The Bridge with Peter Mansbridge - Message to Canada -- No More Excuses

Episode Date: November 25, 2024

One key message heard by delegates at The Halifax Security Conference was that its time for Canada to step up on defence spending.

And hello there, Peter Mansbridge here. You're just moments away from the latest episode of The Bridge. Canada gets criticized again for missing its NATO targets on defense spending. And this time it's not just from the United States. That's coming right up. And hello there, Peter Mansbridge here. Welcome to Monday. Welcome to the beginning of another week. Beginning of the last week in November of 2024.

This year has gone by real quick. We're heading into the last month of 2024 in just another week's time. And it's not like there hasn't been a lot happening, not only on the domestic stage, but on the world stage. And Mondays, of course, is when we talk about the world stage with our regular guest, who of course is Janice Stein at the Munk School at the University of Toronto. Janice has been with us for almost a couple of years now on dealing with those twin issues of Ukraine, Russia, and the Middle East. We're going to take a break from those two main subjects for a moment, first of all, because Janice has been away the last few days in Halifax,

where they host the annual Halifax Security Summit. And it's attended by experts from around the world and players from around the world. I think there were about 300 of them there this past week. There have been, in the history books, 16 of these now. Janice has been at all of them. In fact, I think she was one of those who was involved in the establishment of this summit from its earliest days. So we're

looking forward to talking to Janice about what happened in Halifax over these last couple of days. I think you'll find it interesting that while obviously some of the big issues on the table were discussed, including the new administration incoming in the United States, but also there was not an insignificant amount of time spent on Canada and this whole boogeyman that Canada has of defense spending. So we'll get to that in a minute, but first, as we often do on Mondays, a little bit of housekeeping. And housekeeping means giving you a sense of the question of the week, which we air out your answers on Thursday of each week on your turn.

So here's the question of the week. It relates, it's a little different this week. It relates to what we did on Friday. If you listened to Good Talk, and I bet most of you did, because it's a very popular program with Bruce Anderson and Chantelle Hebert, and myself. Our discussion last Friday was about what had happened last Thursday when the government announced two measures to try and give people a break. Okay, that was the announced reason

for this. And there were basically the two elements to it. There'd be GST on some articles, GST free for two months starting in mid-December, kind of like a Christmas GST break. And the second element was checks going out to many Canadians, not all Canadians, but a lot of Canadians, for about $250 each.

Now, there's two ways to look at this, and it's fair to look at this two ways. One is sort of a policy announcement, because in some ways it goes against past policy, but it does go along with the policy of looking after those who are in need. Okay? And we mentioned that. There's no doubt that there are Canadians who are suffering and have been suffering as a result of inflation, cost of living, et cetera. And for them, getting this break is something worthy.

But the second element is the politics of it. And, you know, that's usually what we deal with on Good Talk. We deal with the politics. It doesn't mean we ignore policy. We don't. But we deal with the politics. And for a government for the past year has gone through some real difficulties and is trailing really badly in the polls with an election incoming in anywhere from the next couple of months to the next year.

This has the appearance of a nice little break for those who are getting ready for an election. So you weigh these two things, the politics, and we went hard on the politics of it last week because there are certain contradictions in these plans. One, it bumps right up against a fiscal situation where the Minister of Finance and others in the Cabinet have been trying awfully hard for the last few months to say,

we're cutting back. Well, they didn't use that term, but we're being extremely careful about where we're spending money because we have to watch our budgetary situation. So this, these little Christmas bonuses coming out here are going to be like billions of dollars, right? So that's that issue. Now, we did our thing.

We did our program. It got very high ratings. We got a lot of commentary from the public, which we enjoy. Good and bad. And there was a mixture of both over the weekend. So far. Some people thought the Liberals needed this kick in the pants that they got on Good Talk, and quite frankly, they've got in a lot of other areas since.

