The Bridge with Peter Mansbridge - Your Turn -- Where Would You Cut?

Episode Date: November 14, 2024

If the decision is made to cut government services, where would YOU cut? Then the Ranter on where all the small cars have gone.

And hello there, Peter Mansbridge here. You're just moments away from the latest episode of The Bridge. Cut, cut, cut. Where would you cut if you decided cutting was the thing to do? It's your turn. Coming right up. And hello there. welcome to Thursday. Thursday, of course, is your turn and the Random Renter. Both are here and ready to go for this day. I guess I should probably make it clear what the question of the week was. Because some of you felt Lansbridge is advocating cuts. He thinks that cuts is the way to deal with our economic situation in terms of government costs. Well, that's actually not

what I said. What I said was, there are those who feel that cuts are the way to go. And my question was, if you were one of those, if you felt cuts were the way to go. And my question was, if you were one of those, if you felt cuts were the way to go, what would you cut? What would be your priority? What would be your first cut? So that's not advocating cuts. In fact, I, you know, I, I've heard the argument and I've seen the argument played out by governments of different stripes over the years about, you know, not cutting at all. That there's such a thing as a stimulative deficit. Well, people disagree on that. But let's face

the situation today, which is quite simple. You know, I'm just leaning over to turn my heater off there it's turned off you might have heard the little buzzing in the background which tells us something about the time of year we're in right we're finally into late fall. And late fall means we're going to face some cool temperatures. It took forever for the leaves to fall here in Stratford, Ontario, but man, they've fallen in the last couple of weeks. And so we're all getting ready for that.

Mind you, it's been fun here in the old Stratford house because we were away. We were in Scotland, some of you know. And while we were away, I had a pipe burst in the basement. Fortunately, my sister and my almost brother-in-law were coming by every once in a while to check things out and they walked in on this water pouring through the basement. So we've been having a little bit of fun there.

So that's home ownership for you. Anyway, enough about my whining. Let's get back to the cut story. So I asked for, for those of you who think that cuts are the way to go, where would you cut? And as always with this little Your Turn section, we've got lots of answers. So let's get at it.

No particular order here. Well, actually, there is a little bit of order in the beginning because we start with what was the most common theme. Daryl Johansson of North Battleford, Saskatchewan. I would suggest that the first cut would be a drastically downsized the CBC and focus it on Canadian news. Get rid of the fluff and politics and waste of money.

Bonuses for firing people? That's a question mark and a shot at the CBC management in terms of bonuses. And let me correct one thing. This was not the most common answer. There were a few, though. There was more than one letter writer suggesting cuts to the CBC. And one even suggested, oh, Nancy is going to be really upset about this. I don't work for the CBC anymore.

I haven't for years. I'm a believer in the national public broadcasting system, a strong believer in it. Do I agree with everything the CBC has done? No, I don't. And I've made that clear in the last few years. But I believe in the CBC, and I believe there's some terrific people there,

especially in the journalism side. And yes, Rick Mercer on the comedy side, when Rick does some stuff for the CBC. And Mark Critch, both of them are very good friends of mine. Moving on. Drew Hubley. And this was the number one area. Drew Hubley in Mount Unaake, Nova Scotia.

Unaake, Nova Scotia. It's north of Halifax. Drew writes, I would propose the government cut OAS, old age security, as it costs the federal government around $70 billion every year. Wow, is that the right number? That's a huge number. The GIS, Guaranteed Income Supplement, on the other hand,

is a great program, and I think it should be expanded to all age groups, young and old. No one should be forced to live without a means to clothe and feed themselves. I propose that qualification for GIS be based on the value of your net assets rather than income. There are seniors collecting the GIS with millions in the bank and another million of home equity. I don't see how it is reasonable to expect younger generations to fund these programs for affluent seniors when they cannot afford the basics like housing.

