It concludes that the chief of defence staff not only made a false statement to his own military police, but also was aware of the cover-up, and categorically refused to reply to questions by the military police.
My question is a straightforward one to the Acting Prime Minister. What credibility does the chief of staff of the Canadian Armed Forces have, when it is now known that he lied to his own military police, that he refuses to be cross-examined, that he was aware of the cover-up of the Somalia affair? Will the government insist on his resignation, or will it not?
[English]
Mr. John Richardson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the minister has covered this issue a number of times. The fact that I will not comment on any evidence to be presented to the commission of inquiry is firm.
The commission was established to examine all aspects of the deployment to Somalia. Let the commission take its course.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we know that the Minister of National Defence has said the same thing very often, that he refuses to budge. That we know.
If I understand the response correctly, the government tolerates its chief of defence staff lying with impunity to his own military police and, what is more, refusing to submit to any cross-examination. We also learned that he had the support of five officers-the Canadian Army camouflage brigade no doubt-in preparing his testimony before the inquiry, while the other witnesses had no such services available to them.
Can the government tolerate such a practice? Is this not utterly shameful?
[English]
Mr. John Richardson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the commission of inquiry is the proper forum for this kind of debate, not the floor of the House of Commons. Let the commission do its job.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the commission is doing its job, despite every effort to block it from so doing by the chief of defence staff. The one not doing its job is the government, that is the problem. I had hoped for more than a pre-recorded message in response.
The chief of defence staff will appear before the inquiry only in mid-August.
(1420)
Meanwhile, he has lost all credibility, not only in the eyes of Quebecers and Canadians, but also in the eyes of Canada's allies. Who can have any confidence in him when he meets with other chiefs of defence staff? Does the government not realize that it is the entire credibility of Canada that is at stake, the credibility of the Canadian Armed Forces as a whole, as long as this general is left in charge?
[English]
Mr. John Richardson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I repeat, the minister has covered this issue a number of times. The minister will not comment on this because the evidence is presented to the commission of inquiry. Let the commission do its job.
The other House definitively signed the death warrant for the bill on the Pearson airport yesterday. The government is now faced with damage suits, and the Liberals' blunders could cost taxpayers up to $662 million. All because the government has been refusing for the past two years to listen to the official opposition and to hold a public hearing to bring this whole political and financial scandal to light.
Rather than submit yet again to another partisan study behind closed doors, and because the government is in a tight spot, is it the minister's intention, finally, to hold a real public hearing into this whole matter?
[English]
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the contradiction between one member of the Bloc's not wanting to have a commission of inquiry proceed but to have it discussed on the floor of the House and the next question coming from a member who would prefer to have a commission rather than discuss it on the floor of the House is very striking.
I agree with him that we have a concern here. The government will not allow the Conservative senators to put the Canadian taxpayer at risk to the tune of some $600 million of unearned and undeserved profits.
That is why the bill was introduced in the first place. We are now examining our options for our next steps. We are looking at all options before us. None is ruled out. There is one consideration paramount, that we protect the Canadian taxpayer from this attempt of the Conservative senators to provide $600 million or more of unearned profits to the developers.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the minister is just as irresponsible as the Senate. We have been calling for a commission of inquiry for two years, not since yesterday.
The Government Leader in the Senate said, following the vote yesterday, that they would do everything in their power to ensure no Conservative interest group would benefit from the agreement.
What assurance do we have from the minister that Liberal interest groups will not benefit from this agreement either?
[English]
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government's position has been put many times in the House and elsewhere, not just since this government was formed but also during the election campaign when this infamous deal was signed by the previous government 10 days before the election date.
We wish to protect the Canadian taxpayers by all the means we have available. I assure the hon. member we will make available to him and to other members of the House our decision in due course as to how we will proceed.
All I can say further is that what happened last night by the Mulroney appointed senators, unelected members, was a vote in favour of granting hundreds of millions of dollars of unearned and undeserved profits in an unacceptable deal done in the dying days of a federal campaign.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, during the last election campaign the Liberals, not the Conservatives, made a number of ill conceived promises that are now costing taxpayers billions.
First it was the GST, then it was the EH-101 helicopter cancellation and now it is the Pearson airport development deal.
(1425)
The Pearson deal cancellation was politically motivated in the first place. The attempt to keep it out of the courts was politically motivated, and now Canadian taxpayers could be on the hook for $662 million and counting.
