The Bridge with Peter Mansbridge - Is There Any Chance For A Peace Deal in Ukraine?

Episode Date: November 24, 2025

Donald Trump puts forward a peace deal for Ukraine, a deal pretty well everyone rejects except Russia. But is this just the first step in a real attempt to find a way to end the war in Ukraine? Dr Janice Stein from the Munk School at the University of Toronto, fresh from the annual Halifax International Security Forum,  joins for her regular Monday commentary. Also up for discussion, Europe and Canada's fears about the future of democracy. 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. Does the latest peace plan for Ukraine have any chance of success? We'll talk about that with Dr. Janice Stein coming right up. And welcome to Mondays, and Mondays is always Dr. Janice Stein. From the Monk School to the University of Toronto. Quite the topic. The main topic is Ukraine.

You know, President Trump put forward a new peace plan last week. It's been panned by just about everyone except Russia. But does it stand a chance of being changed to the point where a peace plan may be possible? We'll talk to Dr. Stein about that in just a few moments' time. But as we always do on Mondays, we want to get you ready. for the question of the week. And this one's about pipelines. We had a lot of talk about pipelines last week.

We talked about it on Good Talk. We're going to talk about it tomorrow on the Moore-Buts conversation. But the question for you is this. And listen closely to the question. The question is really important here. Under what conditions, if any, would you want Mark Carney to agree in principle to a new oil pipeline from Alberta to Northern British Columbia. Okay, there's your question. Under what conditions, if any, would you want Mark Carney to agree in

principle to a new oil pipeline from Alberta to Northern British Columbia? Okay, that is the question, very specific, okay? So looking forward to your answers on that one. You write to the Mansbridge Podcast at gmail.com. The Mansbridge Podcast at gmail.com. Your answer must be 75 words or fewer. You must include your name and the location you're writing from. And you must have it in before 6 p.m. Eastern time on Wednesday.

So there you go. a sense of this week's question, what you have to do to take part in the discussion. And we love hearing from all of you. So don't be shy, write in the questions about pipelines. And I know there are going to be a lot of people in Alberta and BC who are going to answer this question. But I want to hear from everybody.

This is the big pipeline question at the moment. There are others that will come, but this is the question at the moment. So there you go. Looking forward to that for your turn on Thursday, along with the Random Ranter, of course, on Thursday's program. Okay, we'll tell you more about this week coming up later, but let's get to Dr. Janice Stein from the Monk School of the University of Toronto

because this is a hot topic this week. This week is Ukraine. There's more in this discussion as well. You're going to want to hear it all. Here we go. Dr. Janice Stein right now. So Janice, the Halifax Security Forum has been a part of your life since it started. So here we've gone through another one.

What's the headline? There's two. The first is, of course, Ukraine. And the so-called offer that the Trump administration put on the table was shocked to everybody. and it was the subject of every conversation in the hallways. The second one was Donald Trump. What Donald Trump means for democracy, how allies deal with him.

And when we weren't talking about Ukraine, we were talking about that, Peter. Yeah, explain that to me. there's a huge European representation in Halifax from every European country, right across from Finland to Sweden to the UK, which sent just a terrific delegation. And there were no U.S. military for the first time in history in the 16-year history of the forum. the same empty chair that was the G20. And so this was, in a sense, and the United States enabled this, to some degree, by their absence,

there was a broad allied discussion. Is democracy at risk here? What happens if the United States were to slide over? What are the rest of us to do? What can we do now before it happens? and what are the rest of us to. You know, in a really interesting signal from Washington, we always have a congressional delegation that comes to the Halifax form.

It's a mixture of congresspeople from the House and then senators. This was the largest Senate delegation we've ever had, and it was bipartisan. We had Republican senators as well as Democratic senators. it was clear, Peter, they were sending a message. The administration is the administration, but broadened out from the administration, we don't like this, we're not comfortable with this, and we're voting with our feet by sending the largest delegation.