Not to mention, this also pulls away from seniors who are truly in need of assistance. As I said, this is the cut that was suggested most often in our mail, or at least if not cut OAS entirely, start clawing it back from seniors who have healthy incomes. Here's another answer along those lines from Joshua Winters in Surrey, B.C. The first thing I would cut are entitlements to wealthy individuals, particularly OAS. I was stunned to learn that the top income cut off for the program was over $148,000. I would lower the cutoff and take a portion of those funds

and redirect them to the seniors on the lower end of the income scale. I can think of two seniors in my own family receiving OAS and how this would affect them. The first is someone living at or just above the poverty line. She worked her whole life, but lost nearly all of her pension due to mismanagement by her employer. She now lives on the tightest of fixed income,

sees lunch at Tim Hortons as a huge luxury, and has confided in me that a mere $100 unexpected expense would throw off her budget for months. The second is a far wealthier individual who receives large amounts of passive income as actual gold and silver bars in her safe and refers to OAS gleefully as her mad money. The truth is that the OAS she receives

makes no real difference in her life, and there would be no change to her standard of living if she no longer received it. However, the First Lady had an increase, even a small one, to her OAS payments. Well, that would be positively life-changing. James Lucas in Ottawa has a slight variation on the cost of OAS. With increased life expectancies,

we should look at reinstating Stephen Harper's plan to raise the retirement age to 67. According to a study at the University of British Columbia, this would result in $38 billion worth of savings by 2028. Okay, there are some other areas, and this was one that got a lot of attention. Ben Goulet in Ottawa. I don't want the federal government to cut any programs

that directly help people. I want them to fully commit to transition away from fossil fuels and cut subsidies to oil companies. The Environmental Defense Advocacy Group calculated that the feds gave $18.6 billion in support to fossil fuel companies. Cutting that would go a long way to balancing the books and help our transition away from planet-killing products. This, as I said, was the suggested cut that was mentioned almost as often as OAS,

so here's a taste of another letter from Betsy Dobb in St. Agatha, Ontario. It's obscene that the government gives subsidies to oil and gas companies. These companies are very rich, big, and successful. That would be my first cut. And another one from John Charlesworth in Victoria. The first thing I'd cut would be oil and gas subsidies, including tax deductions, reduced royalties, lower interest rates, and their current straw man carbon capture. Because these subsidies are so pervasive and hidden, estimates of the annual amount range from $4.5 billion to $81 billion per year, depending on who you ask. This for an industry that has been wildly profitable in recent years. For an industry that touts the mentality of non-governmental

interference, it should be sink or swim going forward. Mark Rennick in Guelph. The obvious thing to cut is the size of government, as they have proven to be ineffective at getting things done, such as military procurement to our northern flank. Leo Bourdoin. Leo forgot to tell us where he was writing from.

His cuts are not just oil and gas. Every year, governments of all levels and of all stripes spend billions in corporate subsidies because they're too afraid of the political impact of losing jobs. From fisheries to airplanes to the auto industry to oil, subsidies are what keeps them alive. Or so we're told to believe. How about governments making sure workers who lose their job can quickly adapt their skills to new industries and ensure pensioners keep receiving what they were promised and keep out of running businesses altogether?

Seems like a more focused and less expensive option. Leah Richards in Toronto. I would eliminate the federal tax credit on donations to faith-based organizations. If one wishes to donate to a religious organization, by all means. However, Stats Canada says 34.6% of the country has no religious affiliation. Coupled with the fact that religious organizations are largely tax-exempt entities,

the elimination of these tax credits and the CRA staff required to audit these donations equals a fair bit of funds that could be used elsewhere for the benefit of all Canadians. Janie Grimes in North Dundas, Ontario. Here's a start. I'd abolish the Senate. Have you seen much sober second thought lately? They would save approximately $100 million a year. In 10 years, that's a billion dollars.

There's lots more to cut. Sadly, you only wanted one. Doug Hubble in Guelph. The program I would cut tomorrow is Sustainable Development Technology Canada, also known as the Liberals Green Slush Fund. This initiative has not produced a single environmental benefit. That's according to Doug. According to Auditor General Karen Hogan, it violated conflict of interest policies

90 times. The program's only success seems to be in making government insiders wealthier, a complete waste of $836 million taxpayer dollars. Well, there's good news for Doug. The government abolished the fund in June. But also bad news for Doug. It didn't save any money. Innovation Minister François-Philippe Champagne announced the SDTC funds would be transferred to the National Research Council of Canada. Michael Artendale in Sudbury.

No politician would ever be willing to cut their pay and benefits, but I would first off cut their pay by 10% to allow them to experience what everyday taxpayers face. Next, tie future increases in their pay to the increase in the minimum wage. If it doesn't go up, then neither will theirs. And finally, tie their pension to the public service pension such that they need to serve the same as a normal government employee before they become eligible for a pension. If they backdated this pension requirement to all living MPs, that would cut a lot of money spent by the government.

