Access to Information Under Attack (Ep. 17)

Freedom of Information laws are under attack across Canada, most notably in Ontario, where the Doug Ford government has stripped journalists’ and the public’s right to obtain records from the premier’s office and some of the highest levels of government.

In this episode, Justin Brake speaks with Newfoundland and Labrador Information and Privacy Commissioner Kerry Hatfield, who says what’s happening in Ontario is a travesty, not just for that province but for the entire country.

Hatfield explains what makes Newfoundland and Labrador’s access to information laws unique, and why we need to protect in the forthcoming statutory review of the province’s 2015 ATIPP Act.

TRANSCRIPT

JUSTIN BRAKE: Welcome to berrygrounds. I’m Justin Brake.

GLOBAL NEWS: “In 2025, Ford was ordered by Ontario’s information and privacy commissioner to hand over his phone logs for review. The government took the commissioner to court, and lost. The premier then appealed that decision, but a higher court has refused to hear it. Meaning the order to hand over his records is now back in force.”

JUSTIN BRAKE: Despite the Ontario Court of Appeal’s recent decision, Premier Doug Ford has so far refused to release his phone records. So what does that have to do with the Ford government’s recent omnibus budget bill?

CBC: “As government members stood to approve their budget, anger from the opposition.” [Opposition members chant, “FOI! FOI!”]

JUSTIN BRAKE: Embedded in that budget bill were changes to the very freedom of information laws that compel Ford to release his phone records. In Canada’s most populous province, the government now has no obligation to release any records held by the Premier’s Office, by any cabinet minister’s office, or from parliamentary assistants, and their political staff. Dating back to 1988.

Here’s Ontario NDP leader Marit Styles in the legislature.

CBC: “Changes to the freedom of information laws, that’s what this budget is about. This a budget that is about protecting the premier and his phone records.” 

JUSTIN BRAKE: Newfoundland and Labrador’s Information and Privacy commissioner calls the move a “travesty” — not just for Ontario, but for Canada. Because such a blatant attack on the public’s right to know, is a slippery slope.

KERRY HATFIELD: “And really what I take from it is, you know, I don’t want it to happen here, and other provinces as well are fighting back saying, like, ‘This is just awful in Ontario, and we can’t let it happen in our own jurisdiction.’”

JUSTIN BRAKE: Today, we speak with Newfoundland and Labrador Information and Protection of Privacy Commissioner Kerry Hatfield, about the state of affairs with access to information laws in Canada, and right here at home, where the government has justin announced a forthcoming statutory review of the very legislation that has made this province — quite the opposite of Ontario — the envy of all other provinces.

Stay where you’re to.

 For the last 11 years, Newfoundland and Labrador has been regarded as having, you know, some of the most progressive FOI laws in Canada. And that’s due in part to the current act we have, which is the Access to Information and Privacy Protection Act, which came into force in 2015. Can you explain what happened in 2015 and how freedom of information laws changed here? And, just also, how you fit into that, uh, into this relatively new regime.

KERRY HATFIELD: We’ve had access to information laws in Newfoundland for a while, but in around 2012, the government of the day was debating Bill 29. And that amendment to the then legislation severely restricted the authority of the commissioner, limited public’s right to information, imposed fees for access requests, and gave the government power to extend or disregard requests, like on their own. Rightfully so, there was public outcry. And, you know, Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are well-versed in access and having legislation that give them rights to government information and records to ensure accountability and transparency. So they were enraged. I mean, this was, you know, a real political issue of the day. And there was, I think, a filibuster in the House of Assembly concerning Bill 29. So, you know, in response to that, government looked at a legislative review, and in doing so they convened a panel of three experts: Clyde Wells, former chief justice, was on that panel and led it, as well as Jennifer Stoddart, who was a former privacy commissioner for Canada, and Doug Letto, who was at that time a journalist for The Globe and Mail. So expert panel on access to information. And not only did they review the legislation and make recommendations, but to Clyde Wells’ credit, he actually drafted legislation as, like, an appendix to the report. And what happened after that was the government, close to an election, adopted that legislation pretty wholesale. And that legislation is pretty much in current form what we have today, and it actually broadened access rights. It got rid of fees. It imposed pretty strict timelines, not just on public bodies, but my office as well, to ensure turnaround of access requests. And so that’s kind of the regime we’ve been working with in Newfoundland and Labrador. It was just this, you know, convergence of different political will, and having experts, you know, to have that legislation in place, and it has been for the better. I brag to my colleagues across Canada that the Access to Information Protection of Privacy Act, 2015 is the best in the land. We are frequently cited as the number one freedom of information province in Canada. And last I checked — don’t quote me — but I think we’re 24th or 25th in the world. Come out of just this confluence of political will and just, you know, public awareness and demand for these rights, and they did, they achieved a good thing. 

