Should Canadian airports be privatized?

Summary

Front Burner (CBC) – Episode Summary
Episode Title: Should Canadian airports be privatized?
Date: May 12, 2026
Host: Jayme Poisson
Guest: Linda McQuaig (Journalist, Activist, Author of “The Sport and Prey of Capitalists”)

---

Overview

This episode explores the Canadian federal government's renewed interest in fully privatizing the country's airports. Host Jayme Poisson interviews journalist and activist Linda McQuaig—an outspoken critic of privatization—about the proposal’s implications for Canadians, drawing parallels with past privatizations in Canada and abroad. The conversation covers the economics, efficiency, and public accountability of privatized versus publicly owned infrastructure, incorporating illustrative case studies from airports and other institutions.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

The Political “Third Rail” of Airport Privatization

• Privatization History:
  • Governments have repeatedly considered privatizing Canadian airports, but the idea never gains traction due to its political sensitivity.
  • Past examples: Mulroney’s failed Toronto Pearson privatization (early 1990s), Emerson report to Trudeau (2016).
  • “It keeps coming up because there’s a lot of investors that are very keen on the idea. And you can see why they’re keen. They can make a lot of money from it.” – Linda McQuaig [02:29]

Current Airport Ownership Structure

• Present Model: Since the 1990s, airports have been managed by private, non-profit authorities, leasing land from Ottawa.
• Potential Shift: The new proposal suggests a full shift to a for-profit model, which McQuaig argues would be a fundamental and problematic change.
• Key Distinction: For-profit motive, says McQuaig, leads to higher consumer costs and reduced service quality:
  • “Privatization always does. It always costs us more… They do it to make money, understandably.” – Linda McQuaig [03:30]

The Efficiency Argument

• Myth vs. Evidence:

  • Claims of greater private-sector efficiency are frequently “asserted as a fact… there’s rarely any evidence provided.”
  • Efficiency often equates to lower labour costs, not necessarily better service.
  • Publicly owned Canadian enterprises have historically been as or more efficient, per McQuaig.
  • “What efficiency… usually means is cutting costs… that doesn’t necessarily result in a better experience for the consumer.” – Linda McQuaig [05:01]

• Monopoly Issue:

  • Airports, by nature, are monopolies.
  • Private owners increase landing fees, airlines pass the costs on, yet the link to privatization is often hidden from travellers (no line item “privatization surtax”).
  • “What’s supposed to give us better prices in economic theory is competition… these investors are not interested in competition.” – Linda McQuaig [06:08]

International Examples: Cautionary Tales

• Heathrow (UK):
  • Notorious for the world’s highest airport fees post-privatization, resulting in high prices, overcrowding, and persistent delays.
  • “Privatization of Heathrow [called] a disaster… 42% profit margin for the operator.” – Jamie Poisson [07:53]
• Australian Airports:
  • Revenue per passenger increased by 25% over a decade after privatization, but service didn’t improve.
  • Higher costs ultimately passed onto airlines and consumers.

The “Unlocking Revenue” Argument for Privatization

• Government projects a massive “one-off” windfall by selling airport assets (up to $100 billion), but currently receives $500 million/year in lease payments.

• McQuaig contends this logic is flawed as selling assets means permanently relinquishing control and future public benefits.

• “If we’re doing that, we’re giving up our ownership of those assets. We no longer control them.” – Linda McQuaig [09:54]

• Case Study: 407 Express Toll Route

  • Built with public money as a relief highway, privatized in the 1990s. Resulted in skyrocketing tolls and loss of public control.
  • Despite government assurances, the private operator—due to its monopoly—kept tolls high for profit, defeating its public purpose.
  • “We’re locked into this 99-year lease… no control over how high they pay [tolls].” – Linda McQuaig [11:33]

Accountability and Public Interest

• Snow Clearing in Halifax:
  • Split between public (downtown) and private (outlying areas) service; lack of oversight with private contractors led to inconsistent results.
  • Harder to enforce standards and accountability with private contractors than public workers.
• Walkerton Water Crisis (2000):
  • Partial privatization and reduced regulatory oversight contributed to a deadly E. Coli outbreak.
  • “There was less accountability, there was less surveillance… these are negative developments for the public.” – Linda McQuaig [15:19]
• Core Argument: Moves to privatize are rarely driven by public demand, but by powerful investor interests.