I know no politician would ever do it, but it would show the public they mean business. Brent Bush in Nanaimo. This is a cut in a similar vein from Brent. I would cut pensions for senators and elected politicians. Most, if not all, of these people come from backgrounds where they have had a previous successful career that in many cases either have a pension benefit

or a salary that allows for developing a portfolio to see them through retirement. You know, that's true, Brent, but there are also some who leave jobs long before pension and take the risk of running for politics. And those who win may only be in for a couple of years. So there are minimum pension requirements in terms of length of time as an MP. And there is a reward now in terms of a pension.

But I hear what you're saying. I also think that, you know, it's not cut and dry 100% all the same. There are some, you know, who dedicated their lives to public service, and their time in it wasn't long, and they lost other opportunities for pensions. Anyway, there are arguments, but I hear what you're saying, and I know that this is a very common feeling out there. Joseph Murdoch Flowers in Ikelebik Nunavut

cut the size of the federal cabinet. Joseph Murdoch Flowers in Iqaluit Nunavut, cut the size of the federal cabinet. Why is there a minister of public services and procurement and a minister of citizen services? Why is there a minister of health and a minister of mental health and addictions? Why are there eight cabinet posts responsible for various parts of economic development? If politicians really want to show that they lead by example, start at the top and cut half the cabinet.

Michael Brisson in Kitchener, Ontario. Sell Stornoway to Elon Musk for a very high price. He seems to seek and be desperately willing to pay dearly for a kind of status and priceless place in history. His mother was born in Saskatchewan. He studied at Queen's. So why not pay down Canada's deficit with a return on Canada's investment? Stornoway has been scorned as a waste of money by many opposition leaders,

some of whom have honorably refused to move in. An agreement over time by distinguished elected Canadian leaders, so Canada needs to listen his family and educational aspects to this country. Actually, I shouldn't say he's not a fan of Canada. He's not a fan of the government, the existing government. That's for sure. He's no Trudeau fan. But, you know,

reading this letter, I wonder if Michael has mixed up Stornoway, the home of the opposition leader, with 24 Sussex Drive, the home of the Prime Minister. Stornoway has served as the residence of every leader of the opposition since George Drew in 1950. The only leader of the opposition who refused to live there was Lucien Bouchard of the BQ.

Justin Trudeau has refused to live at 24 Sussex because it's in terrible condition and he doesn't want to be the one to authorize repairs, which the National Capital Commission, which looks after these things, says would cost at least, cost at least $42 million. On the other hand, Stornoway requires just $1.25 million over the next 10 years to address deferred maintenance.

Brian Roger in Bridgewater, Nova Scotia. If the public service grew by 40% between 2015 and 2023, while the population grew only 12%, then by simple calculations, that represents a significant decline in productivity. The expectation should be ongoing, continuous improvement in productivity. Percy Phillips in Portageville Prairie, Manitoba. I would reduce the number of consultants that the federal government currently has or employs

and cut them in half as a start. Then after some evaluation, cut them in half again. Right after that, I would reduce the cost of government by reducing the federal civil service, those that are employed by the federal government, by 20% immediately, and then another 20% to a pre-Justin Trudeau level. No one will notice the reduction in civil service employment for the first 20% and may notice the second 20%, but the corollary is that no one has noticed an increase in retail service by a 40% increase in the civil service over the last decade. There's no doubt that government grows and grows and grows,

and it doesn't necessarily make a difference which party's in power. Adding to this idea of firing public servants, Jason Craig in Conquerel Mills, Nova Scotia. Give these fine folks a fixed amount reflecting their years of service, and then $2,000 a month. Wish them well. Let them find other jobs. Express their entrepreneurial passions, whatever.

The $2,000 keeps going into their bank accounts every month. How much would we save? Think about the selling off of government office buildings or repurposing toward affordable housing. The sky is the limit here in the face of increasing automation and the increasing redundancy and ineffectiveness of our beloved bureaucracy. Don't cut the programs people need. Cut the administration we don't need. We're going to take a break in a moment, but not before we hear from Scott Clement. Looks like he's from somewhere around Kingston, but he didn't say.

