The Bridge with Peter Mansbridge - Are We Ready for AI?

Episode Date: September 18, 2023

Six months after her first appearance on The Bridge, Michelle Rempel Garner is back with her latest update on Canada's positioning on AI --  artificial intelligence.  Garner, the Conservative MP and former cabinet minister, is part of a multi-party group trying to prepare Canada for AI. One of the issues, should AI be regulated in Canada?  All that plus some good end bits on today's episode!

And hello there, Peter Mansbridge here. You are just moments away from the latest episode of The Bridge. Is Canada ready for the explosion of artificial intelligence? And hello there, Peter Mansbridge here in Stratford, Ontario. And welcome to a new week of The Bridge. And on this Monday, it's a big day, especially in the nation's capital, because Parliament resumes. And there are a lot of front-burner issues going on. Obviously, the housing shortage and the battle of the housing plans is one. The beginning of meetings between the government and the big grocery store chains about grocery store prices,

that starts to take place. With the background of the opposition parties, especially the NDP, having called for this for some time, now the government is actually going to do it. The continuing story of just what's happening inside the Liberal Party and how stable is the leadership of Justin Trudeau. We saw the caucus last week seem to air their grievances. The government through the leadership of the Prime Minister, suggesting they were going to move on certain areas. But how real is all that? And what will happen? Pierre Poliev, well, he's had a great summer.

Can he continue it on into the fall? Jagmeet Singh with the NDP, what's happening there? So a lot of questions as Parliament resumes. But lingering in the background is another issue. And there are questions being raised about just how serious Canada is preparing for the onslaught, which has already clearly started on many different levels, of artificial intelligence. There are fears artificial intelligence could lead to the extinction of the human race.

That's one extreme. The other extreme, if you wish, is just how beneficial artificial intelligence could be to the human race through medical breakthroughs. So with that as a background, we're going to check in today on where we are on AI. Now, six months ago, we talked to, well, a very strong advocate of this issue, and clearly just how well Canada is doing on it, and that's Michelle Rempel-Garner, who's the Conservative MP from Alberta.

Calgary Nose Hill is her riding. She's a frontbencher with the Conservatives. She's a former Cabinet Minister in the government of Stephen Harper. She's never been shy about her opinions, whether they be about the government or her own party. And she's vocal, to say the least. But on this issue, she's been out front. And she's working with other MPs of all parties to try and prepare Canada for artificial intelligence. We had a great discussion back in March,

and many of you wrote about it. Clearly some conservatives were happy to see her on the program, but a lot of non-conservatives wrote about, hey, I'd never heard Michelle Rempel-Garner this way, and I really enjoyed listening to her. Have her back someday. Well, that someday has arrived. We're going to talk to her.

We're going to talk to her right now, as a matter of fact, about the situation in terms of AI Canada and where it places on the agenda list as Parliament resumes on this day. So let's get right to it. Here's our interview with Michelle Rempel-Garner. So Parliament resits today, and after, you know, a fairly long summer break, how would you describe the mood, the likely mood,

is going to be inside Parliament? You know, is a constructive mood is it a combative mood i mean what would you say i think there's sort of two groups of mood one is to deal with the issues that the country is facing which i think are very serious i mean the housing crisis has really mushroomed over the summer across, you know, virtually every demographic in every region in the country. Affordability, it's really been something that's top of mind for many Canadians. So the question of how is the government going to be seized with those issues, I think is something that Parliament has to be constructively seized with. The second sort of basket of moods, I think, is what has to be a change in the tone of the Liberal and the NDP backbench. The go-along-to-get-along attitude of not questioning leadership

decisions has to change in order for, you know, that party to serve its mandate properly, but also to address those issues. I mean, what has happened over the last eight years is not working. So, you know, I'm hoping that the gravity of the situation of those issues, as well as, frankly, the gravity of, if nothing nothing else the gravity of the political situation those parties find themselves in that that kind of seizes members in their caucus to say look this is something that you know this this parliament can't be theater it has to be treated with a great degree of gravity so that's what i'm hoping will happen hope springs eternal what will happen in actuality i think is largely determinant upon what the Canadian public is expecting from Parliament.