And you read some of the opinion pieces. But others said, you know, you guys are really unfair. The government was trying to help people in need. And they saw that need, and they reacted to it. And for a lot of those people, this was no small matter. It was a big deal. So it's your classic sort of, was it good policy, bad politics? Was it bad politics, good, excuse me, bad policy, good politics?

I don't know. I don't know what the end result is on that question. And there's no reason it couldn't be a little bit of both, right? But having said that, as a result of some of the mail I got, I want to throw it open to you. You heard the announcement. You've read the stuff. You've heard people's opinions on it.

What do you think? Was it good politics and bad policy? Or was it good policy and bad politics? Or some version of those two options. So I want to hear from you in terms of your answer to that question. Where do you think it settles down in terms of what happened last Thursday? So what we're looking for, once again, as always, is a short answer. We had to drop a lot last week because there were just too many long, long, long answers.

So we're looking for short answers, a paragraph or less, please. Include your name. Include the location you're writing from. We drop some, we're playing hardball now. You forget to answer those two questions, you're not going to get on the program. So it's very simple, and it gives us a better idea of regional distribution of feelings and answers on this question.

So there we have it. I know the question, name and location you're writing from. Keep it short, and here's the cruncher. You've got to have it in by 12 noon Eastern time on Wednesday. Okay, that doesn't give you much time. I'll explain why it's earlier this week than normal. Well, basically, it's because I've got to catch a flight. I've got to go out to Winnipeg.

I've got a couple of speeches in Winnipeg, in Manitoba, later this week. And so to have this program ready to air on Thursday, I've got to hear from you early. So there you've got it. Okay? Now, let's get to the topic for today because it's a really good one. And we couldn't ask for a better guest than the guest we have, which of course is our regular Monday guest. And that is none other than the great, the one and only Janice Stein.

So let's hear from her now. Janice, you've been to all of the Halifax Security Conference meetings over the years. There's been, what, 16 of them now. And as we both know at conferences like this, I mean, it's one thing to hear what comes off the microphones, but it's another thing to hear what comes out of the hallways and the backroom meetings. What's your sense of this one in terms of the tone and the subjects that we're really being discussed here?

Well, no surprise to you, Peter. It's the first post-Trump election meeting of allies, friends, Democratic friends internationally that's happened. So there's really one theme in all the private conversations. It just takes many, many forms. But it is after the oh my god moment, what you get, and it's really striking, is a doubling down, a determination to do everything possible not to let these

alliance bonds fray, to wait this out and to build around as much as will be necessary over the next four years. Nobody's minimizing the problem here, but there really is a sense to dig in. So let me give you one example. I was in an off the record and all the dinners are off the record and everybody mixes. It's a really kind of nice, flat, non-hierarchical meeting. And we had two really senior Americans with us. What did the conversation turn to? How do we better work with the allies to buy

in a more sharing way, let me put it that way, the defense equipment we're going to need. How do we better distribute burdens? How do we build channels and networks so that we make sure

we do better over the next four years when the ride is bumpy. And what did you accomplish in that discussion? You know, it's interesting because let's just talk about Canada for a minute. We have to grow our defense, by the way, Peter. We're a lot, but times run out on us. No excuse is accepted anymore. And we're a real laggard.

So what does that mean for this country over the next decade? Our biggest public spend in Canada is going to be on defense. That's no small matter. So there was really, really excellent conversations. We have a minister who's absolutely committed to do this. That's Bill Blair, who formerly a B-Cop. Former city of Toronto police chief, right? Right.

Great preparation to be a minister, I think. Because you get stuff done. You can't sit around for months and months and months and months because then the problem has either gotten much, much worse or it's gone away. So you've got to get stuff done. And he is absolutely committed to do that. But there's a really important conversation.

What's a smart way to spend all this money? Because it's going to be a lot of money. Do we spend it? How do we best get and literally bang for the buck here? How closely do we coordinate with the United States as it spends with other allies? And two big, you know, it's a big divide here. One way we could spend this money, and we've done this for a long time, is buy six more or 12 submarines, which is what the current plan is,

and add to the total stock of submarines. But how much are our six submarines going to matter in the bigger world or have a very different conversation? What do you really need us to do? Where are you not covering? Where are the holes? How can we step up and take on one big project for you as we've done in Latvia?

