The Bridge with Peter Mansbridge - SMT: Canada Versus India - What Now?

Episode Date: September 20, 2023

Will we ever get the questions swirling around the allegations against India answered?  And if so, who will answer them?  Bruce is here to try and sort out the key elements of a story that could be with us for quite some time. That plus the early reviews on Parliament's new fall session.

And hello there, Peter Mansbridge here. You are just moments away from the latest episode of The Bridge. It's Wednesday, smoke, mirrors, and the truth, and there's a lot of smoke and mirrors and truth out there today. Bruce Anderson's with us, and we're coming right up. And hello there, Peter Mansbridge in Quebec City today. Bruce is in Ottawa. And I have my little portable remote operation going here in Quebec City, so it may sound a little different. I wish I could share the view.

I've got a spectacular view looking out on the St. Lawrence Hotel, Shadow Frontenac in front, Plains of Abraham off to the right. I mean, it's like a spectacular view. I'm really sorry I can't share it with you, but you do get to see the inside of my hotel room, so that's pretty exciting. Why don't you just speak a little French for us? If you can't share the view, at least share a little bit of your French.

Oui, bonjour. Bonjour, Bruce. Comment ça va? Oh, très bien, Pierre. Pierre, ça va très bien. Merci. Oui. Moi aussi. All right.

You just accumulated all of my vocabulary. Well done. Thank you. All right. Let's get serious, because it's a serious story we start off with today. And this is, of course, the whole situation between Canada and India, following the Prime Minister's remarks on Monday, the opposition leaders seemingly united with the Canadian position

expressed by the Trudeau government on Monday, not so much on Tuesday, at least not so much from the Conservative leader, demanding more information. And, I don't know, some people describe the sort of international reaction as subdued. It's definitely calm. They want more information as well, but they describe it as a serious situation, the charges made by Canada,

when you're listening to the Americans or the British. So I'm asking a lot of questions about this, as I'm sure you are too, and I'm still at the point of trying to understand why the prime, I'm sure the prime minister believes the briefings he's been giving. I don't think there's any doubt about that. But I'm still at the point of not quite understanding why he would announce this to parliament, to the country, to the world on Monday.

I mean, let's not forget, we're dealing with two allies, two members of the Commonwealth, two countries that have major trade agreements between them and want more, or at least seemingly wanted more. There's no doubt there have been tensions between the two countries for the last 40, 45 years, ever since the Air India crash. Bombing, not crash. But why do you think he decided to announce

what he announced on Monday? Well, the most prominent rumor about that, Peter, is that the Globe and Mail had the story and they were going to run it. And so he was faced with the choice of having the story as told by the Globe and Mail with whatever sources and whatever degree of fact they had, or to go public with the information that he's been given, which obviously is serious and to your point, not proven, but it does sound like from what we can understand from the stories that have been published so far, that this was intelligence that was gathered not just by Canadians, but by our allies, that the so-called Five Eyes partnership shared information that had at its heart

evidence that the Prime Minister and others seemed to think was pretty compelling that India had been behind the assassination of this Canadian for reasons that have to do with political tensions between India and some people in parts of India and parts of the rest of the world who are essentially separatists as far as the Indian government would think. Now, you know, I think there's a lot of smoke on this in terms of the news coverage. We saw stories coming out of the India G20 summit that

the Prime Minister went to a little while ago. Some of the stories suggested that Trudeau was being dealt with quite coolly by Modi and that we should feel embarrassed as a country because of that. And I remember thinking, well, there is enough

on the record in the behavior of of the Indian leader for us not to decide that that should be the standard that we by which we need to judge whether this is a successful meeting or not but I think that as you and I I think talked about a couple weeks ago there tends to be a desire to pile on sometimes if you can make the case that a foreign trip for a Canadian leader is going bad, you're going to try and do it. It happened to Harper. It happened to Trudeau before.

