The Bridge with Peter Mansbridge - Smoke Mirrors and The Truth -- Carney Ups Defence Spending to 2%

Episode Date: June 10, 2025

It's taken a long time, but it looks like Canada is finally going to commit two percent of its GDP to defence spending. 

Smoke, mirrors and the truth. Fred Delorey, Perry Zergis, coming right up. And hello there, Peter Mansbridge here. Your Tuesday smoke, mirrors and the truth. Fred Delorey's in the house. So is Perry Zergis, once again filling in for Bruce Anderson who's often in Scotland somewhere, traveling once again this week, so good of Perry to join us. Okay, 2% has never sounded like a lot. You know, 2% of anything sounds like, well, 2%, not much. But for Canada and defense spending, 2% is huge. Different governments have tried

for like decades to get to 2% of GDP for defense spending. I think it's early 90s was the last time we were anywhere near 2%. Well, today, after promising during the campaign we'd get there in five years, Mark Carney ups the game. He's going to get there this year. So that's a lot of new money they've got to find somewhere. But he says it's critical. And a lot of people agree with that, that it's critical Canada ups its game on defense spending.

So, Perry, you get a free pass here to start this off. What did you make of this announcement today? Significant. You know, your point about the finding the money, maybe I'll start there and say, I actually think the finding the money is the easy part, Peter. I think the hard part is going to be spending it wisely. So this is my gift to Fred and the opposition. I think that's really going to be what the challenge is. The challenge with the Prime Minister does not seem to be setting bold targets and on dates, on dollars.

I told you last week when we spoke, my characterization of the prime minister is he's a man obsessed with outcomes and results. And so here he's gone and said something and committed to something that I have not ever heard a prime minister in my lifetime do and talk in quite these terms. I think in my lifetime, we've coasted as a country on the post-war peace dividend,

the world's a different and scary place now. And I think Mr. Carney did a very good job today articulating why. He talked about the threats we're facing and he talked about the need to modernize the military. And I think he's doing all of this with the backdrop of public opinion wins, blowing, gusting in his direction. If you'll permit me, I'll tell you about some of those public opinion wins. And I'll break some polling here because we are fresh out of the field. Bruce Anderson and my colleague Tanya are fresh out of the field from a weekend of asking 2,500 Canadians what they think. And a whopping 87% say they strongly support or support in general the PM's desire in his mandate letter

to all of cabinet to spend more on the armed forces, to modernize the armed forces. So he's got public opinion in his sales here, and he definitely threw down the gauntlet today. It was quite significant. Well, support the military, man, it's hard to argue against that when he lists off the things like we have four submarines, only one of them is working. You know, half of our naval

fleet can't go to sea or is crippled when it does. I mean, it's embarrassing. And the same with tanks in the army. It's tough, tough situation. So what? What do you make of this, Fred? No, I think it was a great announcement and that it was incredibly ambitious, aggressive, bold, whatever word you want to attach to it. The cost is going to be astronomical. We're not even close to the 2% yet. And that's 2% a year. That's not just, we just don't spend that.

He said we're gonna reach the 2% by next March. That is a big goal. And as Perry pointed out, we gotta find things to buy. We gotta find things to spend that money on. Liberals are easy to coming up with money. They're always good at that. They can find it anywhere for some reason. But finding the right good products

to buy for our country, and they will be scrutinized for years to come over what decisions they make over the next nine months. What are they buying? What are they spending this money on? This is where the liberals tend to get caught up and into trouble at times when they don't spend wisely. So they need to be very, very careful with this very, very ambitious agenda.

But that's just, it's 2% a year. You have to keep buying stuff. You have to keep going and spending 2% of your GDP, 2% of your economy. You have to spend every year. And that's the current NATO numbers. We're hearing that there's, you know, Trump at one point said it should be pushed up to 5%. And many of our European and NATO allies are pushing it up as much as they can. A lot of European countries are well past 2% at the 3.5, 4% range. So we may be in a situation soon where it's 5% of our GDP. And I absolutely think it should be.