JUSTIN BRAKE: In speaking with people through work and in my private life, access to information requests often comes up. I mean, as a journalist, it’s something that we talk about quite a bit. But I’m sometimes surprised to learn that people who could, and probably would, use the system if they had an understanding of how to do it, would be using it more. And I’m talking sometimes about researchers, people who are, you know, very politically involved or have strong political opinions and suspect that the government might be up to something. So just to be clear for people who don’t know, there’s a page on the government’s website where you can go and you can type in your name and contact information. You can submit a formal request to the government for information. And now, this isn’t information only from government departments. It also extends to offices, government agencies, crown corporations, and even municipalities. So if you’re in a small community in Notre Dame Bay, and you want to know what your town council maybe has been communicating with the province about on any particular issue, I mean, you could — it doesn’t even have to be communicating with the province. You can file an access to information request for emails sent and received by a councilor or a mayor. So this is very broad, and it literally takes about five minutes or less to complete the wording and submitting of a request, and it’s free. Since these laws changed, the government has seen a massive increase in requests, in particular over the last few years. And I don’t know if I understand the reasoning behind it, but it’s almost like opening this up and making this easier for the public and for journalists, which by extension is the public as well, they’ve created a scenario where the demand is so high that they seem to be having trouble keeping up. Kerry, your thoughts on that — the fact that there’s this massive increase recently. And I’ll just add that as a journalist I’ve seen the trend because I file a lot of access to information requests, and I’m seeing a growing number of them being granted time extensions by your office because they’re not able to respond in the legislated initial time frame of 20 business days. It takes longer to process, and they say it’s because of shortage of resources. 

KERRY HATFIELD: Listen, you’re absolutely right. Once ATIPPA 2015 came into force, there was a massive uptake, and partly because of the media, you know, making— You know, this was an issue of the day, so people became familiar with access to information, and the requests did skyrocket. And to be honest, they have just exponentially increased over time. You know, in making a request, make sure you go to the right public body. It’s not always necessarily core government. Like if it’s the City of St. John’s, you make your request to the City of St. John’s. So knowing where to make your request is important so that they don’t get bogged down with requests that aren’t relevant to that public body. MUN is also a public body, so if you have MUN records you want to have a look at, then go to MUN for those requests. All their websites have that information and the form that the public body wants you to complete. I think for listeners, part of the challenges with access requests and the volume and complexity of them is that people are making access requests not really knowing what they’re looking for, so they’re really broadly worded. They want records over a 10-year period, and that makes the search itself sometimes beyond the 20 days. So I ask people, like, ‘If you’re looking for records, be specific. Give a time frame that’s reasonable, you know, so that the public bodies can really focus in on what you’re looking for.’ You know, sometimes extensions come in from public bodies because they have to review 2,000 records. So that’s individual records, emails, whatnot. And public bodies have an obligation under ATIPPA to do a line-by-line review to release as much information to the public as they can, subject to exceptions that are listed in ATIPPA. And those exceptions are important because they protect my personal information, if I happen to be mentioned in an email. They protect law enforcement investigations. You know, there are reasons, and good reasons, we can’t disclose, public bodies, and they gotta do a line-by-line review. So you can imagine the resources that that can sometimes take. So, when you’re doing an access request, be specific, be limited to a time frame, and if you didn’t get what you want, you can always go back and make another request, right? But that’s been one of the challenges that public bodies have discussed with me. And then of course the public body can come to my office for an extension. And you’re quite right, Justin, we have seen an increase in those but, you know, they do have to provide a rationale for that. Where Newfoundland is good, is that they have to ask my office for the extension. They don’t just unilaterally give it to themselves, right? And they have to make that request within five days of receiving the request. So they have to be on it, right, in order to get the request to me on time. But I have granted more extensions recently for the reasons that I just stated. And then of course, they do the redactions and whatnot. And then, of course, if an applicant is unsatisfied, for any reason — like, that they didn’t get the records, that the redactions weren’t applied appropriately — then they can come to my office. And that’s my job, is to investigate how the search was done, what records were redacted, to ensure that as much information is provided as possible, and the redactions or exceptions that are listed in ATIPPA were properly applied.

