putting them in government. That's just the way the process is possible. If you want to work in that way. If the conservatives were in the same situation, they would try to do the same thing. I don't, you know, I defy somebody to tell me they

wouldn't. I mean, it just doesn't make any sense to me that they wouldn't. Because on the one hand, you know, if you just looked at it from the standpoint of forget about the contents of what the government is trying to do. Ministers have these mandate letters. And you've probably looked at some of them, I've looked at some, there's a lot of stuff in them. They're not written as, here's what you can do in the who knows how much time you have on the clock kind of way. They're written as though there's a four or five year time horizon to accomplish a whole bunch of things. And so ministers will look at these mandate letters and they'll go, yeah, but there could be an election in 16 or 18 months. What am I going to do to prioritize within that? How am I going to try to get that stuff done? So that's an organizational kind of functional

management issue. And if you were the conservatives and you were in the same minority situation, one thing you would do is to say, well, why don't we see if we can't give ministers a little bit more sense of the runway that they have by negotiating some sort of solution with another party so that they're not always worried that they need to get this done right now, as opposed to six months from now, when it might be a little bit better thought out. And so any party in the liberal situation would look for a solution like this. So the only question really is, did they agree to something that was so egregious, and that people will look at and say, well, I just can't believe that they agreed to do that in exchange for this stability.

And I haven't seen anything in the deal that sounds like that. And I haven't heard conservatives say anything about it. They're not, as far as I can tell. They're, you know, they're asked the question, would you do the dental care thing? And I think they're saying, well, you know, people don't really need that. But that's not the same as saying it's the worst idea ever. And the conservatives are certainly capable of saying this is the work of the devil and this is a terrible idea if they think that something's a terrible idea. And I think it's because they're not taking that position because they don't really want to campaign against it. They don't really want to campaign to tear up those child care deals. They don't really, really, really want a campaign to roll back after three years from now

carbon pricing. Why? Because all of the companies that originally said we can't live with this are now getting on with living with it. And so I think the conservatives have been in a policy conundrum. If there's any good news for them in this, it gives them time to work it out. But if what they're going to do is just say, you know what, that's harder work than disinformation. That's harder work than misleading people about how our system works. So we're just going to do the easy disinformation and mislead people. That'd be a disappointment. And that's why I think this leadership campaign is so, so vitally important. Because, you know, I said before, we need a

competitive Conservative Party. And I think, you know, probably, what I really mean is, we need a responsible Conservative Party, first and foremost, one that sort of says the facts are the facts. And all we're going to really try to do is work with the facts and make the best arguments that we have rather than pretend that there is a different set of facts. Speaking of leadership campaigns, what does yesterday do to whatever Justin Trudeau's actually thinking about his own future and I say that knowing that once again yesterday he gave the perfect answer to that question when it was thrown at him you know what are you going to do and he said I'm always going to serve public service for my country you know up to the next election and beyond,

which means nothing in terms of the leadership or the prime ministership. It just means that he's going to be concerned about public service, as we all should be. Nevertheless, you are on record, so am I, so is Chantel, that we don't think he'll ever face another election, that he will have chosen to step down we have a disagreement on timing you've pretty well covered your chips on every possibility how can we disagree since i've picked every possible time yes you have um but i think

what yesterday does do is it ensures that he's you know one of the complaints about past leaders of different parties has been that they didn't leave enough time for the successor to establish themselves in the role as leader or prime minister before an election. This certainly affords him that opportunity. If he plans to leave, he can leave this year, next year, whatever, and still have lots of time for the next leader to establish themselves. Am I looking at that right?

Do we agree on that? I think that this does give Justin Trudeau the breathing space to plan out a graceful finish to his time in national politics I assume that that's what he's going to want to do I mean by the time that this deal expires he will be at 10 years as PM and to run basically, is imagining that you could spend up to 14 or 15 years in that role. And, you know, that just seems unlikely to me. I think that politicians develop enough scar tissue, enough fatigue, too. And it's kind of mutual. Voters get a little fatigued with them, and they get a little fatigued with the job and the business. And maybe they don't see that coming, necessarily, but it does arrive at a point in time.