Who will take responsibility for this mess, the former transport minister, the present transport minister or the Prime Minister who made the wrong decision in the first place?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have heard a lot in recent days about the right getting together, but there is something thoroughly unpleasant in the way
the Reform Party is cosying up to a group of people in the other place trying to provide the developers of this proposal with money they have not earned.
This party should recognize that in its efforts to get the right together, it is perhaps cosying up to the wrong people.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the hypocrisy of the minister pretending to protect taxpayers' interests. The way to protect taxpayers' interests would have been to have made the right decision in the first place, not to try to shield a wrong decision from the courts.
Nothing the government says can change the fact that this government cancelled the Pearson deal in the first place, that this government compounded the problem by trying to deny access to the court to affected parties and that this government will leave taxpayers on the hook for $662 million or more.
What will be done to undo the damage of this politically motivated decision and action?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the leader of the third party, the fourth party-Reformers must thank their lucky stars the Bloc Quebecois did not run a candidate in Hamilton or they would have been fifth.
The position of the government is clear. The contracts were entered into in the middle of an election campaign when it was indicated by one of the major political parties that if we were elected the appropriateness of the contract would be reviewed. It is appropriate to compensate the parties for their out of pocket expenses but not for profits they have not earned. That is our position and we will do whatever we can in the future.
The hon. member can stay tuned for our decision in the future and he will find we will be taking further steps to protect the Canadian taxpayer, whom he from time to time seems to have some concern for.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, what we have here is a huge infrastructure project of vital importance to Ontario and to Canada knocked completely off the rails by political interference.
In the Airbus case we have the Liberals trying to use the justice department to go after a political opponent. In this case we have the Liberals trying to deny both their friends and their political opponents access to the courts. This is political corruption of the sleaziest kind, and Canadians want resignations-
The Speaker: Although no particular member was named, I find the words ``political corruption'' to be very strong. I wonder if the hon. leader of the Reform Party would consider withdrawing the words ``political corruption''. Following the withdrawal would he put his question directly.
(1430)
Mr. Manning: Mr. Speaker, I will withdraw the words but we continue to worry about why the words offend the House but what they represent do not.
The Speaker: My colleague, a simple withdrawal. Would the hon. member please just make the withdrawal of the words?
Mr. Manning: I withdraw the words, Mr. Speaker.
Where are the resignations, not the excuses, that will convince Canadians that political interference in infrastructure development, in purchasing and in due process will stop and stop now?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the attempts to unify the right are reaching new lows. What groups should he be asking for resignations from, those attempting to protect taxpayers' interests or those that would assist the lobbyists and the developers get unearned income?
I suggest the hon. member from Calgary read the May 15 Hansard of the other place, read the changes that were made to the bill, read the statements made by the chief witness of the Conservative Party in that place, Professor Monahan, where we met all the objections with the exception of the issue of lobbyist fees and unearned profit.
Earlier this week, the minister tried to convince the House that decisions by Atomic Energy of Canada did not involve her. It did not prevent her from claiming that this crown corporation would provide Quebec with $100 million in economic benefits with each sale of a CANDU-6, a figure strongly contested by those responsible for marketing this equipment.
Will the minister acknowledge that, if Atomic Energy of Canada moves from Montreal to Toronto, the businesses she listed the day before yesterday are very likely to transfer part of their operations to Toronto as well to be close to the source of their contracts? Will she recognize this?
[English]
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me clarify to the hon. member that I did not say I was not interested in AECL and the restructuring that it is forced to go through like every other company, be it a crown corporation or a private corporation in this country.
What I said was that the government has an arm's length relationship with crown corporations such as AECL and we do not involve ourselves in the day to day running or management of AECL.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the minister is sweet in her confusion, but my supplementary is as follows.
Is the minister aware that Canatom, which she put at the top of the list of companies benefiting from AECL contracts in Quebec, did not get the contract to build the CANDU-6s that will be sold to China. It was in fact the American firm Bechtel that got this lucrative contract. Is she aware and is she asleep?
(1435)
[English]
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.): Let me explain to the hon. member that the CANDU reactor business in foreign markets is a highly competitive one.
AECL puts together a consortium on the basis of partners who provide the most competitive bids in the circumstances. Canatom, like any other company in this country, has the right to bid, to participate. Canatom has a long and lengthy history in the nuclear business in this country and I am sure it will receive much work in the future.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: The hon. member for Beaver River.