We need to spend to defend our country, geopolitics, what is happening in Russia and what we're seeing there. We need to take those threats seriously. And we haven't been for a very, very long time. And that's both sides of the aisle. That's not just a liberal government that hasn't been doing this. We need to get aggressive at this stuff and do it.

So I think this is a very good announcement, but again, it's gonna come down to what are they buying? How are they buying it? How are they procuring it? And I can tell you the procurement system in Canada, like any country is very, very challenging. So it's gonna be interesting how they fix this and make it more nimble

so they can make those purchases better, but at the same time ensuring there's no corruption or money being lost here while they're doing it. I find this issue about not where the money's coming from, but where's the money going to fascinating because, you know, if there's anything the Ukraine war has taught us and to a degree, the situation in the Middle East is the face of war has changed. It's not the conventional way we've looked at it. I mean, you look at what the Ukrainians just did with drones, what the Israelis did with beepers, and the like in their war against Hamas and Hezbollah.

Things are changing dramatically, and yet when the list, the prime minister's list of stuff is the kind of conventional list, right? I mean, it's airplanes, it's artillery, it's tanks, it's naval vessels. So it'll be interesting to see, as you said, as both of you said, where's the gap. Can I push back on that observation, Peter? Sure.

So, two things that stood out to me today were actually that this was more than tanks and more than planes. Part of what I heard today was the PM say something quite novel that I have not heard our political leadership in this country talk about before, again, at least not in my lifetime or not so forcefully and so articulately. And he tied quantum computing and he tied investments in AI to our sovereignty and to defense. And that is not how I have heard Canadian politicians of any stripe talk about those things before.

And that was really notable to me. So he's not just talking about buying hardware, he's talking about inventing the software, building it here, having the code be a sovereign strategic asset. The second thing that came up more than a few times in his announcement today, and you can see it in the background or that the prime minister's office put out, was the idea of spending on people.

We can have all the tanks in the world if money were no objects. We could have all the frigates and submarines in the world. If we don't have the people to use these machines or to be behind the screen of a cutting edge drone. It's meaningless. And I think that's something that we're seeing on the battlefields of Ukraine is what they've done over there is actually amazing is they found an ability to be nimble and cutting edge with the tech, sure, but they're also fielding an incredibly dedicated and well-trained military personnel. And I think that's something that I heard loud and clear today, that this goes beyond hardware, which I thought was novel for a prime minister to talk in that way.

Yeah, I'll accept the correction, the correction absolutely on, you know, there's money definitely going into the new era of military hardware in terms of AI and what have you. I would push back a little on the Ukrainian example. Their stuff is all in high tech and new stuff and drones. Their stuff is not in people. They're running out of people. Seriously running out of people. And you know, the Russians can keep throwing

the more and more bodies at the war. Ukrainians can't, they're having a hard time. They've got an older, an older armed force coming in now as a result of the age restrictions that are placed on some of their younger people that simply there aren't any. Anyway, Fred, go ahead. You want to make a point? Yeah, about the people thing. That is a part of, again, I really, I support what Prime Minister Carney is doing here and what he wants to do. So I don't want to come across as too critical, but there is a bit of creative accounting here when it comes to people. They're now moving the Canadian Coast Guard and all their employees and all of their ships. That was a not,

that was a DFO at Fisheries and Oceans Department. It's now moving under military. So that counts under our NATO cap as well. So it's a bit of creative accounting in that regard when it comes to people. Now, I just think- Just a second on the Coast Guard stuff. it only counts if you arm those vessels. Right, so I'm sure they- Yeah, so that's a big change for the Coast Guard. Yeah, and I'm sure they, and I would think they would. Now, Coast Guard does have,