And we're very highly regarded for doing that. Where can we really play a meaningful role, especially as this world gets tougher? Very different spend trajectories and our forces would look very different. Okay. I want to pick that apart a little bit. First of all, on the money, there is no money. There's no money because we are literally at the ceiling, you know. And so in the defense update, it was all projected out into the future.

But there is no more free ride for us. You know, when you hear that from Estonia, we had the former president of Estonia here with us. When you hear that from Estonia, you don't have to hear it from Donald Trump. When you hear it from Estonia, there's just no more free ride. And that's why I think this is so important for Canadians.

It's going to eat into our spend on social policies. Peter, there's no money. It has to come from somewhere in order for us to improve our performance. We just have delayed way too long, frankly. The money issue is going to be an interesting one i mean we just saw last week before the conference started um the government deciding at a time when it was claiming to be being extremely careful about where we're spending money suddenly doing the you know 250 checks to a lot of canadians the GST-free holiday was going to cost $6 billion,

which is a drop in the bucket, really, in terms of the defense kind of spending that we're talking about. But how that plays out, how people react to it, because it's one thing, as you say, to have the Americans complaining and Trump, and he wasn't alone. There were, you know, Democrats complaining too about how much Canada was putting in and not meeting its 2% commitment.

But having others now, you know, joining the chorus of complaints about Canada, especially at a conference hosted in Canada. That's quite something. It really is. You know, Estonia is a country of a million people. It's a tiny country and has a very long historical memory. But what Russia has done, you don't need to educate any Estonian on this. But they're spending 3.4%. And he just turned around and he said, you know, come on.

You're just not credible amongst any of us. If you don't do far more to put a rough number on this. And I can't, Peter, because, you know, when you project these numbers forward, they're all phony numbers. They don't mean anything until you actually have to spend the money. But the defense spend for us could be between $70 and $80 billion a year. Now, all this fuss about the GST, as you said, $6 billion, that's a drop in the bucket compared to what we're talking about. And so how we do it is really going to be critical, really critical. And it's going to provoke quite the debate in Canada about where money is being spent.

Were there conservatives at the, were any of the members of the Conservative caucus there? And what are they saying on this issue? Well, you know, they're, I'm just trying to think how I can answer that question without talking about a conversation I had in a bar. Let me put it that way. They got the message because they're hearing it. in the Conservative Party, just as there was a job to do in the Liberal Party to get the new leader and a new group of ministers up to speed. But it was encouraging that they were here and they heard the same conversations as all the rest of us did. For sure.

The, you know, the other thing that you point out is Canada needs to focus on, you know, not just that we're going to, we're needed to spend money, that we need to focus on this, but we need to focus on where we're going to spend the money. That's the key. defense statements about looking at the submarine situation, especially for the Arctic. And the Americans want us to play a lot more of a role in the Arctic than we've done in the past. And they've done in the past. They've done a lot of work in Canada's Arctic and protecting not only their own position, but the Canadian position.

But this issue of, you know, 12 submarines, as many as 12 submarines to the Arctic, is a multi-billion dollar commitment if you're going to make it. Like, we're talking hundreds of billions of dollars here. Yeah. So, okay, you're clearly not in favor of this. Well, you know, let me put it this way. We had a great panel yesterday on the Arctic.

And where do we really shine, Peter? We're really good in space. We are really good in space. We have really innovative companies in this country. A lot of this, you know, a lot of the new technology, and this is a big game changer for all of us, is in the private sector. It's no longer the military that's leading. So that's a big story in itself.

How does the military learn to buy in real time from the private sector? And there was lots of conversations about that. But I'll tell you honestly, we have two really terrific Canadian companies that are now selling to U.S. Space Command. And some of what they will sell to U.S. Space Command, they will not be able to share what they see back with Canada. That does not strike me, by the way.

