Transcript: Do Political Parties Have A Future | Apr 15, 2021

Steve sits in the studio. He's slim, clean-shaven, in his fifties, with short curly brown hair. He's wearing a blue suit, white shirt, and blue tie.

A caption on screen reads "Do political parties have a future? @spaikin, @theagenda."

Steve says FEDERAL AND PROVINCIAL POLITICS IN CANADA OPERATE ALONG CLEAR-CUT PARTY LINES, FROM THE CAMPAIGN TRAIL TO THE COMMITTEE ROOM. IT'S BEEN THAT WAY SINCE CONFEDERATION, BUT DOES THAT MEAN IT'S GOOD FOR CANADIAN DEMOCRACY? OR, COULD IT TODAY BE ACTING AS MORE OF A LIABILITY THAT AMPS UP FEIGNED OUTRAGE, PARTISANSHIP, AND DIVISION? WITH US TO CONSIDER THAT: IN DENHOLM, QUEBEC: DAVID HERLE, PRINCIPAL PARTNER, THE GANDALF GROUP AND HOST OF THE HERLE BURLEY PODCAST...

David is in his sixties, clean-shaven, with wavy gray hair. He's wearing a black suit and shirt.

Steve continues IN L'ORIGNAL, ONTARIO, IN EASTERN ONTARIO: SEAN SPEER, FELLOW IN RESIDENCE AT THE PUBLIC POLICY FORUM...

Sean is in his late forties, clean-shaven, with short black hair. He's wearing a gray suit and a blue shirt.

Steve continues AND IN THE NATION'S CAPITAL: DAVID MOSCROP, CONTRIBUTING COLUMNIST TO THE WASHINGTON POST AND AUTHOR OF, "TOO DUMB FOR DEMOCRACY."

David is in his thirties, with long brown hair and a long beard. He's wearing glasses and a red plaid shirt.

Steve continues AND SUSAN DELACOURT, NATIONAL AFFAIRS COLUMNIST FOR THE TORONTO STAR, WHOM WE WANT TO THANK FOR GOING IN ON THIS DEMOCRACY AGENDA.

Susan is in her sixties, with long blond hair and bangs. She's wearing a black blazer and shirt.

Steve continues THIS IS OUR SEVENTH TIME OUT OF THE GATE. LET ME START BY SAYING PEOPLE OFTEN ASK ME WHERE DO YOU GET YOUR SHOW IDEAS FROM? WE OF COURSE GET THEM FROM ALL SORTS OF PLACES, BUT SOMETIMES WE GET THEM FROM OTHER SHOWS. WHAT DO I MEAN? SHELDON, IF YOU WOULD?

A clip plays on screen with the caption "February 4, 2021."
In the clip, Susan speaks on screen.

She says I DISTINGUISH BETWEEN POLITICS AND DEMOCRACY. I THINK PEOPLE DON'T LIKE POLITICS AND DON'T NECESSARILY BELIEVE THAT DEMOCRACY IS ACCOMPLISHED THROUGH POLITICS. BUT I THINK THEY FUNDAMENTALLY BELIEVE THAT THEIR VOTE COUNTS AND THAT THE SYSTEM SHOULD I JUST DON'T THINK THEY THINK THAT POLITICS WORKS. AND ON THAT, THEY'RE CORRECT. POLITICS, NOT A GREAT SYSTEM FOR DELIVERING DEMOCRACY.

Steve says HMM. POLITICS IS NOT A GREAT SYSTEM FOR DELIVERING DEMOCRACY. REALLY?

Susan says NO. I'D DO AWAY WITH POLITICAL PARTIES MYSELF. THAT'S A WHOLE OTHER STORY.

Steve says THAT IS A DIFFERENT SHOW. MAYBE WE'VE GOT TO COME BACK TO THAT IN A FUTURE SHOW. GET RID OF ALL POLITICAL PARTIES IN THE COUNTRY?

Susan says YEAH. I LIKE THE WAY MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENTS FUNCTION. THE REASON PEOPLE LIKE MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENTS BETTER IS THERE'S NO NONSENSE. A LOT OF THE POLARIZATION, POLITICAL POLARIZATION, IS FAKE POLITICAL POLARIZATION. IT IS PEOPLE DELIBERATELY TAKING EXTREME VIEWS TO FIT INTO A POLITICAL SYSTEM THAT DOESN'T ACTUALLY... WE ALL DON'T THINK THE WAY POLITICAL PARTIES DO.

The clip ends.

Steve says OKAY, SUSAN. HERE WE ARE. ANOTHER DAY, ANOTHER TOPIC. LET'S PUT SOME MEAT ON THIS BONE. HOW CAN YOU IMAGINE THIS COUNTRY OR THIS PROVINCE OPERATING WITHOUT POLITICAL PARTIES? WE'VE BEEN DOING IT THIS WAY SINCE 1867 AND BEFORE?

