The Decibel - Campaign Call: Trump chaos and Conservative infighting

Episode Date: April 4, 2025

It’s the end of the week, which means it’s time for Campaign Call…our election panel where we make sense of the major issues. This week we’re going to talk about one of the central themes in the campaign: the uncertainty caused by U.S. President Donald Trump. We also get into why the Conservatives are fighting in public, and what each major party is promising to help workers affected by Trump’s tariffs.Feature writer Shannon Proudfoot, senior reporter Stephanie Levitz, and economics reporter Jason Kirby discuss with host Menaka Raman-Wilms.Questions? Comments? Ideas? Email us at [e-mail]

It's the end of the week, which means it's time for Campaign Call, our election panel where we make sense of the major issues. This week, we're going to talk about one of the central themes in the campaign. The uncertainty caused by US President Donald Trump. And what the party leaders are saying, or aren't saying, about it. Now, I know that some of you are sick of Trump news, but the US imposed new tariffs on much of the world this week. Even if Canada isn't facing the worst of it, we could still see big impacts. Sliding markets, job losses, even a global economic downturn.

So today, we're going to talk about how the parties are responding to Trump. Here's today's panel. I'm Shannon Proudfoot. I'm a feature writer in the Ottawa Bureau, and I sort of function as a hybrid feature writer columnist covering federal politics and public policy. I'm Stephanie Levitz. I'm a senior reporter in the Globe's Ottawa Bureau. I mostly cover federal politics. I'm Jason Kirby. I'm an economics reporter and feature writer at the Globe here in the Toronto office. In the first half of our chat, Shannon, Stephanie and Jason will explain how each campaign is handling the situation. And then in the second half, we'll discuss what the leaders are promising to do to protect

Canadian workers. I'm Maynika Ramen-Welms and this is The Decibel from The Globe and Mail. Shannon, Stephanie and Jason, welcome to the panel. Thanks for being here. Hello. Thanks for having me. Thank you. So we should note that we're talking around 3 PM on Thursday afternoon.

So party leaders are still out campaigning for the rest of the day. But I want to start with how the three major campaigns are talking about Donald Trump and his tariffs. So Shannon, let's start with you. And let's start with the liberals. How would you describe their approach to Trump? So liberal leader Mark Carney has taken what I would describe as a pretty pugnacious approach

to Trump so far. He made international headlines a week or two ago when he said that the US-Canada relationship as it was is quote over. He has been pretty chippy when he's been asked to respond to Mr. Trump's various pronouncements on things. He sort of said, I know that I don't really care what he has to say about our country next question. So he's been pretty sort of fist balled up in his response to Trump.

Okay. And Jason, what about the NDP? Let's talk about Jagmeet Singh here. What is his strategy around the tariffs? Well, I think his strategy is he's trying to carve out some space in this. What's quickly emerging is a two party race with the NDP kind of trying to muscle in and make sure he's heard. They're supportive of the retaliatory terrorists, but he's trying to position the NDP as the only party that's looking out for workers in terms of the response to Trump.

He's kind of leveraging the tariff and the trade war to drive home a lot of common NDP messages around workers versus large corporations and the like. OK, let's quickly then touch on the conservatives as well before we get more into this. So, Stephanie, let me turn to you. What is Pierre Poliev's messaging on this been? Mr. Poliev, it seems, has been finding his footing on this messaging since the start of the campaign. At the beginning, it was not something he really wanted to engage in. He was really framing a lot of his narrative around domestic economic policies. And though was often taking questions on Donald Trump, the policies themselves

weren't clearly articulated as responses to Donald Trump. He seems to be switching that now. You had, you know, a more definitive outline. He gave a speech yesterday where he clearly went through a series of policy ideas. He sees as directly in response to Trump. Some of them restatements of other policies in terms of, let's say, developing the oil and gas sector in this country now really, really hammering at home as a response to making Canada economically independent in the wake of Donald Trump.

Today, you had the first policy announcement that I am near certain was not part of the policy playbook going into this election when he announced the removal of GST on cars made in Canada, really coming to a place of understanding that for Canadians, the ballot box question is circling around Donald Trump and how leaders are responding to it. It's a framing question as much as it is a substantive question.