it's been established for a long time, there's probably different union rules that they have to work around now, because they're not military, but it's now gonna be a military asset. They need to figure that out how to do it. And I think they should. I think the Coast Guard you know we're one of the very few countries in the world that didn't have our Coast Guard as part of the military

so it should be part of it and you know it's about time but there is a bit of I think creative accounting with that too that that is now going to be part of the NATO spend. What did you both make of the What did you both make of the discussion around that Carney had around the US? That it's, you know, 75% of our defense spending has been going into the US, you know, for some time now. That's got to change. We've got to move those purchases away from the Americans, all part of this new relationship. New way to do things closer to Europe, part of the big European plans on on defense spending. What anybody got any hesitation or on that? No, the US has done this to us.

They've made it very clear that they're not a reliable trading partner, and we should be looking for other people to deal with. We are a part of an alliance. And if you're a NATO alliance member, we should be able to deal with them. And of course, there's other countries too, like South Korea, which produces lots of different artillery

and different machines that we could be buying. So we definitely should be looking at other markets, just like we, not just to buy, just like we're looking to sell. So it makes perfect sense. The US did this to themselves. Yeah, this is more art of the deal genius from the world's best negotiator.

I swear this guy has, President Trump, has this reverse Midas touch, right? So he lights the fuse on this conversation amongst NATO allies. Sure. He does this in his first term. Right. We all remember he goes to NATO headquarters and he stands there and he with, with the NATO leaders there listening to him in person and he shames them. So he's the one who lights the fuse on all this, but fast forward.

And where, where do things end up? Where are they today? All of these Western democracies saying, yes, we will spend 2% of our GDP. Some of them going beyond that, we'll spend even more. We'll spend three, we'll spend four. We're just not gonna spend it on Lockheed Martin or Bo or insert American defense and security partner here.

It's kind of stunning when you stop and think about what this US president has done to the brand, which at one time, the world just sort of understood. If you want to be at the table for NATO and you want to be at the sort of big kids table, you have to buy your kit from the Americans. And they would dominate some of these military procurements with that logic and with that argument, whether it was implicit or whether it was explicit. And today you have prime ministers and presidents

and defense ministers of these Western democracies saying explicitly no longer. And all of this, as we head into the G7 in Alberta, I just find that utterly fascinating and like a fantastic turn of events from that moment of Donald Trump standing at NATO headquarters to today to see how things have evolved. You wonder how he's going to handle that, because he will be sitting at that table with the others, G7 leaders, most of whom, if not all of whom are, plus

Zelensky will be there. Yes. And now Modi's going to be there as a whole other issue. But when he's sitting at that table, he's going to be looking around the room and all these people are saying, hey, you know what, we may have different places to buy our stuff now. What do you make of that, Fred? How does that play out?

Who knows how it's gonna play out? Every day is a different day with this guy. You know, he's thin skinned. And I've never seen someone who gets attacked so much still be thin skinned. You build it up after a while. I was spokesperson for the Conservative Party of Canada for four years and I say when I started I was very thin skinned, but by the time I was done it was very thick and very little bothers me now. I don't understand how everything bothers

this man. He's so insecure in his ways. But I don't, we don't know. Like if he's, if he's snubbed in any way, how will he retaliate? Any world leader doesn't look at him a certain way or glance at him properly or shake his hand properly? Is he going to have a hissy fit? Probably at some level. And we'll just have to see how it unfolds and just keep counting down the days until three and a half years from now. Okay, you guys are really cool. Quickly, Peter, just to go back to where the public opinion is on this.

Back in March, which I would argue, while the trade war was in high pitch, I think things have evolved and escalated on the defense side of this. But back in March, abacus data asked Canadians, around 2000 Canadians, I think was their sample, should we stop buying our defense and military equipment from the US? And 64%, a super majority, said, yeah, we should stop tomorrow. We should stop entirely. Nanos, I noticed on National News Watch, it was one of the polls being featured today, asked Canadians about this Golden Dome, the missile shield, and asked Canadians, do you think we should join this Golden Dome missile shield of Donald Trump? And two-thirds said no. We shouldn't have anything to do with that. So the public sometimes on issues can be ahead of the politicians.