The caption changes to "Susan Delacourt. Toronto Star."

Susan says WELL, I THINK THAT EVERY TIME YOU ASK POLITICAL PEOPLE, AFTER THEY'RE OUT OF POLITICS... AND SOME PEOPLE ON THIS PANEL WOULD KNOW THIS WELL... IS WHAT IS THE WORST THING THAT HAPPENED TO THEM WHEN THEY WERE IN GOVERNMENT AND WHEN THEY WERE SERVING PARTIES WAS THE PARTY SYSTEM ITSELF. PEOPLE... THE POLITICAL SYSTEM TURNS EVERYTHING INTO SOMETHING THAT IS NOT THE MIDDLE GROUND, IS NOT... IT'S NOT EVEN RATIONAL ANYMORE. AND YOU HAVE TO BE LIKE A HUMAN BEING WHEN YOU'RE OUT OF POLITICS, AND WHEN YOU'RE IN POLITICS, YOU HAVE TO BE SOMETHING UNHUMAN.

Steve says ALL RIGHT. LET ME GO TO DAVID HERLE TO FOLLOW UP. DAVID, YOU'VE WORKED FOR LIBERAL PRIME MINISTERS AND LIBERAL PREMIERS, AND I WONDER IF YOU CAN IMAGINE A SCENARIO OR WHETHER YOU'D BE PREPARED TO ENTERTAIN A SCENARIO WHERE DEEPLY PARTISAN POLITICS IS NO LONGER A FEATURE OF CANADIAN DEMOCRACY?

The caption changes to "David Herle. The Gandalf Group. Host, 'The Herle Burly' Podcast."

David says I RECOGNIZE ALL THAT SUSAN IS SAYING, AND THERE ARE CERTAINLY UNDESIRABLE OUTCOMES FROM THE PARTY SYSTEM. AND IT MAY BE THAT PARTIES ARE NOT ABLE TO PERFORM ALL OF THE FUNCTIONS THAT THEY USED TO PERFORM. I HAVE A VERY HARD TIME UNDERSTANDING HOW IT WOULD WORK AND WHETHER IT IS DESIRABLE THAT IT WOULD WORK. PEOPLE MAY... I DON'T KNOW WHETHER THEY LIKE THEIR MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENTS MORE, BUT I KNOW THAT THEY'RE MUCH LESS ENGAGED WITH MUNICIPAL POLITICS AND THE VOTER TURNOUT IS MUCH LOWER IN MUNICIPAL POLITICS. AND I THINK THE REASON IS THAT WITHOUT A PARTY SYSTEM PEOPLE DON'T KNOW (a) WHO THEY SHOULD VOTE FOR AND THEY DON'T KNOW WHO IS ACCOUNTABLE FOR WHAT. LET'S TAKE THE FIRST PIECE OF IT. ALL OF THE DATA I'VE EVER SEEN INDICATES THAT ABOUT 5 percent OF CANADIANS REALLY VOTE ON THE BASIS OF THEIR LOCAL CANDIDATE. AND THAT TENDS TO BE IN RURAL AREAS WHERE PEOPLE KNOW THEIR LOCAL CANDIDATE. IN MOST PARTS OF THE COUNTRY, PEOPLE DON'T EVEN KNOW WHO THE CANDIDATES FOR THE PARTIES ARE. THEY VOTE EITHER FOR THE LEADER OR FOR THE POLICY PROGRAM OF THE PARTY. AND THAT IS HOW ALL OF WHAT'S GOING ON IS DECODED FOR THEM SO THAT THEY CAN MAKE A CHOICE ABOUT WHAT THEY WANT. THEN SIMILARLY, IF I'M IN TORONTO AND I DON'T LIKE WHAT'S GOING ON, CAN I BLAME JOHN TORY FOR THAT? HE'S ONE VOTE ON THE COUNCIL. THE ACCOUNTABILITY IS SO OBSCURE, I DON'T KNOW WHO TO BLAME. WHEREAS, IN A PARTISAN SYSTEM, WHEN I'M UNHAPPY WITH THE GOVERNMENT, I KNOW EXACTLY WHOSE NECK TO CHOKE. AND SO I THINK FOR THOSE TWO REASONS, I MEAN, SUSAN'S DONE A LOT MORE THINKING AND RESEARCH ABOUT THIS THAN I HAVE, BUT I HAVE TROUBLE SEEING HOW IT WOULD WORK AND WHETHER IT WOULD BE DESIRABLE FOR IT TO WORK.