Canada Post and the Case for Public Service

• Current Challenges:
  • Facing ongoing losses ($1.5 billion in 2025; new government bailouts), as traditional revenue streams dwindle.
• Privatization Debate:
  • McQuaig is against privatization, arguing for postal banking as a natural expansion of public infrastructure—particularly vital in rural, remote, and low-income communities.
  • “Canada Post is a wonderful infrastructure… what we should be doing… is actually including banking services through the post office.” – Linda McQuaig [17:36]

International Reversal: UK Rail Re-Nationalization

• Post-Privatization Failures:
  • UK rail privatization in the 1990s gave way to declining service and rising fares; now the system is returning to public hands.
  • Illustrates the expense and difficulty of reversing privatization once implemented.
  • “You’ll pay through the teeth to retake that control.” – Linda McQuaig [22:33]

Mark Carney’s Vision and Nation-Building

• Critique of Carney’s Approach:
  • McQuaig questions the premise of “nation building” through asset sales and heavy reliance on private capital, especially in the energy sector.
  • Argues for bold, publicly driven projects—clean energy grids, renewables—over continued fossil fuel investment.
  • Warns that Carney’s private-sector background (Brookfield Assets) shapes policy with investor rather than public priorities.
  • “He’s clearly thinking in terms of solving problems through institutional investors.” – Linda McQuaig [25:30]

---

Notable Quotes

• “Privatization always does. It always costs us more because the private sector does not invest in our infrastructure to help us out. They do it to make money…” – Linda McQuaig [03:30]
• “What efficiency… usually means is cutting costs… that doesn’t necessarily result in a better experience for the consumer.” – Linda McQuaig [05:01]
• “Airports… are effectively monopolies. You can’t just go and build another airport right beside Pearson. That’s why they’re attractive [to private investors].” – Linda McQuaig [06:08]
• “We’re locked into this 99-year lease… no control over how high [tolls] go. But… the 407 is not a relief route.” – Linda McQuaig [11:33]
• “There was less accountability, there was less surveillance… these are negative developments for the public.” – Linda McQuaig (on Walkerton) [15:19]
• “What we should be doing with Canada Post… is actually including banking services through the post office.” – Linda McQuaig [17:36]
• “You’ll pay through the teeth to retake that control.” – Linda McQuaig [22:33]
• “He’s clearly thinking in terms of solving problems through institutional investors.” – Linda McQuaig [25:30]

---

Timestamps of Important Segments

• [01:49] History and recurring debate over airport privatization
• [03:30] Why for-profit airports drive up passenger costs
• [05:01] Lack of evidence for private sector efficiency
• [06:08] Monopoly power of airports; global study findings
• [07:53] International examples: Heathrow and Australian airports
• [09:23] Government’s argument for selling assets
• [09:54] Dangers of losing public control—407 ETR case
• [13:42] Accountability: Snow clearing & Halifax
• [14:59] Walkerton water crisis and privatization risks
• [16:35] The Canada Post dilemma and case for postal banking
• [21:47] UK rail’s privatization and re-nationalization
• [23:56] Critique of Mark Carney’s nation-building strategy

---

Memorable Moments

• Analogy of airport privatization costs being invisible to travelers—“It won’t be marked privatization surtax, it’ll just be a higher price.” – Linda McQuaig [03:30]
• Real-world cautionary tales (407 ETR, Walkerton) sharply underline the risks in privatizing essential public infrastructure.
• The vision for Canada Post as a solution, not a burden: serving unbanked Canadians and small businesses with postal banking.
• International contrast: UK’s renationalizing railroads, suggesting privatization is not irreversible but comes at a high price.

---

Tone & Takeaways

This episode leans on detailed, experience-driven critique of privatization’s promises versus real-world outcomes, delivered in Linda McQuaig’s candid and forceful style. The discussion is accessible but substantively rooted in Canadian public policy history and international case studies. At the core, the episode challenges listeners to consider not just the financial but the democratic and social consequences of shifting essential infrastructure to private, often unaccountable, hands.

---

For listeners seeking a comprehensive perspective on the risk and rationale of privatizing Canadian airports—and beyond—this episode connects policy, history, and lived outcomes with clarity and urgency.