And sometimes it's evenly matched. And sometimes the politicians are are sort of dragging people. I think this is one of those moments where you have our political class completely aligned with the public opinion in terms of how they view American partnerships and the American defense and security relationship of the moment. Okay, you two guys are remarkably in sync. So let's see whether that continues through to our last subject of the day.

And that's Pierre Poliet. So ignoring Fred's advice from last week, which seemed pretty smart at the time, which was stay out of it for a while, hide for a while, let others deal with things, he pops up shortly after Carney's announcement with a newser on Parliament Hill, but this time flanked by two of his most senior caucus members to deal with this defense issue. How did he handle that? And what was important about the optics of that moment? Fred. All he's doing is reminding us that he lost, that he's not prime minister,

that he's not a member of parliament and that he hasn't figured it out. I don't see the benefit of doing this at all. There is no point of coming out today and talking about Cardiff's defense announcement. Let these guys do what, you know, come out and make their announcements and let's spend six months to a year

digging into what they're doing and then come out and have an efficient and able way to criticize what they're doing. But there's just no point right now in coming out and making these comments. The comments were quasi supportive, I guess, but not fully. I just don't see the benefit of this. And Poliev, part of his brand is this guy who he's a macho guy who knows how it is. He's going to win the election, but he lost and he can rehabilitate himself and be strong again, but don't be showing us your face right now. Go dark. As I said last week, plan out, you

know, figure out what happened last time, plan out what you should be doing and come back in the fall as an elected member of parliament, which you will do and then come in strong as the guy that's back and ready to hold these guys to account because the number one thing we need to remember and we started talking about the show at the beginning of the show, the thing that brings liberals down is corruption. That's the thing that always is it's their Achilles heel.

Every party kind of has their weakness and their points that hurts them. The liberal party is for whatever reason, when they're in power for too long, they end up making mistakes. And I think that's what the conservative party should be doing right now is, if I was in the House of Commons,

if I was advising these people, I'd be asking pointed questions about their plans, what they plan on doing, how are they gonna procure it, but not in a critical way. This isn't the time to be critical. This is the honeymoon period, it's right after an election, Canadians have voted, it's done, but you can set things up properly

if you have the right strategy. Ask the questions now, and then add that follow-up six months to a year from now about how those things evolved. And that's when you might be uncovering some major mistakes that the liberals are making. And that's when you pounce. Right now is not the time to pounce. Very. I wish I could be more combative with my friend Fred, but as usual, he has the sage sound

advice here. I'll maybe be surprisingly and somewhat more charitable to Mr. Poliev in terms of something I found notable today. He has not been a person who has shared the limelight, shared the spotlight for the last year, last couple of years, last couple years, but certainly not through 2024. And so here he was flanked by two parliamentarians today who I will tell you have a great reputation of being smart, measured, prepared people. So to that extent, kudos, I suppose. I don't know, I can't speak to how much intention

would have gone into that, but certainly it was notable to me as somebody who follows these things closely. And yet, I still think the right advice is the advice Fred offered last week when we spoke and is raising again, which is this idea of go to ground, win, prepare, figure out, you know, how you want to retool and come back swinging in the fall. Again, just to bring in some public opinion insight here, as part of this recent poll that we were in the field on this weekend, 67% tell us they approve of the government. This is not the time to be trying to score points

or trying to navigate to a place where you think you're dominating Mark Carney. The guy's got winded in his sails. This government has the benefit of the doubt from voters right now. Mid 40s approval from people who tell us they voted conservative, right? So to-

Conservatives should be given them, just give them more rope, give them more and more rope to hang themselves with. Don't be stepping on, trying to step on their message when it just doesn't work. All right, gentlemen, we'll see who takes whose advice this time. Well, my advice is clearly not being listened to,

which is fine, it's not the first time. But look, I will say I do believe Pierre Poliev can be prime minister. I wouldn't have said that a few years ago before he became leader. I didn't think it was possible. I didn't think there's a path for him. I will say I think he can become prime minister, but I don't know if he will become prime minister.