Steve says WE'LL GET MORE FEEDBACK ON THIS AND LET SUSAN RESPOND TO WHAT SHE'S HEARING. SEAN, YOU'RE A GUY WHO BACK IN THE DAY SPENT TIME IN PARTISAN POLITICS WORKING FOR CONSERVATIVES. CAN YOU IMAGINE A POLITICAL SYSTEM IN CANADA THAT DOESN'T INVOLVE PARTISAN POLITICS?

The caption changes to "Sean Speer. Public Policy Forum."

Sean says THE SHORT ANSWER IS NO. I THINK THIS CONVERSATION ABOUT PROBLEMS OR WEAKNESSES IN OUR DEMOCRACY IS TERRIBLY IMPORTANT. BUT I'M NOT SURE THE SOLUTION IS TO DISCARD PARTIES. IN FACT, I THINK THERE'S A PERSUASIVE ARGUMENT IN FACT THAT WE OUGHT TO HAVE MORE PARTIES. THAT ONE OF THE PROBLEMS WITH THE CURRENT SYSTEM IS THAT THESE LARGE BROKERAGE PARTIES AREN'T BRINGING EXPRESSION TO LARGE MINORITIES IN OUR COUNTRY, WHETHER IT'S, YOU KNOW, HARD-CORE PROGRESSIVES, WHETHER IT'S PRO-LIFE VOICES, WHETHER THOSE WHO HAVE MISGIVINGS ABOUT CANADA'S IMMIGRATION SYSTEM AND CAN'T FIND EXPRESSION IN OUR CURRENT MAINSTREAM POLITICS. I COULD GO ON, STEVE. BUT I THINK IN SHORT, I'VE INCREASINGLY COME TO THE VIEW, AND THIS HAS BEEN THROUGH A PERIOD OF INTROSPECTION, SPARKED IN LARGE PART BY THE RISE IN POLITICAL POPULISM WHICH OBVIOUSLY HAS VARIOUS COMPLICATING FACTORS, BUT AT SOME LEVEL REPRESENTS A KIND OF REJECTION OF THE LACK OF REPRESENTATIVENESS AND RESPONSIVENESS OF MODERN DEMOCRACY. AND FOR ME, IT'S MADE ME MORE OF A SMALL "D" DEMOCRAT AND, IN TURN, I THINK INCREASINGLY PERSUADED BY THE NEED FOR SOMETHING LIKE PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION, WHICH WOULD NOT LEAD TO FEWER PARTIES, IT WOULD ACTUALLY LEAD TO MORE PARTIES. IT WOULD BE A LESS EFFICIENT AND MESSIER POLITICS, BUT ULTIMATELY A MORE REPRESENTATIVE AND RESPONSIVE ONE, AND FOR ME, THAT'S ONE OF THE MAJOR TAKE-AWAYS OF THE POLITICAL DISRUPTION OF THE PAST SEVERAL YEARS.

Steve says DAVID MOSCROP, WHERE ARE YOU ON THIS?

The caption changes to "David Moscrop. Author, 'Too dumb for Democracy.'"

David says WELL, IF PARTIES DIDN'T EXIST, YOU WOULD HAVE TO INVENT THEM, FOR REASONS THAT DAVID OUTLINED, AND INCIDENTALLY I HAPPEN TO AGREE WITH SEAN ON PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION. I WOULD LOVE TO SEE SOME SOCIALISTS IN LEGISLATURES. OUR PARTIES ARE ALL FUNDAMENTALLY LIBERAL. AND THAT DOES, I THINK, CLOSE OUT A LOT OF DEBATE THAT WE SHOULD LEGITIMATELY BE HAVING. BUT IF YOU LOOK AT THE HISTORY OF JURISDICTIONS WHO HAVE TRIED TO DO AWAY WITH PARTIES OR TO SORT OF MITIGATE THEIR FORCE, PARTIES CREEP BACK UP ANYWAY. THE UNITED STATES IS A GOOD EXAMPLE OF THIS. THE FRAMERS OF THE CONSTITUTION IN THE UNITED STATES WERE WARY OF WHAT THEY CALLED FACTIONS. THEY DIDN'T LOVE THE IDEA OF PARTIES. THE PARTIES CREPT IN ANYWAY BECAUSE THEY PERFORMED THE FUNCTIONS THAT DAVID TALKED ABOUT, WHICH IS THEY SORT OF CONSOLIDATED VOICES AND THEY ALLOWED FOR ACCOUNTABILITY. AND SO THE PARTIES FORM A NECESSARY PART OF OUR SYSTEM. I DON'T THINK PARTIES ARE THE FUNDAMENTAL PROBLEM. I THINK PARTIES DONE POORLY IS THE PROBLEM. I THINK PARTIES THAT YOU ARE TOO LEADER CENTRIC, PARTIES THAT ARE TOXIC BECAUSE OF IT, THEY FORM A TOXIC ROLE, ANTIDEMOCRATIC IN THAT WAY, ARE PART OF THE PROBLEM. YOU COULD DO PARTIES BETTER. IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE EITHER/OR. IT CAN BE, CAN WE IMAGINE A DIFFERENT SORT OF PARTY SYSTEM THAT ALLOW PEOPLE TO BE MORE FUNCTIONAL. I THINK WE NEED PARTY REFORM. I DON'T THINK WE COULD DO AWAY WITH THEM OR COULD BECAUSE THEY WOULD RE-FORM ANYWAY, LIKE TERMINATOR.