I think a lot more people are tuning in, wanting Parliaments and parliamentarians to act with it, like adults, to address these issues. And certainly that's something I hope will happen. And do you think they have? Do you think they really do? Do you really think Canadians are expecting? Well, they're probably expecting more from Parliament. But do you think they're watching more of Parliament or listening to more of Parliament or reading more about what's happening in Parliament? That's a great question. I mean, we could go into a rabbit trail on Bill C-18 and the ability to get news. You know, there's really some devastating news about the closure of dozens of local newspapers this week. So, you know, whether Canadians want to pay attention and their ability to do so, that's also something that has to be discussed in Parliament this week as well.

But certainly, you know, just going back to that 100,000 foot view, I think parliamentarians really have to be seized with the gravity of issues that are facing the country and do something that resembles work and realize that the path that we've been on over the last several years is not a path that is going to lead us into success and change has to occur. You know, conservatives have never been shy about challenging their leadership. And, you know, we know that story. No, we haven't. We know that story over many years. But did you get any sense last week that Liberals were in fact challenging their leadership through that caucus? I mean, some of the things that were being said and publicly said and identifiable by some of the caucus members was unlike what we normally see from that party.

I think that's a good question, and the jury's out. If I was you, if I was doing a podcast with Bruce and Chantal later this week, the things I would be looking for to answer that question are how are committees proceeding? Are members of the Liberal backbench just voting for do-nothing studies or motions that are perhaps maybe in the centre of the party's best interest but not in the best interest of their constituents? Are they voicing policy challenges?

How hard are they clapping for the leader on talking points in question period that just don't work anymore? Those are the sorts of small things I would look for this week. But the bigger things are, you know, will the caucus start saying, like stating the obvious, which is things aren't working, things aren't good, there needs to be change. And I think that is going to be a theme that needs to be evaluated this entire sitting of parliament okay before we move to ai one last question you know they it's a minority parliament yet there is as you've reflected upon a deal between the liberals and the ndp does the country need an election now or does it you know if it strings out another year or two is that okay

i think the country needs action on policy issues um i certainly am no fan of justin trudeau's leadership of the country i mean that's fairly obvious i'm a conservative partisan um and i i am not i i obviously don't think that justin Trudeau has the chops or the jam to get this done he's had eight years here we are in these crises but what the country needs overall is constructive leadership and work on the housing crisis on the affordability crisis and that's certainly what you know as conservatives we will be putting forward in parliament this session you know the Canadian public I think needs to start holding people like Jagmeet Singh to account for the fact that he is propping up the Liberal government. You know, he's trying to differentiate himself, put daylight between himself, his party and the Liberals, but they're voting for all their policy.

Right. So, you know, that's really a question for the Canadian public. For me and my party, it's really about ensuring that there's action on those big issues these are not issues that we can afford to wait another day on changing course so the government has to has to do that right now so you're you're saying action not an election in this moment i'm always look there, there's the political side of me, right? Which is, you know, you can't ignore the polls. I mean, Canadians are, I think, responding very well to Pierre Polyev's message.

I obviously would want a change in government. But, you know, the leader in me, a leader of, you know, a representative of 120,000 people in my community primarily want action um i don't think justin trudeau can do that um but we are not we're not in an election right now that's just the reality i don't see justin trudeau going to one so it's not worth you know sort of trading and hypotheticals like this for me my job going into parliament this week is to get action on how like and and and like not status quo action like really shake things up levels of action and that's where my headspace has

to be so you know i i can't afford to have the pundit hat on the reality is we're not in election so we need action let's go giddy up all right uh well let's giddy up on AI, on artificial intelligence. When you were last on this podcast, that was March of this year. At that time, there were not a lot of people on Parliament Hill talking about AI. Certainly not the way you were. And you wanted people to get together, let's talk about it, let's see whether or not there's a need for some form of regulation because it's going to change our world.

And it was kind of a wake-up call for a lot of people when you sent out that message. Have things, before we get into the particulars, have things changed at all in terms of that, you know, knowledge and preparing to discuss the issues surrounding AI in Ottawa or around Parliament Hill? It's a great question. I think globally, the answer would be yes. You know, something we can talk about is the European Union putting out this statement this week saying that unregulated AI is an existential threat to humanity, that it's an extinction level threat. But this is like a very serious government body putting out a statement like that. So I think that globally there is an understanding of the urgency of addressing this issue, even if you're not going to the far end hyperbole of extinction level event.