It happened to Joe Clark years ago. It's something that is kind of a product of the dynamic, I think, of media covering a foreign trip sometimes. I don't, you know, I don't doubt that, like some of our allies for Canada, it's difficult to know exactly how to deal with this issue publicly because I was listening to Bruce Heyman a little while ago, the former American ambassador to Canada, and he was giving an interview on David Cochran's show, and he said, we live in a time when there are going to be significant disagreements between

countries, and despite those disagreements, we're going to still need to have some degree of relationship, because even though we kind of live in a world where everything wants to get dialed up to maximum stress maximum rage maximum frustration if we don't have relationships where does that end up so his invocation for everybody to be calm and not to play politics with it i think is the right one but i don't have any doubt that the prime Minister felt like it was his proper responsibility to go public with the information that he had and to represent Canada's interest in part because it was going to happen anyway, but also because what's the contrary argument that if you're the Prime Minister and you're told that a foreign government had something to do with the killing of a Canadian, you don't say anything, you don't do anything, you don't feel like you need to take that up and be public about it. So

we'll all get to know more about this, I think, but that's how I see it so far. You know, I think for, you know, it's not like there hasn't been a lot of reporting on the tensions between Canada and India over this issue of the separatist movement. And it's more than just a separatist movement. It's, in some cases, a separatist terrorist movement for the formation of Khalistan in India by the Sikh community. There has been a lot of reporting on this over the last 45 years. However, having said that, the majority of Canadians are not aware of this issue. And this issue is one of high tension between the two countries.

It always has been. And now you throw this into the mix. The Canadian Prime Minister convinced from the intelligence he's received from any number of different sources, one assumes, that an agent for the Indian government was responsible for the murder of a Canadian Sikh leader.

I mean, that's pretty heavy stuff, right? On Canadian soil. And you want, like, what can possibly be the end game here? If you go by the Indians' government's initial reaction to all this. It's absurd. It's ridiculous. This never happened. To Canada standing firm on its position.

So, like, where does this go other than an even greater breakdown in the relationship between these two countries? Everything's been put aside. Trade arrangements. You can look at what happened last week at the G20, as you just mentioned. Clearly, those two leaders do not get along on any level, and it's probably worse right now than it's ever been. So where does this all go? What can be the possible outcome here?

Well, you know, I mean, the simple thing of it is either countries like Canada kind of back down and try to support this, a thing that they believe is true or certainly credible allegations or or India has to change its behavior

but to me if the facts are as alleged one country killing the citizens of another country that's kind of easy like the you know you have to stand up against that and you have to defend your people and you have to you have to try to put pressure on the on the guilty party where does it end up I guess it depends on the guilty party in that case again assuming the facts are as stated but I don't think it's really up to

Canada to say we want to be a little bit provocative about this or we're annoyed about it but not grievously pissed off. I think that Canada took measures that were consistent with the seriousness of the allegation, called for an investigation. I think the Prime Minister said that it wasn't his intention to provoke India, but to pursue these allegations and to try to get to the bottom of it. I think that, you know, in the situation that he found himself in was a responsible position to take.

I thought it was responsible as well for Mr. Polyev to put out a statement that he put out today, earlier in the day. But then he also said something later in the day that I thought was unfortunate. And what he said was, he said, well, the prime minister has to come clean. Now, I think that that's a cheap shot. I think it's a cheap shot because I don't think that Mr. Polyev would hold himself to that standard if he was in that situation. And so in the sense of saying, come clean, well, what does that really mean? Do you tell what the spies of different countries have told you?

We've been through this conversation before around China and so on, and it seems like it should be fairly well understood by political leaders at that level that you compromise your sources and the methods by which you gather intelligence if you, in quotes, come clean on a situation like this. So, you know, I think Mr. Polyev had a better morning than he had an afternoon on this. I don't think it's an easy situation for the prime minister, but I think the prime minister did the right thing in the circumstances based on the information that it seems like was available to him.

Yeah, there was, you know, roughly 24 hours between the two statements of Polyev. Monday, it was basically, India's got to come clean. Can't do this to a Canadian. Yeah. And then 24 hours later, it was, Trudeau's got to come clean. What's the information? So I'm not sure what happened there in the space of that day and night. One could surmise that what happened is that some of his supporters,

maybe the most vocal ones in his tent, were horrified that he put out a statement that sounded like he was siding with the Prime Minister. And so they pushed him to say something that wasn't that but unless he had something to say that suggested he was not given accurate information by the prime minister or some specific aspect of the information where he said look I understand that we need to protect our sources and our methods but we should really know this none of which he, as far as I can tell, then to me it just looks like a kind of a casual, cheap shot, the kind of which makes for a soundbite that may be intended to correct the perception that he was agreeing with Justin Trudeau on something.

