The Bridge with Peter Mansbridge - Greenland Used To Be A Punchline, Now Could It Mean The End of NATO?

Episode Date: January 19, 2026

Lots to discuss with Dr Janice Stein on this week's conversation with the director of the Munk School at the University of Toronto. We call the segment "Our Changing World" and again this week the list of examples continues: Greenland, NATO, China and Canada's new relationship with it after PM Carney's visit last week.  Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

And hello there, Peter Mansbridge here. You're just moments away from the latest episode of the bridge. It's Monday. That means Dr. Janice Stein. The topic for today, Greenland. That's right. Greenland. Coming right up.

And welcome to another week here on the bridge. I'm Peter Mansbridge. Good to have you with us. I'm not sure what it was like in your neck of the woods over the weekend, but it's certainly the middle of winter here in southern Ontario. Cold one today on the road. Monday. Lots of snow. It's picturesque at least. Let's call it that. An incredible week last week on the bridge. More downloads of the podcast than at any time in our six-year history.

And that's great to hear. Part of that due to the fact that we tried something different on Thursday, not the regular questions. to you about a particular issue, but instead questions from you to me. We did our first ever, Ask Me Anything episode. And it was more than a little bit successful, and it was fun.

And I'm glad we enjoyed it. And a lot of you wrote over the weekend to say how much you'd enjoyed it. Well, hopefully you did, because we have enough of your questions to do at least one more show, which we'll do this week. A second to ask me anything.

And I'm glad to give it a go. It was fun. If you didn't hear it, it's easy to recover through the podcast system. Last Thursday's program. Today's shaping up to be another big news day, we've got the Prime Minister in heading to Davos, Switzerland, for the World Economic Forum.

A place that he used to be at a lot when he was in the private sector and when he was also governor of first the Bank of Canada and then the Bank of England. He's no stranger to Davos and he'll be speaking there. I think Tuesday, I think tomorrow. President Trump is going there too. That'll be interesting to watch his reception on Wednesday. The world economic foreign is certainly something that sparks interest, debate, and criticism amongst some people. And so it'll be interesting to see how this week plays out on all those fronts.

There's also talk today of Canada sending troops to Greenland. Now, it would be a small number. if it happens. And it's more as, it's more for optics, I think, than anything else. A number of European countries

have already done this. This is all to support Greenland and Denmark. They're, the right for self-determination in Greenland. With Trump making all kinds of noises about how he wants to buy it or take it over. So, it'll be interesting to see that play out. And that is topic number one in our,

conversation this week with Dr. Janice Stein from the Monk School, the University of Toronto. We'll get to that in just a moment. So a reminder then that Thursday's your turn, we'll still call it your turn, isn't asked me anything. Part two of all the letters you sent in last week, there's no need to send in more. We've got a lot. And I'm pretty sure we'll be doing this again. I'm not sure how frequently, maybe once a month, maybe once every six weeks. But to ask me anything seems to be a popular idea, and we'll keep it going. Tomorrow it's a more buts conversation. Every second Tuesday, it's more butts.

The alternating weeks, like last week, it's Raj and Russo, Althea Raj and Rob Russo, and their reporter's notebook about goings on in national politics. but tomorrow's more butts conversation is going to be very interesting to see how you react to it the question asked of Moore and Butts tomorrow that's James Moore the former conservative cabinet minister

and Jerry Butts the former senior aide to Justin Trudeau the question being asked of those two tomorrow is this is Trump's America comparable to Germany in the mid-1930s. Okay, that's the question. I mean, a lot of people are throwing around a lot of words to describe Trump

and the Trump inner circle. So let's call it the way they see it, more and but tomorrow on the bridge. Okay, but today it's Dr. Janice Stein, as she always is on Mondays, glad to have her with us and especially glad this week because there's lots to unpack. Let's get right at it with Dr. Janice Stein. So Janice, Greenland used to be kind of a punchline for a stand-up comedian.