OK, so on the ballot question, let's define it. Is it that people are judging who is best to handle Trump or who is best to Trump-proof our economy, all of the above? Yeah, unquestionably, the ballot question is who Canadians think can handle him best. And I think that's sort of the same thing as the second question you posed, like who can Trump proof Canada? One of the things Carney said yesterday, which was Liberation Day or Wednesday, depending

on whether you're Donald Trump or everyone else, was that sort of the global trade landscape had fundamentally shifted, that nothing is as it was before. The argument he's been putting forward to Canadian voters is that sort of we can do this. So he's offering this sort of very empowering message that we can break down inter-provincial trade barriers. We can sort of, you know, improve things we've needed to improve all along and this will finally push us to do that. And that in some way there's sort of some implicit promise in that of we will be okay. We will find another way to shore things up. I think that's an appealing and empowering message. It's also hugely ambitious. I mean, if way to shore things up. I think that's an appealing and empowering message.

It's also hugely ambitious. I mean, if any of these things were easy to do, we would have done them a really long time ago. I've been thinking about this question actually for the last couple of days, the language. Who is best to handle Donald Trump? What does handle mean? Are Canadians looking for a Canadian version

of a leader who can stand up, punch Trump in the nose, use aggressive language, or is what they're wondering is what is my country going to look like in the age of President Donald Trump? And it becomes both an emotional response to the political leaders, but also a substantive response to the political leaders. Will Canadians look at the policies they're putting forward and say, yes, this is the thing I think is best for my country to do at this moment in time? Or is it more emotive and more which leader when I look at them, if I imagine a bargaining table and there's two men on either side of it,

the president being one, this political leader being the other, this is the guy I can see there, I can visualize there. I think perhaps what's interesting is the Liberation Day, as we've talked about it, it could reshape the ballot question because Canada did escape more punitive measures. We certainly didn't see the existing tariffs lifted off. And it'll be interesting to see if, you know, Mr. Pollyup tries to attack Mr. Carney on that front, right? So does the ballot box question now move away from handling Donald Trump, if we have this reprieve, to shoring up against what this new global trade order looks like and what our country could look like in a short order period of time?

So Jason, can I ask you, like, does the fact that Canada didn't get the worst of Trump's tariffs this week, does that change the importance of this question of this Trump factor? I don't think it changes it too much just because I think Canadians are aware of this doesn't go away. This isn't a problem that's just going away. Now we've got another three and a half plus years to go of this. And if anything, we've now seen just how wildly unpredictable from I was going to say from day to day, but I suppose we could say from hour to hour or even minute to minute American policy can be.

So this isn't just going to be a matter of like, okay, well, we got past that one tariff hurdle, one part of like his war on global trade. I do think it's going to be in the minds of voters who will be able to next year, the year after that, be the voice for Canada in those talks with the United States? I do think the fact that Canada got off relatively light here. I see that as tricky politically for Carney because up to this point, he has been, as I said, very dukes up.

We have seen from the polls that Canadians have responded really positively to that. There was very definitively a public mood in favor of hit them hard, hit them often, like we are fed up here. But because we didn't get hit all that hard in the tariffs yesterday, it doesn't particularly make sense to turn the temperature back up and make things more combative. Strategically, you know, you have to retaliate. And we saw that today with these 25% tariffs on autos. But domestically, this sort of like exactly what Steph was talking about, the emotional appetite is for this kind of going in with your helmet on approach. So I think that makes this a bit of a delicate balancing act for him to respond to.

So that's interesting. It's delicate for Carney to respond to it. It's also, I would imagine, delicate for Poliak to figure this out. And Stephanie, you mentioned earlier, you earlier know that he was trying to kind of Find his footing when it when it came to dealing with Trump You've also uncovered a fair bit of infighting within the conservative party when it actually comes to how they deal with the u.s Can you tell us a little bit about what what you found is happening within the party? Yeah I mean what's happening within the party is multifaceted