That's what it looked like to me. Mind you, that's entirely possible. But if you want to take that approach on Polyev, you could also take the approach on Trudeau that some of what has tumbled out in the last week has been a part of trying to explain what happened in India and that relationship that clearly is difficult between Modi and Trudeau.

Because Trudeau took hits, you mentioned them, some of the media kind of ganged up on Trudeau for what happened at the G20 summit. So I don't know. That's possible. But let me get back to this point of what does Trudeau have to do here? Because a number of the allied countries, the Americans, I watched not Biden, but Biden's national security spokesperson, saying, you know, we need more.

It's serious, but we need more evidence. And that's kind of what a lot of people are saying. We need more evidence. I hear what you're saying. Obviously, Canada's got to be careful about what evidence it lays on the table, because it'll burn sources, because it'll burn sources. But does it have to do more at this point than it's done so far, Canada, in terms of explaining what happened? What do we know? What do we know?

What do we know about the people over in our family? There were two people in a car that, you know. Yeah, yeah, I do. Well, I don't know if it has to have a public discussion of it. No, I don't necessarily agree with that. I think that the right way to try to deal with this is through diplomatic pressure and an investigation that satisfies the we're going to get to the bottom of it and if you're responsible for

this action then we need to understand that that's not acceptable. I do think that right now we're caught a little bit in this context of because Justin Trudeau is going through a rough patch in public opinion and his political career right now, it's kind of easy to sort of say he's stumbling around, he's making mistakes or whatever.

And I don't think that's necessarily true here. I don't know that it's completely untrue, but I do think that if you're him and you know that the Globe and Mail is going to publish this story within 24 hours of you deciding whether you're going to come out and describe the situation to people, that to me is a pretty easy call. You don't wait for the Globe story and then all of the kind of, why't you tell us that a canadian had been killed by india you get out there and say this is what we know this is what we think should happen we're going to talk to our our allies but to the point of what is the media frame sort of looked like i was looking at this piece in post media just this afternoon the headline of which is that

you know trudeau is rebuffed. Canada's allies rebuff its request to join in accusations against India. And if you read down below in the story, it's a story that I think was originally in the Washington Post. It specifically says, let me get you these quotes here, Washington described itself as, quote, deeply concerned about the allegations. It said it was critical that Canada's investigation proceed and that perpetrators be brought to justice. That's from the White House national security spokeswoman. The Australian foreign minister, Penny Wong,

said her country had raised the issue with India at senior levels and expressed her, quote, deep concern, according to a spokesman for them. I don't see that as being equivalent to being rebuffed. What that looks like to me is allies are kind of saying, we see this the same way. What they're doing is trying to contextualize their comments so it doesn't look like an all-out assault on India because all of them are trying to court a relationship with India because it's the fastest growing economy in the world and because they have other strategic interests vis-a-vis China or Russia or what have you.

I get all of that and i think that was an interesting part of what bruce hayman was talking about when he was talking about this which is that the world isn't a simple binary place right now but i really hope that the media don't try to treat this as a how many different ways can we pound the prime minister or the government not because i'm trying to be we pound the prime minister or the government not because i'm trying to be defensive about the prime minister because you know that i i'm quite capable of criticizing him for some things but because it's not a game it shouldn't be treated as though it's a game and when i see a headline like that in the sun drawing on a post story our allies rebuff us

that doesn't look like our allies rebuffing us. It looks like them saying, we want Canada to proceed with this investigation. We think it's serious and perpetrators should be brought to justice. So diplomatic channels, the pursuit of an investigation, trying to get to the bottom of it. Will we ever? I don't know. But should we try? A hundred percent, yes. This is the, you This is the example you've used with that. It was what, the Toronto Sun headline and then quoting from the Post story? With the Washington Post story. So it was a Sun headline is what I would assume on a Washington Post story.

Well, here's the issue, and it's the journalistic issue that we've talked about before. A headline is rarely, if ever, written by the reporter who writes the story. I'm sure the Post doesn't write headlines for The Sun, that's for sure. No, but even a Sun reporter can write a story and has no control over what the headline is. Understood. But that's the same at the Globe, Toronto Star, Vancouver Sun, you name it, right? And so you get into this argument of, well, is the headline writer just like not reading the story that he's writing the headline on or she's writing the headline on? Or is it influenced by the position of the paper on things?

