The Bridge with Peter Mansbridge - Will The Middle East Cycle of Retaliation Ever End?

Episode Date: April 22, 2024

Our regular Monday conversation with Dr Janice Stein includes one of her specialties. The University of Toronto professor is an expert in conflict management so why can't the historic conflicts that have been a part of the middle east for centuries ever be resolved? But we start with Dr Stein's analysis of the likely impact of the US on the edge of approving a huge new aid package for Ukraine. Also today we unveil our latest "question of the week" for Bridge listeners who love to offer answers.

And hello there, Peter Mansbridge here. You're just moments away from the latest episode of The Bridge. It's Monday. That means Dr. Janice Stein and her analysis of two of the hot spots in the world. Ukraine, big weekend on Ukraine, and the situation between Israel and Hamas. That's all coming right up. And hello there, Peter Mansbridge in Toronto for this day. And for our regular Monday with Dr. Janice Stein. And, you know, it's interesting watching just how well some of the different episodes of The Bridge do. What's most popular. What's close to being most popular.

Most popular is always good talk with Chantal and Bruce on Fridays. But nipping at their heels, Janice Stein with the Monday episode. The Foreign Affairs episode, you know, people say, oh, you know, I'm not interested in what happens outside of Canada. Well, actually, listeners to the bridge are. They certainly are interested. And it shows every week with the numbers and the appreciation of Dr. Stein

and her analysis of the various situations. So we'll get to that in just a moment. But first of all, it's time to unveil the question of the various situations. So we'll get to that in just a moment. But first of all, it's time to unveil the question of the week. Last week, of course, it was your questions to the housing minister, Sean Fraser. And that was a very popular episode as well. Still is. People still downloading that to listen to it. And that's interesting because I think there was, you know, what I could gather from the many, many letters that we received

was that even people who are not favorable to this government, the Liberal government, the Justin Trudeau government, were quite appreciative of the time that Sean Fraser took to answer questions on housing. They may not have agreed with some of his ideas and policies, but they appreciated the fact that he took their questions seriously and gave his response to them. So that's good.

If you didn't hear it, you should probably listen to it if you care about the issue of housing. Some interesting things to talk about there. Anyway, that was a little unusual, a bit of a departure from what we've been doing since January, the beginning of January, which was we threw out a question, and you gave your answers to that question. That, too, has been a very popular Thursday episode, along with, of course, the random ranter

who got the week off last week, gave his time to give more questions for you to ask, Sean Fraser. Anyway, the ranter's back this week. But so is this question. And it's a question that gives you an opportunity to go one of two ways. Because here's the question. What aspect of social media do you like the most? Or what aspect of social media do you dislike the most?

So you can pick one or the other, but only one or the other, not both. And I'm looking for one aspect, okay? So let me repeat the questions once again. What aspect of social media do you like the most? Or what aspect of social media do you dislike the most? Or what aspect of social media do you dislike the most? So you write your letter in to themansbridgepodcast at gmail.com themansbridgepodcast at gmail.com

Include your name and the location you're writing from and have your answers in by 6 p.m. Wednesday. Alright? Anything after 6 p.m. Wednesday will not have a chance of being in the program. So that's 6 p.m. Wednesday, Eastern Time. Okay? So that's like 3 o'clock in the afternoon in B.C.

We get lots of answers often from B.C. Okay, and one, please, one of those two questions is the one you answer, and you offer one idea only. You know, some people go, oh, Peter, I just, you know, I can't make up my mind. So here's 16 different possibilities. You pick one. No, it doesn't work that way. You send in one. And that goes into the pool of questions for Thursday, and we ask as many as we can. Or, you know, we take as many of your answers as we can. Okay?

So that's the way it will work for this week. I'll repeat the questions at the end of the program today. But it's time to start, you know, the content, Peter. The reason people are sitting there going, okay, okay, I got it. I got the question. I'll deal with that later. I want to hear Janice Stein. I hear you.