Now there seems to be serious discussion that Greenland could be the impetus for the end of NATO. Like, how do you draw the line in there? you know it's unbelievable frankly peter what makes it so unbelievable is that the united states has basing rights there it had a much bigger base 70 years ago it cut it down and through negotiation it has rights it can expand the base so this is a form of of real estate theater that we're going through it right now. A president who says I have to own it, even though I could get everything I want if I sent my secretary of state

to Denmark and Greenland. And we just negotiated the next version of the treaty, which they've offered to do. And for me, this is the most alarming part of the story. He's obsessed here. He comes back and back and back to it. And I can't make sense of it any other way. Then this is a New York real estate guy who doesn't like mortgages or leases wants to own it all.

How else do you explain this? If you can make the argument that he has a right to own Greenland, surely you could, I mean, just look at a map. You can make that argument that Canada owns. with clear you know I

if for sure you could and I think the most alarming thing about this

whole week the claim the refusal to work with Europeans at all and the response by

the Europeans which was fairly modest they put token numbers I mean

I can't remember which of the eight European countries had one soldier, you know, to Greenland. But it was a token display, a signal. This really matters to us. We are not going to do this. And we ended the wage with 10% tariffs on those eight countries with a threat that they'll go to 25% if they don't agree to his terms. Some most explicit use of tariffs has a coercive weapon.

on an issue that has nothing to do with trade or surpluses or deficits or anything else, except that Donald Trump wants this piece of real estate, frankly. As you said, he could easily renegotiate their position in terms of bases on Greenland. They used to have, I think it was 17 immediately after the war. Right. For strategic reasons, for all the reasons he says that he needs it for now. One assumes that if he went to Denmark and said, let's do this again, I want to go back to those bases that we had, or half of them or all of them, whatever. One assumes Denmark would say, okay, well, let's talk about that.

They've made the offer, Peter. And by the way, there were 17, there's one now. The United States reduced. the United because after the Cold War ended they didn't really see the value

and they reduced so the you know the Danes and Greenland has said we're open to this negotiation they put the offer

on the table and his response is no ownership matters that's where it becomes completely irrational frankly now you have to

hope that when push comes to shove here he's going to figure out that owning Greenland is not worth breaking up NATO because I think in this case for the Europeans

this is an issue that has focused their minds let me put it that way there is not an argument in any of the Nordics in London in Germany in France if he goes ahead

with this and what's going ahead me? Is he going to invade and occupy Greenland? I mean, it just makes no sense whatsoever. But I think that would be the end of NATO, frankly. And that is just a huge. It's an enormous cost for the United States. You have to hope that Rubio, it's only Rubio, believe it or not, in that room, it's not Pete Hexa. It's not Susie Wiles. that Rubio steps in and says, this has gone far enough. You know, I watched, I mean, you probably watched as well, Scott Besant yesterday on Meet the Press.

Now, he's the Treasury Secretary. Why he's sitting there defending the Greenland stuff is, who knows, probably Rubio said, look, I did Venezuela. You want to send somebody on there to look like a fool? Send Besant. And Besant often looks like a fool. He's supposed to be a really smart guy from the financial sector, and maybe he is. But him trying to argue the Greenland position and basically saying,

I'm not worried about Europe, they'll all come along. They'll be there for us at the end. You know, I don't know what that means anymore. You know, there's an European kind of slang. There's something that they call the bazooka. That's how they describe it, which is, okay, when pushed to the wall, if we're coerced and we're pushed way back to the wall, we are going to retaliate with 25% tariffs against the U.S. The reason they've never done it, despite all the provocation in this first year, is they recognize everybody loses here. These are the two of the three biggest trading blocks Europe and the United States,

which is the enormous trade that goes back and forth. Altogether, we're talking almost, you know, 450 Europeans, 300 Americans, three quarters of a billion consumers that are real consumers, unlike the Chinese series. And so they've held off. The anger is so intense in Europe now that they are threatening that if this gets any worse if he takes one more big step on Greenland, they will use what they call their bazooka. Everybody will lose.