But it's a warning to all consumers of news. You've got to keep that in mind. Don't assume when you read the headline that that's what the story says. Because, you know, occasionally, more than we'd like to admit as journalists, they conflict. I agree. I think this is a bigger issue because the legacy media are withering away. And when we look at some of the alternative media that have popped up, that have such strong political biases, one way or the other,

that they don't even try to represent the facts, the information that consumers need to know. They try to pursue a line of argument that they think is convenient or harmonious with their audience. The legacy media, the traditional media, whatever we want to call them, they have to hold themselves to a different standard. Now, I don't really think post-media has a real strong sense of obligation on that. Let me put it that way. I think that on any given day, you're going to get a belly full of Justin Trudeau is the devil politically, and you don't really need to know anything else. But it's frustrating to

watch because there are situations where this isn't, you know, somebody's life was lost. There's a significant issue between us and a major country in the world, whether we want to call it an ally or a partner or what have you. We deserve those media organizations to give us a better treatment of this kind of information, I think. And the headlines are part of it because we live in a world where people might just look at the headline, not feel like they have time to read the piece, maybe not have access over a paywall, but come to the conclusion that we're not going to get supported by our allies in this,

which I think is wrong based on the information, even in that one story. It's a tricky position for all allies, because everybody's trying to cuddle up to India, right? As the counterbalance or the counterweight against China in the Indo-Pacific region, including Canada. We've been trying to position ourselves that way as well. And something like this comes along and gives everybody pause, which clearly has given Canada pause. But it's going to be the argument that a lot of the other countries are going to use to say, like, we've got to resolve this.

You guys have got to figure this out. We've got to end this dispute because this is not good. Just as a last point on this, I mean, we watched the China foreign interference story go on for months. In fact, it's still going on um are we in for a long a long haul on this one i mean it's pretty heavy duty stuff this extra territorial interference feels like it's the new normal and we have to you know decide that we're either going to just let it happen because it's awkward or inconvenient to to bellyache about it or we're going to um we're going to say no extraterritorial murder is not okay and uh interference in our democracy is not okay and uh you know the people

who criticize it typically won't say we can't say that because it might hurt our economic interests, although they might think that that's the reason not to stand up for our rights. But it isn't a good enough reason not to stand up for our rights. We have to find that zone where we push back on unacceptable behavior and still, to Heyman's point, have relationships. A lot of people were wondering why we didn't expel all of the Russian diplomats over here in Canada. I remember Foreign Minister Jolie was faced with those kind of questions. Why aren't you kicking more people out? and the answer sounds um i don't it it can sound weak to say well we need to have relations we need to be able to have a situation where something else goes on in the world that there are people

that we are talking to um and that seems almost inconceivable when something like the invasion of Ukraine happens, which is so charged and so serious. But it probably still is the right position that those relationships need to exist. They need to, we need to find ways. And I heard, I don't know if it was Heyman or if it was Bob Ray, I think it was Heyman saying, the expulsions of the diplomats on both sides, which have happened between India and Canada now, are not at the most senior level. And as you know, Peter, that's what happens in these situations is they either get escalated or there's a tit-for-tat action that sort of says, this is how seriously we're going to treat this in terms of diplomatic interactions.

So I think there's a lot to play for in terms of the long haul, in terms of saying we're not going to stand for it and standing up for our rights. And hopefully all of the parties will take that position and not play games about whether or not government is coming clean with intelligence. I think that if Pierre Polly have wanted more information from the prime minister that he got than he got then he probably should have said that yesterday he probably should have said i met with him and he told me what he had but i asked him four questions and he had no answers for me or something right instead he comes out of that meeting and he puts out a statement saying,

you know, I heard serious allegations and we stand united as a country. Well, what changed? On the point on the expulsions, you're right, it wasn't, like its most senior level would be ambassadors, right? That rarely happens, but it has happened in the past. They haven't identified who's involved yet, or at least they haven't as we're having this chat. But it sounds like it's kind of mid-level.

But it's one for one. I'm old enough to remember the days in the 70s and early 80s where we kicked out 13 Soviets. Yeah, small plane loads. Yeah, I mean, in one go. And that was for some kind of mail drop in a post box in the park somewhere of material. Anyway, this story is not going away, and we'll keep our eye on it. We're going to take a short break. I just want to apologize once again to some of our listeners that the audio is not up to the normal standards. It's because I don't understand tech and I'm looking at this

little machine that I'm trying to work on and get everything at a good level. I mean, it's absolutely understandable. But don't blame Bruce. Don't blame Bruce. Don't blame Bruce. I should be like on the screen all the time. That's

right. Don't blame Bruce. I had two months, remember, at the beginning of this journey together where everybody was blaming Bruce for the sound. I bought all kinds of equipment. I tried everything. Then we finally got you the right piece of equipment. I bought it myself.