But as it relates to Donald Trump and the ballot box question in this election, there was concern amongst a lot of people that Mr. Poliev was too slow off the mark to recognize that what Canadians were worried about, what was concerning them was squarely focused now on the president. In going out the first few days of the election and talking about pocketbook policies and talking about, you know, TFSA's tax-free savings accounts and talking about the opioid crisis. These are all tangible measures that, you know, all conservatives will say are beneficial as a policy platform for Canadians. What was vexing people is watching the ballot box questions switch to Trump and not seeing Mr. Poliev do

that switch as well. He was still the same cadence, the same rhythm, the same talking points, some of the same attacks on Mr. Carney, which we're beginning to feel to some in the conservative movement overly juvenile and unnecessary. Yes, you have to attack and bring down your opponent and burst that balloon, but Canadians are really looking for a response to Trump. They need to hear that and then they need to hear why the other guys isn't that balloon. But Canadians are really looking for a response to Trump. They need to hear that and then they need to hear why the other guys isn't that great. There's also

a vast conservative history here, a lot of interpersonal dynamics, a lot of who won which campaign when and how they did it. And there was some frustration and an ongoing tension that if you look to Ontario Premier Doug Ford, who recently won a surprise third election squarely on the back of the Trump question, and some folks in those circles saying, hey, we just did this, we could help you. And the Polio have conservatives partially saying, no, we're not interested. We're going to do it this way. It seems to me in the last, you know, since a week Friday when a lot of these stories were coming out about tension in the war room, that has largely abated. The big speech on Wednesday, I guess, was a morale booster for a lot of these stories were coming out about tension in the war room, that has largely abated.

The big speech on Wednesday, I guess, was a morale booster for a lot of people. Seeing a policy announcement today that seemed directly responsive to Trump is, OK, Mr. Poliev is listening. Maybe we can pull this rabbit out of a hat. Stephanie, you mentioned the interpersonal dynamics here. And I just I have to ask you about this, because it's rare to see a party kind of air this in public, right? So how...

Not if you're the conservatives. Interesting. I'm on... Yeah, the conservatives, I mean, they're sort of famous for eating their own. They're famous for going out in public when one faction completely disagrees with the other faction. And that's the interesting thing about the conservative party is that it is made up of a lot of different factions. And they're all generally at war with each other.

And it's been a frustration and a challenge for every modern day conservative leader to keep that coalition together. People in the conservative movement hold their beliefs and their values very strongly. What was unusual in this instance is having Corey Tenyke, who is the chief advisor to Ontario premier Doug Ford, progressive conservative, who led that campaign victory

to come out as publicly and sharply as he did in repeated interviews on this subject and sort of jamming the knife into Poliev again and again and again over the course of, I don't know, let's say 24 to 72 hours. I'll make the case tonight and hopefully this will permeate the the conservative party war room somewhere, you've got to get on the f***ing ballot question that is driving votes. Or you are going to lose. Even now, almost a week since Mr. Tenak started talking like that when I've

been going around and I keep saying to people, but why did he do it? What's the why? It's about longstanding political grievances. It's about prepositioning for a different election. It's about all sorts of things. And we saw this with Justin Trudeau. The implosion of the Justin Trudeau Liberal Party was really rooted to a degree in people feeling that they were bringing their concerns and their opinions and their advice to the boss and nobody was listening to them. People don't like being dismissed. And very early in this conservative campaign, very senior voices in this party and in this movement were feeling like they were being dismissed. Nobody likes that.

Yeah. What's fascinating is the liberals are like the mirror image of that right now or whatever is like the opposite mirror image. I don't know what the right thing is here. Only four or five months ago, right, they were lining up with their knives sharpened for their leader. But now everyone got very happy and unified all at once with the sweet perfume of victory in the air. But the other big advantage they have here is that even though during the election, technically, Mark Carney is just the liberal

leader, he's still the prime minister. And so every time like this week, we saw him sort of pause his campaign to come back to Ottawa to put on his prime minister hat to respond to this moment with Donald Trump. And that seems to me like invaluable political, not just optics. I think optics have a way of sounding hollow. Like that is a very real thing that he is able to go up there and occupy that role and demonstrate to voters, you know, like, look, I am inhabiting this role I would like you to re-up me for. So that is an ongoing dynamic that I think has been particularly pointed this week because we literally had the week interrupted by Tariff Day. But that is a microcosm of a thing that keeps happening in this campaign, which is the shadow of Donald Trump crossing the sun and kind

of stamping all over this campaign. It's a continuous thing that they have to keep responding to. And it's fascinating, right? He's campaigning without campaigning. That's what makes it so interesting with Mr. Carney. Yeah. He just speaks. Normally shutting down a campaign for a day or two,