Miss Grey: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister stuffed the Senate with 16 of the best Liberal yes men in the country and he still could not get Bill C-28 through the Senate. It is dead.
When will the government get the hint and realize this bill was flawed from the beginning? What part of dead does it not understand?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, a party that managed to come dead last in a byelection should understand the word dead, dead in the water, dead last.
As I have answered four times already, we are exploring our options because we believe the Canadian taxpayer should be protected from a major payout to the tune of $600 million of plain, unearned profit on the punitive Pearson deal.
To answer the other part of her question, we have arranged with another group for a not for profit management of the airport in local hands. I can assure her we are currently spending $250 million to bring Pearson up to where it should be, the number one gateway for North America, for the whole central heartland of the continent.
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, if that deal had gone ahead that whole process would have been finished by now and we would have had a class act airport, not simply talking about the possibility of it now.
The minister talks about due process of law. I might remind you, Mr. Speaker, he used the due process of law some time ago to sue his own government, for heaven's sake. What credibility is that?
Tory patronage may have been replaced by Liberal politics but Canadian taxpayers are still paying the price and that is what they are angry about.
Instead of worrying about covering their own political assets, when will the Liberals come up with a plan that will benefit taxpayers, not Liberals, not Tories, but Canadian taxpayers?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this is extraordinary. We have explained how we are trying through various measures to protect Canadian taxpayers from $600 million of unearned profit. These are the people who are not protecting Canadian taxpayers, yet the member has the audacity to stand up and suggest we are not protecting Canadian taxpayers.
It is about time they discovered who the Canadian taxpayers are. They are not just a small group of developers and Conservative members of the other place and lobbyists. They are more than that.
Last year, the industry department cut the budget of CITI, the Centre for Information Technologies Innovation, located in Laval, from $13 to $9 million. Now there are rumours that the government is getting ready to close down this research centre in the Montreal area by 1998, by reducing CITI's forecast budget for 1996-97 from $9 to $3 million.
Can the minister confirm our information to the effect that his department is getting ready to shut down CITI, thus eliminating over 70 high tech jobs, once again, in the Montreal area?
(1440)
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Minister for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, Minister of Western Economic Diversification and Minister responsible for the Federal Office of Regional Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as announced in the February 1995 budget, the first program review concluded that CITI's activities were not essential to the government's mandate and should be gradually excluded from it by April 1, 1998.
After looking at the options that would best serve the interests of employees and of taxpayers, I asked my officials to try to privatize CITI. Following a transparent public process, MicroCell submitted a duly completed proposal to us last April 29.
We responded with a counteroffer, and are now awaiting MicroCell's reply. We have informed the staff at CITI of the government's position in this matter.
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Mr. Speaker, there is the closure of Tokamak in Varennes, the possible move of Atomic Energy of Canada from Montreal to Toronto, the awarding of CANDU-6 construction contracts to Americans, and now the pull-out from CITI.
Does the Minister of Industry admit that his government has but one objective: to systematically reduce its investments in the greater Montreal area?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Minister for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, Minister of Western Economic Diversification and Minister responsible for the Federal Office of Regional Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member for Laval Centre should be embarrassed to ask such a question. Is she not ready to admit that we have a number of federal laboratories in Quebec, including the Food Research and Development Centre in Saint-Hyacinthe, the animal health and food safety laboratory in Saint-Hyacinthe, the research station in Lennoxville, the research station in Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu, the space agency in Saint-Hubert, the earth resources branch, the systems provided in Hull, the environment service-
An hon. member: They often forget.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
[English]
In two secret government documents, senior bureaucrats warned the government at the start of the Pearson process in 1993 that the contract was a better deal than trying to do it themselves and that cancelling the contract could leave the government and subsequently the taxpayers of Canada on the hook for up to $2 billion.
My question is simple and it is directed to the Minister of Transport. Why did the government not listen to its own advisors?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thought perhaps the hon. Reform Party critic would have the decency to simply sit quiet and let the others in his party speak.
The reason I say that is that last night a group of Mulroney appointed senators, unelected people, voted in favour of granting hundreds of millions of dollars of unearned, undeserved profits to unaccountable developers in an unacceptable deal.
The member in today's Vancouver Sun is quoted as saying: ``This defeat is a victory for all Canadians''. This is a possible $600 million liability to the Canadian taxpayers and the Reform Party critic has the unmitigated gall to get up and tell us that this is some sort of victory for the Canadian taxpayers.