Transcript

[BetterHelp Ad Narrator]

A better Help ad. Hold on one second. I just need to. What if you had a room where no one interrupts, no notifications, no expectations, just space to talk with. BetterHelp therapy happens in a space that's yours. Visit betterhelp.comrandompodcast for 10% off your first month of online therapy.

[Linda McQuaig]

This is a CBC podcast.

[Jamie Poisson]

Hey, everybody, I'm Jamie Poisson. Mark Carney's government has a bunch of ideas and plans to grow Canada's economy. New ones, like the sovereign wealth fund, older ones like recruiting skilled trade workers and possibly privatizing the country's airports. Today we want to talk about that last one. The government is saying that they are considering selling off our airports, something that could, according to the prime minister, free up money to fund other major projects and improve air travel for Canadians. But a number of critics have come out against the idea. One of them is veteran journalist and activist Linda McQuaig. In 2019, she came out with the Sport and Prey of Capitalists, a book that looks at Canada's history with privatizing public services and enterprises. So we're going to talk about what the government is proposing with airports and how things can go when public infrastructure comes into private hands. Linda, hey, it's really great to have you on the show.

[Linda McQuaig]

Great to be here, Jamie.

[Jamie Poisson]

So let's talk about the idea of privatizing airports. It's an issue that actually seems to come up every couple of years. Stephen Harper's government commissioned a report by then Transportation Minister David Emerson laying out a range of privatization options, which was delivered to Justin Trudeau's government in 2016. But it never seems to really get very far. In in 1993, Jean Krecia famously canceled plans by Mulroney's conservative government to privatize Terminals 1 and 2 at Toronto's Pearson Airport. I've seen it described by the Globe and Mail's Tony Keller as a political third rail. And just why? Why is that?

[Linda McQuaig]

Well, for one thing, it's a terrible idea. It keeps coming up because there's a lot of investors that are very keen on the idea. And you can see why they're keen. They can make a lot of money from it. It's a very lucrative revenue stream. And that's why the big institutional investors are always pushing for it.

[Jamie Poisson]

And so I know for many decades the federal government actually used to own and operate airports. But in the ninet nineties, the, the Krushan government partially did kind of privatize the system. And they made it so a private but non Profit entity manages and runs the airports and then they lease the land from the federal government. Further privatization, like what the current government is exploring and past governments have explored, would likely be a switch to a for profit model. Right. Like what else would it be? And so why do you think that that's an important distinction?

[Linda McQuaig]

Well, the difference is, and the important, the problem with what Carney is proposing is that it will cost us more money as travelers. And it's very interesting because by the way, that's what privatization always does. It always costs us more because the private sector does not invest in our infrastructure to help us out. They do it to make money, understandably. But that ends up pushing up the price. And it's often hidden how they do that with airports. And that's because a lot of what they will do is put up landing fees for airlines. Okay, and so maybe you think, well, that doesn't affect us. Well, it does, of course, because the airlines will then pass those higher costs onto ticket prices. But we won't necessarily even know that that's due to the privatization of the airport. We'll just see a higher ticket price. You know, it won't be marked privatization surtax, it'll just be a higher price.

[Jamie Poisson]

So there will be people who will of course argue that a profit model increases efficiency because these companies would report to shareholders, not some government official, in some kind of more opaque form and that that would maybe drive down prices. And just flesh out the argument for me why you think that that won't happen.

[Linda McQuaig]

Well, okay, first of all, the argument that the private sector does things more efficiently is always asserted as a fact. It's, there's rarely any evidence provided to back it up. And in fact there's lots of evidence throughout our history where we've had publicly owned enterprises in Canada that were far more efficient than what ended up happening with the privatization. Secondly, what efficiency, what they mean by efficiency usually is cutting costs, reducing costs by things like paying staff less or having a smaller staff. That doesn't necessarily result in a better experience for the consumer just to stick

[Jamie Poisson]

with airports a little bit longer. I mean, we do have some examples, right. Heathrow was privatized in the 80s. Some of Australia's major airports have been privatized. And what do we know about what has happened with.