So here we go. This week's conversation with Dr. Janice Stein. So Janice, it finally happened. The U.S. is starting to put together the $61 billion aid package, and it probably by the end of this week will be there. What difference is $61 billion going to make in real terms? It is impossible to over-exaggerate how important both the amount and the timing of this assistance is. It's not, you know, but a little exaggeration. If nothing had happened and the Russians had launched a counteroffensive

in June, I think the odds were overwhelmingly they would have succeeded and pushed the Ukrainians way back. Let's assume this bill gets through. First thing that's going to happen is the U.S. is going to draw down on stocks that it has and rush artillery shells to Ukraine. I think that's a matter of just weeks. They're prepared, they're organized. They're going to pay some of the NATO allies for what they've got, and it will move quite quickly. So Ukraine is going to be able to put a thumb in the dike on the current battlefield in real time over the next two or three weeks. Second urgent thing is air defense missiles. And I think anybody who's been watching the world over the last couple of weeks gets how important air defense is now.

The United States has some stockpiles of those, and those are going to go, too. There was speculation, Peter, that the Russians might have been getting ready to make one big attempt on Kyiv if the Ukrainians were not being able to reinforce. So that's how important this is and how important it is to get those two categories, anti-aircraft missiles and artillery to the Ukrainians in literally real time. Is it possible for Ukraine to have anything like what Israel has, the Iron Dome, the Patriot missile defense system that the Americans also have supplied to Israel? Is there, you know, the combination of those two,

is there anything possible for Ukraine along that front? You know, that, what we know is that Israel, in collaboration with the United States, have been working on these defensive systems for 20 years. Frankly, the system that Israel used, the Arrow 3 and the Arrow 2, the United States has not deployed yet. So, you know, this is the first operational test in real time of technology. Whatever else it was, and it was lots of other things, it was certainly that.

Where the United States goes next, right, is it now going to double down and build and deploy and share with allies that's the kind of hill we have to climb for ukraine to get access to this and that will be a much slower process of course it's possible it's money it's training and then it's commitment well i mean what we do see in israel and Israel, and obviously we saw it just a couple of weeks ago with the 300 drones and missiles coming in and 99% of them or whatever the stat was shot down. In Ukraine, we don't see anything like that. We see almost on a daily basis buildings in Ukraine and usually residential buildings as part of the kind of terror campaign, I guess,

knocked out or severely damaged. So I guess that's where the question is. I mean, $61 billion is a hell of a lot of money. It's a lot of money. And, you know, the system, whoever is responsible for it in Israel, is working or certainly appears to have worked on the last one. So what would they be waiting for to try and recreate that system in Ukraine? Well, let me add one other component to the story.

What worked, it was this integrated multilayer system. But a big piece of that, which hasn't gotten the attention it deserved, Peter, fighter aircraft that went up and shot down these missiles. Now, in some way, I mean, it was a stunning display of skills. But look what you're doing. You're putting these two big problems here. You're putting billion-dollar machines in the sky to take out drones, just so we understand the asymmetry. In addition to this, and here's, I think, the big,

complicating factor for Ukraine, the Biden administration held back, and not only Biden, but Olaf Scholz in Germany has held back on giving Ukraine what it considers game-changing offensive weapons, primarily advanced fighter aircraft and even that long-range missile, because they are worried that the Ukrainians will, once they get it, will use it against Russia far beyond the territory that Russia's occupied. And so Biden drew a line in the sand around that. And the fighter aircraft that are going in, you know, the UK has provided some, the Baltics have provided some, but there's a lot of hesitation still in NATO around that.

We get this distinction, which Biden made, to Israel. We will defend you against an Iranian attack, but we will not support you in any offensive retaliation. That's a funny conjunction of words, but that's what it was. Same equipment. Fighter aircraft. So that's why this becomes a really complicated issue. The other thing that enters into this equation to a degree and was in part some of the reluctance in the U.S., although most of it was kind of political,

but part of the reluctance is the issue that has plagued Ukraine, let's admit, for decades, and that's corruption. Yeah. As we said, $61 billion is a hell of a lot of money. It's not all going to Ukraine. Some of it's being spent in the States to send finished equipment to Ukraine. Yes. A chunk of it, by the way, Peter. I think that's a really important point, that a big part of this is going to be spent in the United States to procure and even to manufacture the equipment. War, as we've said, is an industrialization strategy.