It's the way forward here. So when you talk to Americans about the Arctic, what do they want us to do? They want us to do way more in space. They want to, you know, the Americans have one icebreaker, one icebreaker. We're going to deploy four. But if you're thinking about this big expanse, we could provide more than four

and they would be very, very grateful if we did that. We're really good at underwater sensing and we're really good at underwater sensing. And we're really good at communication between space and underwater sensors. We have to get even better at extreme, at operating in the extreme cold. There's a huge opportunity here for Canada. The submarine spend is so large, Peter.

That's where the choice really becomes important. Does that consume most of what we do over the next 10 years? Or is the demand on us going to be so big that we can invest? We have to invest in space. We have to beef up our icebreakers. We have to build the infrastructure. In the Canadian Arctic, it's the largest, frankly, undefended piece of the Arctic that exists. And when I talk about the Arctic now,

in an effort to get Canadians to hear it a little bit, I say we are a frontline NATO state. People sit up and say, what are you talking about? Well, right next door to us in the Arctic is Russia. And all the rest of the Arctic Council are now nato members so we are getting a an unbelievable opportunity here because the nato countries are going to count what we spend in the arctic even on infrastructure as part of our two percent they just agreed you know it's generally accepted that if there's if there's ever going to be a third world war and god help God help us that there isn't a nuclear one, it's probably going to be fought over that space you talk about.

Yeah. Between Russia and the United States, directly over Canada's Arctic. That's right. And this is where the submarine thing plays out, because we've never had submarines that went into the Arctic. No. And even these ones that are being talked about because they're not nuclear

powered. They can't, they're conventional. They can't go under the ice for any significant length of time. No hours. No Americans go under it for, you know, three weeks.

And, and we're not even sure who goes through our waters, or at least waters we say are ours. There's a debate about, you know, international waters and the Northwest Passage and all that. But the Americans have gone through the Arctic since the 50s. And usually with our, well, it's said that we've always known about it they've we do we do yeah sure we do janice but we don't know who else has well let me tell you a story um okay not not

about the present but you'll see why i'm telling you this story um we do know know and in the 50s, Peter, as you know, we had submarines. So what did we do? We tracked Soviet submarines. We always knew where they were. And they came up the coast and we always knew. But what did we do when we identified a Soviet submarine? We phoned the Americans. Right? We didn't use the submarines in anti-submarine warfare, frankly. And so this is a good story to talk about because that story is all declassified now.

We don't have to worry about it. We phoned the Americans. Now, submarines, that's a very expensive telephone line. If you're not going to use these submarines in anti-submarine warfare, and they can't go under the ice. And it'll be probably 10 to 12 years until they come online, and they'll be conventional submarines, and the technology is leaping ahead now.

So the big challenge for us is how do we survey under the ice? How do we know what's going on under the ice? So you're right that I'm skeptical of submarines. You know, I was on board one of the Canadian naval vessels, the new Arctic patrol vessels. I guess it was two falls ago now, and they were laying line, you know, this underwater sonar stuff. You know, it's unclear exactly what it was for. Was it to track weather?

Was it to track fish? Was it to track submarines? What was it actually being used for? But it was newer technology than what we've had in the past. But this idea of coordinating space expertise with land-based and underwater technology, maybe that's the answer. Look, I listen to what people are asking for.

Right, Peter, that's a good way to try to understand where you can make a difference. That's what the Americans are talking about all the time with us. They know we're good at it. They know we're good at it. They they know they don't have the bandwidth right now. They want us to build infrastructure in the Arctic. They want us to train troops who can operate

in extreme cold weather for longer periods of time. That's not what they're doing right now. They're focused on the Indo-Pacific. And they're open about it. And they're open about where we're going. I don't hear a lot of talk about submarines from them frankly

you know what the big advantage of submarines is it's a huge it's a bulky expensive purchase and it will get us to 2% very quickly yeah that's hardly the only reason to do it

that's right I did say to do it is you. That's right. And so I did say to an American, a very, very senior American, you got to be careful here. Are you having the right conversation with us? Because if the push is to get to 2% very fast,

you may not get the best package. You might want to slow down a little bit here and ask yourself, what do we really need from Canada? And, you know, use, calibrate the pressure over a longer time period, because getting a bulked up expenditure package probably won't deliver all the value that we can. You know, I love submarines. I love the whole story of submarines. I love movies about submarines. I love, you know, the history of submarines, especially, you know, in the Second World War. Yeah.