But within Ottawa, I think that in Parliament, like on a very optimistic note, I think I talked to you last time about starting this parliamentary caucus on emerging technology. We've met on an almost biweekly basis with really senior level leaders from across the country and internationally on this issue. I think there's a lot more awareness coming out of the summer within every party. And I think that's a really good thing. I'm proud of my colleagues from different parties that have worked on this. In the government, the government

paying attention to this, I think the jury's out on that um you know i do think going back to the start of our conversation today trudeau's got um the housing crisis affordability crisis he's got so many fires going on right now that these longer term issues that might not be what he considers to be front burner issues they're really not getting the attention of his cabinet and i think that's just you know i think it's a bandwidth issue because they've got all these other crises in the fire. And the reality is, is they can't on this issue. They can't afford to do that. So the state of play going into Parliament this week is that the bill that the government tabled to address artificial intelligence was tabled before the launch of chat GPT. We've talked about this before.

That will be in front of the industry committee at some point this fall. But, you know, a lot of experts in the time that we've talked have said that what's happening in Ottawa is too little too late, that there's no, the government hasn't taken this with any degree of urgency, that they haven't been transparent in their consultation. And more importantly, like going back to jurisdictions like the EU that are about to, you know, codify a framework that Canada might be, you know, in a position where we're rural, like we're taking the positions of other countries because we've been slow.

And that's what concerns me is that we are now in this position where the government is, you know, they're faced with all of these other emerging issues that, you know, we could have a different conversation on whether or not they have the capacity to deal with, which means that some of these longer term, broader macro level issues that they really haven't been out on aren't getting the attention that they deserve and they should. So I think that'll also be the job of the opposition going into fall session is to say like,

look, yeah, we have to address the affordability crisis, but we can't let issues like this that are just so are going to have such a huge impact on Canadian society go without attention. you were describing what was happening in that committee, an all-party committee. You know, Canadians, or a lot of Canadians, have the impression that you people can't sit around a table and agree on anything at any time, that it's all partisan back and forth, taking shots at each other. But you're painting a picture of a very different kind of committee that's happening there. A hundred percent.

And I, like, yeah, there's always going to be the the top level you know it's this is such a pejorative term but it's true theater of question period and leaders going at each other and how pundits present parliament but i do there are there are colleagues um from all parties that i really do you think get that parliament is important and that part of parliament partisanship is important but so is trying to especially on issues where there's not necessarily political space staked out or political attention on an issue there's a need to work across party lines to come up with basic understandings on issues or perhaps in a country as large and regionally diverse as Canada understand how an issue is going to impact a colleague you know on the other side of the continent and that's how this committee has been functioning you know we've been functioning

on Chatham House rules to give people an opportunity to ask questions of leaders without that sort of partisan lens being applied to it. And I have really been enlightened by some of my colleagues asking questions in their fields of expertise that I might not have considered, like the role of AI and how that's going to affect medical diagnostics, law, democracy, how this interacts with Canada's role in positioning ourselves with the global south as economies change in a post-colonial world. These are all issues that Parliament should be seized with. And it's nice to see that dialogue happening in a way that's not just about scoring points for social media clips. Who are you getting in the room to talk to in terms of witnesses or those who are prepared to talk to the committee?

I mean, we all witnessed last week this incredible session in the U.S. Congress in Washington. It was a closed-door session, but people came out afterwards and they seemed to be fairly open about what had been discussed you know but there were we're talking about the the big names of tech you know musk and um well there were you know there were a bunch of them bill gates uh and others um and the the way they discussed about they were having an open discussion about regulation in terms of AI, kind of putting the goalposts anywhere from, you know, huge breakthroughs on the medical situation, cures for cancer or what have you, that could come as a result of AI, to the other end of the field that literally was talking about extinction, as you said the European community was, but the possibility of the human race being wiped out because of AI,