It creates jobs. But the money that is going to Ukraine, what's the accountability? That is an enormous issue in Congress, by the way, and it's not only with the Trump Republicans. It's more generally with the Republican Party and even some Democrats. And here's the really tough part of this. As the situation's gotten worse in Ukraine

over the last six months, progressively worse, politics are back inside Ukraine. You know, it started actually with the former head of the Ukrainian Armed Forces, General Zolushny, who fundamentally attacked Zelensky. And when I saw that, I said, oh, here, we're back. We're back. And the former president of Ukraine, very well known to Canadians, spent a lot of time in Canada, Poroshenko, you know, he's campaigning. So when you get politics and factions emerging, both inside the military as well as in the larger political class, it gets much harder, much, much harder to get that accountability for how the dollars that go to Ukraine are spent. the Ukrainians don't do it this time, there will be a very, very tough discussion, regardless of whether it's Biden or Trump who's present. It's a hard one for Zelensky.

It just isn't. It's a hard one from the armed forces. Here's, you know, in both Ukraine and the Israel-Humas story, I've got kind of a big question today. And the big question on the Ukraine side is this, is $61 billion enough to win the war or simply enough to get Russia to the bargaining table? So winning the war for Ukraine, what would be winning the war for Ukraine? Winning the war for Ukraine, with Zelensky about Crimea, contrary to what he has to say in public in order to keep his political coalition together. $61 billion is not going to do that.

That is a massive offense, counteroffensive. You know, the Ukrainians got a lot of assistance last summer and were not able to do it. And it wasn't only money, Peter. It's a larger issue, which is the U.S. wanted the Ukrainians to fight the way the U.S. military does. And that simply did not work in this case. And I can tell you the American military was beyond frustrated, beyond frustrated. Their advice to Zelensky during that counteroffensive was deploy very few forces just to protect as best as you can. Put everything in to an all-out offensive going south. Concentrate on one or two big targets to break through. That's your only chance of success.

And they didn't do it. They divided their forces and actually were able to succeed nowhere. So it's money for sure. It's a wholly different order of magnitude offensive equipment. It's going to take a lot more tanks. One of the reasons one could argue that that offense did not succeed, it had no air cover. And you only get air cover from fighter aircraft.

So in order for the Ukrainians to get that, the risk tolerance in Washington and Berlin would have to grow. I see no evidence that that's there. So I think it is about Ukraine, getting Ukraine to the bargaining table. And there was a really interesting and controversial piece that the nerds like me all over the world were reading this week, Peter. It's written by somebody who's really expert on the Ukrainian, both on Ukraine and Russia. So was there a really big missed opportunity that ends war in the first two or three months? And what was on the table? And frankly, they conclude, no, but I'm not persuaded. I think that was the moment when all of this could have been avoided.

But what would have been on the table? An agreement to guarantee Ukraine's new crown, keep Ukraine out of NATO. That was the single most important part of this. Meaningful security guarantees about what would happen if Ukraine were ever again attacked by Russia. Because guarantees were given in 1994 when they gave up their nuclear weapons. And they were not, frankly, fulfilled at the critical moment. So getting Ukraine back to the bargaining table with Russia is not going to be ultimately about money.

And it's not going to be about supplies. It's going to be what kind of guarantees are they going to get from the United States, Britain, Germany, outside of NATO. That is the only way we'll get a conversation going with Russia. What do you think the odds on that are? Election year in the United States. Gotta wait this one, right? Can't do anything until

next January, February, March. March is a long time away. That's another year of fighting because Putin is holding, waiting to see what will happen. So I don't see much opportunity for negotiation

for at least another year, which means Ukraine has to get what it needs to defend against a Russian counteroffensive. Because were the Russians seen on the battlefield, there's no chance. All right. I want to move to the Middle East. But it is really good news for Ukraine.