Got to remember, folks, tell us where you're writing from. Scott writes, while the amounts Canada has been spending on expanding highways has been declining in recent years, it still remains an incredible waste of money for two reasons. Not only is the expansion of highways the wrong direction Canada should be going for the health of the planet, habitats, and ourselves, but the long-term maintenance costs of these highways are rarely taken into consideration. The upfront cost pitched is a fraction of what that new highway will cost in the long term.

We need world-class public transit and high-speed rail. Okay. Lots to think about here, right? Lots to think about. But we've got lots more to think about as well. But first we'll take our break, and then when we come back, first up will be the random renter, of course. But, now before we take this quick break,

we'll be right back after this. And welcome back. You're listening to The Bridge, the Thursday episode, which is your turn and the random ranter. Our Your Turn question this week is about cuts. Where would you cut if you were asked to cut? Government programs, government services, where would you cut? Heard a lot of ideas here so far from across the country.

But as we often do on Thursdays at this time, we want to hear from the random ranter. He's not about cuts. He's actually about cars. And you know that whenever the random ranter talks about cars and electric vehicles, it provokes reaction, especially from the EV fans in the country. But hey, let's see. What does he actually have to say this week? Time for the Random Rancher.

In our giant push to go green, the one thing that seems pretty odd to me is the fact that our automakers have largely stopped producing small cars, or in some cases, cars altogether. It makes no sense to me. I mean, small cars were born largely in the 70s during a time of high interest rates and spiking energy costs. People flocked to them. They were great on gas. They were affordable to own. And driving one saved you money. Now, the last time I checked, we were in an affordability crisis again, not to mention an environmental crisis.

Both things that small cars can help solve, but for whatever reason, small cars are pretty much gone from the Canadian market. Nameplates like the Toyota Yaris, the Honda Fit, the Ford Focus, and the Chevy Spark are no more. So too the Hyundai Accent, the Kia Rio, and come 2025, the Mitsubishi Mirage. In fact, if we talk about the traditional big three, Ford, GM, and Chrysler slash Stellantis, then small cars, or sedans of any size for that matter, pretty much don't exist. General Motors has one left, the mid-sized Malibu. The other two, well, they offer no sedans at all of any size. So where am I going with this? Well, the government

has announced a new 100% tariff on all Chinese-made EVs under the guise of protecting the Canadian automotive industry. I get that to a point. The automotive sector is a vital part of our economy. It accounts for 10% of our manufacturing GDP and 21% of our manufacturing trade. It accounts for over 125,000 direct jobs, not to mention all the support and service jobs. It's a big deal and it deserves to be protected. But my question is, what are we getting in return for that protection? Because it doesn't seem like North American manufacturers are much interested in competing at the bottom end of the market in any way, EV or other. So are the Chinese tariffs protecting manufacturing jobs or are they protecting manufacturers' profits? I mean, they don't

seem to have any issues with producing trucks in the 75 and up range, but small affordable cars? Forget it. On a certain level, I can understand that. There's a lot more profit in a truck than there is in a car. But where's the future in catering only to the top of the market? It's an unbalanced approach. Think about it. Whose first car is going to be a Ford when everything they sell is north of $35,000? It's a flawed plan for the future because what happens if the market shifts again like it did in 2008? Are we expected to protect them with tariffs and then bail them out yet again if the market suddenly turns away from trucks and SUVs? And who's paying the price of these tariffs? Because it's not just consumers being denied cheaper options. The Chinese will retaliate.

And in this case, it's probably going to be against Canadian farmers. Look, the Chinese are currently producing exactly the kind of cars we need if the government is serious about meeting our climate change targets. If we're going to protect our manufacturers, then we need to demand more from them than fancy pickup trucks and record profits. If they can't compete head-to-head with Chinese EVs, then they need to develop competitive alternatives, like fuel cells, batteries of different chemistry, hydrogen, or even hybrids. But if North American manufacturers are not interested in producing economical cars

because there's not enough profit in it to make it worthwhile, then I suggest we test their theory and open up that segment of the market to Chinese competition. There you go, the random ranter for this week. You know, I drive the 401 quite a bit, you know, the highway that stretches basically from, what, Riviera de Luz all the way to Windsor. I mean, it's called different things at different times, but that's basically the highway. I drive it from Toronto to Kitchener and take the cut off to Stratford. And, you know, what you see mostly is trucks, lots of trucks, and you suddenly realize the amount of movement of goods in our country,

especially through, you know, the central part of our country. But in terms of cars, like vehicles, that ordinary citizens are driving, they're almost exclusively SUVs now, right? I drive an SUV. But it's rare that you see just a car a car. Things have changed. I mean, my very first vehicle, I remember it really well. The year was 1968.