But, man, we have not had a lot of luck with submarines. No. I mean, Canada. No. I mean, we got taken on various sales of used subs and you name it. And this has, you know, flashing red lights all around it. All over it. Well, we got a very bad deal last time, but they're not going to do that this time.

They brought used submarines. And, you know, we got four at that time, Peter. Not once did we have more than one in operation. And there were long periods of time when we didn't even have one. But if we buy 12 now, conventional ones, not nuclear.

And the submarine fleets of the world are moving to nuclear, frankly. If we buy 12 conventional, no more than six will ever be in operation at any given time, frankly. Yeah, that whole new agreement between Australia and the UK and the United States is about nuclear, right? It's about nuclear submarines.

Do you think, just to close this out, I've got my submarine thing going here, but just to close this discussion out on submarines, do you think this could mean that we are in for a whole new debate in Canada surrounding this issue of nuclear-powered military equipment? Yes, yes, yes. Yeah, I think we are. And just to talk, you know, let's just bump that up a little bit. We're also a leader. We're a leader. You know, we have many more assets than

we talk about, unfortunately, in public too. We're a leader in what's called small modular reactors, SMRs. These are small nuclear reactors. Where's this stuff actually going to come off the line and fast in Ontario? Therefore, the United States is behind. It has large, it has 94 large nuclear reactors. And it's now looking at this and saying, oh boy, this is innovative. This is a fast way to meet the demands for cleaner energy.

You can power a community of about 300,000 people with one small nuclear reactor. I think, Peter, we're in for a much bigger debate in Canada about nuclear power in general, about the role of nuclear power in Canada. And I think the submarine issue, whether they should be nuclear or conventional, is going to get wrapped up in that debate as well.

It could be interesting in the next election campaign. Oh, yeah. Well, we may not get there in the next election campaign, but it's coming at us. That's for sure. Let me add just one other story, because I think we have every reason to be proud. We have the first woman, CDS, in all of NATO.

It was a race. Because we wanted, this is also a great Canadian story. Halifax runs a great program called the Women for Peace Fellowship. program called the Women for Peace Fellowship. What's the Women for Peace Fellowship? Senior military officers from all the NATO countries. There are now 75 of them. It started six years ago, and they come to Halifax as many.

The rapid progression, the career advancements, this one's a vice admiral. This one is in line to be a CDS. And this one is a national security advisor. It's absolutely a remarkable achievement that we built this network of senior women officers who thank Canada, frankly, for the leadership role that we've made. But we, and there were several, one in the Netherlands, just a star, a few others. I thought, oh, they're going to get there first. Well, we got there.

Jenny Carignan, first woman commander in any NATO country. She got a standing ovation from everybody in the room yesterday when she started to speak, Peter. Well, she and some of the other women leaders in armed forces around the world are going to look forward to that first meeting with the potential U.S. Secretary of Defense after some of the comments he's made about the women's role in the forces. Oh, I'll tell you that. It was interesting because we have a large, large delegation here, senators and congressmen. And again, the panels are, and one of them said, well, it's not obvious to me that women should have major combat roles. And I was sharing that panel, and I then turned to Rob Bauer, Admiral Rob Bauer, who leads NATO on the military side. And I said, how do you feel about that, Admiral Bauer?

Do you think women should have major combat roles? And he just, that is the stupidest question I've ever heard. Of course they should have combat rules. That closed out that argument. Okay, we're going to take a quick break, and then we've got to catch up on a couple of areas, and we'll do that right after this. And welcome back.