So I think that he's going to be looking for the right moment and thinking about what he wants to do post-politics. But in the meantime, he doesn't have to worry about whether or not people are going to imagine that he's trying to engineer an election so that he can have another run or worried that, you know, if the liberals fall a few points behind the conservatives in the polls, that maybe there's going to be some restiveness in the caucus, that sort of thing. I think that he's definitely got more breathing space to design

however he wants to approach the next several years of his life, including life post-politics. I think that's right, Peter. For the pretenders who might seek his job, and for the contenders who are already seeking the conservative leadership job, does yesterday change the equation for any of them? Does it work to anybody's advantage or disadvantage? Well, on the liberal side, I thought about this a little bit. I mean, I sort of felt like if by some combination of circumstances, Justin Trudeau decided to leave relatively soon, all the evidence that I can see, and you can't really see concrete evidence of this, is that Chrystia Freeland would win a leadership race. She's really well established as a credible

successor and well liked within the party. I think the other potential names, in many cases, aren't that well known yet, aren't that well established. And so I think that the idea that a leadership race would take place somewhere down the road, you could look at and say, well, maybe that's not great for her if she was more likely to win if it was in the near term, but she's a very competitive and skilled person. And so I don't want to overstate it. I think all it really does mean is that people who might want to run in that race as well and who haven't made up their mind that that's what they want to do or who thought, you know,

maybe I consider it, but in the near term, I'd run and probably lose to Chrystia Freeland. They now have space and time to, pardon me, become better known to think about how they want to approach that if they do want to get into it and to kind of plan it out a little bit more. And so, in a sense, if there's going to be another leadership race, just from the standpoint of what I think makes for a good leadership process, I think a longer timeframe is better, because it offers the opportunity for more candidates to be vigorous competitors in that race, which I think produces generally the we're headed to might be a situation where,

depending on what the Conservatives choose, if they choose Pierre Polyev, which I still think is the odds-on most likely scenario, it's going to be a pretty right-wing sounding party. And the one thing that I didn't hear yesterday as a result of this deal was NDP voters saying, how could we ever align with the liberals? I heard a lot of NDP voters and union leaders and others saying, this is a really great step forward. And it wouldn't shock me if at some point, the scariness of the right to people on the center left and left makes people rethink whether or not having two parties on the left effectively is a luxury that can't be afforded. I think part of what's going on is we're looking at the US and we're saying the right is becoming kind of scary.

It doesn't seem to hew to the same principles around fact and information and democracy that we always believed in. And you can't even count on it to take the right positions on geopolitical issues like the Ukraine-Russia war. If that's true, and that becomes more evident in Canada because the Conservatives are led by somebody who sounds like that in Pierre Poliev, then it wouldn't shock me if at some point people started talking about the Liberals and the NDP running as one party. Now, I don't know that that happens in the near term, but it kind of feels like we may be headed for that in the medium and longer term. um i saw my friend scott bryson today was tweeting about uniting the center and and saying you know canada lots of canadians crave that solution and i think that's true well that's history right about canada yeah basically they're always looking for the center and so are the

the main parties trying to find the center to attract that center vote. But he was making that point as a way of saying, you know, we shouldn't go down this road, I think, of a liberal NDP future, uniting the left, if you like. We should unite conservatives and liberals on the center. And I think the problem is that there's only one dance partner who's up for that conversation of the conservative and liberals, probably the Liberal Party. The conservatives, including Jean Charest, to some degree, who said, I'm not running as a red Tory. He says, built to win. But basically basically the conservative party doesn't look like it wants to unite the center with the liberal party. It looks like it wants to fight for the right.