I bought my first car. I'd had a motorcycle before that. I had a car. I bought my first car. It was a 1962 Chevy II. It was used, obviously. Five or six years old. I paid $900 for it.

That was my first car. Now, it was a small car. Right? Right? You sure don't see many of those around anymore. Okay. Enough of reflections on a past life. We move to the present and our question of the week, which is about cuts. What would you do if you were making cuts?

Where would you find savings and government expenses? Here's what Michael Pasch writes from Victoria. What do governments on all levels do regularly that almost always ends up with the taxpayers holding the bag? Here's the answer. Massive subsidies and tax breaks for big business to get them to build job-creating enterprises. New jobs.

Big investment in the country. Commitments to remain in place for decades. Invariably, a few years later, there are quiet announcements of pull-outs, entrenchment, retrenchment, and losses in the billions. And yet, a few more years pass, political amnesia strikes, and here we go again. Just stop doing it.

No more corporate welfare bums. Remember that phrase from the early 70s? David Lewis, corporate welfare bums? Callum Arnold in Ottawa. I was surprised to find that Canada has a federal economic development agency for southern Ontario. Its equivalent for northern Ontario was something I was familiar with since I was born and raised in Elliott Lake. But I would never have thought that southern Ontario needed a federal development department. The government's website estimates for this year's spending has the North receiving $55 million,

while the South receives $228 million. On the South Ontario website, it lists one of its programs as an AI adoption initiative. Due to my skepticism about this department's utility and priorities, it's the one I would cut. Tracy McCloskey. In Edmonton. I think we should cut mail service, at least to residential homes.

I understand this may not be effective for businesses. Do I really need a daily dose of flyers, advertisements with an occasional Christmas or birthday card thrown in? How have we become almost completely swept up in electronic correspondence and still not look at our current postal service with a 21st century lens? Well, Tracy, even Canada Post says something has to be done. This is from its last annual report. It says, Canada Post's financial situation is unsustainable. The corporation has recorded significant annual losses since 2018, fueled by rapid changes in the postal and parcel delivery sectors and legacy regulatory measures that

impede the company's ability to evolve and compete. For 2023, the corporation recorded a loss before tax of $748 million. From 2018 to 2023, Canada Post lost $3 billion before taxes. Glenn McLaughlin in Regina can't do any better than one of Pierre Poliev's flagship promises to cut foreign aid to dictators and terrorists. In the October 2023 Apple Orchard interview, Poliev outlined a grab bag of cuts that included cutting foreign aid to dictators and terrorists. These cuts were to enable Polyev to lower the debt and lower the taxes.

In February of 2024, Polyev said cuts to foreign aid to dictators and terrorists would fund Canada's additional defense spending to get to the NATO target. To the casual observer, Polyev's pronouncements imply that cutting foreign aid will both help eliminate the deficit and meet our defense spending targets. Let's look at the numbers. By cutting all of Canada's foreign aid, excluding payments to Ukraine, we'll save about $10 billion. Polyev states that these cuts will help eliminate the deficit, which is now $40 billion.

Meet our defense spending targets, which would take $22 billion in new money. Pay down an unspecified amount of debt and support an unspecified tax cut. Clearly, cutting foreign aid to dictators and terrorists is a magical gift that keeps on giving. Can't do any better than that. James Barnstorf. James, you didn't tell us where you're writing from. There's quite a few this week. We can't have that.

I prefer not to have that. Let's put it that way. That's why I ask that you always do, because it gives us a better reflection of where certain views are coming from. James writes, My first knee-jerk response to your question of the week is that I would cut federal funding for Canada's participation in the Olympics. That's your first knee-jerk response?