You're listening to The Bridge, the Monday episode. That means Dr. Janice Stein from the Munk School at the University of Toronto. She's with us. She's in Halifax just wrapping up the 15th, 16th annual Halifax Security Conference. Okay, we had a nice general discussion there in the first half of this segment. I want to bring us up to date on the latest you were hearing on two of the key and crucial areas that we've been dealing with for the last couple of years. And that, of course, being Ukraine and the Middle East. Let's do the Middle East first, because, you know, the kind of topic of the week was the decision on the part of the International Criminal Court to charge Netanyahu

and Hamas leaders with crimes against humanity, basically. Yeah, and war crimes. War crimes for the way they've conducted the conflict in the Middle East over this last year or so. That has forced countries that belong to the ICC to say what they would do if those leaders came to their countries. Right. It's important to note that the U.S. is not one of those countries

because they never joined the ICC. Canada is. And Canada and the U.K. and others have said if Netanyahu comes to our country, we'll charge him. We'd have to arrest Peter. They would have to arrest. They would have to arrest. That's the real issue.

Right. And the Prime Minister and the Minister of Foreign Affairs in Canada said, absolutely, that's what we would do. The UK has said that as well. Germany has said they will not. So there's some division here as to what they would do. Germany is a little more complicated obviously given its history but um the uh the canadian position at least on the part of the liberal government not necessarily

the conservative opposition who could be the correct uh is that they would arrest um was there Was there much buzz about this around the halls there? Not a lot. I was surprised there was not a lot of discussion. It was much more focused, and we had a fairly broad representation of people from Lebanon, from Egypt, from Yemen. And the discussion was really focused on the ceasefire negotiations, Peter. And the themes, the subject,

the strategic balance in this part of the world has changed for now. Iran, what is the Trump administration going to do? Iran? What is the Trump administration going to do about Iran? And frankly, what would a future government in Canada? There was a lot of discussion. People are aware

that we are having an election. What would a government in Canada do? But really focus on getting a ceasefire in Lebanon. Around which there's I would say there's cautious, there was cautious optimism. We had somebody from Lebanon, not a Shia, so not a sympathizer with Hezbollah, but there was a cautious optimism that we may get a ceasefire.

And the changing role of Iran, because Iran is now pushing behind the scenes for Hezbollah to accept that ceasefire, which tells you something about how the strategic balance has changed in the region. And perhaps it gives us a hint of how damaging some of those Israeli attacks on Iran were. They were kind of glossed over at the time, but it sounds like there may have been much more damage there than we initially thought. So in a sense, what the military were saying with look, those were damaging.

They have left Iran with no air defenses, strategic air defenses. And the Russians, who are the provider, are not in a position to replace right now. So they are very, very vulnerable right now to an attack from the air and during that last round Peter not only did they did Israel take out the air defenses they took out a nuclear research station

so that again there's a message there we know where everything is you can't defend against a strike from the air. And that's why you're seeing a real tactical change in Iranian messaging that people in the area are picking up. And there was a lot of focus on that. I think that the balance has changed in the region. Now, for how long?

How much time? Yeah, exactly. Okay. The other area where we have been watching for, you know, coming up on, what is it, three years now? Yeah. Over a thousand days. Over a thousand days. Ukraine, Russia.

Yeah. A lot of discussion here. A lot of discussion and a lot of action in the last week. Missileussia. Yeah. A lot of discussion here. A lot of discussion and a lot of action in the last week. Missile action. Yeah. So what are you hearing now? So there's a desperation around Ukraine. We have a large Ukrainian delegation,

including the Speaker of the Ukrainian Parliament with us. There is desperation. You can tell the pressure on the Ukrainians is huge for the military experts, you know, for the NATO generals and for the Americans. There is, when you ask them privately, not in public, but when you ask them privately, how confident are you that that Ukrainian line can hold even for seven weeks until Donald Trump is inaugurated? People will say things like it's not a sure thing. Ukrainian troops are just spread so thin. They are so exhausted, Peter.