[Linda McQuaig]

Well, there was a major study done in 2020 of, done for the, the US National Bureau of Economic Research, very respected organization that looked at airports around the world. The major commercial airline airports, about 2,400 of them, about 20% of which had been privatized. And it found, you know, you could argue, some efficiency gains, but it also found overall that they led to higher prices. And maybe one way to explain this is that the reason airports, and infrastructure in general, for that matter, are attractive to institutional, to private investors, is because they are effectively monopolies. Okay, they are monopolies. You can't just go and build another airport right beside Pearson Pearson. You can't do it. And so because of that, there's a kind of captive market, people that want to use airlines and they have no easy competitor. So that's not a competitive model. What's supposed to give us better prices in economic theory is competition. Right, but these investors are not interested in competition. They're interest. That's why they're attracted to infrastructure. There is no competition. These are regulated monopolies with a guaranteed revenue stream. That's why they're attractive.

[Jamie Poisson]

Just on London and Heathrow and Australia, I have some notes here. Maybe I'll just read them for people listening. Heathrow has some of the, if not the highest charges in the world. Apparently. Back in 2008, this former international Transport association director called the privatization of Heathrow a disaster. Lots of criticism for overcrowding and delays following its takeover by the Spanish multinational. And this director pointed to the fact that the multinational was allowed to have a 42% profit margin. Australia. A 2018 report found that even though Australia's four main airports were collecting China 25% more revenue per passenger than they were 10 years prior, the services hadn't necessarily improved and that it resulted in higher costs for airlines and travelers. There's another argument that this government seems to be marshaling here, and that's this idea of like, unlocking revenue.

[Mark Carney or Government Official]

These assets belong to Canadians. And yes, we'll be examining how, from place to place, from facility to facility, how we can maximize the gains for Canadians that come from these assets.

[Jamie Poisson]

So as I understand it right now, the government does get something like $500 million a year from the leases of these lands. But there are people arguing that we could get this massive windfall from the sales, right, maybe up to $100 billion, and that we could take that money and do other stuff with it. Maybe you could go to infrastructure projects that we desperately need, like high speed rail, for example. And what do you make of that argument?

[Linda McQuaig]

Well, the point is, one thing we're doing, if we're doing that, is we're giving up our ownership of those assets. We're selling those assets, then we no longer own them. We no longer Control them. You know, if I could use the example of the 407. And I'm always keen to talk about the 407 because it throws into relief all the problems with privatization.

[Ontario NDP Representative]

The Ontario NDP say the 407 is so underused you could literally land an airplane on it. They say making it toll free for commercial truck be the key to relieving congestion in Toronto. And the GTA premier Doug Ford says

[Linda McQuaig]

it's something the government is considering.

[Mark Carney or Government Official]

We'll hopefully acquire that.

[Narrator (Walkerton Tragedy)]

I'm not saying we are, but hopefully

[Jamie Poisson]

to alleviate the congestion on the 400

[Linda McQuaig]

series highways, the highway was sold off. And basically just to give a quick description, the 407 was built in the early 90s as a relief route, a relief highway because the 401, the main highway, so crowded. But then it was privatized in, you know, late 90s by the Mike Harris government. Critics said, oh well, the private company will put up the, the tolls. And the Harris government assured everyone, no, no, they won't do that. They're a private, it's a free market and you know, they'll want more travelers so they won't put up the tolls. Well, it clearly isn't a free market, it's a monopoly. Can't build a competing road beside it.

[Jamie Poisson]

Yeah, there's still tolls. Right.

[Linda McQuaig]

So as a result the tolls have just, you know, they did privatize it with no controls effectively on the, how high the tolls could go and they've just skyrocketed, you know, and, and we're locked into this 99 year lease where we're, we've got another 72 years of tolls to go and no control over how high they pay them. But, but it's not the other thing the 407 illustrates. So clearly we've lost control. So what ends up happening is the 407 was meant as a relief route because the private consortium that runs it is just interested in making profit. They haven't brought the tolls down to get more drivers, they've kept the tolls high and made a great profit that way. But what that means is the 407 is not a relief route. And so the 401 remains horribly congested. And now the Doug Ford government in Ontario wants to build a new highway, the 413, to provide actual relief. Well that's crazy to have to build a new highway, you know, with all the negative costs and consequences of environmental consequences. When we have a highway which we built with public money but because we privatize it. We can't control it to make it the relief route it was meant to be.

[Jamie Poisson]

Right? You're saying that people aren't driving on it because it's too expensive?

[Linda McQuaig]

Yeah, it's too expensive, but it's we can't bring the costs down because we don't have ownership of that road.