So I think that's a very interesting dynamic. I hope, still hope that, that Jean Charest wins. And I hope he changes the party and it becomes more of a party that wants to build a bigger tent, including a lot of voters on the center of the spectrum. The one thing I'd say about backing up on Chrystia Freeland is the longer it goes before there is a race, if there's going to be a race for the liberal leadership, it is, I think, more difficult for her, especially given just the general economic terms i mean the inflation you know rising prices on everything from groceries to gasoline producing the inflation numbers we're seeing um that's not going to put her in a good position she's constantly going to be defending that and the actions of the government uh led by her on the economic front as the finance minister.

So that'll make it challenging. It'll make it interesting. And as you say, it gives the opportunity for other lesser knowns to make their names known. So that could be interesting. Okay. Hey, it's time for a break. And what better thing to come back to than the COVID story, which never goes away.

Right after this. And welcome back. You're listening to Smoke Mirrors and the Truth on The Bridge. Bruce Anderson's in Ottawa. I'm Peter Mansbridge in Toronto. You're listening on Sirius XM, Channel 167, Canada Talks, or on your favorite podcast platform. I know we have tried to duck the COVID story for the last few weeks with hopes that it was

going to duck us, that it was just going away. But there are signals that it may not be going away anytime in the next little while. But there are challenges still ahead. How serious those challenges are is still to be determined. But I saw an interesting tweet in the last couple of days. I don't know this fellow, Steve Flindoll, who's a doctor in Toronto, emergency room doctor.

And Toronto and Ontario in general has moved away from the masking policy not needed anymore in most areas so here's what dr steve says this was i think two or three days ago so doug ford said he's listening to dr mo Moore. Doug Ford, of course, is the premier. Dr. Moore is the chief medical health officer in Ontario. So Doug Ford said he's listening to Dr. Moore. Dr. Moore says he consulted the Ontario Science Table. The Ontario Science Table opposes the lifting of mask mandates at this time.

Who's lying? Personally, I trust the Science Table. Now, I guess that's what's on a lot of people's minds. Who to believe here? Why are they saying what they're saying? And why is there a disagreement at such a high level about masking, which is an issue that goes so far beyond the issue of healthcare.

It strikes to the heart of a lot of people's feelings about this whole topic. How do you answer Dr. Steve? who's lying well i don't think that there's a lie here so much as um you know i was talking with someone who's involved in a lot of the policy areas of try to manage the pandemic from the very first time that it was kind of discovered in Wuhan and then everything that flowed from it. In the course of that conversation, I was reminded just how rapidly new information came to the fore and because people adopted, in most cases, a precautionary principle, we took measures that weren't really necessary.

I don't know about you, Peter, but I remember wiping down bags of groceries that were left on the front stoop of our house. I remember worrying about whether you'd touch a banister in a building that you went into and could get COVID that way. And over time, we learned a lot of the things that we were doing weren't really important in the prevention of the disease. And in the first instance, we also heard that wearing masks wasn't a useful thing. And of course, it turned out it was a useful thing.

Now, where we're at right now, I think goes to two fundamental questions. One is, do you think that on the basis of the evidence that you've seen that the BA2 variant, which I don't know, maybe it's a, I'm not as sciencey as you are, Peter, but maybe it's a sibling of the Omicron, which is a cousin of the delta or whatever i don't really care uh that's very good that's very good you now entered the practice of uh the healthcare professionalism i honestly have tried to change the channel of from the uh parade of sciencey experts telling me what to be worried about next. And I think a lot of people have because they think that once you sort of arrive at a point where you go, I believe that with the measures that I've taken, with the measures that other people have taken, with the evidence that I am consuming about how serious a risk this is, that I can live with this amount of risk and I would rather not spend all my days

and all my hours worrying about it. And I think a lot of people are in that space right now. I think there will be, I don't want to say permanently worried part of the population, but there's going to be at least a million people, according to our surveys, who continue to say, I'm extremely worried about this. That's a big number of people. Now, it's not most people. Most people are saying, I'm less worried. We still have right now, we have 40% who say the worst of this is behind us, and we have 18% who say the worst is still to come. Now, the worst is still to come group includes a lot of people who aren't basing that on