This is the first time we've seen that on the part of Republican senators. Yes. At some like international conference of which this, of course, is an important one. So how, I mean, the Republicans kind of screwed some things up in what they were saying about the Ukraine thing. But overall, the position being that they didn't agree with this piece offer that was on the table, which was a major step for any Republican to say about something that Trump was pushing. Yeah. I mean, again, we're beginning to get the whiff here.

and early whiff that Republicans will put just one or two degrees of distance between them and Trump. Now, that really matters. It really matters. It's more important than it looks because Trump has had an iron grip on the Republican Party, both in the Senate and in the House. These are early, early cracks. You know, Peter, just to share with our listeners, one Republican senator who, and it was actually very useful that he said all this because he turned to Canadians and he said in a thick southern accent, which I won't try to imitate, but it added real local color to the message. He said, look, folks, your prime minister, and I think he means the previous one, not this one, Your prime minister's come down to Washington and said, well, we're not going to invest in any defense spending because we have to invest in health care.

And I'm listening to that message. I'm a senator and I'm saying, I'd like to invest in health care too. But I don't have that luxury because I have to invest in defense. He said, that didn't sit well with a lot of us. And he did a back of the envelope calculation. said there's about $300 billion owing for the years. You invested in health care and not in defense. That was a pretty, that was pretty straightforward talk from a senator who came to Halifax.

So within one breath was signaling, I don't like the way this administration is handling the relationship, but didn't take off the table, the view of Canada, among some senators. Yeah, that was Tillis, the Republican senator who said that, and it did make people sit up and go, whoa, that's quite something. But, you know, the overall tone, you know, I was watching some of the statements that the senators made at the microphone, the Republican senators in particular, there seemed a real attempt to say we've got to cool this U.S. Canada stuff because it's out of hand.

Yes. There's no question, Peter. This was an olive branch from the, you know, from the Democrats, of course, you know, from Gene Chaheen, who has come every year and had led the delegation. But from the Republican senators, that was. the message. Cool this. The rhetoric is over the top. We don't want you overreacting.

This relationship is solid. It will survive this administration. And that's partly Peter, this is the Defense and Security Conference. We are going to make decisions over the next

18 months that over the long run will be hundreds of billions of dollars that may not go some of it anyway that may not go to the United States as it did in the past because the Prime Minister has said repeatedly we're not going to buy the same amount of equipment from the United States

that we used to because it's not secure if you just look at the F-35s right that order is on pause and I think it's no secret to say that there was Saab came to the forum this year. Right. Yeah. And Saab makes one of the aircraft. And, you know, U.S. senators don't miss that kind of stuff.

They see it. Well, you know, it's all well and good for them to say, we got to cool it. But where were they six months ago when they could have, that voice might have, that voice might have made a difference. They weren't anywhere. They were hiding in their offices. No. So, you know, it's all well and good to say, let's cool it.

I got to, my sense is it's too late. Well, I don't know if it's too late. Well, it's too late for certain decisions. Like, you know, the possibility on the F-35, changing it to some Grippins or something else. Yeah. You know, and clearly, you know, the prime minister is off. I watched him yesterday saying to reporters,

I haven't called him. I'm not going to call them. I have no, I'll call them what I need to call him about Trump, where, you know, compared with a few months ago when they were texting and phoning back and forth almost daily. You know, the game has moved on here. Yes. And that's the cost, right?

There's no question the game has changed. That's the cost of the kind of rhetoric that Donald Trump, but just the not only rhetoric, there's tariffs that are costing the Canadian economy a significant amount. And if they continue at this level, we'll do damage to our economy. So there's no question the prime minister is in a very different frame of mind. not prepared to overlook this. If you're in the defense and security community, you're derelict in your duty, Peter. If you don't think about a low probability, but really damaging thing like a president

in a peak of temper saying to an American company, whether it's locking gear for the makes the F-35 or it's Amazon Cloud. Hey, hold back those software up with updates, slow them down. And if a president does that, and there's under the rubric of a national security emergency, which, by the way, Donald Trump has done on tariffs, if he tells a company, declares some sort of emergency and tells a company that they need to hold it back for national security reasons they have to comply and they didn't deny that when they were you know in a lot of the private conversations people really pushed they couldn't deny it and you know