Come on. Okay, we'll take a quick break. We'll be right Back right after this. And welcome back. You're listening to Smoke, Mirrors, and the Truth. Bruce Anderson's in Ottawa. I'm Peter Vance, reaching Quebec City today. I'm here because I've got a speech here in Quebec City and then back in

Toronto tomorrow, up to Ottawa on Friday. So it's a week of traveling around. Okay, the other subject for us this week, talk about smoke, errors and truth, was after a lengthy delay, our parliament resumed on Monday. And so everybody was expecting this pitched battle between the two titans, between Trudeau and Polyev, on Monday in question period. And I don't know about you. I mean, we know the issues, or at least we knew them as of, you know, Monday afternoon at 2.15 or whatever time they started question period. And those issues, you know, like housing, inflation, food prices, you know, climate change, carbon tax, you pick the one you like.

But I found Monday very subdued. Now, I'm not sure whether it was something going on in the background. Did they all kind of know about the India story at that point? Had the Prime Minister already briefed everybody? But I found it kind of subdued. The Prime Minister read all his answers off cards. I thought they were going to ditch that whole idea because it doesn't look like he's totally in control of things

when he's having to read answers that have been written for him by somebody. And on the other hand, Pierre Polyev looked kind of like he'd been rehearsing in front of a mirror all weekend the questions he was going to ask. So the whole thing looked kind of, well, it wasn't what I was expecting. I expected, you know, the set battle between these two, with the polls the way they are, with the caucus that had happened on the Liberal side last week, and with the Conservatives clearly riding high. What was your take on the resumption of Parliament? Well, if you weren't expecting Pauliev to do what he did yesterday,

then you either didn't listen to what I said last week or you didn't agree with it. Because I said that what I thought he was going to do was audition for the job of Prime Minister. And I think that over the summer, which is going to horrify audition for the job of prime minister and i think that over the summer which is going to horrify some listeners for me to say this he's done a pretty remarkable job of moving away from the version of him that caused a lot of people to think he was never going to be okay as prime minister he did that in part by changing his physical appearance. He did it in part

by changing the tone and the tenor of the way that he presents his arguments. He did it in part by talking about issues that most people understand to be kind of urgent, everyday person in the street issues, cost of living in particular. And so yesterday, what I saw with him, first of all, he opened today and yesterday in French, his first couple of questions, very deliberate. He's very seriously focused on winning seats in Quebec, and you could tell. And others in his caucus were also making the point that the BQ is not the way for Quebec's interest to be served. Very interesting.

But when he switched to English, his tone was more measured. It was less kind of a high school debating tension kind of piece. It was more, could you imagine this guy on the other side of the aisle now i'm not speaking to the substance of the positions that he has on policy at all i don't think he has a lot of policy i don't think he necessarily believes in a lot of mainstream policies i'm just talking about his presentation so it was for him yesterday and today what what I thought he was gonna do. And I thought he did it pretty well. Trudeau, shocking yesterday. It was shocking for me.

Just what you said. I'm gonna stand up after this long period of time. And I know that the questions that I'm gonna get are about the cost of housing and the cost of time. And I know that the questions that I'm going to get are about the cost of housing and the cost of groceries. And I have to read off notes to say that we made an announcement that's going to build 2000 new houses in London. And we've got the grocery chain heads coming in for a meeting and we're going to stabilize those prices. He's been at this for a long time. He knows how to do that without these notes. And so I was flabbergasted to see him go to those notes yesterday. He didn't do it today. And I assume it's because his staff probably looked at him and said, what was that? Why did

you feel like you needed to pick up notes? You and I, I think we met in the 80s, maybe we met even a little bit earlier than that. But I worked on Parliament Hill in 1979. And I remember everybody made fun of politicians who had to read a question off a piece of paper let alone read an answer and that's a lot of years ago we should still be having that experience at that level of political leadership so I think Trudeau was better today and it was a little bit more of a battle but I also think Trudeau, and this is the last point I wanted to make, I also think Trudeau is trying to avoid matching the kind of the heightened performance of Polyev with heightened performance on his part. The contrast that I think he needs to paint is the people on the conservative side, like the TV show Politics, and he's there to do the work of the people.