This is the first, you know, I think it's really important. It's the first light that they've seen now for six months as they've held on desperately. And you could see it on Zelensky's face yesterday as he was doing some television interviews. He was obviously relieved, to say the least. One other story, just a footnote that we might come back to for our listeners is Ukraine also went to some meetings this week

organized by the Lithuanians with the Heritage Foundation with some Trump people. They're doing the political work now to the extent that they can to start that tough conversation with Republicans about why Ukraine matters to the West.

Okay. I want to move to the Middle East. Now, we've had the back and forth between Israel and Iran. It appears that things have kind of settled down. We're on pause. We're on pause. Okay. Yeah.

So this is what I took out of the weekend. The thing about the weekend that didn't necessarily surprise me, but I think probably carries a lot more weight than we were giving it. And that was, and you correct me if I'm wrong, you may see there's nothing, but it happened in Istanbul where the president of Turkey met with the head of Hamas, or one of the heads of Hamas. Yeah. In a very open way and, you know, had the photo ops and all of that. What does that mean to our story?

It's a really important part of the story. So you are right. The backdrop to the story is that Qatar is taking a huge amount of heat now for failing to get the ISMR to agree to any deal. You heard Tony Blinken in Capri at the G7 foreign ministers meeting say, Hamas is the principal obstacle to a ceasefire. What was the value of Qatar?

And by the way, Qatar allowed Hamas officers at the request of the United States. Let's just make this clear. The United States asked Qatar to get involved in this mediation. So Qatar has not done this against Washington. It has done this at the request of Washington. But it is way out on the risk frontier.

It's taking heat from Congress, who don't get the bigger picture, frankly, not for the first nor for the last time. And the Qatari leadership is hugely frustrated, hugely frustrated with C-1. So what is it doing? It's threatening to cut off payments to Hamas families in Saudi Arabia, which were approved by the United States and Israel. Let's just understand again. So where will Hamas go if Qatar makes clear that one, it doesn't want these political offices anymore in Doha, and B, it's pulling back from the mediation, which to me is a very bad signal for where this is going, because they are skilled. They know what they're doing. They are performing in critical role.

So two stories. One is Dumbbell. That's why that picture, right? That was testing the water. I think for Erdogan, member of NATO, who has very strong views in support of Palestinians, it's nevertheless a very risky move. The other story, Oman. Hamas will move its offices

to Oman. Just this morning, Hamas issued, and it's really, this reflects a split that's really alive and important inside Hamas. Hania is on one side of this and Mora is on the other. From the political wing, from Hania comes, no, no, no, no, no. We're not moving our offices. These are false rumors.

We are getting a window. into these factional politics inside Hamas that are just causing enormous problems for Qatar. And Qatar is now putting pressure in any way it can on CINOR except to cease fire. If this goes bad, Peter, so what can we watch for? except to cease fire. If this goes bad, Peter, so what can we watch for? If, in fact, the political wing moves out of Qatar,

no cease fire in the immediate future. That's a kind of indicator, but I would keep my negotiations shut down back there. Israel goes through draft once that happens because there's no credibility. There's no possibility of any kind of ceasefire. You know, I've actually stopped asking the ceasefire question. Yeah.

You know, it's been so long and we get so frustrated and we keep heading down the wrong path on it. Let me tell you one other big lesson that came out this week, because this was one of these incredible weeks, which is not, again, what's on the front page of the newspaper. Iran had a very bad week. Very, very bad week um first of all and then this number we don't know exactly but i've been digging all week because we how do we dig by the way uh some of our listeners might ask we now have

access to satellite imagery in literally real time that never used to be the case. We used to have to be dependent on what CSIS or D&D would share with us. We know where to go 24 to 36 hours. We get satellite pictures and a whole network of people starts to talk. So here's the first thing. Between 30 and 50

percent of what Iran launched blew up inside Iran. That's really scary for Iran. That was not what they intended. They exposed their vulnerability. They, of course, they pulled back. They need time now.