the possibilities of AI. Are you getting any kind of discussion like that from those kind of people? When you talk about leaders in the tech community, are you getting the big names, the big people in there, in that room? It's a good question. I'll just be blunt, no. Like, not the people that you just mentioned. But I think that's largely due to two factors. Number one, that Canada really hasn't put,

the federal government really hasn't put this issue on the front burner. And a lot of the lobbying efforts of big tech like Microsoft, OpenAI, et cetera, and a lot of the lobbying efforts of big tech like microsoft open ai etc they are going to be focused on bigger markets like the u.s and like the eu that have broader ranging regulatory implications for their businesses than necessarily canada does which is why it's so important for the federal government to overcome that and say, look, we need to have these people in the room. We need to have their testimony. And I think that's why, you know,

as much as we've been educating ourselves through this multi-partisan caucus, it's going to be important for the industry committee, the science and technology committee to formally study this issue. And perhaps, you know, I wouldn't use as strong as the term compel but strongly invite some of these leaders to testify in front of parliament in a formal session on the other hand i don't want to dismiss the leadership the thought leadership that we have in canada that have talked to our my colleagues on this issue. A lot of the leaders internationally in artificial intelligence are Canadian born. They might not live in Canada anymore,

but we still have a remarkable capacity. The Montreal Institute for AI, Mila, we've had just remarkable academic thought leaders come in and really like a dummy's guide for artificial intelligence, try to give a common understanding of knowledge to parliamentarians. That's gone super well. We've had regulators from other jurisdictions talk to us. And we've also had Canadian innovators who are working in the space, both on application based technologies, as well as development technologies to speak to us. And that's been remarkable.

I think what I'm leaving with is, after our summer set of meetings, is a real pride in the depth of skills and knowledge that we have in this country and the potential for economic creation if done well. But that has to be paired with attention from the government on this issue. And in a transparent way, this can't just happen with a few bureaucrats behind closed doors.

And that's something like as a partisan putting my partisan hat on now, I will be railing against in parliament because this is what we've heard from experts. broad conversation that involves, you know, everyone, not just a few, a chosen few behind closed doors or slowly, too slow over, you know, three to five years, which is what the current timelines are. And that's just, that's not going to work. Your point about the Canadian connections that some of the top leaders in tech have is so true. I mean, look at Musk. Everything Musk knows. He learned at Queen's University, right? Well, perhaps not everything, but he does have that connection with Canada. And he talks about Canada, not always in glowing terms, but nevertheless, he talks about it, hasn't forgotten it. Were you surprised to the extent at which some of these leaders like Musk, like Zuckerberg, like Gates,

talked openly about the need for some kind of regulation. Now, you think often that the people from those sectors stay a distance away from any discussion about regulation. But even they were saying that we may well need some form of regulation, limited, but some form of regulation in controlling AI and its development. You're laughing. you know, the eternal optimist wants to believe that these people are motivated out of a sense of morality and going like, Ooh, are we letting a genie out of a bottle? And what's my personal moral role in this as the leader of these companies, the cynic that has been beaten into me after a decade plus of elected office is that my question would be, what regs do they want? And how does

that position them over their competitors? How does that let them get to their bottom line and their shareholders? At the end of the day, we have to understand that, and this isn't a bad thing, these companies are managing to profit and loss. They're not necessarily managing to some sort of moral good. If they were, they wouldn't have raced to deploy these technologies at large scale simply because there was a regulatory vacuum, right? So I find it a little disingenuous to say, oh, well, we care about this now after they've invested billions and unleashed the stuff in an unregulated environment. I mean, point in case, earlier this year, I think it was Time magazine put out a scathing article that showed how OpenAI had trained its large language models using underpaid labor in the global south, exposing people to pornography, violent child abuse. And there's no rules for this. So where is the morality of these people during those situations?

So pardon me for being skeptical. And that is the role of what is the role Parliament should be playing. It shouldn't just be left to the regulators. There needs to be a discussion about how we harness the opportunities and the economic trends, benefits that are already happening in the economy, while also ensuring that some of these very real harms that have been expressed,

and I think somewhat proven over the last few months since we've talked are addressed. And I find that naivety in politics and optimism doesn't usually bear fruit. We're looking at the motivations of big tech companies. So I don't want, they're obviously an important economic driver. They're important conversation in this, but I mean, they didn't manage important economic driver. They're an important conversation in this. But I mean, they didn't manage social media well. They haven't managed privacy well. They almost function like a fourth level of government in many ways right now.