And the more that he can create that contrast, the better. But for him to create that contrast does require him to dial down his own rhetorical flourishes sometimes. And so maybe he was trying to do that a little bit yesterday. But I think it's a bit rough right now. It's a bit rough right now. So back to you. Tell me why I'm wrong about that. I don't think you're wrong.

I do think that, as we've said a number of times in the past few years, nobody watches that stuff anyway except people like us, right? I think it's an important for their own caucuses kind of a thing. Yeah, I agree with that. I agree with that. But I wish, you know, I wish they would watch the British House of Commons more often and watch how real professional, well, professional is not the right word,

but real dedicated politicians, people who know how to speak, know how to ask questions, know how to give answers without having to read either one of them, and know how to use wit and humor when the moment offers them the opportunity, that would probably get people watching more than what happens now. It should, but I don't know if it would. But I agree with you, and I think, though, that you should,

you know, I started this week saying I'm going to watch it every week. I'm going to tape it, at least, and watch it afterwards. And I have to say, there are a number of people who are quite good at this on all sides. I saw Charlie Angus say some stuff today, and I thought I like the way he presents it. I might not agree with what he's saying, but I like the way he presents it. I saw Adam VanCouverton and Seamus O'Regan doing stuff in the House. I saw a woman named Leanne Root, I think is her name,

on the conservative benches. I thought she was effective. So I can see it. Now, what's a little bit missing is the humor part, kind of the cleverness part, although I did see that with Seamus' speech on the energy bill that relates to Newfoundland and Labrador. So there are, it's not all bad, it's not all a grind,

but it is a little bit too much like that. I agree with you generally that the cut and thrust in the UK is more fun. It's mostly a grind, to be honest. And, you know, I agree with you. I agree with you about Charlie Angus. But he's a performer, right? Like, he's in a band. He likes to perform on stage. And so he knows what to do in his moment

when the light goes on for him. It's no problem. He won't find him reading anything. I thought, I honestly thought that somebody was, that the plan was that somebody was going to give them a lecture in the big caucus last week about performance, and not just for the Prime Minister, but for everybody. And part of that performance was ditch the cards.

Ditch the reading. Yeah, they have to ditch that. Yeah. They have to ditch that. I think that they also have to, all of them, at least, they have to take a hard look at the way that they represent themselves on social media. You know, Instagram is very good for people to say,

look at the dinner that I had, the people that I met, the place that I went to. But we live in a time where people don't want to see politicians doing that. It's really counterproductive. It wasn't maybe five years ago, six years ago, seven years ago. But the pandemic kind of wiped out our taste for that kind of thing we're not interested in politicians doing flashy things meeting with flashy people going to fancy places and we're not interested particularly in what they had to eat for lunch or dinner and uh there's still a lot of that out there and if if i can get them all in a room let's say one thing just show people the work you're doing don't over adorn it and by all means don't ever just be aware of the fact that

people are struggling with the cost of groceries and the cost of housing and they don't need to know that you're you know that you're living a hair shirt existence, but don't give them the other version because it's going to rub people the wrong way. All right. Well, on that note, we're going to call it a day for this week. Smoke mirrors and the truth with Bruce and myself. Lots to talk about there and lots to react to. So don't you be shy. If you've got some thoughts on this, send them along.

The Mansbridge Podcast at gmail.com. The Mansbridge Podcast at gmail.com. Send them along. Can we put that little super, what did you used to call it in the TV business? Super. Chiron. Chiron, yeah. That says, don't blame Bruce.

If that could be up there all the time, just at the bottom of the screen, I would really appreciate that. Yeah, I get a lot of mail from people who say, don't pile on Bruce. And then I get a lot of mail by people saying, why is Bruce on there all the time? Right? I ask myself the same thing. He's a staple. He's a staple. He's a staple of the bridge.

And we're lucky to have him. Okay, buddy. You take care. And we will talk to everybody tomorrow. Tomorrow is your turn. So if you want to get something in, send it along now. Your turn and the random ranter. And Friday, Bruce will be back with Chantel for Good Talk. That's it for this day.

Thanks for listening. Talk to you again in 24 hours.