That's why I said we're on pause. They need time now to figure out what went wrong, to learn, and there were bitter, bitter fights going on in Israel all week long, where the politicians were divided from the generals. Somebody figured it out. They launched a very limited attack. Biden made a difference here. He really didn't make a difference. He pulled them back. But what did they do? They used fighter aircraft to fire missiles just outside the borders of Iran. Those missiles flew beneath the radar and were not identified by the Iranian air defense. Not good news. Again, what did they take out? They took out a radar that is part of a surface that a missile system deployed to protect one of the most important nuclear facilities.

That's why that was the strike. So, you know, the Iranian spokespeople talked about quadrocopters, little drones. That was frankly, and we've seen the pictures now. So we know. So this I know because I've seen the satellite pictures and I can't tell you where the damaged radar is. And that was done by missiles. That, again, is scary for them.

Right. Because their defense system didn't work. So their offensive missiles, let's be conservative, 30% blew up. And their defense system. When you say they blew up, they blew up on the way to their target on their own. They weren't shot down. Correct. They blew up when the way to their target on their own they weren't shot down they were correct they blew up when they were launched right some blew up on the launchers and some blew up on the way they were not shot down and where's this intelligence coming from is this from the

from the people and that's what is such a game changer. There are whole communities of people who just monitor flight paths, air trackers, satellite imagery, and tracked all the way, and then tracked on early Friday morning. These are what? These are CIA? No, they're using Five Eyes? No. Who are we talking about?

These are private satellite companies. Elon Musk launches SpaceX satellites and private sector companies buy time and space in these private satellite companies. And they're over the battlefield in real time.

I'll give you one. Umbra, which is a private sector company, released the satellite imagery of the air base just outside of Israel. And I saw that. I was on the, you know, in the zone where we were all talking. By Saturday morning, we had the pictures. Less than 24 hours. I mean, no control on intelligence here. None of that stuff.

It's out in the open. I'm glad you're telling me that it was more than just Elon Musk because I'm having doubts about whether he can even build an electric vehicle anymore after the way his company has gone. But, you know, he's got a thousand satellites up in low-orbit space that takes pictures all the time. And private sector, it's a business you share these private satellite imagery with paying customers okay so i'll just say why are we on pause

because this was not a good week for one and just think about how disappointed let's just tie this loop just think how disappointed disappointed Yair Simard is. Oh, my goodness. He was close, right? And what does it tell him? Iran will take a risk when revolutionary guards are killed. They will not take a risk when Palestinians are decimated. Okay.

Here's my final question, the big question on the Middle East. You're an analyst for conflict management, an expert in the area of conflict management. How do you answer the question, which has kind of plagued us as the question on the middle east for centuries um how do you stop the cycle of retaliation yeah boy that's a big one right um so we actually had a demonstration this week how you stopped it. Because two things happened. One, the technology disappointed one side. That's really important.

When your expectations as you go up the ladder and you're stopped on the first rung of escalation, you say, oh my God, it's not working the way I thought it was going to work. So that was a big piece of this. Second, Biden. See, there was almost an Israeli retaliation last Saturday

and again last Monday that would have been very, very large. And that might have been so humiliating to the Iranians that despite how disappointed they were, they might have felt they had no option but to respond. Biden weighed in very hard. He's weighed in hard twice, Peter. Okay? You know both.

The first was two days after the October 7th attack. The defense minister in Israel wanted to escalate against Hezbollah. He stopped it. And he, that tiny, what looked like a pinprick attack, but was much more, given the messages it conveyed. But scaling back that attack was Biden lying in unequivocally and pulling Israel back. So you can, if you're the big power

and you're providing valued assets and they're the only people who can do it, you can deescalate. The bigger problem, how do you stop the cycle of retaliation? We managed to do that at times, so it's not entirely bleak. There were Camp David Accords, right? There were agreements between, with Jordan that have held, by the way, you notice, through all of them, these agreements have held. There were openings with Saudi Arabia, but right now, and I am going to get such flack for the sentence that is going to come out of my mouth.