The caption changes to "The Democracy Agenda. A TVO and Toronto Star partnership."

Steve says SUSAN, YOU HAVE YOUR WORK CUT OUT FOR YOU IF YOU'RE GOING TO CONVINCE THESE THREE GENTLEMEN TO COME YOUR WAY. YOU'VE HEARD THEIR COMPLAINTS. BEGIN WHERE YOU WANT IN RESPONSE.

The caption changes to "Susan Delacourt, @susandelacourt."

Susan says LET ME TAKE THEM ON BIT BY BIT. DAVID HERLE, MY GOOD FRIEND, SAID PEOPLE AREN'T ENGAGED WITH THEIR MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENTS. I WOULD ARGUE PEOPLE KNOW WHAT'S GOING ON MORE WITH THEIR MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT MORE THAN THEY DO THEIR FEDERAL POLITICAL PARTIES, AND PEOPLE ARE ENGAGED WITH WHAT PEOPLE GIVE THEM. I THINK THAT... AND TO SEAN'S POINT ABOUT BROKERAGE, I THINK IT'S A SHAME THAT POLITICAL PARTIES HAVE STOPPED BEING BROKERAGE PARTIES. I TOO WOULD LIKE A PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION SYSTEM THAT'S NOT... AND I WOULD LIKE THE BROKERAGE TO BE DONE I THINK IN PARLIAMENT AS A WHOLE. BUT THE IDEA NOW... AND WE'VE SEEN THIS AT SEVERAL POLITICAL CONVENTIONS... THAT THERE IS ANY IDEA OF COMPROMISE NOW IN POLITICAL PARTIES. THE WHOLE IDEA OF THEM IS TO SHARPEN DIFFERENCES AMONG PEOPLE RATHER THAN TO SMOOTH THEM OUT AND TO COME TO SOME MIDDLE GROUND. I THINK NORMALLY, AS I WAS SAYING EARLIER, NORMALLY SANE PEOPLE STAND UP AND SAY THE MOST OUTRAGEOUS THINGS ABOUT WHAT THEY BELIEVE, THAT THEY'RE ALWAYS RIGHT, AND THAT EVERYBODY ELSE IS ALWAYS WRONG. AND I JUST THINK THAT'S A STYLE OF DEBATE THAT PEOPLE DON'T HAVE IN THEIR NORMAL LIVES, THAT PEOPLE RECOGNIZE AS FAKE. IT'S SORT OF THIS, EVERYTHING IS HYPERBOLE FOR POLITICAL PARTIES, YOU KNOW? THAT YOU TALK TO THEM BEHIND THE SCENES, THEY SAY, "WELL, WE DON'T REALLY BELIEVE WHAT, YOU KNOW, ALL OF THAT STUFF WE'RE SAYING. WE'RE DOING IT FOR THE SAKE OF THE PARTY AND KEEPING THE TEAM TOGETHER." AND I JUST THINK THERE'S GOT TO BE A BETTER SYSTEM THAN THE ONE THAT PEOPLE ARE SEEING WITH THEIR POLITICAL PARTIES. IT DOES NOT RESEMBLE THE KIND OF POLITICAL DEBATE THAT PEOPLE HAVE IN THEIR OWN LIVES AND IN THEIR OWN... IN THE BARS OR AROUND THEIR OWN DINNER TABLES. WHAT PASSES FOR POLITICAL DEBATE IN THIS COUNTRY IS ALL ABOUT TRYING TO KEEP A PARTY TEAM TOGETHER.

Steve says DAVID HERLE, WOULD YOU GRANT THAT ON THE FACE OF IT THAT IS AN EMPIRICALLY PROVABLE FACT? AND WE HAVE SEEN TONS UPON TONS OF EVIDENCE THAT WHAT SUSAN SAID IS ABSOLUTELY TRUE. NOW, YOU MAY NOT LIKE HER SOLUTION FOR THAT PROBLEM, BUT WOULD YOU GRANT THAT THE PROBLEM SHE'S IDENTIFIED IS SPOT ON?