Everybody loses here. Do you think NATO could really crumble as a result of this? Yeah, I do. I mean, why would you stay in a collective security organization governed by Article 5. And Article 5 says, and in the event of an attack by, and they mean by an outsider,

not a member of NATO, frankly, because it inconceivable that one Nado member would attack the other. Although, you know, we've had flourished in the past between Greece and Turkey and everybody gone involved right away and walked them back. You're obligated to come to the assistance

of the members that are attacked. Now, it doesn't exactly say what you have to do, but you have to do something. This would be the strongest member of NATO, the leader of NATO, the guarantor, in a sense, who has by far the world's largest military attacking in one way or another through coercion,

the least of force, I think, is, you know, inconceivable. One of the members, Denmark. How do you preserve an alliance under those circumstances a collective security pact? It's impossible, Peter. I think that would rupture NATO. What is your sense of the way Canada is reacting to the Greenland story? Because in a way like Venezuela,

they're not ignoring it, but it's kind of a muted position. Like they're very careful about what they're saying. Well, our prime minister, Godlucky. He's in China. And then he's in Qatar. You know, Tommy couldn't have been better, frankly, for him. But more than any other country, more than, as much as Denmark and Greenland, but more than everybody else. More than Finland, Sweden, all the other six NATO countries that are so worked up about this.

this is frightening to Canada. Again, you know, we talked about this briefly last week. We're closer to Greenland. Literally, there's an narrow waterway. Canada's closer to Greenland. And we sit, our north sits between Greenland and Alaska, frankly. If he can do this to Greenland, why wouldn't he do it to us

exactly why wouldn't he and if he succeeds in doing this to Greenland and Europeans and us don't respond in a very forceful way there's every incentive to do it to us so I think our response is muted

you know look at the dilemma for the prime master it's God awful the trade negotiations are going to start literally as soon as our new ambassador Mark Wiseman gets to Washington Trump just showed what he's going to do he retaliates with tariffs for

what he labels a security issue but all the rest of us know it's not because there's an obvious solution to it it's frankly ridiculous so how do you balance here so really what we're doing is letting the others carry the water for us right now but there is I'm not as worried by what we're saying and not saying I am really worried by what we're not doing Peter in the Arctic

there is there's there has to be a sense of urgency now you know there are ice breakers we're not moving fast enough and there were solutions. There are Canadians in this country who are doers who have innovative ideas about how we build out quickly given the situation. Yeah, it involves, you know, loosening a few rules here and there. But this is not business as usual in the Canadian Arctic right now, given what's going on about Greenland.

We need a port. We need a deep waterborne. How many years have we been talking about? 40 years. And I can understand why an order is not coming down from the center. Get this done. Get this done according to a deadline. Get it done no matter how you get it done.

get it done which I think is absolutely imperative given what we're facing you know here's the only consolation I take in all of this peer

you know he went into Iran after the Israelis cleared the skies for him because there would be and he was reassured very unlikely

there would be any hits on any American planes and no casualties there were none the Obrer in Venezuela, three months in the planet, CIA on the ground, clearly a deal in one form or another,

and luck, some luck, but they got no casualties. Look what he didn't do in Iran last week, when it was not easy, and it was possible that there would be American casualties and there would be a mess. So this is a president who wants it easy when he uses force. And when people push back,

where there's a risk of casualties or there's a risk of a mess, he doesn't go ahead. No, that's right. And, you know, like even on Venezuela, initially for the first couple of days, they said there were no casualties, no deaths, no injuries, nothing. Well, as usual on these things, when it turns out and you find the truth out, In fact, there were no deaths, at least as far as we know, but there were injuries. Yes, there were.

It didn't go perfectly, that a helicopter went down, the whole bit. Let me back up to two more points on this. One, you said, and, you know, if the Americans, if Trump goes ahead on Greenland, even further than he has done so far, if the Europeans don't react forcibly, I think was the term you used. What is that? What's forcibly? Is it just words?