JUSTIN BRAKE: It sounds tedious. Even being an ATIPP analyst and doing the line-by-line review. I can’t imagine doing that all day, every day. But there are folks who do it and who are great at it, and I guess it would be nice that if they had all the resources that they needed, you know, including extra staff. Sometimes I get responses in the evening and on the weekends, and so I imagine that sometimes they’re working overtime.

KERRY HATFIELD: Sure they are. I had an example just recently from a public body that they have 58 ATIPP requests in queue. That’s one department at government. It’s significant, right? You know, one of the other challenges that maybe the journalists don’t see or your public might not be aware of is that there’s a small kind of subset of the population that have kind of weaponized access to information where, you know, they’re dissatisfied with a decision by a public body, so they inundate them with multiple, multiple broad-based requests that they know will bog down the system. They do it to this office as well, where they’ll complain about every single access request, won’t resolve informally, spread out the resources, you know, that we have to investigate other claims. So, you know, it’s a small subset, but it doesn’t take a lot of people in a small place like Newfoundland and Labrador to kind of really bog down certain public bodies or municipalities, especially the small ones. So, you know, there’s—I don’t have a tool in my toolbox to kinda deal with that subset of folks, but you know, it might be something I look for when we review ATIPPA later on.

JUSTIN BRAKE: A note for our listeners: my interview with Kerry Hatfield was recorded BEFORE the province’s justice minister Helen Conway Ottenheimer announced on May 20 that a statutory review is coming soon. She said it’s expected to begin this spring and wrap in the fall, with a final report due by the end of January 2027. Alright, back to the interview.

JUSTIN BRAKE: Let’s talk about that review process because the Act, the 2015 Act, says that a, quote unquote, “comprehensive review of the provisions and operation of the act” is supposed to be completed every five years. So in early 2020, the justice and public safety minister of the day appointed David Orsborn as the committee, or a ‘committee of one’, in the government’s own words, to conduct the review. And of course, the pandemic then hit right after that, and things were delayed. That report was then due by the end of June 2021. Kerry, your predecessor, Michael Harvey, was the commissioner at the time, and he participated in that review. What can you tell us about that review process, what you know about it, even though it was before your time as commissioner, and do you know, are you aware of what your office submitted for that review?

KERRY HATFIELD: Our office made pretty substantive submissions at the time to Justice Orsborn, as did lots of other stakeholders, you know, the ATIPP office, all the public bodies that use ATIPPA. And Orsborn did issue a report that should be found online, a pretty comprehensive report. We were pretty satisfied with what was in that. But the next step is really up to the government of the day to implement those recommendations. That didn’t happen. Now listen, it was COVID, and there was lots of things going on in society at the time. But the fact of the matter is that another five years has now gone by since that review, so you know, I have been discussing that with now a new government of the day. So I think they are committed to getting this done. It’s just a matter of, you know, getting everything in place and who might conduct that review. So hopefully that happens really soon. We have been pushing from this office to have that, and we will be doing comprehensive submissions for that committee to make recommendations, we think, to make access to information and protection of privacy better in the province. But other stakeholders are invited as well, including members of the public. You know, we sometimes get complaints or letters to this office saying, you know, ‘I don’t like how this works’. And, you know, I’ll say, ‘Well, the legislation says this,’ so sometimes my hands are tied or I can only have certain powers to assist. So I have encouraged people that when this review comes to light and we figure out what the dates are, to make their own submissions. You know, whether that’s orally or in writing, we’ll see what the panel says that they can do. So, you know, if anybody has a story to tell, good or bad, about access to information or privacy, that’ll be the time to have your voice heard. 

JUSTIN BRAKE: What’s the good of the reports if government is not bound to at least respond to them? Maybe that’s not a question for you, but you are familiar with the legislation. So does it say anywhere in the legislation that the government of the day has to accept recommendations?