So how they are going to address AI, color me skeptical until I'm happy to be proven otherwise. You know, when we talked in March, you hadn't fully formed your mind around regulation, about what was needed, how far it needed to go. Are you any further ahead today than you were in March on that? to be a framework around the large-scale deployment of AI. I think you and I have talked about a pharmaceutical-based model. We do clinical trials before we release drugs into the market. There's probably a similar model that could be used for AI. I think this is going to have to take coordination with other economies around the world.

So global standards, a global standards body like the Civil Aviation Authority has been something that's sort of been top of mind when talking to colleagues around the world. That's probably a path. Looking from the international collaboration perspective at home, I think there's a sad reality that we have to face now, which is, you know, it is due to the slowness of the federal government there's my partisan hat but now we're in a position where we might have to promulgate regulations from other jurisdictions that are ahead of us that we

have trade agreements with like the United States like the European Union and I think that our slowness on this is going to make us rule takers not be in a position of taking rules as opposed to making them and that's something that I hope is considered by colleagues that are studying the Artificial Intelligence and Data Act this fall. So and whether or not and how we can work around those to ensure that Canadian innovators are not hampered and that the Canadian public is adequately protected, that is where there needs to be some partisan thought on different parties' positions on these issues. So certainly, you know, six months of education, self-education on my part has led to some conclusions for sure.

Okay. Last question. You've pointed out, and it's understandably so, your frustrations with the government on this issue. Do you have frustrations internally as well in your own party in trying to push this as an issue that the Conservative Party should be leading the way on in terms of the discussion when clearly there are other issues out there and you've named them, whether it's housing or inflation or climate change or whatever it may be, carbon tax, et cetera, et cetera. Do you have trouble getting this pushed forward on the table? Well, you know, I'm never shy to be blunt and honest, even when it comes to my own party. So I'm saying this from a position of, you know, real honesty. The answer is no. I've had a remarkable degree of success talking to colleagues

who I think really do understand the situation, but also understand the need to come up to speed on some of these issues. And there's been a lot of collaboration within our own caucus on talking about how we as a party approach this. My colleague, Rick Perkins, who serves as our shadow minister for industry, I know he's spent an inordinate amount of time over the summer preparing for the eventual discussion of Bill C-27 at ADA as it hits the industry committee. And he's been remarkably collaborative to work with.

And so I think that's a good thing. I can't speak to what's happening in other caucuses, but certainly, you know, the understanding that this is going to be a foundational issue. This isn't, you know, this might not be, you know, as focused an issue as like mortgage rates increasing and people losing the ability

to live in their homes in the next three months. But understanding that this regulating the space is going to impact the Canadian economy, innovation, the ability to attract capital, keep Canadians safe throughout a wide, huge swath of industry, including government and how government operates, I think that there's a real sense of gravity on that and that we have to, if we're going to criticize the government for not having the capacity or the bandwidth to address multiple balls being juggled in the air,

that we do have to do that. And even without the resources of government, cabinet ministers have departments and bureaucracy at their hand i've i've been really proud of my team of colleagues that have taken this seriously and i think we're really prepared and ready to run the marathon on this issue as it hits committee stage um this fall well all the uh the potential impacts you mention are are real and and included in all that is tens, if not hundreds of thousands of jobs as well that could be at stake as a result of the continuing development

and expansion of AI. Listen, it's always good to talk to you. It's been too long, six months, since we talked about this issue before so we'll we'll check in again and hopefully it won't take six months to do that so thanks so much a lot can change in six months hey yeah no kidding all right take care maybe we will be ai next time peter it'll be the ai version of ourselves talking to each other yeah that's right that's right we'll just be watching and listening to ourselves.

We'll just be watching. Yeah. Take care. Have a good session. Bye. Michelle Rempel-Garner. Didn't that sound like two Canadians at the end there? We'll do that, eh?