What is it? No, it's not words. It's not words. They will impose tariffs, retaliatory tariffs, which they could have done when, you know, on that way back in April, last April, when he announced the tariffs. but they, I think, rightly, refused to react, refuse to go up the ladder, and in fact, there's a deal with Europe and there's a deal with the United Kingdom

and they've managed through it. This is a challenge of a whole different order. And there's no way the Europeans do not impose tariffs against the United States. That unleashes a trade war between Europe and the United States, which is bad for everyone, but they're prepared to do that now. I think the glyphs, if he goes ahead and does what, walkades Greenland?

You know. He doesn't have the right kind of vessels, you know. He doesn't. You say we need more icebreakers, we do, because most of ours can't go in the Arctic in the winter, but the Americans don't have any. No. They're not going to blockade Greenland with what?

No. No, exactly. Let's see. You know, they have ordered four. And I saw a video last week of the Russian nuclear-powered icebreaker. Wow. The size of two football fields, Peter, nuclear-powered, churning up the ice in front of it, you know, and work all year around. The United States has nothing like this.

if the United States is serious about security in the far north, understands that coming over the pole, there are possibilities of threatening missiles and that there will be traffic through the north between Asia and Europe. As the article is four times faster than anywhere else in the world, then invest. Invest, you see what the Russians are doing. And have done.

I mean, they're northeast passages like cruise liners. They've got it open and they've got the equipment and they've got the deep sea ports that you were talking. They've got all of it. All of it. But we need a deep sea port and we could have it. We need ice breakers and I think we could borrow them and get them in the water in less than a year. and I think if Canadians really understood the urgency, they would support it with that question.

Yeah, I spent part of a winter in the north on one of our icebreakers. I think it was a Sir Wilford-Lurier. I'm not sure. I'm not sure of that, but I think it was that. But it was locked in. Like it couldn't really move. Couldn't move. Yeah.

But it spent the winter up there, you know, testing this, that, and the other thing as the ice is beginning to retreat. One last question on this, and I ask it because I've had not a lot of emails, but more than a couple of people saying, ask Janice why Canada doesn't join the EU? Why doesn't Canada join the EU? because we've

had a good trading relationship in Kuzva the expectation until very recently, even until a few months ago was that it would be renewed and it clearly

makes the most sense for us because of proximity and the huge volume of trade you know that goes over that border is unmatched anywhere in the world. This is the deepest trading relationship any two countries have, Canada and the United States.

That's on the positive side. On the negative side, Peter, if Canadians get frustrated by rules and regulations, the EU is the queen of it all. How much butter can you have in your pre? and does it make it different if the pre is made in Normandy or elsewhere, and you can't use the word brie if it's not made. And this is the most regular EU is for men.

And you know, the Europeans will tell you this now. They went overboard. That's partly, it's a contributor to the fact that, and I'm European, I'm very annoyed with me recently when I said, this. The Europeans do not have a major company anymore in the top 20 in the world. And they recognize that, and they are starting to unwind some of that regulation because they recognize that it stifled their economies. So it hasn't been, frankly, it's on its own, it's not as attractive an option as that I said, I'm a kid.

Union. What that question really says is given this change in the world, given the fact that in plain English, the United States now threatens its closest friends, would it be worth the price for Canada to join a highly regulated environment and would take years to do it because we would have to restructure all our regulations and give up. NAFTA too. That's a really hard call for Canada. You know, we may be there two years from now if Kuzman never gets renewed. Now, just remember one of the things is really important.

If Kuzman doesn't get renewed, if the Americans don't come to the table, it stays in force. Right. For 15 years or 16 years or something. Up until 2036, right? That's a long time. I don't think Donald Trump will be president. And the only way it doesn't be 100 and something.

That's right. The only way it won't stand force is if he gives six months notice that he's walking away from it. And until and unless he does that, I think Canada will hang it. Okay. We can take our break.