David says I THINK, YES, I WOULD, 100 PERCENT. DO PEOPLE SAY THINGS THEY DON'T MEAN IN POLITICS? ABSOLUTELY. DO PARTIES ACCENTUATE SOME DIFFERENCES THAT AREN'T AS WIDE AS THEY MIGHT WANT THEM TO APPEAR TO BE? THEY DO. AND I'M NOT PRETENDING THAT OUR POLITICS IS PERFECT, AND I'M NOT EVEN SURE WE ARE PRETENDING TO HAVE BROKERAGE PARTIES ANYMORE. THE CONSERVATIVE PARTY, THE MODERN CONSERVATIVE PARTY, THE CPC, DOES NOT LOOK LIKE A BROKERAGE PARTY TO ME. IT LOOKS LIKE AN IDEOLOGICAL PARTY. IN FACT IT LOOKS LIKE A REACTION AGAINST A BROKERAGE PARTY, WHICH WAS THE PC PARTY, AND A DESIRE TO HAVE A MORE IDEOLOGICALLY PURE INSTRUMENT ON THEIR BEHALF. CERTAINLY THE LIBERAL PARTY IS NOT THE BIG-TENT PARTY IT USED TO BE, DRAWING IN PEOPLE FROM ALL WALKS OF LIFE AND INCOME STREAMS, ET CETERA. IT HAS BECOME A MORE IDEOLOGICAL PARTY. I PERSONALLY THINK THIS IS DANGEROUS. I KNOW WE DON'T WANT TO TALK ABOUT PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION, BUT I'M IN THE OPINION RESEARCH BUSINESS, AND ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I KNOW IS HOW DIVIDED THIS COUNTRY IS ON CORE CONCEPTS AND CORE IDEAS, AND HOW EASY IT WOULD BE FOR THIS COUNTRY TO SPLINTER. AND WE SHOULD ALL THINK BACK TO MEECH AND CHARLOTTETOWN AND REMEMBER THAT ONCE YOU STRIP AWAY THE VENEER OF CONSENSUS, THERE ISN'T MUCH CONSENSUS ABOUT THE COUNTRY. AND BROKERAGE PARTIES HAVE TRADITIONALLY FILLED THAT SPACE AND PAPERED OVER THOSE DIFFERENCES. AND, YOU KNOW, IF YOU GET INTO... IF YOU ABANDON PARTIES THAT DO THAT, I MEAN, LET ME TELL YOU, JUST TO GIVE YOU AN EXAMPLE. YOU MAY THINK THE DEBATE IN CANADA OVER OFFICIAL BILINGUALISM IS SETTLED? IT'S NOT. IT'S SETTLED AMONG OUR POLITICAL PARTIES. AND THAT'S ONE TINY EXAMPLE OF THE WAYS IN WHICH THE COUNTRY CAN SPLINTER IF YOU DON'T HAVE BROKERAGE PARTIES MANAGING THESE DECISIONS.

Steve says DAVID, YOU'RE A PUBLIC OPINION GUY IN THAT INTEREST, WE'RE GOING TO SHARE SOME NUMBERS HERE.

A slate appears on screen, with the title "Not happy with politics as is."

Steve reads data from the slate and says
ON THE ISSUE OF HOW HAPPY CANADIANS ARE WITH POLITICS, 61 percent OF THOSE SURVEYED FEEL THAT POLITICS TO A GREATER OR LESSER EXTENT IS BROKEN. 77 percent SAY THAT POLITICAL PARTIES SERVE THEIR OWN INTERESTS, NOT THE VOTERS' INTERESTS. 75 percent ARE FRUSTRATED BECAUSE POLITICIANS DO NOT, IN THEIR JUDGMENT, PAY THE PRICE FOR BROKEN PROMISES. AND 59 percent WANT THERE TO BE A WAY TO CHARGE POLITICIANS FOR CORRUPTION OR GROSS NEGLIGENCE. SEAN, I'LL GET YOU TO FOLLOW UP ON THIS. YOU, AS WE SUGGESTED EARLIER, HAVE BEEN AFFILIATED WITH CONSERVATIVE PARTIES GOING BACK MANY DECADES. ADMITTEDLY THEY'RE IN OPPOSITION RIGHT NOW SO PERHAPS NOT WHOLLY RESPONSIBLE OR EVEN MOST SIGNIFICANTLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE FACT THAT SIX IN TEN CANADIANS FEEL TO A GREATER OR LESSER EXTENT THAT CANADA, CANADIAN POLITICS, IS BROKEN. BUT HOW MUCH RESPONSIBILITY DO YOU THINK APROPOS OF WHAT DAVID JUST SAID, DO YOU THINK CONSERVATIVES AND THE PARTY IN PARTICULAR HAVE TO ASSUME?