I'm going to hear and I know. We have the most militant of the militants in three places. This is the most right-wing government. And we saw cracks in those right-wing factions this week. But it is the most right-wing government Israel's ever had. Yahya Sinwar leads the most militant wing of Hamas, which is saying something. And

Khamenei now leads a government in Iran, which is more isolated from its own public than ever before, and therefore more dependent on the Republican guards. That is the worst scenario.

We have to change leadership at the very least in the Middle East. We have to change leadership in Ramallah. We have to change leadership in Jerusalem. And yes, in Mar, the political wing of Hamas has to find a way now to isolate sin war and to take back control. Well, you're asking a lot there. Yeah. Yeah. So all you can do in the meantime is what Biden's doing.

Pull it back every time it threatens to blow. And that's what he's been doing. But to talk about a longer term solution with the current leadership, you know, it's really interesting. Martin Indyk, who was an ambassador to Israel and worked in the Obama White House and has very, very, very good relationships with the Biden White House. And a longtime observer, you know, in the industry of peacemakers,

which is what we have. It's an industry. So many people have tried. And I spoke to him just before October the 7th. It was the last week in September. And there was a lot of talk about normalization with Saudi Arabia. And he said one thing that's really stayed with me. He says, failed peace initiatives have costs.

They're not free. Because every time you start a peace process, the most militant who want to stop it get organized and try their best to blow it up. It's not a coincidence that the Hamas attack took place when the prospect of a bigger agreement between Israel, Saudi Arabia, the Emirates, which involved a political path for Palestine, was on the table. So we have to be very careful not to start too early

until you take the militants out of the game. And frankly, I've said that in Canada. Right. We don't go too early. Okay. We're going to take a quick break. We're going to come back and we're going to shift gears and do the what are we missing angle

and bring something else onto the table. But you've certainly given us a lot to think about in the first half hour of this program. So let me take a quick break. I'll be right back. And welcome back. You're listening to the Monday episode of The Bridge. Dr. Janice Stein is with us from the Munk School, University of Toronto. And you're listening on Sirius XM, Channel 167. Canada Talks are on your favorite podcast platform. So, what are we missing this week?

And this week, we look at a very different part of the world. We sure do, Peter, and it's a good news story. I'm looking for them every week because I have to keep myself sane, given the other stuff that I'm watching. And this were a series of meetings that Joe Biden has held, which are really groundbreaking, focused on Japan as the core of U.S. strategy now in East Asia. This is the China-facing part of the Biden administration.

And some of them rightly argue the Middle East is just a big distraction from what we really need to be doing, which is focus on the Indo-Pacific. He gave a lavish state dinner for the Japanese prime minister and his wife, in which he had invited as well the leader of the Philippines and Japan, you know, has stepped up now as the pivot for a new alliance. They've repaired their relationship with South Korea. Talk about a longstanding conflict that has gone on for decades. That one is de-escalated. They are now working together. And so what we're seeing come out of the shadows now is a new security alliance led by the United States, partnered with Japan, which brings in South Korea, brings in the Philippines, and it's targeted against China, frankly.

It's put there to warn China, don't use military force against Taiwan. Because this is not only that you will have to deal with us, and we are way over the horizon, you will have to deal with your most immediate neighbors in the region. Japan has stepped up its defense spending. That is a radical break with its past. As you know, the victims of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, it didn't have a standing army. It didn't have what they call the standing army for three or four decades. And it has stepped up its willingness to participate.

So the map is being redrawn in East Asia while the rest of the world is focused on Eastern Europe and the Middle East. Probably the most profound changes happening. And really skilled leadership again by the Blinkens and the Bidens. Did I read it correctly that Japan's even now going to consider whether or not they should join the Australians and the New Zealanders and the Americans

on the new submarine program? Yes, yes, which is, now, you know, that's actually something that I wanted to talk about for a minute because it's got a Canadian piece to it. There is this new and there's there's there's two new ones, three new ones going on in this region. And the bottom line is we don't have access to the technology platforms in any, which is a huge worry for me. There is AUKUS, which is focused on nuclear submarines, Australia, UK. US, Japan is now considering joining. But built on top of that alliance, Peter, is a technology platform.