And that's what he needs to figure out. That's where he needs to go to ground over the next number of months. And if he doesn't do it, then he's on the same path that he was bid on. Well, he's got two things to worry about before worrying about whether he can become prime minister. He's got to win a seat and he's got to hold onto his leadership.

And those are both challenges. We'll see what happens. All right, gentlemen, great discussion as always. Thank you, Fred. Thank you, Perry. Yeah, fun again. Thanks for having me back. Hey, not a problem. Cheers, guys. See. And hello there. Welcome back. Peter Mansbridge here with the second half of the bridge for this Tuesday. First half was of course Smoke Mirrors and the Truth, which was also available on our YouTube channel. Second half of the program is only available on SiriusXM, Channel 167, Canada Talks, or on your favorite podcast platform. Glad to have you with us.

Okay, let's talk about what we're going to do in the second half. Well, first of all, we're going to remind you of what the question of the week is. It's different than what we've usually been doing of late, which has been heavy duty kind of political and geopolitical stuff. This is different. As we get closer to the summer and we get closer into kind of the summer mode, the question is about fathers and why? Well it's Father's Day this weekend, right? So whatever you want to say about fathers, whatever you want to say, could be about your

father. Could it be about you as a father. Your favorite memory. Something about fathers. Normal conditions apply, 75 words or less. Right? 75 words or less, we hold you to that. Anything over, it's out.

You have to include your name and the location you're writing from. You have to do that. And you send it to themansbridgepodcast.gmail.com, themansbridgepodcast.gmail.com. The Mansbridge Podcast at gmail.com. The Mansbridge Podcast at gmail.com. 75 words or less, name and location. The Mansbridge Podcast at gmail.com.

Got it all? I'm sure you do. Okay, next up, you've probably noticed, because I know some of you are real audio files and you tend to write, you know, the audio wasn't right, and why did this person sound this way and that person sound that way? And you're almost always right about that.

And, you know, we try to fix things. This is a little trickier because this week I'm in Calgary and I'm in a hotel room so everything happens with hotel room audio. You get like there's a fan going on and I can't find the switch to turn it off. Every once in a while you hear a vacuum cleaner in the hall going or somebody knocking on the door saying they've got fresh towels or whatever it may be. Things happen when you're in hotels and the audio isn't perfect as I know many of you would like it to be.

I'm in Calgary because I'm taking part in a major global energy conference. And the questions are all about Canada and Canada's desire according to the new government of Canada becoming an energy superpower is that possible how do you get there who's involved in the discussions to get you there all the players are all the participants in these questions that surround that are at this conference. There's industry leaders, there are government leaders, there are leaders from the indigenous community, there are leaders from the environmental community, there's a lot of different players in the mix here. Trying to see what common ground

they may have. So I'm lucky enough to be involved in some of these discussions and enjoying it quite a lot. So that's why I'm in Calgary. That's why I'm in a hotel room. And I bring my little portable gear to try and make all this happen and Hopefully it all works So that's that that's that part of things and