Sean says I THINK IT'S A POX ON EVERYONE'S HOUSE, TO BE HONEST. THE TWO FUNDAMENTAL ROLES THAT POLITICAL ESTABLISHMENT, POLITICAL LEAGUE PLAY ARE (1) RESPONSIVENESS AND (2) LEADERSHIP. THOSE I THINK ARE INTENTION. HOW MUCH YOU'RE RESPONDING TO PUBLIC INTEREST, PUBLIC ASPIRATIONS, PUBLIC CONCERNS VERSUS TRYING TO GUIDE AND SHAPE THE PUBLIC ON DIFFERENT MATTERS. AND I THINK THERE IS A RISK, STEVE, THAT WE'VE COME TO ERR TOO MUCH ON THE QUESTION OF DOING NEITHER VERY WELL. YOU KNOW, DAVID TALKED ABOUT ISSUES BEING SETTLED BY OUR POLITICAL ESTABLISHMENT. THAT'S KIND OF WHAT I WAS GETTING AT IN MY FIRST ANSWER. IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THOSE PUBLIC VIEWS DON'T GO AWAY; THEY REMAIN, YOU KNOW, THERE UNDER THE SURFACE OF THE SO-CALLED POLITICAL SETTLEMENT NEGOTIATED BY OUR POLITICAL ELITES. AND I THINK THE EXPERIENCE IN THE UNITED STATES SHOWS THAT IT CAN ULTIMATELY FESTER AND EXPLODE IN THE ELECTION OF AN ILLIBERAL PRESIDENT. SO IT SEEMS TO ME WE NEED TO RESIST THE TEMPTATION TO TRY TO NEGLECT OR IGNORE THESE VIEWS WITHIN OUR POPULATION. INSTEAD, WE KIND OF NEED TO LEAN INTO THEM AND MAKE SURE THAT THEY HAVE VOICE AND EXPRESSION IN OUR POLITICS. IT WILL MAKE THINGS MESSIER, I CONCEDE THAT. BUT IT STRIKES ME THAT'S A BETTER OUTCOME IN THE LONG-TERM THAN LETTING THESE DIFFERENT VIEWS BE NEGLECTED BY MAINSTREAM POLITICS AND ULTIMATELY EXPLODE IN THE FORM OF POLITICAL POPULISM OR POLITICAL DISRUPTION OR, INDEED, ILLIBERALISM.

Steve says DAVID MOSCROP, HOW DO WE, THOUGH, ENCOURAGE PEOPLE TO GO VOTE WHEN SIX IN TEN THINK THAT POLITICS IS BROKEN? HOW DO WE ENCOURAGE PEOPLE TO STAND FOR OFFICE OR PUT UP SIGNS ON THEIR LAWNS OR HAND OUT LEAFLETS AT DOORS OR STUFF ENVELOPES? HOW DO WE ENCOURAGE PEOPLE TO GET INVOLVED IN THE POLITICAL PROCESS WHEN SIX IN TEN FEEL IT'S BROKEN?