Okay. Liz Welsh in Petrolia, Ontario. It's about an hour west of London, I guess. Now this is coming from a municipal government perspective, as Liz says. In 2014, our CAO, the Chief Administration Officer, advisor to Council,

Treasurer and Council recognized that our municipality was heading toward a structural deficit. Council made a difficult decision to approve a baseline property tax increase of 5%. At the same time, each municipal department was asked to reduce their budgets by 5% while maintaining service levels. Senior department staff worked as a team and consulted with all staff to accomplish this. While it was a controversial

issue, it was managed by excellent communication with residents and rate payers explaining exactly where their dollars would go and how each department would do their part while maintaining acceptable service levels. The political will must be there. I have no doubt this could be done at both federal and provincial levels to reduce the deficit and spending, but it must come with the same provisions to maintain service levels and also reduce their own spending. Perhaps an MP and MPP salary freeze and reduction in spending allowances to start political will to do the work must take precedence over election or re-election. Now, after all that, I thought we'd end with a few letters from people who heard the question

but disagreed with the premise of it, as I mentioned at the beginning. Peter Gentile, in Chilliwack, BC Cuts are not necessary. We have vast resources. If we harvest them responsibly, we can be world leaders in the careful art of balancing resource development and protecting the environment. This would provide the funds to restore Canada's failing institutions

and restore us to the happiest, best nation on earth, as we were often seen to be in the late 90s. Annie Trepannier in Montreal. You said nobody wants to raise taxes, but I do. I would just undo all the tax cuts we had in the last two decades, including the cut in GST. Yeah, I think what I actually said, well, no, I guess maybe I did say nobody wants to raise taxes.

But Annie has proved me wrong. She stands out there, not alone, I'm sure, in saying, raise my taxes. Austin Ziegler in Toronto. The entire basis of your question is a trap set by the people who do not believe government does anything well. Cutting government programs hurts the people who need them and only benefits the people who don't need them. Tax breaks should only be provided to money in motion, not money sitting in trusts, accounts, and elsewhere,

that it benefits society not at all. Here's our last letter for this week. Margaret J. McMaster in Kingsville, Ontario. That's in southwestern Ontario. In fact, I think, I think it's the southern most town in Canada it's funny when you look at a map and you look at down that corner in southwest Ontario down near you know heading towards Windsor and that and then you look at the whole map of North America

that point is more southerly than parts in Northern California. There you go. That's probably where all those Californians are going to move to Canada because of the recent election. They're going to end up in Southwestern Ontario. They don't need to buy any new clothes.

Anyway, Margaret writes, What programs would I cut in order to eliminate the deficit and pay down the national debt? None. How important is that? When scientists are predicting that the world's fresh water supply will run out in 15 years? Rather than cutting programs, isn't it kinder to keep people as comfortable as possible as our time runs out? If governments are really obsessed with having the books balanced at the end, why not impose outrageously high taxes

on those companies wasting precious drinking water on fracking? Okay. Fracking is the last word in today's Your Turn comments from our listeners. Once again, I love Thursdays because it doesn't matter what I throw at you. You have answers and you want to participate. And that's what it's all about, right? Participation.

Participate in the debate, the discussion. Doesn't mean everybody's going to agree with you. Perhaps nobody will agree with you. But perhaps a lot of people will agree with you. And that's the point of it all. That's the point of Thursdays. You get your turn. Women and men right across the country,

young and old, throw in their views on whatever the topic of the week is. A couple of reminders. Tomorrow, of course, is good talk. Bruce Anderson, Chantelle Hebert will be here. There's always lots to talk about. On the weekend, if you haven't subscribed to The Buzz, Canada's fastest growing newsletter, then please do.

It's a newsletter that I put out. It costs nothing. It's a newsletter that I put out. It costs nothing. It's a free subscription. Sort of, it's kind of a collection of some of the stories that I've noticed over the week that perhaps didn't get a lot of play or opinion columns that didn't get a lot of play that I think are worth reading. And so that, plus, you know, usually a few comments of my own about various things but the buzz comes out at 7 a.m each saturday morning we've been doing this for a little over

a year now and it's been fun and we've we're up into double-digit thousands of subscribers, and that's great. And the way you subscribe is very simple. You go to nationalnewswatch.com slash newsletter. All you have to do is put in your email. Don't take any credit cards, nothing. This is free. Okay? And then you should start getting it.

So if you haven't got it already and you want to start this weekend, you should get in your subscription notice today or tomorrow. Alright. That's it for this day. I'm Peter Mansbridge. Thanks so much for listening

and we'll talk to you again in almost 24 hours.