I think a prime minister would be remiss if he didn't say that's a possibility and we it'll cost us some money it'll cost us quite a bit of money actually but we have to insure against that that was a shock to the Americans who are here, both the companies and the senator. It's a good thing they heard it. Let's get back on the Ukraine train here for a moment. You know, the 28-point peace plan that Trump put forward last week, you know, it really did look like somebody said to Putin, write down everything you want. and we'll submit that

and so he wrote down literally everything he could possibly want and that's what seems to have been placed before you know was Zelensky now as you said at the beginning nobody expects first of all everybody's against it

except the Russians and the Americans and maybe even the Americans a good chunk of them are against it as well but this has to move on from here so how does it move on from here so again just talk about the senators for a moment they were all against it right so for the and they were on the record they were these were not private conversations they were so how does this move on let the Europeans have to do what they did before they're going to

have to do it again they're going to have to insert them they're going to have to force the door open and insert themselves into the process um there's a the goal here is to be the last person to say no right Peter so Zelensky cannot say no right now he won't say yes but he's not going to say no and the Europeans are going to move in and say well we need this change we need that change we need the other change in fact there are four or five big ticket items that are not only unacceptable to Ukraine but they're unacceptable acceptable to Europe. You know, take one,

trapping the size of the Ukrainian military. That's like just saying to the wolf that's at the door. We're opening the door for you. I mean, there's no European country. We had the chair of the military committee of NATO with us. That's so alarming. not only to the Europeans not only about Ukraine but about themselves

they will never accept that the other one for all the NATO allies that were in the room NATO cannot expand who outsourced that decision to Vladimir Putin they're shocked frankly at this kind of thing

for the Ukrainians of course you give away territory that the Russians don't hold right now. I would probably conservatively take them at least another year of fighting to take both in the Donbass, but even in southern territories, you know, in Zaporisha and in Kerslund. So how do you do that? Well, the whole, it just appears that, you know, the, the Russians and the Americans figure, well, Ukraine has lost this war, so, you know, the, the, the, the foot is at their throat.

And we're going to do a version of Versailles 1919 all over again. Yeah. I mean, the sum of the stuff in that is, you know, it really is quite something. It assumes Ukraine is basically giving up. Yeah. You know, that's big picture, Peter, the really alarming signal here to Canadians. to all the European allies, that you have a president

who makes that assumption Ukraine is lost and makes a deal over the head of Ukraine, because Ukraine was not consulted. You know, Dan Disko, the Secretary of the Army, went last Wednesday after the deal was done to start the conversations

with them. This is a form of betrayal, frankly. which is just astonishing. But what does it say, what does it say bigger picture about Trump's commitment to Article 5 in NATO? Right.

Right? You know, the United States said, we're going to stand with you Ukraine as long as it takes. How long did it take for the United States not to stand with Ukraine? Two and a half years. What does that say, you know, to a Finland or a Sweden? And just like the conversation,

Canada has moved from what it was when Donald Trump became, Donald Trump 2.0, the country's moved, the prime minister has moved, and the investment decisions are coming now, that we'll anchor this for several years. This, I think this week, this last week, is probably an anchor meeting for NATO. How do we organize ourselves where we don't count on the United States?

And there's a, there's a sticker price for that. But you pay it when you see this happen. One more irony here, Peter, and all of this. There are Russians, Chattering-class Russians, you know, in security infrastructure in the Duma, who consider that it's not enough and are pushing hard openly to get blessed.

and we're putting to reject this deal. To reject it? Yeah. What do they want? They object to the security guarantees. Yeah. Yeah, and we haven't really seen those spelled out. No, we don't know what they are.

None of us have seen the text of this thing. We are, we're reading summaries by reporters who have seen it and it's being leaked, but none of us have seen the text. And you're getting the kind of conversation in the White House, which I'm not surprised. You know, Steve Wickoff says, oh, this is just a draft. And Marco Rubio says, no, no, no, no, this is not a draft. This is the deal. So when the pressure starts to build, you get the chaos.

That comes out of the White House here. Now, having said that, I mean, listen, countries do change. their positions on things, including on conflicts. I mean, there we were in Afghanistan, Stephen Harper standing with the troops on some sand dune somewhere saying, we'll never cut and run on you to the Afghans. Yeah. And then a couple of years later, what did we do? We cut and run.

And you know why we did? Because Stephen Harper was a serious reader. and he looked at the reports from the battlefield and he read, and he came to the conclusion that the war was unwinnable. Similar argument. Yeah. Well, a lot of people were saying that before it started

that it was an unwinnable war as had been proven in that country throughout history. Right. You know? But nevertheless, I mean, you know, that came after Canada had a rough run. Yeah.

