But what I'm still curious and I think somewhat worried about is the new regulations seem to have made it harder for us to get information on and from the government as opposed to the bureaucrats.

There's no question about that a- and I think that the confusion in there, it just speaks to how rash that decision was in terms of, you know, trotting it out.

Uh, it was in, uh, defense mode and, and the question keeps coming up, "If you're doing this, what is it you're trying to hide?" Um, and the way it was laid out in terms of, you know, the, the actual communication of that process was failed and flawed.

Uh, there were those who were asking for email.

Uh, you know, "Can we put this in writing so at least I have something to refer to?" And they wanted to i- insist that it was gonna be in a Microsoft Teams chat.

Um, so i- it... just this whole idea that it was run out, run out quickly, there was no thought in terms of how it was going to be implemented.

Because what happens, each ministry, it would appear, depending on the nature of the business they do, have different ways of processing FOIs, and that might sound inefficient, and it probably is, except that, you know, it does speak to the level of information, for example, you w- might want from education versus health or, you know, Infrastructure Ontario.

That's right.

So, I mean, we can mock Donald Trump for taco, but if there's a deal, this is tremendous.

I think it's funny that we have sort of counted on his taco behavior, and that was our hope.

And that is the danger in dealing with him, period, is that you really can't count on anything that he says.

So we go into it with that.

And I think that if we're looking at a three-day period, and I think Lisa Raitt's analysis was bang on, It's not about Canada and the U.S. figuring out the final detail.

It's how the Prime Minister now is going to address this with the sectors involved, with the premiers across the country in terms of what is actually going to have to be agreed to and put on the table finally and signed off on.

My issue here, though, is there are certain things that kind of pop up, and I'm glad you pointed out that this is not Kuzma.

Dave Trafford, you just know that some columnist in the Star is going to clutch the pearls over these numbers.

So you told me in the text that a lot of this satellite and drone technology is also al- already being employed.

Yeah, there's a lot of research being done and, and it's already being applied, uh, practically.

Uh, there is a satellite constellation actually that is being used by the US and by Canada.

And so this involves NASA, it involves the Canadian Space Agency.

And what they're able to do is almost in nearly real-time see what's going on in, uh, in our forests across North America.

And they do that to be able to monitor hotspots.

Uh, they can u- use it predictively.

Yeah

Right.

And they really drilled down on people's perception of the news, how they dealt with the news, et cetera.

But what I found interesting, twofold, is they surveyed working journalists.

And the most striking thing about all of it is that the journalists overwhelmingly, 96% in this survey, found that public trust in journalism had collapsed.

And, you know, you, you get that ne- negative feeling among folks in the industry.

The, the problem is the same report says that number's not even close, that in fact about 50%.

Now, that's still not a good number, but 50% of those people surveyed have lost trust in the, uh, in journalism.

Yeah, yeah.

Uh, it was so long ago, you'd have to believe that, uh, the majority of people who live in that neighborhood didn't buy in when it was a military airport and did not expect to have a big, loud concert facility stuck in their neighborhood.

neighborhood.Yeah, we used to live on Cuffley Crescent North, and the co- and the, the edge of our lot where our apartment building was, was a fence that was shared with Downsview Park, and that was in the early '80s.

There was no military, uh, activity, uh, that was, you know, even noticeable.

I'm sure that there were planes coming and going, but it wasn't a serious problem at that time.

Again, that's in the early '80s.

In the '90s, the federal government decommissioned the, the site.

So all of the air- uh, sorry, all of the development, and there's been a considerable amount of it gone on around, around north of the park, et cetera, uh, is since then.

Yeah.

This doesn't seem right to me.

I quibble with the word ready.

We didn't anticipate this level of snow or the intensity of the storms, but I get your point.

And I just heard Karen stints on and I heard John Burnside on this morning.

And I think both of them are dribbling into real serious logic here.

The question can't just be either you put up a ton of money hoping that you've got enough cash there to deal with really extraordinary circumstances, or you don't put up enough money and then you're going in the hole to cover the costs.

And I would disagree to some degree with Karen Stintz in terms of how AI should be used.

Sure.