[Emily Durham]

Not so friendly reminder that no one who's actually good at their job is the office bully, like at all. But we can handle that. For all of the no fluff advice for getting ahead in your career without losing your mind, listen to Clock in with Emily Durham. Wherever you get your podcasts, I want

[Jamie Poisson]

to do another example with you which is even more kind of local and it's snow clearing and how that's been working throughout the city of Halifax and the municipality takes care of it in the downtown cores of Halifax in Dartmouth. But further out in the rest of the region, the city spends $30 million on private contractors to handle the rest of they have set standards and timelines for how all the snow clearing teams, public and private, should get it done. But what the Halifax auditor General found last year was that they couldn't keep track of how all of the private contractors were performing or how the money was being spent. What that means for people there is that some of their streets cleared a lot faster than others. But it also led me to wonder, how different is it to seek accountability from privately run service providers versus public ones?

[Linda McQuaig]

Absolutely. And of course that problem of accountability, you know, as in the Halifax case, can result in bad results for people wanting snow clearance. It can also result in danger. Let's not forget the Walkerton tragedy that killed seven people and sickened thousands more

[Narrator (Walkerton Tragedy)]

in May of 2000. A heavy rainstorm washed cow manure carrying a deadly strain of E. Coli into a well in Walkerton, Ontario, about three hours north of Toronto. Improper chlorination, a lack of training and checks and balances due to budget cuts caused the bacteria to quickly taint the town's water supply.

[Linda McQuaig]

One of the factors that was identified in the public inquiry was the partial privatization of the water system. And you know what that means is because it was partially privatized. And also there was cutbacks in regulations, oversight of water systems. There was less accountability, there was less surveillance, there was less monitoring. All those things result in a potential danger to the public. And, you know, so whether it's snow clearing, nuisance or actual danger because the water isn't being as carefully monitored as it was as it had been under the public system, these are negative developments for the public, there's no advantage to those things. So again, you come back to the question, what's driving this? Why are we always talking about privatized? Is do you hear the public out there crying, oh, we want privatized? It's always government. Government trying to service the interests of very powerful private interests.

[Jamie Poisson]

I want to do Canada Post with you because this is another publicly owned entity that is at the center of a lot of debate right now and also a big push for privatization. You know, it's currently a crown corporation, as people know, federally funded, and is expected to kind of sustain itself from its own revenue and did for a long time. But the way that people use the postal service has changed. Letter and parcel volumes have dropped. And as a result, we're seeing a move to close offices and reduce door to door delivery around the country. And it is losing a lot of money. 1.5 billion in 2025. The federal government just announced that it'll give Canada post an additional 673 million this year to keep it afloat. And if the way the Canada Post is being run right now is unsustainable, do you think there is a case to remain here to privatize this entity?

[Linda McQuaig]

That would be such a disaster and so unfortunate, because here's the situation. Canada Post is a wonderful infrastructure we have in this country. It has more than 6,000 outlets all across the country in rural communities, in remote northern communities. And so, in fact, what many people argue, and I certainly am in this camp, that what we should be doing with Canada Post, rather than disparaging it and cutting it back and everything, is actually including banking services through the post Office. Okay. What is often called postal banking, so that all those thousands of outlets across the country in places where people don't have access to a bank at all these days because banks keep closing down branches everywhere, would be able to use the basic banking services offered through the Post Office. And by the way, this is a model that's very successfully used in France, Japan, the UK and was used very successfully in Canada for a hundred years. We had postal banking in this country from 1868. It was one of the first things established by the new government to 1968. And the reason it was canceled was because there was a lot of pressure. There always was pressure from the private banks that didn't like the competition.

[Jamie Poisson]

Do you think that's an idea for 2026? Absolutely.

[Linda McQuaig]

It's an.

[Jamie Poisson]

I mean, I don't. I don't know a lot of people that even go into banks anymore. They do most of their banking online. Right.

[Linda McQuaig]

Well, first of all, you're living in Toronto. Okay. Lots of Canadians are in rural and remote communities.

[Jamie Poisson]

Absolutely. But I'm just saying, you know, as more and more people shift.

[Linda McQuaig]

Well, but more and more people are

[Jamie Poisson]

not necessarily with the Internet.