You know, in terms of casualty. And lost battles. Okay. So I want to get to, like, what can happen here. Hey, is there an underlying story in this? We talked about it a little bit last week in terms of the corruption in Ukraine and one incident in particular where some long-time friend of Zelensky's was caught with his hands in the cookie jar for millions of dollars. 100 million.

100 million. Nuclear energy. As the grid is being knocked out by Russian missiles and Ukrainians are facing a terrible, terrible winter, the worst effort. So this really played in the Ukrainian public. So how weak is his position, Zelensky's position right now, in terms of trying to argue for a better deal than the one that's being offered? You know, let me tell you what, Andre, Scherbenko sat la on Saturday when asked about this. And he is who? He is very close to the president.

He was Ukraine's ambassador to Canada. Okay. And a really good, good strategic analyst. So he said, look, Zelensky was really in trouble over this issue. And just for to go off script for one to second, Peter, the way this corruption, Bureau released the information to the Ukrainian public

I saw the videos I've never seen anything like this they would do what kind of this hour has 60 minutes and they would release it and then the last few minutes stay tuned for the next episode in this story

and they kept that up for you know more than 48 hours and the Ukrainian public was gripped. This was you know, this was crime drama on steroid

with high production value that was released. I mean, that's beyond usually what corruption investigators do where they stand in front of a microphone in a very dry voice. They tell you that somebody is going to be in, but

you know, indicted. So I just say that because somebody has an agenda here. other than the anti-corruption agenda. That's for sure when you watch those videos. So Andre said, I think something's very interesting, he said, look, Zelensky was on the ropes until Trump released this deal. And then you get, not for the first time, this rally around the president.

When the terms of this deal leaked to the Ukrainian public, that story went away and that's not surprising frankly so you know the consensus among the Ukrainians this was a huge miscalculation if Trump and his people thought

because Olensky was weak as a result of this at home and this was the moment to pounce they just got wrong and that's a credible argument you know when there's a foreign threat that comes at you, your domestic differences. Just go away.

And if anybody should understand that, it's Trump, who's always looking for something to, you know, to move the balls or change the story. Yeah. You know, basically to protect him from some scandal that's happening. Yeah. And what he did was he gave Zelensky the same option. He gave Zelensky exactly that option. And by the way, Trump was having.

not a very good week at home with a very well-known congresswoman who defected but with a set of scandals that he's dealing with too that is captured US media so he changes the channel

in order to deflect attention from that releases this plan but wholly miscalculates and I actually think gave Zelensky now the opportunity to go on the road wrote, get the, you know, get Starmor, get, and by the way, they, they were at the G20. It was easy for those Europeans to come together.

They were all in the same room. And our prime minister spoke out as well, even before he left. They're all in the same room. And I can tell you they are coordinating a strategy to take back to the White House. Where does this land, Peter? I think we're into one more round of negotiation. its outcome is unpredictable. Is there a leader in that group?

I mean, they seem to like agree as a group all the time. You know, Starrmer, Macron, the Germans, et cetera, et cetera, and Karnie. But of that group, is there a leader or do they really operate as a group? you know from everything i know there's one person who thinks he's the leader that's Emmanuel Macron but he always thinks he's the leader right now there's nobody in europe right now that is weaker at home than Emmanuel Macron I mean he's gone through four governments now it's high you know that may not be right uh but he's having trouble forming a government

and he's the weakest of any French presidency and if you know it's a possibility that he may be forced to call an election in the next seven months and against his will because he knows that the lefts and the right is much stronger now

than the centrist party that he led. So he's the weakest leader there is. Kirstarmer? Not in great shape. probably the strongest two leaders in that group are Friedrich Mertz, the Chancellor of Germany, and Mark Carney, whose budget passed, who doesn't face an immediate domestic problem right now at home. Those are the people whose governments are most stable,

but neither of those two claw for the limelight. in the same way that I crawl and Starmer does and you know it's for the United Kingdom Ukraine is the 21st century

Poland that's the easiest way to think about this for them they and they're serious I have to say the British are serious about defense and security in a way

that few other countries in the world are and again and again over the weekend they talked about how important it was for the future of European security not to abandon Ukraine and that it was regardless of what the United States was going to do here it was imperative that the United Kingdom continue to provide assistance okay we're going to take our break we'll come back and I want to extend the discussion on that point. I'll explain that in a minute. But let's take the break first.