I've got two more subjects I want to get to. One, I want your thoughts on the Canada-China stuff after Carney's visit. And I've got one on Elon Musk, which is a little different, and I'll ask you that. But first of all, we'll take this break back after this.

And welcome back. You're listening to the Monday episode of the bridge, which means, of course, Dr. Janice Stein from the Mug School at the University of Toronto. You're listening on Sirius XM, Channel 167, Canada Talks, or on your favorite podcast platform.

Okay. We've dealt with Greenland. who would have thought it. But that's what we've dealt with so far. I want your thoughts on the prime minister's trip to China. And clearly there were some gains there. How significant they are, how big they are, I guess we'll become clear over time.

And, you know, risk versus reward, all of that. So give us your snapshot thoughts on this. I think the reward exceeds the risks. Peter, I've heard during the week from a lot of people who are really worried. First of all, the Premier of Ontario is a really unhappy guy. There will be 50,000. Chinese EVs coming in every year up and the number will increase 100,000. Is this a mortal threat to the Canadian auto industry?

No. It's actually not. And why do I say that? Because before the bottom dropped out of the EV market, you know, there were Japanese-made EVs sold in Canada and it didn't destabilize the auto sector again. The second argument people have raised with me is, look, these are espionage vehicles. They're going to transmit data back to Beijing. They're in Canada. That's what they're here to do.

And some have said, well, there's a kill switch in these cars. There's not a kill switch. But all EVs collect data and transmit back. But again, for any car to come into Canada, they have to meet our safety regulations. and we have a pretty rigorous safety regime in this country and these vehicles will have to meet the same high safety standards that they've met in the past and you know Tesla for instance we drove we used to have lots of Tesla drivers in Canada they have Chinese components.

They meet the standards, Canadian standards. So I think, in fact, that's an overblown concern. Now, what do the Prime Minister get for this? He unlocked agricultural exports. It really matters in the West. He unlocked seafood exports.

That really matters in Atlantic Canada. So if you'll watch the reactions from Premier Moe and from Nova Scotia and PI, they were very, very pleased with the agreement. And you know, Canada has regional voices. More important, there is a discussion about energy investment. Now, that remains very opaque. The Chinese, what kind of investment in what sectors?

I can assure you it's not in critical minerals, which is what the Chinese would want. it's not going to be in a sector that is considered strategic. We're going to have to watch where Chinese investment goes. It can't go into our high-tech sector either. It's not going to go into our quantum computing sector, or our AI companies, because there are big national security challenges around that. But we cannot afford to be off-sufford.

to be offside with India, China, and the United States, all at the same time, which is the world we're living in. So I think the Prime Minister did the right thing. So how would you grade the trip? I mean, this was really the first real trade mission, if you want to call it that, you know, where there are deliverables on the table at the end of it all. Yeah.

How do you rank that? You know, I think it's not the biggest. but I think it is strategic to take first steps to see how that works out, to see whether there is, is the investment capital going to come? You know, we've seen countries all over the world promise to invest in the United States. Let's see if any of them deliver what they say. You know, the prime minister was in Qatar over the weekend. similar discussions about investment.

The Emirate of Qatar will come to Canada. I think Canada has to say to the world, we are open for business. That doesn't mean we don't have standards, safety standards, environmental standards. But we are open for business. We are actively seeking trading partners and investment partners outside North America.

What did you think of his line? I'm not quoting directly here because I don't have it in front of me, but it was more or less the sort of, we're not dealing with the world the way we want it to be. We're dealing with the world as it is. As we find it. As we find it. That's a long overdue statement from a prime minister of this country,

Peter, the Canadians. He's really saying, you know, I've been unpopular, because I've said that for years, that Canada has to adjust to the world as it. It's just not the world we want. It's not the world we hope for. We benefited from the world that we had enormously. It reflected our values to a much greater degree than the world that we're moving into.