we would register to us as a bad thing, right? But in this case, I don't think it does at all. As a crisis. It's not. And it's a positive for him. Yeah, it ends up being a net positive, even if he comes out and doesn't have anything really to announce at the end of these meetings or you know and I'm not faulting him for not having anything to announce but it's a positioning. It's I am the prime minister. He said it today you know

that I said to Donald Trump that I'm really working hard for people to re-elect me and keep me in this position so he's campaigning without campaigning, which is problematic for the other parties, right? Because they still have to be out on the hustings, knocking on the doors, getting out the vote, the leaders especially, which is a frustrating position to be in. Yeah, we're almost out of time for this section here. But Jason, I just want to throw this last question to you because we've been talking about the differences and approach and messaging from the various campaigns. But do you think what Canadians want to hear right now, like are any of the leaders

hitting that mark? Yeah, I would say that, you know, as we start to see some actual proposals come out to respond to Trump that are moving away from the elbows up rhetoric to, you know, we are starting to see some specific things. Today, Jermud Singh announcing victory bonds, this idea of like raising money that's going to be directed back into the big ambitious infrastructure like roads and things, not pipelines, no pipelines there. But I feel like we're starting to now see a little bit more detail coming out of the parties.

So hopefully Trump does step back a little bit now that his attention has turned kind of from Canada and Mexico to his other frenemies around the world. And that will give the leaders a little bit more space. Yeah. Okay. We'll have to leave it there. That rounds out our first half really well. When we come back, we'll talk about specific policy promises that the parties are making

to try to deal with the fallout from these Trump tariffs. We'll be right back. Okay, so on Thursday at midnight, the US tariffs on foreign autos came into effect. And what this means for Canada's automotive sector is still kind of unclear. There's supposed to be exemptions to the tariffs for cars that comply to the KUSMA rules, the USMCA rules. But the reality is, of course, that the North American car industry is very integrated. So Jason, I'm going to throw the first few questions of this section to you here to just kind of set the playing field and we'll broaden it out to the panel

again. So Jason, what impacts are these auto tariffs having so far? Well, we're immediately seeing some impacts. Stellantis with their plants in Windsor and the plants in Mexico, they've announced two week shutdowns just because there's so much product going back and forth parts and that feeding into these and the executives at these car companies don't really have a good grasp of just how much it's going to cost in terms of extra tariff costs and that. So, like I said, the Stellantis plant in Windsor is as close for two weeks. That's thirty six hundred hourly employees in Windsor. You know, they're the ones making minivans and the Dodge Charger. They're out of work as of April 7.

So yeah, that'll start on Monday then for those two weeks. Yep. And then you've also got Chrysler announcing, even in the United States, 900 American workers laid off at parts plants that feed into those assembly plants. And we've already seen we have the steel and aluminum tariffs that are already in place, which impacts the car companies,

but also so many other sectors. And so we've started to see hundreds of layoffs in the steel and aluminum sector. The auto sector is an interesting one, I find, because it's very large in the minds of the public, in the minds of the leaders. It isn't necessarily all that large in the economy anymore. It certainly isn't what it was 20 or 30 years ago.

As a share of employment, assembling cars and auto parts is less than 1% of employment at the national level. It's less than 1% of GDP, but it's very, very concentrated in certain pockets in Southwestern Ontario. So it just has this really outsized effect that you're really starting to feel. And of course, because of that, it has an outsized political effect as well,

that there's that extra focus on it. So let's go through what the three leaders have promised in terms of helping workers, people who are going to be affected by these tariffs. Let's start with Paul Yev. What has he said about this? So he said the conservative government would launch a Keep Canadians Working Fund, kind of a temporary loan program for those businesses that are directly hit by tariffs. They're talking about a three billion dollar short-term credit line, basically low interest loans and that so that the companies can keep the doors open. It's actually kind of modeled on a very similar fund that Harper had

during the great financial crisis and so you know it's there's some history to that there. So that's the conservatives what about the liberals what does Carney said about this? Liberals have also talked about waiving you know one week EI waiting periods some really specific things for workers making it so workers don't have to exhaust any severance pay before they can start collecting their EI. And he's also talked a lot about this kind of idea of making a made in Canada car industry going right from the raw materials

right up to the finished product. It's kind of like a throwback to pre you know, pre 1965 in the AutoPak when we did make cars exclusively in Canada for Canadians. It's kind of out of sync with the way the economy's gone, but that's, it's more in sync with the weird world that Trump is creating. And then, you know, for the NDP, they really have focused a lot on talking about EI, increasing the maximum insurable earnings, reducing the threshold for qualifying for EI, things like that, as well as talking about building big things, taking the money that

is raised from the retaliatory tariffs, and directing that right into those most hard hit industries, specifically autos and steel and aluminum. OK. OK, so that kind of gives us, again, an overview of the policies that are at play here that all the parties are proposing. Let's open this up to the group now.