We'll be right back after this. And welcome back. You're listening to the Monday episode of The Bridge. That means Dr. Janice Stein from the Mug School, the University of Toronto. We've been talking a lot about the Halifax Security Forum. which has been going on. How many years is this now?

20? 16. 16. And Janice was a founding director of that forum, and so I don't think you've missed one. No. And they've, you know, they've always made their own headlines, as this year has done as well.

But part of what happens in these things, forums like this is there's the talk that goes on in front of the microphones, and there's the talk that goes on in the hallways or in the cocktail rooms or what have you. At the bars, let's be honest here. At the bars, right. So what was, you know, you mentioned earlier that there's this whole fear of losing democracy.

Is that still the constant in the sort of off the official paper in terms of the discussions that are going on? Yeah, that by far took up most of the private conversation. and it was focused, Peter, on what this next 12 months will bring in the United States. I would say that Europeans and others are holding their breath. They haven't made, despite everything they've seen in Washington over the last nine months, they haven't made a decision that the United States is on an unethitable path to autocracy. they're open and everybody is focused on whether there will be midterm elections and by that let me just stop there for a minute because that's not a mistake they're even among

Americans who are in that room both official and non-official everybody acknowledged that it's possible it's possible that those elections might not be. be held. This president has used national security legislation to declare emergencies. That's how we have national guards in the cities of the United States. That's how we have an unprecedented lotilla in the Caribbean. So this is fairly routine. He resorts to that.

And a national security emergency exempts the president from any court jurisdiction. No court challenges a national security emergency. So there are plenty of stories being spun about what could happen if the polls are really bad when we get to next October. But very sober Americans would answer. Yeah. Is it just Democrats? saying that? It's a lot of Democrats, but it's some Republicans. Now, again, don't forget, the Republicans we had here were already those who made a decision that they were going to come

despite, you know, it wasn't Donald Trump, by the way, who banned the American military from coming to Halifax. He was Pete Hegsa, the Secretary of Defense. You don't think he wouldn't have talked to Trump about that before I did that? I think he would have. But you know, how loyal is Trump to anything? Even the things that his cabinet secretaries do when he doesn't like it, he just changes it. So there's slightly less risk here on taking on Pete Heggseth than there isn't taking on Donald Trump directly.

And maybe the Republicans thought about it that way. But when they were pushed privately, nobody can say this is impossible. but it's nobody can say that it's likely either it was is this a theoretical possibility and people say yeah yeah it could happen has it ever happened before no not even in the middle of no time nope the United States has never suspended an election other democracies have right but the United States never done that um I don't know you just think that that all hell was right loose of they ever tried well

you would have thought hell would have broken loose several times Peter over some of the stuff that's gone on

and it didn't break loose but I agree with you that is so core to the way Americans

think about their democracy and it's not partisan it doesn't matter where you are on the political spectrum

elections are built into the DNA if they were suspended for any reason. I can't imagine even

the right being comfortable with that frankly. But it's amazing that this conversation would go on in the hall and no American could deny that it was possible, right? Is there a sense that

you know we've watched Trump for 10 years and he keeps getting himself into trouble at which time we say there's no way back from this point. How many times have we reached that moment, probably a dozen times, at least in the last 10 years, that the situation has been so serious we've said this.

He can't come back from this. Well, we're in another one of those now. Yeah, we are. You know, and it seems to be deeper than some of the troughs he's witnessed before, whether it's the Marjorie Taylor Green thing that you, mentioned whether it's the Epstein stuff, whether it's the economy there. There's a big story there. In which one?

In the Epstein files. There is a big story there. Okay. All right. There's not for no reason that Trump has gone to all these lengths, not to have those files released, right? There's a story there. I assume you're assuming that the story is it ties directly to him.

Yes, that's what I'm assuming. And is that what is sort of commonly thought of by some of the hallway chatter that you heard over the weekend? Yeah, that's what that's commonly thought of by my people who talk to people who talk to people who know. so that is exactly what people so that story's not going away but i think there's a bigger story than either of those two and we saw trump blink 10 days ago on this is the cost of food is going up the cost of living is going up his base voted him in because he was going to fix the economy and when things are worse after nine months of his presidency and they you know people know when they have less money in their pocket

when they're struggling to meet you know to buy food to buy gas for their car to meet mortgage payments that's not subject to interpretation or disinformation and that's why we're seeing a change in the polls and I think that's what's emboldening those Republicans to do things now that they wouldn't have done a year ago. And when people look forward at that, they say the traditional pattern in the United States is the president loses some of this. We know there, some of his support in midterm elections, but it will be a game changer if he loses control of the house.