But we are a country of 40 million people. We don't get to shape on our own what the world looks like. I think from the prime minister, this is a message to Canadians. This is a tough world. And if we only trade with countries like us and we only accept investment from countries like us, that would be somewhere between 25% and a third of the world, we would close out the rest. and we just can't afford to do that. I've always felt somewhat uncomfortable

with the things we would say on the world stage and the way we would lecture certain other comfort. Yes, yes. Simply because we're not perfect here. No. We've got our own problems. We've had them for a long time and they're still not resolved. Yeah.

You know, I completely agree. I think this is, again, you know, so important for Canadians. We're not abandoned. our liberal values. We're not abandoning our concern with human rights. But first of all, that's ours to do at home. And as you just says, there's a big agenda. And it doesn't mean that we can't talk to other countries about it.

But what we can't do, Peter, is lecture. And we did a lot of that. Oh, yeah. We did a lot of that. And frankly, it did not serve us well. So I think the prime minister was quite deliberate. That comment was not an off-the-cuff comment. That was quite deliberate on his part.

And I think it's a message. You know, Canadians will hear and they will feel some sorrow. That that's the world that we are moving into. But it is the world we're moving into. And we have to, you know, we have to grow our economy, Peter. we have to increase our productivity and we have to be able to defend our sovereignty in this world.

Those are the highest priorities for this country right now. Okay, here's the last segment I want to do. We've got a couple of minutes for this. And this actually came from my son Will, who helps on this program and is somebody you know as well because you've dealt with Willie at different times on different issues. his question is about Elon Musk

and I you know we tend to think of him the way we think of him given what we've seen of him and is hanging around Trump and and Tesla's and the space race and etc his question is is this is it and I'll try I'll kind of read it here a little bit of it anyway

how important is Musk geopolitically and as a result how is he going to be remembered? I'm not too worried about how he's going to be remembered yet, but I am worried about how important he is geopolitically because when you, you know, here's a guy who, you know, powers the internet in Iran with Starlink, his satellite service, he's done the same in Ukraine,

controls 90% of U.S. space launches. He's an influence guy. He's a hugely important guy geopolitically. It's hard to think of a guy who's more important as not, you know, president of the United States. I would say Donald Trump's more important. But boy, is Elon Musk important. And it's because of this incredible investment in space,

the United States, I mean, you know, NASA uses Elon Musk's rockets for launch, which just astonish. same given how important space is to all of us. So, you know, why does space matter so much? Well, you get in your car and you turn on your GPS. The signal is being being from space. Every one of us relies on signals from space, literally every day. And so he's incredible importance.

Now, what happened to Starlink in Iran? because the Iranis did something. This is the most severe internet blackout ever by the Iranis. And it may rank up there globally, frankly. They shut down their internet totally, both the internet inside Iran for a couple of days because they didn't want any messaging among the protesters. And their capacity to connect to the outside world.

Now, when you shut down the internet, it uses connections from space too, but the Iranians control the on and off switch. So how did we get any pictures out of Iran during those five days when they were shooting with abandon? After the last set of demonstrations, the ones that were women went out into streets to protest against when he said,

Iranian dissidents got together. and understood they needed starlink terminals inside Iran. They're too connected with space, but the Iranian government doesn't control the off switch on them. That's a difference. That's all. And they smuggled in because they were legal in Iran. You can't import Starlink terminals legally.

So they smuggled them in across the borders, largely by land. They smuggled in 50,000. That's a lot of terminals. That's a lot of terminals. And if you put a starling, you know, it's really interesting if you live in the province of Ontario or anybody lives in the province of Ontario will know that if you drive 100 kilometers or 150 away from Toronto north, you don't get a secure internet connection. And so you probably see one of these starlings that people use.

And if you put them on top of your mid-rise apartment belt, it provides connections for everybody in the building, but then they're visible to the security services that we're shooting people. Those with those Starlink terminals is how we all got those pictures. Now, the Revolutionary Guard to know this, they swept the neighborhoods closest to the universities, frankly, found them.