It is time Reform members began to understand who taxpayers are. It is time for them to understand that they will never get themselves re-elected on the basis of Mulroney appointed-
The Speaker: The hon. member for Kootenay West-Revelstoke.
(1445 )
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay West-Revelstoke, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, Canadian taxpayers are not on the hook for $600 million because of Bill C-28. They are on the hook because of the bungling of the minister.
The minister talks about the Tories and the Senate. It was a Liberal who cast the final ballot which shut down this bill.
Those same government documents provided all the figures backed up by independent experts to show that the crown construction option would have cost the taxpayers more than letting the Pearson contract proceed, even without the cost of the lawsuit added in.
My question is again directed to the Minister of Transport. If he was interested in saving the taxpayers money, why did his government not try to renegotiate or restructure the contract instead of ignoring the advice of his own experts and subsequently setting the taxpayers and this government up for a $600 million suit?
Mr. Abbott: Remember, sparrows fly.
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if the member will cast his mind back to the period prior to the election of this government, he will recollect that in the dying days of the previous government, the Mulroney-Campbell regime, a deal was signed against all conventions of this House and the parliamentary system. It was a major contract which the opposition party at the time, now the government, claimed it would re-examine if it were elected and if it was found to be not in the public interest it would indeed get rid of it. That is precisely what has been done.
Not only do Reformers not understand who their friends should be, they do not understand the workings of a democratic system where the people elected by the public of Canada have the right to determine how taxpayers' money will be spent.
Up until now, the federal government had always recognized the predominant role of the Montreal region as a major site for research and development in Canada. The Picard report and subsequent studies have always highlighted the importance of research and development for Montreal's future. Furthermore, during the last election campaign, the Minister of Finance reiterated, in his action plan for Montreal, the federal government's commitment to continue supporting these activities.
After making this election promise, how can the Minister of Finance justify his inaction in the face of the federal government's systematic withdrawal from research and development activities in the Montreal region, in particular the Varennes Tokamak, the Atomic Energy offices, and now the Centre for Information Technologies Innovation?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Minister for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, Minister of Western Economic Diversification and Minister responsible for the Federal Office of Regional Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I do not have enough time to list all the federal government's substantial investments, which are very important for the future of Quebec, and for the future of research and development throughout Canada.
Today, another Canadian astronaut working for the Canadian Space Agency in Saint-Hubert, Quebec, was launched into space.
Last month, a Canadian astronaut from Quebec, Marc Garneau, who also works for the Canadian Space Agency in Saint-Hubert, Quebec, was launched into space for the second time. We continue to invest in federal laboratories in Quebec, in the area of biotechnology in particular.
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères, BQ): Mr. Speaker, these investments are not presents from the federal government, but what we are owed in return for the taxes we pay to the federal government.
In his June 1992 action plan, the finance minister promised that in the greater Montreal region, a Liberal government would maximize the benefits from its national research and development program.
Does the minister admit that these promises were nothing but a smoke screen, as the federal government is systematically withdrawing from R and D investments in the Montreal region, with the minister's tacit approval? Where are the members from the Montreal region in this government?
(1450)
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Secretary of State (Federal Office of Regional Development-Quebec), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I think the opposition is giving us today a great opportunity to show how the federal government, the Canadian government, is omnipresent in Montreal's development. In fact, our government is the most actively involved of all levels of government.
We are involved in cultural matters, in pharmaceuticals, in aeronautics, in biotechnology, in environmental matters. My colleague, the Minister of Industry, has announced a technological partnership that will produce outstanding benefits.
Since the beginning of the year, and again recently, we have made major announcements in the Montreal region. Consider, for example, the millions of dollars invested in Delisle Foods and Galderma and the $712,000 invested in the Tristan and Iseut textile company. Consider-
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
The Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency has made great strides in helping to improve the Atlantic economy. In this time of major adjustment there is still an important role for ACOA, but a
Senate banking committee has suggested that ACOA be merged with other agencies.
Will the minister confirm the government's commitment to a strong and independent ACOA? Yes or no?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Minister for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, Minister of Western Economic Diversification and Minister responsible for the Federal Office of Regional Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Senate banking committee provided the government with a number of recommendations with respect to the functioning of the government's banks as well as the regional development agencies. I will be responding very fully to that report on behalf of the government in the Senate committee in the coming weeks.