scientific evidence, right? I think we would agree on that. It's a lot of people who are just anticipating that more bad news will happen, or some bad news is being kept from them, or you can never tell, so you should always be more worried than confident. Some combination of those attitudinal effects are in that. And a lot of those people are going to continue to want to wear masks, and they're probably going to continue to want other people to wear masks. So I think there's no, we're at this point

now where the advice of experts is going to be taken with a box of salt, not grains of salt on some of this stuff, unless there's real evidence that hospitalizations and deaths are going up. I think a lot of people are going to listen to stories about anxiety with respect to masking, and they're just going to kind of decide, I'm going to do what I'm going to do. Maybe I'm going to wear a mask because it makes me feel better. Maybe I'm going to not wear a mask because it makes me feel like life is coming back to normal. And we're going to start measuring that on an ongoing basis in the next couple of weeks. But mostly to watch this, what I think is going to be a social phenomena where we watch slowly as people kind of say, look, I've been to a restaurant

where nobody was wearing a mask and it didn't turn into some sort of super spreader event. But there's still a lot of this going on, right? And so there's a lot of people getting infected. The question is, in the same way that Omicron happened, and so many people knew somebody who was infected or were infected themselves, did that make them freak out more? No, in the end, it made them think, oh, it is getting to be more like the flu. It is getting to be because we're vaccinated, something that is more manageable. And I think that's where we are. Well, I'm going to a Leaf game tonight,

and I'm going to be really interested to see. Will you wear your mask all night? Oh, yeah, I will. And I'm not even, quite frankly, I'm not sure whether the arena is one of those places where you have to wear them or you're advised to wear them anyway. Are they allowed to have full capacity?

I know that Leaf fans sometimes buy their tickets, but don't bother going if they don't think that. No, no, no. You cut the teams wrong. That's the Senators. No, the Leaf fans go to the game. Leaf Nation. We are gluttons for punishment.

We're playing again tonight without a goalie. So that's, you know, it's pretty good when you're as confident in your team that you can just go out there. You can pull a goalie before the game. Yeah, exactly. We've been without a goalie now for a while, and it looks like we're going to play the rest of the year without a goalie. And that says something about the makeup of your team,

that you're confident enough to hit the ice. You're going to have somebody in the Nats. You just don't consider that person a quality goaltender. Is that what you're saying? Well, I've gone as far as I'm going to go on this. Let's just say we're playing without a goalie. He'll be looking at you in the stands. You know, because we always deal with politics,

let me tell you this one to understand how short-lived a career in politics can be. Now, the circumstances here are unlike anything, hopefully, that we would ever face here. But the last finance minister in the Afghan government before the Taliban took control a few months ago last summer, where is he today? The finance minister, you know, like the number two in the government. He's driving an Uber in Washington.

That's where he is. Yeah. I did see that. Hoping for a comeback, I'm sure. But that's a big drop. But at least he got out. I suppose that's another story too. Because a lot of people didn't.

And are still trying to. All right. Interesting discussion, good discussion, and of course, and wait until Chantel gets here on Friday and will tell us what we should really think. So it's a good opportunity to get our views out. I got a sneak peek at what she was saying last night. I checked it out because I wanted to make sure I had my head on right.

Chantelle, be by for a good talk with Bruce on Friday. Tomorrow is your turn. And I'm sure you've got some comments. Many of you had. In fact, some really thoughtful letters coming in this week on Ukraine, on the political situation here in Canada, and a few other things. So if you have one, the Mansbridge podcast at gmail.com, the Mansbridge podcast at gmail.com. I'm Peter Mansbridge for Bruce Anderson.

This has been Smoke Mirrors and the Truth on the Bridge. Thanks for listening. Talk to you again in 24 hours.