KERRY HATFIELD: No, there’s nothing in the legislation like that. The legislation says that the legislative review has to happen every five years, but it’s really up to government to determine what that looks like, and kind of the process to be followed. There’s no mandatory requirement to accept recommendations. I mean, that’s what they are. They’re recommendations. So like I said, it’s up to the government of the day, and, you know, we try to bring governments to task about what changes we want to see. But it does require legislative amendments that have to go through the House of Assembly and be voted on and things like that. So, do they sometimes sit on a shelf and collect dust? Maybe they do with different kinds of reports from all sorts of panelists and reviews and things like that. But, you know, it’s up to people like me to bring it to the public’s attention and hopefully get the changes we want.

JUISTIN BRAKE: Well, this next review is gonna happen against a very different backdrop than the one five years ago did. There’ve been some big developments in access to information and privacy laws across the country in recent years. Most recently in Ontario, where the Doug Ford government just passed Bill 97, which among other things prevents public access to all records held by the premier’s office, cabinet ministers, and parliamentary assistants, which, as I understand it, makes up almost the entire PC government caucus, exempt from access to information requests. I imagine you’ve been watching closely as this hugely controversial move unfolds. What do you make of it?

KERRY HATFIELD: It’s a travesty, isn’t it? It’s a travesty for access to information in Canada, and from, you know, our most populous province. You know, completely diminishes access rights for the public. It weakens government accountability and transparency to the people. And this carve-out of access to information at the highest level of a provincial government, you know, cabinet minister, you know, the premier’s office, political staffers, I mean, that’s where decisions happen, right? Like, that is the crux of where people want to know, what information did you use to make a decision? How did this decision come to be, kind of thing. So, just the accountability is just kind of decimated by some of the changes in that bill. Listen, I spoke with the Ontario privacy commissioner. They fought hard to not have this pass. But the political government of the day managed to have it pass. I mean, it’s something that, you know, it limits her oversight of a lot of things the government is doing as well. And really what I take from it is that, you know, I don’t want it to happen here, and other provinces as well are fighting back saying, like, ‘This is just awful in Ontario, and we can’t let it happen in our own jurisdiction.’ And, you know, Nova Scotia as well has had some real fights between the government of the day and the privacy commissioner in that province about only having recommendation powers. So when you only have recommendation powers, which there are several provinces that have that that, like the report example we just talked about, the commissioner is making recommendations, you know, but the public bodies at the end of the day cannot follow them, and there’s no actual recourse after that, right? So, that’s not how it works in Newfoundland and Labrador, and just another example of why this legislative review is so important, to protect access to information and privacy here.

JUSTIN BRAKE: Well, let’s take a moment to explain to listeners how it works here because you’re right, it is very different. In some provinces, your colleagues have just the ability to only recommend to government. This is when somebody files a complaint in response to a request for general information, their own personal information, In Newfoundland and Labrador, if you get a complaint, you can tell the government department what they need to do, and if they disagree with you, you can take them to court, and you do regularly. Is that an accurate characterization?

KERRY HATFIELD: A little nuance, just to correct you there, Justin. So of course, my office has investigative powers. That’s a large part of what we do. So if you get an access request and you disagree with the search, how it was done, that you should’ve got records maybe that you didn’t, you wanna understand why, or again, those redactions that routinely get applied to records before they’re disclosed — we do all of that. And then, of course, if it doesn’t resolve informally, and lots of them do — we take great pride in this office about trying to resolve things between the public body and the applicant. But if all else fails, we write a report, and you’re quite right, we do make recommendations in that report. The difference in Newfoundland and Labrador — we call it the hybrid model. So when a public body gets the report with like the listed recommendations, they have two choices: they can accept the recommendations and the disclosure happens as per the recommendation, or the public body goes to court. I do have some order-making powers. I can go to court and ask for it to become an order to enforce. But for the most part, what happens is that the public body goes to court to seek a declaration to overturn my recommendations. So the reason that’s so important is that, you know, a public body isn’t routinely going to court over these things. They really gotta think hard: is it worth it? It’s expensive. It’s time-consuming. You know, it often gets into the media, because we don’t do it often. But it’s the public body who has to do that, not the complainant. It’s the complainant who often has no legal training, unfamiliar with the process, you know, dealing in court can be intimidating sometimes. So instead of making it the complainant’s responsibility to go to court to get the recommendations enforced, it’s the public body. And this is the only province in Canada that has that system. I routinely get calls from other commissioners, saying, ‘Kerry, how does this work?’ And you know, ‘How long does it take?’ And they’re very interested in copying our model. In my opinion, it’s been successful just given how few cases go to court; which, what does that mean? That means public bodies are following the recommendations.