What was interesting was two things, really. One, the sense that the Russians, the Russian economy is under a lot of pressure. And that they've inflated their way in order to manage all this. But there's a limited runway ahead of this. And so both sides, this is a context right now of endurance. Who can withstand the pressure longer? Huge concern about the North Korean troops. And interesting, where was the concern coming from?

You know, from Japanese delegates and South Korean delegates who are now saying openly, these conflicts are linked, these two theaters, Europe and the Indo-Pacific. And a worry that North Korean troops who have not fought,

right, there hasn't been a land war in the Indo-Pacific theater for a very, very, very long time, that they're going to go to Russia, they're going to learn, they're going to become, they're going to become battle-hardened

and just an enormous amount of concern about this growing connection between North Korea, Iran, and Russia. Last question. As you leave this latest Halifax conference, what's the tone you leave with? What is the feeling there on the part of these people

who spend so much time being concerned about security and intelligence and military affairs, given the kind of world we're living in right now? What's the, how would you describe the tone? The tone, and I'll try to convey it by saying, we had discussions this year, Peter, we haven't had these for years, on what nuclear escalation would look like. How devastating it would be, how quick the process would be, how uncontrollable it would be. There is far more worry about interconnected wars that could escalate. There's a sense that these are very different years ahead of us and we're leaving behind and almost a sense, you know, today's the last day.

Then we come back next year. The war in Ukraine will not look like it looks now, one way or the other. It's not sustainable this way. And a sense of we're heading for much more challenging times. These next 10 years, much more difficult than the decade that we've just left. And an emphasis on preparedness and working together. How important it's going to be to work together, because the United States doesn't stand to stride the world anymore in the way that it did. Is that a pretty universal feeling there?

Yeah. Okay. Time for some sober thought on all that. Thank you for this, Janice, as always. We'll talk again in seven days. See you and have a good week. Have a good week. There you go.

Another winner with Dr. Janice Stein. Man, she makes Mondays so interesting and so thought-provoking. And I know many of you feel that same way. Okay, that's going to wrap it up for this day. We are going to pick up some of this discussion on the submarine question tomorrow. Some of you longtime listeners of The Bridge may well remember Professor Adam Lajunas

from St. Evax in Nova Scotia. He was with us, I guess a couple of years ago now, when we were talking about submarines and the Arctic. I want to revisit that conversation because clearly, as you heard from Janice,

there's going to be more in this in the months and years ahead, no matter who the government is. There are big decisions involving a lot of money that are going to have to be made, and there are big decisions in terms of how we want to see our Arctic unfold. So to best understand that, you best understand some of the history of submarines in the Arctic.

And Professor Lajeunesse is the guy to talk to because he's not just a, you know, he is an expert to a degree on the military. He's an expert to a degree on the Arctic. And he's an expert to a degree on submarines. In fact, he sent me a paper over the weekend about the history of submarines in Canada's Arctic going back into the 50s. So we're going to have that discussion tomorrow, and I look forward to having that.

And in terms of your homework, if you want to be on your turn this week, you've got to get me a letter to themansbridgepodcast at gmail.com. themansbridgepodcast at gmail.com. themansbridgepodcast at gmail.com. You have to have it in by noon Eastern time on Wednesday. The question is simple. It's as it relates to last Friday's good talk, where some people thought we were unfair in our criticism of the liberal government's decision

to make a GST holiday for certain goods for two months from mid-December to mid-February, and also handing out to many Canadians $250 checks to help ease the pain of cost of living and inflation. We saw it as a straight-up political ploy. Others see it as a generous move to try and help those who are in desperate need, and there are people in desperate need. So the question to you is, was it a political ploy, or did it make good policy sense?

So I want to hear from you. Normal rules apply. Name and location are mandatory. Keep your answers short. Have it in by noon on Wednesday to the Mansbridge Podcast at gmail.com. Thanks so much for listening today. As always, treat to have you with us.

Look forward to talking again in a mere 24 hours.