David says WELL, THE POINT AT WHICH YOU THINK YOU SHOULD BE PULLING BACK ON DEMOCRACY, AS A RULE, IS THE POINT AT WHICH YOU SHOULD BE DOUBLING DOWN ON IT. SO WITH BETTER INSTITUTIONS. FIRST OF ALL, LET'S DIG IN A LITTLE BIT TO WHAT WE'RE PICKING UP WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT DISSATISFACTION. I MEAN, YOU'RE PICKING UP MORE THAN JUST IRRITATION WITH PARTIES THERE. YOU'RE PICKING UP FRUSTRATION WITH THE SYSTEM. ECONOMIC FRUSTRATIONS. CAN PEOPLE OWN A HOME? CAN PEOPLE PUT THEIR KIDS THROUGH SCHOOL? HOW MANY HOURS A WEEK ARE THEY WORKING? CAN THEY AFFORD THEIR DENTAL CARE? CAN THEY AFFORD THEIR DRUGS? YOU'RE SEEING TRUST DECLINING. THERE'S A LOT GOING ON THERE. THERE ARE STRUCTURAL FUNDAMENTAL THINGS WE NEED TO DEAL WITH ECONOMICALLY AS WELL AS POLITICALLY. WE CAN'T DISAGGREGATE THE TWO. TO THE EXTENT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT POLITICAL PARTICIPATION, WE CAN SAY WHY DON'T WE HAVE CITIZEN ASSEMBLIES OR PARTICIPATORY BUDGETING, ENGAGEMENT WITH CITIZENS WHERE THEY CAN HELP SET THE AGENDA, BUILD CIVIC CAPACITY AND BE IN REGULAR CONTACT WITH POLITICIANS. PEOPLE DON'T LIKE THINGS IN THE ABSTRACT BUT LOTS OF FOLKS LIKE THEIR REPRESENTATIVE. WHEN THEY'RE ENGAGED, WHEN THEY'RE DRAWN INTO THE PROCESS, THEY HAVE GOOD THINGS TO SAY. BUT WHEN IT'S ABSTRACT AND THEY'RE ALIENATED FROM IT, THEY DON'T. I THINK WE HAVE TO DEAL WITH A CULTURE OF PARTICIPATION AND ENGAGEMENT. THAT REQUIRES A TRANSFER OF POWER TO SOME PEOPLE. IT REQUIRES BETTER AVENUES OF REPRESENTATION. AND IT REQUIRES MATERIAL TRANSFERS OF RESOURCES SO THAT PEOPLE ARE MORE OR LESS BASICALLY EQUAL MATERIALLY AS WELL AS SYMBOLICALLY AND LEGALLY. IF WE WANT TO GET TO THE FUNDAMENTAL PROBLEMS, WE NEED TO LOOK AT FUNDAMENTAL STRUCTURAL SOLUTIONS. BUT WE DON'T REALLY LIKE TO TALK ABOUT THAT IN THIS COUNTRY. INSTEAD WE DEFAULT TO ARE PEOPLE BEING NICE TO ME ON THE INTERNET. YOU KNOW? SO I THINK WE SHOULD BE HAVING THOSE CONVERSATIONS ALONGSIDE CONVERSATIONS LIKE THIS.

Steve says WE'RE GOING TO HAVE THAT CONVERSATION RIGHT NOW AND YOU HAVE VERY NICELY ANTICIPATED WHERE I WANTED TO TAKE US NEXT. WE'RE GOING TO SHARE SOME MORE NUMBERS THAT DEAL WITH THIS WHOLE ISSUE OF POWER-SHARING THAT YOU'VE JUST REFERRED TO. SHELDON, NEXT GROUP OF NUMBERS, IF WE CAN?

A slate appears on screen, with the title "Better politics."

Steve reads data from the slate and says
76 percent BELIEVE THAT IT'S VERY OR SOMEWHAT POSSIBLE TO CHANGE POLITICS FOR THE BETTER. THAT'S VERY ENCOURAGING. THREE-QUARTERS BELIEVE IT'S POSSIBLE TO CHANGE POLITICS FOR THE BETTER. 46 percent OF CANADIANS BELIEVE THAT BETTER DEMOCRATIC PARTICIPATION CAN BE ACHIEVED BY LETTING CANADIANS VOTE ON MAJOR ISSUES. LET'S KEEP GOING. 64 percent WOULD PREFER TO BE GOVERNED BY A HUNDRED RANDOMLY CHOSEN CANADIANS RATHER THAN THE CORRESPONDINGLY MEMBERS OF A PRESTIGIOUS FACULTY. WHAT IF OUR DEMOCRACY WAS NOT BASED ON ELECTIONS BUT BY A SELECTION OF PARLIAMENTARIANS SUCH AS FOR A JURY TRIAL. WOULD THAT WORK? 66 percent OF CANADIANS SAID NO. ONLY 34 percent YES, THAT IT WOULD WORK. HOWEVER, COMMA, 41 percent SAY THEY WOULD WANT TO BE SELECTED TO BE PART OF SUCH A PARLIAMENT. ALL THESE NUMBERS FROM PUBLIC SQUARE RESEARCH ONCE AGAIN. SUSAN, I WONDER IF YOU'D JUST SORT OF CHOOSE TO PULL UP ANY ONE OF THOSE NUMBERS THAT YOU COTTON ONTO THERE AND SAY, DOES ANY OF THAT GIVE YOU SOME HOPE?

Susan says IT TELLS ME THAT CANADIANS, AT LEAST THE ONES SURVEYED HERE, ARE A VERY POPULIST GROUP. THAT THE POPULISM HAS ARRIVED HERE. I THINK WHAT... THERE'S A THREAD THROUGH THOSE RESULTS THAT SAYS THAT CANADIANS DON'T MUCH TRUST PEOPLE... ELITES WHO ARE IN POWER, EXCEPT THE COURTS, WHICH IS A WHOLE OTHER CONVERSATION, I GUESS. BUT I THINK THOSE RESULTS KIND OF VALIDATE WHAT MY COLLEAGUES ON THE PANEL ARE SAYING HERE IN VARIOUS WAYS, IS WE... THE DEEP DISTRUST OF POLITICS IS, I THINK, TIED UP WITH A DEEP DISTRUST OF ELITES RIGHT NOW IN THE COUNTRY. AND POLITICIANS ARE DEEMED TO BE ELITES WHO ARE OUT OF TOUCH, AND TO JUST LOOP RIGHT BACK, THAT TAKES ME BACK TO, I THINK POLITICAL PARTIES HAVE SOME BLAME TO TAKE FOR THAT.