[Linda McQuaig]

Using the Internet, for instance. It's particularly a problem with small businesses in these remote communities have no place to take to deposit their funds. Right. And also people want to, I don't know, I go into banks in my neighborhood in downtown Toronto, and there's a huge lineup. You know, like people are doing online banking, they're also going into banks. People want those services. So I think it's terribly important to offer those services to. And also not just to people in remote areas, but right here in downtown urban areas. There's a substantial part of the population that have incomes that are so low that the private banks aren't interested in them as customers. We see increasingly private banks are into wealth management, all that kind of thing. So low income people typically can't even get a bank account. And that's very serious because that means they can't cash. They can't even cash government checks. So what do they do? They go to these payday loan operators who charge them exorbitant interest rates. This is just such a serious problem. And this problem could be solved so well through postal banking because the postal banks could offer them very basic check cashing services that wouldn't be risky. And it could charge them like a nominal rate of interest, but not the exorbitant rates of interest charged by payday loan operators. It would just be a fantastic benefit.

[Jamie Poisson]

You know, we've been talking a lot during this conversation of like, pushes for privatization. But in the uk, interestingly, there was a drive to privatize their rail lines in the 90s after ridership saw a steady decline over the years. Then ridership climbs again until Covid, where it falls off a cliff. And the struggle to recover from that and the rising cost of train fares has actually fueled a move to renationalize the UK's train services. And they're all expected to be back in public hands by 2027, which is really interesting. You know, we'll have to see what the impact will be there. But just seeing a reverse on that level, which is quite enormous. Like how, how does that make you feel? Is it.

[Linda McQuaig]

Well, it makes, it just illustrates the point about how bad privatization is for consumers. But let's remember something important. You know, you could sort of say, well, okay, let's Try privatization. We can always make it public again at great cost. It's probably still in the public interest to do so. But I'm just saying this is such a backwards way to go about doing policy to sort of say, well, you know, let's try privatization. If it doesn't work, we can always resume public control. But you'll pay through the teeth to retake that control.

[Jamie Poisson]

Right. I think that's probably a good segue to the final question which I wanted to ask you, which is kind of about Mark Carney and his strategy writ large. So he was of course, elected last year with a platform that was mostly based on Canada growing more self reliant under the threat of Trump. Nation building projects are a very big part of that strategy. Courting capital all over the world to come and invest in Canada is obviously, as we've talked about on the show many times, an enormous part of that strategy. And just talk to me a little bit about what you think about his strategy and this big development push so far. And do you have a different vision for what Canadian nation building could look like? I'm going to guess that you.

[Linda McQuaig]

Oh, I'm so transparent. I do have a different vision. Vision, yes. I do think, you know, I, I see how Mark Carney has managed to make himself very popular by appearing to stand up to Donald Trump and standing up to him in some ways. But his notion of nation building I find deeply flawed. For one thing, it seems to rely heavily on getting us fully reinvested in fossil fuels, which we cannot do, not because we don't like it, but because we can't do it and save the planet. It's just, it doesn't make sense. So I think that's very, very dangerous if we want to get into the energy sector. There's so many fabulous things that could be done in terms of, you know, cross country electricity grid, transitioning the country to renewable energy. These are truly ambitious, inspiring projects. Not projects that just take us back to fossil fuel pipelines, but really take us into the future, into making us a much more ultimately competitive country if we can do those things. He doesn't seem to be particularly interested in those ideas.

[Jamie Poisson]

And I think you're arguing here that the government should take a, like these should be what, nationalized projects as opposed to the private sector taking a project.

[Linda McQuaig]

Absolutely. No, there doesn't. That doesn't mean you can't involve the private sector in some ways, but not in ways where they control things and where they're sucking profit out at public expense. Can I just also say because when you, when we talk about Carney, let's remember his background not just as a central banker in this country and in the UK but also as a very major player in the investment business as head of Brookfield Asset Management. That represents institutional investors with wanting to invest in infrastructure. That's what they're looking for. I'm not even suggesting, you know, that there's some kind of corruption here or anything. I'm saying that is his mindset. You don't head up a company like Brookfield Asset Management without absorbing the thinking of the investment community and he clearly has that thinking and he's clearly thinking in terms of solving problems through institutional investors, getting involved.

[Jamie Poisson]

Linda, thank you very much for this.

[Linda McQuaig]

Thank you, Jamie. It's been a real pleasure.

[Jamie Poisson]

All right. That is all for today. I'm Jamie Poisson. Thanks so much for listening. Talk to you tomorrow.

[Linda McQuaig]

For more cbc podcasts, go to cbc ca podcasts.