So you have very optimistic people, and that's the hang on, folks. Don't make any irrevocable decisions you, Canadians. We love you. We always have loved you. Just hang on, wait this out until next November, until we see how this plays out. That seems to be the strategy Carney's using now, which is sort of, he's got problems. I don't need to talk to him. I'm not going to talk to them.

That's right. That's exactly the strategy that Carney is using, except he's got, he's got problems. He's not going to be able to kick down the road for a year some of those big spends, which will lock us into a different future. So as you put it, the game has changed. This is not free using this kind of, these kinds of tactics against an ally and the kind of rhetoric he's used. Well, there's so many different ways this could go.

You know, when you look at the international economic situation, when you look at the international diplomatic situation, the tensions that exist, the whole, what's going to happen with Ukraine, what's going to happen with Russia, what's going to happen with Europe? Yeah. You know, there's...

Would you say, Peter, and you were such a Canadian history buff, would you say that this next year, year coming 26 is one of the most important years in Canadian history for shaping the future of this country. Oh, yeah. Yeah, absolutely. Even if nothing is done, it's shaping the future.

Yeah. Not in a good way. Yeah. But it does appear that not only are we heading to a new kind of Canada, but we're doing it with a degree of agreement on the part of people who often disagree politically. So it's interesting from that matter. I mean, history buffs in the future are going to be looking back at this year to see who said what, who did what through this period, because it is, it will determine

you know, what kind of future we're going to have. And I don't think anybody can guarantee that, you know, what that future will be, no matter what they're arguing for at the moment. It's kind of, there's risk involved here. You know, it's so interesting because you're absolutely right. It's contingent. We don't know. We just don't know how this coming year will unfold.

But we know it's defining for Canada. But when some historian writes this, 20 years from that, They know how the story ends, and there's going to be a seamless line through the whole thing with all those uncertainties wiped out. Yeah, we'll see. Right, we'll see. They'll be writing about, you know, I remember when Janice Stein said this to Peter Mansbridge, remember those? And there people go, who are they? Who are those people?

Anyway, this is another great conversation. I look forward to the next one. Thanks for this, Janice. We'll talk again in seven days. Have a good week. Dr. Janice Stein from the Muck School of the University of Toronto, another wide-ranging conversation, but my gosh, I mean, she's bang on. This is a critical year for Canada.

It's critical no matter what decisions are made, even if there are none, it's a critical moment. So what happens over these next weeks, months, the next year or two? We'll determine the kind of future that this country may well have. What future our kids will have, our grandkids will have, and future generations. So lots to talk about it, and we'll try to keep talking about it on this program through the different ways that we discuss the big issues. Tomorrow, I mentioned a few moments ago, it's more about the conversation, number 28,

and you'll go, well, you just did 28 a couple weeks ago. Yeah, I did, but it should have been 27. I screwed it up. So the real 28 is tomorrow. And we're going to talk about, why is it so hard, or is it hard to build pipelines in Canada? We're going to talk about that tomorrow with Moore Butz, and we'll also talk about the lobbying we watched last week by the U.S. Ambassador on Fighter Jets,

by the King and Queen of Sweden on Fighter Jets. How different is that from what we've been used to in the past? So we look forward to Moore and Butts, we always do. You love it. You love that program. I know just by looking up the numbers that are racked up in the Apple podcast rankings. More Butts is a program you enjoy, just like you enjoy Janice on Mondays. Anyway, more butts tomorrow, number 28, look forward to giving that.

Wednesday, what did I decide about Wednesday? I think it's going to be an encore. It'll definitely be an encore on Wednesday. And Thursday, it's your turn. You've heard the question. If you missed it, go to the top of the program and listen to it again. And the random ranter on Thursday, of course, Friday is a good talk with Bruce and Chantel. That's going to wrap it up for this day.

Look forward to talking to you tomorrow. So tune in in less than 24 hours. Thank you.