So Stephanie and Shannon, I'll throw these to you to start here. I guess I'm wondering about how effective these policies are, like in terms of responding to what voters are actually worried about. Are these going to do the trick? I mean, if you're an auto sector worker and you're worried about your job or you work in any instantly affected industry, right, the ones that are directly touched by the tariffs, then you're hearing the government and the government

in waiting, let's say, say, we're going to help you. So that's got to resonate. It's interesting to me, and maybe this is where the campaign will move next, is the knock-on effect of these tariffs, right? The cost of many things is going to go up in this country. Trump made some decisions on tariffing that don't directly impact us, but probably will.

Because, you know, if you can't import things from China to the US and those things from China, we're getting sent to Canada because that's where the warehouses were. There's knock-on effects to all of this, right? So what's that going to mean for Canadians who, again, I mean, it's not as though the cost of living has gone down markedly in the last several months. This is still a pocketbook election. Again, this goes back to that question we were talking about

before, the ballot box question being who is best to handle Trump or who is best to position our economy in such a way that we can be insulated from it. But those changes are things that are going to take years to build. I mean when we talk about, you know, selling Canada's critical minerals to more clients than the US, that makes it sound as though there's warehouses full of critical minerals that we just need to call up another buyer and we'll have them on the next ship. That's not what we're looking at. We're looking at transformational change that could potentially take decades. I think that's important.

And I want to be careful how I say this, because I'm not saying they're symbolic as in they're empty. I think they are meant to do exactly what Steph's getting at, which is to make people feel like they are seen, the government has their backs, they're responsive. But the fact is, all of these responses that Jason just laid out for us are essentially band-aids. They are reactive.

They will be, to be blunt, imperfect, only partial responses to the problems they are trying to solve. The only way this actually gets solved is if Trump backs down and stops doing all this and the trade war stops. That's the only way this actually goes back to some semblance of normal or okay. And I think it's absolutely right that this is still a pocketbook election. Like sometimes when we pundit types have been talking about what this election is about, we talk understandably entirely about how it's become like the Trump election. But to me, all that is, is a pointier version of the thing it was always about, which was about affordability. Because if you think of people being worried about their jobs,

their hours being cut, being laid off, and then the cost of goods going up. All of those are effects of Trump's trade war, but they're still affordability problems. I don't mean to sound terribly nihilistic. I am not sure how much any Canadian leader can do to make that happen. So in a way, you almost have to hope that the economic effects of this come hard and fast at the American people, and then the political effects of that come hard and fast at the White House because that's the only way this ends. That's an interesting point there. Yeah. I mean conversely you can look at it this way if the point of the Trump tariff regime

is to raise billions like hundreds of billions of dollars for the American government and let's say that the Trump agenda to make America great again reshore factories build all of this stuff up. At the end of three more years of the Trump administration, three and a half years, when the Americans go to a next election, will the next presidential candidates, Republican or Democrat, seek to take these tariffs away? What if the global reshaping of the world economic order

is not a blip, like it's now reality? It is then becomes you know factually true that whatever government we end up with in Canada can't be crossing fingers and saying well this will go away eventually we need to set in motion the things that will diversify our economy all those buzzwords that we keep hearing about and that's why we're back to conversations like building pipelines. So it's are we making these these promises reactively as a flash in the pan? Or are we serious as a country? Because maybe this is the end of

free trade as we know it, at least in the shorter term, by which I mean, 10 years, 20 years, and we best get moving. I mean, I think that's a kind of a scary prospect for a lot of people. Jason, let me ask you, like, how long, if we need to do this for a longer period of time, how long can Canada sustain the tariffs that we have now? I think for me, it comes down to a couple of scary numbers that speak to the power dynamic at play here. And it's not one that you're going to hear much from the political leaders as they're talking about their response. But, you know, what the U.S. sells to us accounts for like 1.2% of their economy. What we sell to the U.S us accounts for 1.2%