Yeah, okay, eh? Anyway, Michelle Rempel-Garner, know we thank her for her time once again the conservative mp from alberta former cabinet minister and somebody who along with her uh colleagues from other parties in the house of common form a committee that has been looking at um artificial intelligence and trying to develop ways in which Canada can move to the forefront instead of the background on this issue. I mean, we may want to put our heads in the sand on this, but I'll tell you, AI is going to come after us through the sand if we don't.

So more power to Michelle Rempel-Garner and the other MPs who are working on this. Let's see where it all leads. Okay, we're going to take a quick break. When we come back, it's really time for some end bits because some of these end bits catch up to stories we've been dealing with just in the recent past. So we'll be back with that right after this. And welcome back.

You're listening to The Bridge, the Monday episode right here on SiriusXM, Channel 167 Canada Talks, or on your favorite podcast platform. I'm Peter Mansbridge in Stratford, Ontario. Today, it's good to have you with us, no matter which platform you are listening on. Okay, I promised some end bits, and so let's get at them. Here's one on affordable housing. I like this. It was in the New York Times last week. There's a lot of talk about the housing issue for obvious reasons.

And one of the assumptions has always been in different parts of the world and including Canada, that the affordable housing issue is greatest within big cities, right? So as the New York Times says, and I'm quoting here, as housing prices have soared in major cities across much of the developed world, it has become normal for people to move away from the places with the strongest economies and best jobs because those places are unaffordable. Prosperous cities increasingly operate like private clubs, auctioning off a limited number of homes to the highest bidders or auctioning off that land to the highest bidders. Hint, hint, does the word greenbelt mean anything anyway the new york times says tokyo is different in the past half century by investing in transit and allowing development

tokyo has added more housing units than the total number of units in, for example, New York City. It has remained affordable by becoming one of the world's largest cities. It has become one of the world's largest cities by remaining affordable. I'm going to keep reading a little bit here because this is fascinating. This is the story of Tokyo. Two full-time workers earning Tokyo's minimum wage can comfortably afford the average rent for a two-bedroom apartment in six of the city's 23 wards. By contrast, two people working minimum wage jobs cannot afford the average rent for a two-bedroom apartment in any of the 23 counties in New York's metropolitan area.

Maintaining an abundance of affordable housing has its downsides. Green space is scarce in Tokyo. Living spaces are small by Western standards. And relentless redevelopment disrupts communities. However, the benefits are profound. Those who want to live in Tokyo generally can afford to do so. There's little homelessness there. The city remains economically diverse,

preserving broad access to urban amenities and opportunities. And because rent consumes a smaller share of income, people have more money for other things. Or they can get by on smaller salaries, which helps to preserve the city's vibrant fabric of small restaurants, businesses, and craft workshops. Now, I guess you need to remember a couple of things about Tokyo. I mean, one of the arguments about, you know, making these areas available in other cities in different parts of the world, especially in North America, is preserving historic areas, landmark homes.

Not so much in Tokyo. Tokyo was, you know, pretty devastated at the end of the Second World War and has been since. Whether that be by earthquakes or floods or what have you, but at the end of the Second World War, most of the city, most of Tokyo was destroyed by American bombers trying to end the war. This is before Hiroshima and Nagasaki. So those kind of arguments don't exist as much. Tokyo is an interesting space to look at in terms of how they're building, how they're using urban transit, where they're building,

what kinds of things they're building. But at the moment, in a general way, no issue about affordable housing. There was something else, another end bit that some people were asking about. The other day on the ranter, the ranter was talking last Thursday about climate change, and he made his point by saying he was walking in the woods, and for the first time that he could remember in his life, he saw very few, if any, butterflies, and that butterflies numbers in his area of the woods, he saw very few, if any, butterflies.