We're all the next generation technologies. We have been knocking at the door for a year. We're not in. There's the Quad, a fourth of the Quad, in which India joined SACR. The Quad also has a technology platform. We're not in. And the last one is the Indo-Pacific Economic Forum. We asked to get in. We didn't get in. And yes, it's not a trade path, but it's a technology path. So what we're seeing in this part of the world in East Asia,

new alliances, new forms of collaboration are springing up. And it's not what we are missing only. It's what we're missing from those platforms. And if we're missing out on the opportunities that are being created by these collaborations to join the next generation technology, it's beyond frustrating. Yeah, I misspoke myself there earlier. I said New Zealand was part of that submarine package. It was the UK generation technology. It's beyond frustrating. Yeah, I misspoke myself there earlier. I said New Zealand was part of that submarine package. It's the UK, Australia, and the US.

Japan may be, although probably not on the nuclear side. No, but what they want, they want access to the latest generation technology. Right. Right? Now, Canada is supposedly looking at a solution to their submarine historic submarine problem could we get in there too

did you look at the budget did you look at the detailed cash flows on that here's i mean i'm a skeptic uh and so i go look where the $680 million for this budgetary year is going to be spent, as opposed to the numbers. The language said we will consider what we might do about submarines. That's what the Defense Policy Review in Canada said. No budget attached. And these are big-ticket items. These are huge things.

Okay. Great conversation, as always, Janice. And we will take seven days off and come back and do it all over again. Okay. See you next week. You got it. over again. Okay. See you next week. You got it. Thanks, Janice. Dr. Janice Stein, University of Toronto, the Mug School.

And as I said, another great conversation. A quick end bit before we leave and a reminder of the question of the week. The end bit is this. I saw this. Maybe it's because I'm about to fly overseas again. You tend to look at little things, anything that comes up about airline travel. This is funny. This is just in the U.S.

The Transportation Security Administration. I'm reading this off a CNN wire. What have they done? What have they found? They've found that in the first three months of this year, January to March, that 1,500 firearms, guns, were intercepted at U.S. airports during those three months. And not only were 1,500 guns intercepted, but of those guns, most of them were loaded. Loaded. They were ready to fire.

And most of them were in carry-on luggage. Now, you can, in the States, put a gun in your luggage. You have to tell the counter when you check in. It has to be unloaded. And it has to be in a protective case. That's the states. You're not allowed to take them in your carry-on bag. But over 1,500 were, and most of them were loaded.

Now, we should keep this in context. That's 1,500 passengers in a three-month period of which 15 million passengers were on board American planes. But still, I don't know. I'd be looking around the plane if I was on it. Okay, question of the week. Remember what it was? Very simple.

What's the one aspect of social media you like? Or what's the one aspect of social media you dislike? And that's what we want you to answer. Just one of those two questions. And only one aspect. All right? Name, location you're writing from, have it in before 6 p.m. Eastern time on Wednesday

to themansbridgepodcast at gmail.com. themansbridgepodcast at gmail.com. That wraps it up for today. Tomorrow, it's the Moore-Butts conversation number 15. The boys are back. Jerry Butts, James Moore, one a former principal secretary to Justin Trudeau, the other a former cabinet minister for Stephen Harper.

The topic tomorrow. These have been fascinating conversations. The topic for tomorrow. Democracy versus autocracy. What's the real difference? It's going to be a good one. I promise you. That's tomorrow on the bridge.

Wednesday is an encore edition. Rick Mercer, on the eve of him and Jan Arden touring the country with their new show. We'll have an encore edition with Rick Mercer. That's it for today. I'm Peter Mansbridge. Thanks so much for listening. Talk to you again in 24 hours.