You know what we haven't done in a while and some of you some of you actually quite like this We call it an in-bit session. My buddy Mark Bulgich, co-author, numbered the books we've written and we're in the middle of another one right now. We'll be able to tell you about probably, I don't know, maybe this fall we can tell you about it. We may have a firm publication date with Simon at Schuster as to when it'll be coming out. One of the things that Mark does every week is when he sees stories that are on the wires in papers, you know, he saves them and he sends them to me once a week and he says,

here's some end bits. End bits, we came up with the name because sometimes, you know, you need stuff to fill out the program. And some of these stories are of general interest. So here's the first one that Mark sent this week, and it's from the Washington Post. And I'll tell you, first of all, before I tell you what it says, I'll tell you why I found it so interesting. Some of you will know that last week, was it last week or two weeks ago, whenever it was, I was in the highlands in Scotland, and I went up quite far north,

right up to the tip of Scotland, the northern tip of Scotland. And I was doing a little minor league mountain climbing and minor league hiking. When I say minor league, I mean minor league. But at least it was something. And for this dragon, this little 76, almost 77-year-old body around, it's good to have that kind of exercise.

But one of the other things that I did, aside from those two, was I went swimming in the cold waters of the base of a waterfall and it was cold, okay? But to get to it, you had to scale down kind of a rock face. And because that was tense enough, I didn't really feel the temperature of the water, actually, until I got out of it. And I realized, man, that had been pretty cold. But I was so pleased to have actually reached it that I didn't let it worry me. So okay, what's the headline in the Washington Post story? Because part of the whole thing about going in that waterfall thing was, hey, when you've

been exerting yourself, a cold plunge is good for you. Or at least that's the theory. So the Washington Post question is, are cold plunges good for you? Here's what the science says. So this is a story by Gretchen Reynolds from a couple of days ago, as I mentioned in the Washington Post. So let me read it to you. Read some of it anyway.

Ice baths and cold plunges, interchangeable terms for soaking in near freezing water, have grown wildly popular in recent years thanks to podcasters, social media influencers, professional athletes, and others touting their uses for exercise recovery and personal wellness. You know, there are some athletes who really believe in the cold plunges. Remember, I remember that fellow who used to play for the Toronto Maple Leafs a couple of years ago. And he used to take a cold water plunge between periods. He'd be exerting himself all the way through the first period. He'd come racing out into the dressing room where they only have whatever it is, 12, 15 minutes.

He'd strip off all his clothes, pads, everything, skates, get everything off. He'd jump in an ice tub for a cold water plunge. Get out, dry himself off, get all dressed back up again, boom, back on the ice. So that's one extreme. Okay, so those kind of things have made it popular. But the question is, do those kind of things actually work? That question was the heart of a new study of frigid water and resistance training. The study's authors

found that plunging your limbs into icy water after lifting weights slows blood flow to muscles, hampering their ability to recover and grow, potentially reducing the benefits of the workout. It looks like it's not a great idea to soak in freezing water after lifting weights, said Milan Betts, a doctoral student at Maastricht University in the Netherlands, who led the study. The findings add to mounting evidence that ice baths may undermine the effects of lifting and also raise the provocative issue of when, if ever, ice baths are a great idea. I'll read just a little bit more.

Fans of cold plunging typically say the practice is beneficial for both body and mind, lifting moods, building grit, soothing aches and stiffness, and perhaps above all, speeding up and intensifying recovery from exercise so you get more from each workout. But little science has supported the purported benefits of ice baths, and in recent years, studies have frequently undercut them. In a 2015 experiment, for instance, scientists in Australia asked 21 men to lift weights twice a week. Half of the men cold plunged after every session, the others didn't. After three months, the cold plunger's muscles were nearly 20% smaller and weaker than the other men's although everyone followed the same exercise

routine. Aha. Okay. Here's another here's another health related one. This is in the CNN Health online service. The headline is, rest days are not optional. They're where the real progress happens. Now, this is a short one. And I don't think it'll surprise you, but it's good to be reminded of it. I'll read it. With fitness culture too often celebrating extreme training and a no-days-off mentality,

rest is routinely misunderstood or overlooked entirely. If you're constantly sore, stiff, or stuck at a plateau, It might be because you're not rested enough. Much of the progress you make from training actually happens during rest. Recovery is when your body repairs tissues, replenishes energy stores, and rebalances nervous system activity. Skipping that crucial process doesn't make you tougher. It makes you more likely to burn out, get injured, or stop seeing results. The author writes this, in my work