And that butterflies numbers in his area of the woods, in his area of the country, in his area of the prairies, that's where he lives, were considerably down. Now, we all know that wildlife can have its ups and downs in different parts of the country on an annual basis, and things shift around. But that was a bit of a startling revelation, and as a result, it was interesting to see on the BBC's website over the weekend,

this headline, UK butterfly numbers at highest level since 2019. Better be listening, ranter. The number of butterflies in the UK has risen to its highest level since 2019, according to conservationists. Research by the Butterfly Conservation Wildlife Charity. Do you hear those birds? Better close that door. It's the wildlife portion of the

program. Oh, listen to that. What kind of bird is that? Who knows? Alright. Research by the Butterfly Conservation Wildlife wildlife charity recorded more than one and a half million butterflies and day flying moths between 14th of july and 6th of august the red admiral was the most spotted across the uk with 248 177 being recorded in the charity's research. But long-term trends figures show many species have significantly decreased since the count started 13 years ago. Dr. Zoe Randall told the BBC,

butterflies are a really good indicator of a healthy environment, adding that the insects have benefited from 2023's mixed weather. And her quote, This summer has been a bit of a washout. The rain combined with the hot days has kept vegetation growing to be lush and green for caterpillars to feed on. The Red Admiral had a really good summer this year, an increase of 338% of last year's count.

That particular butterfly is doing well from climate change, in the UK at least. It usually lives on the Mediterranean coast or North Africa. The Red Admiral looks a little bit like the Monarch, but it's not the monarch. Okay. We got time for one more? Sure, let's go for one more.

One more end bit. I'm not sure if I was surprised. When I first saw this, I was surprised. Then I started thinking about all my friends and acquaintances, and I figured, you know, maybe I'm not that surprised. Here's the headline from the Pew Research Center, and that's a well-regarded research center in the United States. And this study was done just in the U.S.

So keep that in mind. Here's the U.S. So keep that in mind. Here's the headline. About eight in ten women in opposite-sex marriages say they took their husband's last name. Okay, got it? Marriage in the U.S. has been changing in many ways over the past several decades, says Pew, but the tradition of women taking their husband's last name is still going strong.

In a new Pew Research Center survey, we asked married people whether they changed their last name after marriage. Most women in opposite-sex marriages, 79%, so, you know, roughly 8 out of 10, say they took their spouse's last name when they got married. Another 14% kept their last name, and 5% hyphenated both their name and their spouse's name. Among men in opposite sex marriages, the vast majority, 92%, say they kept their last name. Just 5% took their spouse's last name, and less than 1% hyphenated both names. Now, in the great pantheon of information, I'm not sure how important that is, but it's interesting.

And, of course, as Pew does on everything, they break it down between, you know, left and right, conservative leaning or liberal leaning. What's the split? Well, here is that split, if you're wondering. 86% of those who consider themselves Republican or leaning Republican took their spouse's last name. 70% of Democrats or those leaning Democrat took their spouse's last name. So a split, but not an overwhelming split

between left and right. So I know what you're doing. I know you're sitting there saying, yeah, okay, Peter, that's all very interesting. Love to hear the American stats on stuff. What's happening in Canada on this issue? Well, our crack research department here at the bridge has been

unable to find a similar statistic in Canada. But in one province, women cannot change their names after marriage. Do you know which province that is? One province in Canada. Women cannot change their names after marriage. Well, those of you who are in that province know that. And those of you who are outside are guessing. And if you landed on Quebec, you got the right answer.

In Quebec, both spouses keep their surname after they marry. In other words, you must use the surname you were given at birth to exercise your civil rights. For example, when you sign a contract or apply for a driver's license. Even if you married outside Quebec, but you are domiciled in Quebec, you must exercise your civil rights using the surname you were given at birth. However, in your social life, you can, if you wish, use your spouse's surname. Well, thank you very much. There you go.

The Worldwide Research Department of the Bridge. Coming forward with another little-known fact. At least it was little-known to me. There you go, folks. Another week kicked off right here at the Bridge tomorrow, Tuesday. Brian Stewart will be by with an incredible, well, two incredible stories about the war in Ukraine. One deals with targeted executions by Ukraine,

and the other deals with atrocities by Russia. We're going to look into that. New research on both those areas, and some of it is quite startling. That's right here tomorrow on the bridge, and of course we will have a few other end bits tomorrow as well. Some good ones. Some of my favorite airline ones.

But that's tomorrow. Thanks to Michelle Rempel-Garner for today, and thanks to you for listening. I'm Peter Mansbridge. Thank you so much for listening. Talk to you again. 24 hours.