JUSTIN BRAKE: It’s interesting that you’re getting calls and inquiries from other commissioners, and that they want to replicate our model. That said, our model could change with this next review. But again, just to maybe finish painting the broader picture of what’s happening across the country now, you mentioned Nova Scotia. There’s also been some controversial changes in Alberta. And it’s not only conservative or right-leaning governments. In BC as well, the NDP government there has made some controversial moves. They passed a bill recently — this is the David Eby government in BC — that observers have said gives FOI analysts and bureaucrats the ability to delay and even refuse to respond to requests if they consider them to be too broad or too onerous to process, or if they would, “unreasonably interfere” with the government’s operations. This kinds of sounds like something that our own provincial government might try to pursue in light of the increased demands for transparency. I’m not saying that they are going to do this, but sometimes the conditions that exist can be used as justification for diminishing access to information. Your thoughts on what’s happened in BC, and if you wanna touch on Nova Scotia or Alberta a bit more too, we could talk about those provinces. Whatever you think is kind of the most important examples going on to highlight this broader trend.

KERRY HATFIELD: Listen, you know, Saskatchewan I think is another one I would add to the list that kind of had some discussions about changes to legislation. You know, transparency hurts sometimes, doesn’t it, right? Stories come out in the media that maybe wouldn’t have come out, but for our access to information requests. Some of the Globe and Mail series, the secrecy series that they did about access to information, and they also talk about kind of this decline in legislative rights for citizens. My opinion is that transparency should be the norm. Government should be transparent and accountable to the decisions — and all public bodies, I’m saying government because core government is a huge component of my mandate. But all public bodies, because, you know, even at the municipal level they’re making decisions that impact our lives, right? Sometimes even more so than up at the provincial level. But transparency builds trust, right? And Newfoundlanders demand that. Like, it’s a different province in the knowledge and sophistication of knowing what’s going on and questioning governments of all political stripes. Nobody gets off the hook in St. John’s or in Newfoundland when it comes to this stuff. And if the government wants to build that trust — this is a new government here. You know, they talk about transparency with citizens. You know, we’re building public trust. And also, like, combating disinformation. Like, if somebody’s questioning and whether they think something else has happened behind the scenes, well, do your access request, and it could prove the government right. Like, sometimes it’s not all trying to find a big scandal or anything like that. Like, it can stop disinformation from spreading, at local and provincial levels. So, I’m not sure what kind of tack this government will take but I fully intend on having consultations with them. I have a good relationship with the ATIPP office here in St. John’s. You know, I’m hoping we can work together to tweak this legislation ’cause it can always be improved. I am looking for a few more powers to add to this office to kinda flex our authority, keep everybody accountable. And transparency, again, should be the norm. If you want to not give information to the public, you better have a darn good reason. So, you know, the governments that are starting legislation or amendments to their legislation that claws that back is just an affront to democracy and transparency in my view, and citizens and journalists are rightfully calling them to account for these changes, and rightfully so.

JUSTIN BRAKE: You mentioned you would like for your office to have a few more powers. Are you able to share what you’re looking for?

KERRY HATFIELD: We don’t have our submissions finalized. It’s still early game. We’ve had a couple of court cases, you know, even from my predecessor, Commissioner Harvey, that didn’t go our way, that we’d like government to take another look at. One is solicitor-client records. Solicitor-client records are disclosed to information commissioners in other parts of Canada. The court said here that it wasn’t explicit in our legislation that we could review redactions made under a claim of solicitor-client privilege. I’d like to change that. I think the exemption should exist and that solicitor-client information should not be disclosed. But if they’re going to claim that, then I think I should be able to review it because they’re not always right. There’s court cases where they’ve made that claim, and in fact it wasn’t solicitor-client privilege. So again, comes back to accountability. So that’s one thing that I would like more explicit in the legislation, that we do have the authority to review that. And again, kind of harking back to like frivolous and vexatious claims and requests that are made sometimes in volume, like 50 requests made over the course of a week or just, you know, that subset of folks that are working the system and making it really impossible sometime with the resources to get the rest of the access stuff and work done. I would like to have the authority to be able to deal with those, that small group of folks to either limit their ability, the numbers of requests that they can make, or declare them frivolous and vexatious, which would be super rare. I mean, the threshold would be high before anybody would ever do that. But right now, it’s a pretty cumbersome court application. I can only think of one example in this province, but I do think they’re there, and I think that that is a frequent complaint of public bodies in trying to work with our system. So I think that authority should fall to this office. We’re overseeing the public bodies — it works, and I’d like that to kind of just have another tool in my toolbox, like I said, to kind of deal with some of that.