I would like to say to the hon. member as clearly as possible that the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency and the other regional development agencies continue to play an important role in this government's plan to assist small and medium size enterprises in the regions of the country to acquire the capital and the technology they need to build jobs and growth for people in their regions.
It is not my intention nor my plan in any way to collapse the agencies into Industry Canada or into the banks, but rather to use them as real economic tools to build jobs and growth for Canada.
I think it is fair to say that last night was a national embarrassment when the political hacks, flacks and bagmen in the Senate, including a Liberal senator, decided to call upon Canadian taxpayers to cough up about 600 million bucks to hand out to a bunch of land developers in Toronto.
Would the minister not agree that if we ever needed any evidence to suggest that the Senate should be abolished we now have it? Why does he not do just that?
The Speaker: I am not sure that is an administrative responsibility of the Minister of Transport, but if he would like to answer the question I will give him permission to do so.
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in my capacity as acting Prime Minister, I can say that the element I liked of the question was the part in the preamble where the member criticized the decision of the Senate on Bill C-28.
Under this government for two and one-half years the infrastructure at Pearson has continued to deteriorate. So much for infrastructure programs. For the sake of business confidence, we need to clear the air.
(1455)
Will the Minister of Transport tell this House if he has a plan for the long, overdue redevelopment of Pearson?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have already answered that question in response to an earlier question.
We regard Pearson airport as an airport of tremendous potential not just for southern Ontario but for the entire heartland of North America. Just as Vancouver is becoming the gateway airport for the Asia-Pacific, we want to have Pearson as the gateway for all Atlantic flights going into central North America. That is our objective.
To that end, three weeks ago we signed over letters of intent with a local airport authority, excellent people in the Toronto area who will be running the airport when we deal with the various items that have to be organized. We expect a final signing in January.
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Transport knows the redevelopment of Pearson will cost hundreds of millions of dollars. Now that the government has put taxpayers at risk for hundreds of millions of dollars in compensation, where will the minister get the same amount of money for construction?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned, we have undertaken a number of improvements in the Toronto Airport Authority which in total come to about $250 million despite the fact that we are handing it over to that local authority.
I am interested in the question. Finally comes from Reformers an admission that oh yes, the government and the public are going to be stuck for $600 million. That has been behind their questions to this date. Now they admit they know full well what the result was of that decision last night.
[Translation]
In its annual report released today in Paris, the Observatoire international des prisons reports numerous cases of abuse in the area of immigration.
Does the minister not realize that by turning a blind eye as she does on a whole host of abuse cases, she has actually started undermining the reputation Canada enjoys around the world? Will she finally call for an inquiry into abuse cases instead of into processes?
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and Acting Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, did I hear correctly? Was the Canadian immigration system described as abusive? I cannot believe my ears.
Reports aside, do the members of the Bloc Quebecois not live in Canada? Do they not realize that the immigration system we have here is open, generous, welcoming, the most open in the world in fact? I will never stand for such statements coming from the Bloc.
In the past, the Prime Minister has expressed his confidence in the chief of defence staff. Given the proof that we have seen today that the CDS disobeyed directives from the Privy Council Office and the Minister of National Defence's office, will the Prime Minister now restore confidence in the military and fire the Minister of National Defence and the chief of defence staff?
Mr. John Richardson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the minister has covered this issue a number of times.
I will not comment on any evidence presented to the commission. The commission was established to examine all aspects of the Somalia inquiry. The inquiry is the proper forum for this kind of evidence and debate, not the floor of the House of Commons. Let the commission do its job.
The OECD has expressed its concern that deficit and debt reduction could have a negative impact on real economic growth in Canada. What assurance can the minister give that the prosperity of Canadians will not be negatively impacted by these actions?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the OECD said in its report that Canada would have in 1997 not only the strongest growth of all of the G-7 countries but more than likely the strongest growth of all the OECD countries.
The OECD went on to congratulate the federal government for its activities in cleaning up the balance sheet and in deficit reduction and essentially said that low inflation, high productivity, the reduction in the current account deficit and the huge increase in exports, some of which were announced today, are all leading to a very strong economy.
In effect, the OECD said that the Canadian people are really doing a job and the rest of the world is starting to take notice.
We have with us a parliamentary delegation from the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
The Speaker: I have a point of order and I am also going to render a decision today on a point of privilege, but we will go directly to the vote that has been asked for. I will hear that point of order and I will give a decision to the member for Lethbridge before this day is out.
>