of their economy. What we sell to the US, it accounts for 20% of our economy. So there is a point where a recession becomes inevitable. Whoever wins will be almost certainly facing a recession in Canada, assuming that Trump doesn't suddenly lift the tariffs. Maybe the 25% fentanyl tariff, such as people have started calling it, gets lifted. But either way, you know, autos, steel and aluminum, plus the impact that all of this

disruption is going to have on the global economy and the slowdown there. And this is what happened in the 1930s when the US did this last time, is you had a slowdown that was made a lot worse and you ended up with a global trade war that ended up prolonging the Great Depression. This is a little concerning to end on that note, but I think we are gonna have to move on from this section. Okay, that was a really interesting discussion

on the policy points here. Before we end our session for today, I do want to get to a few audience questions because we have a couple here that I think are really good. Let me throw this first one to you, Stephanie. So this is a question from Adrienne in Ontario, and she asks, who are Pierre Poliev's star candidates? Most of the national news centers on Pierre Poliev and his policy announcements, but I feel little is known about his team and who will hold key positions if he is elected.

So Stephanie, you have a good sense of the Conservative Party. Who do you think might earn a cabinet job if Poliev is elected? So one thing that's important to say to Adrienne is the Conservative version or understanding or use of the term star candidate is often different than the way the Liberal Party will use it. And the Liberal Party will say that they've recruited a star candidate and that person is an instant big name recognizable, you know, across a city, across a province, sometimes across the country, right? The conservatives take a bit of a different view, especially under Pierre Poliak. They look for candidates that will do the hustle, that will grind it

out, that are going door to door, that are selling the memberships. They like small business people. They like entrepreneurs. They like a lot of local city councillors and local mayors who are very well known in their communities. But if you live outside of those communities, it's possible you've never heard of them before in your life. There's that. The second piece of that then though is Mr. Poliev making deliberate choices about who he campaigns with and who he pushes forward, right? How do you turn somebody like that into a star? And you can see that slowly starting to happen a bit in this campaign. The deputy party leader is a person by the name of Melissa Lansman.

She's an MP from Thornhill. She is very close to Mr. Poliev. She's an effective communicator. He pushes her out front a lot. I would expect to see somebody like her on the front bench. There's another longtime Poliev ally, a fellow by the name of Shuvalloy Majumder. He worked in the past Harper government, as did Ms. Lansman, I should say.

Shuv is an MP from Calgary. Foreign affairs is really his bag, and I would probably suggest that he would have a front bench role. The question that mystifies a lot of people is who would Mr. Poliev's finance minister be? And that is one of the most prime positions in any government. I mean, think about what happened with Mr. Trudeau and his finance minister, Krista Freeland,

and that is an unknown. OK. I want to have time for one more quick question here, Shannon. This one goes to you. This is from Rick in Dundas, Ontario. He asks, if we get a minority government from this election, what are the thoughts about a liberal conservative coalition? It would seem to show the US administration that no matter the political stripes of Canada's citizens, they are united in challenging the threats to our existence. It would show strength

against a bully. Shannon, what are your thoughts on that? Is a negative number available to me because Because that is how likely this is. I understand Rick's thinking behind that. It's a nice idea. It ain't going to happen. These two parties, these two leaders, have been at each other's throats for, I mean, certainly the last few months, the last few years.

They are just not rowing in the same direction. There is an interesting question there if you end up with a conservative minority government, which is that they need a dance partner. And there isn't an obvious one for them. But as far as, you know, the red team and the blue team teaming up as much as that might seem to send a unity message, it's not in the cards. It's a political impossibility. Okay. All right. I think we will leave it there. Shannon, Stephanie, Jason, thank you all so much for being here. This was great. Thanks. Thanks. This was great.

Thanks. Thanks. Thanks a lot. That was feature writer Shannon Proudfoot, senior reporter Stephanie Levins, and economics reporter Jason Kirby. That's it for today. I'm Maynika Ramon-Wilms. Our associate producer is Aja Souter.

Our producers are Madeline White, Michal Stein, and Ali Graham. David Crosby edits the show. Adrian Chung is our senior producer, and Matt Frainer is our managing editor. Thanks so much for listening, and I'll talk to you soon.