And you know, maybe some discussions about AI oversight. It’s my personal opinion that AI decision-making by public bodies should have a regulator. It doesn’t exist. This is all new to everybody, but it’s something that I’ve been thinking a lot about as AI’s just become a function of our lives. There’s a lot of public distrust about AI in this province, and I think that to build trust and transparency, having oversight into some of that decision, I don’t wanna say all of it, but you know, pieces of it that affect people’s lives or could cause harms, not just privacy. Probably maybe a bit broader than that.

JUSTIN BRAKE: And so what you’re talking about mostly is on the privacy side of things where government stores a lot of personal information and data, and sometimes AI technology or systems or programs are used by government which could compromise the integrity of the protection of privacy. That’s what you’re talking about, like how AI programs get used?

KERRY HATFIELD: Multiple layers to that. I mean, security of our personal information and our personal health information. I mean, it really is embedded in legislation. Could it be better? Yes. But for now, the public bodies have that obligation to protect your privacy, and if not, there’s a breach. Of course, we’ve had several high-profile breaches here in Newfoundland and Labrador, so lots of people are familiar with that. So the security obligation to me already exists. You know, what I’m talking about is using that information and AI to make government decisions: whether you qualify for a benefit, NL Housing, like things that have a direct impact, you know. You know, making sure that there’s algorithmic assessments on harms that could be caused and identified, biases, hallucinations. You know, things that I think are in the public consciousness more now than ever before. And that if you want to be transparent and have a mechanism for the public to question decisions made using AI, that there should be a spot for that.

JUSTIN BRAKE: I’m really looking forward to hearing what your office has to say on that when it comes time to make submissions for the review. Are there any kind of really big notable recommendations or requests that your office under your predecessor made for the previous review that are sort of obviously still outstanding that you’ll be making again?

KERRY HATFIELD: Probably just the ones that I already mentioned, to be honest. Those are kind of some of the big-ticket items for us. You know, we see the challenges. Some of them existed before me but have been amplified, you know, in the time that I’ve been here. So I don’t want to get too much into submissions, and to be honest with you, like even with AI, maybe that’s new legislation. You know, it’s just kind of what we’re thinking of in this office with regards to transparency, democracy, and protecting citizens’ rights. So not even sure if that’ll be part of an ATIPPA submission, Justin. We’ll see where government goes with these kinds of things. There’s not a lot of legislation in Canada, you know, even at the federal level, on this. And again, just on our mind.

JUSTIN BRAKE: Well, Kerry Hatfield, thank you so much for your time today and sharing your insight and perspectives with us on our access to information and protection of privacy laws here. It’s something that The Independent is certainly interested in following, as the next review comes up, and we’ll continue to follow this. This won’t be the last time we talk to you and the last time we cover this topic, but thanks so much for your time today. I really appreciate it. 

KERRY HATFIELD: It’s been a pleasure.

— End of interview —

JUSTIN BRAKE: If government transparency and accountability are pillars of democracy, then Access to Information laws are absolutely necessary for journalists and the public to hold policy-makers to account. In Newfoundland and Labrador, countless stories have come to light because journalists have been able to access government records through access to information requests. If that ever changes, or if the laws are weakened, democracy, as they say, could die in darkness.

If you haven’t already, sign up for The Independent’s free email newsletter. When we learn more about the statutory review of the province’s access to information legislation, including the process and timelines for gathering public input, we’ll let you know. Go to TheIndependent.ca and click “newsletter”.

Berrygrounds is a proud member of the Harbinger Media Network. The show is hosted, produced and edited by me, Justin Brake.

Music in this episode is thanks to Shane Iver at Silverman Sound Studio.

Thanks for listening. We’ll see you next time.