with top professional athletes, I've spent the past two decades creating training and recovery programs. And one thing always holds true, the effort you put into recovery directly correlates with the effectiveness of your training. Dana Santas, that's the trainer who wrote this article or was involved in this article. So there you go. Rest up. You know sometimes you feel guilty if you rest, that

you're sort of breaking your pattern. Now, listen to the experts, that is not the case. Okay, we got one more, one more end bit. I like this one. The headline, this is in The Hill, which is kind of a political magazine based in Washington, but it covers stories all over the place. And this was by their kind of transportation journalist, B.J. Lutzen, Ben Bradley. A famous name of a Washington journalist, but this is a different Ben Bradley. Here's the headline.

Door Dasher Drives onto Tarmac at Chicago's O'Hare airport, exposing a security flaw. This sounds like this can't be possible, but it's true. Here we go. Newly obtained video shows a DoorDash driver, DoorDash, you know, it's like UberEats, DoorDash, Skip the Dishes. They're all, you know, end up doing the same thing. They deliver meals. So a newly obtained video shows a DoorDash driver's attempt

to deliver food to a customer at Chicago's O'Hare International Airport last month not only breached perimeter security, but also failed to trigger an immediate response. In surveillance video obtained by Nextar's WGN, the delivery driver's red Hyundai Elantra is seen pulling up just behind and to the right of a United Airlines wide-body jet parked at Terminal 1, Concourse C, around midday on May 17th, just like two weeks ago. Three weeks ago. The vehicle stopped for approximately 20 seconds before pulling forward again and then stopping alongside the jet.

Package handlers noticed the driver and approached, however it took nearly 10 minutes for a marked Chicago police vehicle to arrive. It's unclear from the video whether police or airport security officers may have approached the scene sooner on foot. WGN investigates has learned that the driver entered the restricted area through a security gate at the southeast corner of O'Hare, indicating he traveled a significant distance across the massive airfield without being stopped or raising alarms. It's incredible, right?

No guard was clearly visible, and he proceeded through the gate following instructions from his GPS coordinates in a name to deliver the meal, the driver told police. According to records obtained by WGN Investigates, that's the name of their program, police found the food order and a door dash receipt in the driver's car and released him without issuing any citations. I don't know. I travel a lot on airplanes, right?

I'm going around a good deal, been around a lot just in the last couple of weeks. And by the way, I do pay, I do buy extra. And I pay into a fund that helps combat the kind of pollution that's caused by the flying that I'm doing. However, when I'm flying, and I'm sure when you're flying, when you're sitting in the plane, you're looking out, you go, man, nobody can get near this plane. Everything's closed off their gates, it's fencing everywhere. And everybody's got a special ID card. And that's just for walking around vehicles.

There's not a chance. Well, there was a chance that day in Chicago's O'Hare Airport. That door-dash guy. I mean, he must have meant something else. He gets the orders, they deliver to this plane at Chicago O'Hare. Really? And then off he went. Punches it into his GPS.

Next thing you know, he's parked alongside the plane at the tarmac. All right, if you say so. Okay, that's going to wrap it up for this day. Tomorrow, Wednesday, you have two things to remember. Wednesday is Encore Day, so we'll pick one of our best programs in the past and it'll be on the bridge tomorrow But also you've got until noon Eastern time tomorrow Yet your answer into the question about fathers That's the question

Give me your Father's Day story Tell me something in your mind about fatherhood That you'd like to say in 75 words or less. Include your name and your location and write to the MansbridgeBodcast at gmail.com. Looking forward to going through your letters as we do every week. All right. As I said, that's going to wrap it up for this day. Glad to have you with us. Hope you enjoyed the program, as always.

And we'll get together in just 24 hours or so. Thanks for listening. Bye for now.