It is a crime. inside Iran to own a Starlink terminal, arrested people who had them, use people's phones to see who's connecting, cease people's phones. So it's not without risk for Irani to do it. And belatedly, Elon Ma stepped up and said, Terminals are free of charge. Now, that has to hold for the future. It's not enough to say it was free of charge in Iran during the crisis.

that have to be free of charge after so that there won't be 50,000, there'll be half a million. This is a country of 90 million people around next time this happens. So one, it's availability, but two, this one man decides whether he's going to turn him off. He has the off switch or not. So what do we know? And this is why he's so important, such a great question. He has extensive businesses in Russia. And at one point in Ukraine, he turned them off because the Russians threatened them.

And there was tremendous pressure put on him by the Biden administration to turn them back on. So we have this enormous amount of power concentrated in the hands. of one individual who has the emergency backup system for everybody should their government turn off the internet in their country. It's unprecedented. Wow. And to think, you know, that a part of his education was the Queens. Yes.

Now, if he'd just gone to U of T, Janice, you could have, like, had your impact on him. We would have said never turned it off. for countries that are undersea, you know. You know, the inability for, I'm sure you've heard Peter, the inability for Iranian families to get in touch with people that were in these big cities, right? And which is just terrifying. And also, it stopped protesters from going out into the streets because all they had

was an open intranet inside Iran that the regime used to communicate, but nobody else could. There is going to be a lot that's learned. And again, if you think about what countries can do now, once Iran opens up again, if they're determined to help in really meaningful ways, you buy Starlink terminals and you send them in

to the countries that are most at risk of this kind of barbaric treatment by their own government. You know, when I first started, as people know, I spent almost half the year in Scotland and initially where I was to get the kind of internet service I needed to do programs like this,

I signed up to Starlink and I did it to kind of a circuitous route through a person. They didn't have service in that part of Scotland, that part of the UK when I was looking for it. And I knew somebody who knew him and somehow I kind of worked this through and then the next day, boom, they opened up their service to Scotland. And so I got one and, you know, I'm not attacked. guy. But I was able to figure it out and install it like pretty pretty quickly. It was very simple

and worked like a charm as soon as she turned it on. It was quite a remarkable. It's amazing. It's amazing. But you know, Peter, this is in a sense what you and I were talking about just to close out this. You know what you and I were talking about 40 or 50 years. This kind of advanced tech was made by governments. That's not true in our world. know, the Iranians used technology supply, but either Russia or China, to reach up to turn off Starlink as best as they could. But the service is provided by private, innovative, tech brothers.

Let's be honest. That's just doing this. We have those kinds of guys in this country. We do. A lot of them. We do. And they can meet some of the objectives that you and I were talking about if they're unleashed and they're told,

we have a national emergency in this country, given what's going on south of the border and north of us in our far north. And it's amazing what these people can get done in a crunch. Well, that's what Evan Solomon's for. So make it happen, Evan. Okay, we're out of time. Another great conversation.

Thanks, Janice. We'll do it all again next week. And thanks to Willie for that great. Great question. Yes, I'll say. Bye for now. Bye-bye. Dr. Janice Stein from the Monk School at the University of Toronto with her regular Monday

visit with the bridge and we're all better for it. Glad to have her with us yet again this weekend. She'll be back in seven days. In one day, it will be the Moor-Buts conversation for this week. And it's a good one. It's, you know, the question we're asking them, is the question I know some of you are asking at home.

They don't hear it talked about very often on the air. But we're going to talk about it tomorrow. And the question is this. Is what we're seeing from Trump's America, you know, the Trump MAGA America, is what we're seeing there similar to what we saw in Germany

in the mid-1930s? That's the question. We'll hear what James Moore and Jerry butts have to say about that one. That's tomorrow. Wednesday, we'll, we got enough for another end bit special. We'll probably do that. You seem to be enjoying those. Thursday will be part two of Ask Me Anything.

And then Friday, of course, is a good talk with Chantelle and Bruce. So that's our week ahead for this week. Hope you join us. We love talking to you. We'll be back again in less than 24 hours. Thanks so much for listening today. We'll talk to you tomorrow.