Steve says HOW IS IT... I MEAN, IF YOU LOOK AT THE HOUSE OF COMMONS, THERE ARE A LOT OF VERY NORMAL PEOPLE IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS. HOW IS IT THAT A PIG FARMER FROM SASKATCHEWAN, DAVID HERLE, SUDDENLY BECOMES AN ELITE WHEN SHE IS ELECTED TO PARLIAMENT?

David says UH, WELL, SHE STARTS TO MAKE MORE MONEY THAN THE PEOPLE... THAN MOST PEOPLE IN THE COUNTRY DO. SHE STARTS TO FLY BUSINESS CLASS REGULARLY, AND SHE STARTS TO HAVE POWER AND AUTHORITY, AND THAT IMMEDIATELY MAKES HER DIFFERENT THAN SHE WAS BEFORE AND DIFFERENT THAN HER NEIGHBOURS BACK HOME. BUT REALLY, I DON'T THINK PEOPLE THINK OF MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT AS ELITES. I DON'T. I THINK THEY... I THINK THEY THINK OF CABINET AND THE PRIME MINISTER AS ELITES AND SOME OTHER SIGNIFICANT POSITIONS. BUT SOMEBODY MENTIONED EARLIER, IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN SEAN, MOST PEOPLE ACTUALLY LIKE THEIR MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT AND THINK THAT THEIR MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT IS A GOOD PERSON, WHILE STILL HAVING A BELIEF THAT THE SYSTEM IS WIDELY CORRUPT. IT IS AMAZING. YOU HAVEN'T SEEN SCRATCHED THE SURFACE IN THIS POLL ABOUT WHAT PEOPLE THINK OF POLITICS. MOST PEOPLE THINK PEOPLE IN POLITICS ARE ON THE TAKE, ENRICHING THEMSELVES IN SOME WAY OR ANOTHER OR ADVANTAGING THEIR FRIENDS AND FAMILY. IT'S TERRIBLE IF YOU GET BENEATH IT, WHAT PEOPLE THINK. BUT, YOU KNOW, PEOPLE HAVE A LIMITED APPETITE FOR POLITICS AND A LIMITED APPETITE TO FIX ANYTHING ABOUT IT. YOU KNOW, CITIZENS ASSEMBLIES ARE GOING TO BE ATTENDED BY HUNDREDS OF PEOPLE, AND THE MILLIONS OF PEOPLE WHO DON'T ATTEND THEM ARE NOT GOING TO FEEL MORE CONSULTED BECAUSE HUNDREDS OF PEOPLE WENT TO A CITIZENS ASSEMBLY. TRUTH OF THE MATTER IS, YOU ONLY FEEL PROPERLY CONSULTED IF THE DECISION MIRRORS YOUR OWN POINT OF VIEW. ABSENT THAT, THERE WERE NOT PROPER CONSULTATIONS INVOLVED.

Steve says SO THE NOTION OF HAVING A WHOLE BUNCH OF REFERENDUMS AND PEOPLE GETTING TO VOTE ON ISSUES MORE FREQUENTLY, THAT'S NOT GOING TO HELP IN TERMS OF FEELING CONSULTED?

David says WELL, REFERENDUM... REFERENDA ARE A DIFFERENT MATTER. BUT I THINK IF YOU GO BACK TO SUSAN'S POINT ABOUT WHAT HAPPENS TO POLITICS, I THINK REFERENDUMS TAKE THAT TO THE EXTREME ON EVERY ISSUE. I DON'T THINK WE'VE HAD A POSITIVE REFERENDUM EXPERIENCE IN THIS COUNTRY, AND I DON'T KNOW THAT... I DON'T KNOW THAT THE REFERENDUM OVER THE CHARLOTTETOWN ACCORD WAS A MORE EDIFYING SPECTACLE THAN ANY OF OUR ELECTIONS ARE.

Steve says SEAN, WHAT DO YOU MAKE OF THE FACT THAT THREE-QUARTERS OF THE PEOPLE SURVEYED BELIEVE THAT IT'S POSSIBLE TO CHANGE POLITICS FOR THE BETTER? ARE YOU ENCOURAGED BY THAT?

The caption changes to "Sean Speer, @sean_speer."

Sean says AN INTERESTING OUTCOME GIVEN SOME OF THE OTHER FINDINGS IN THE POLL. I WOULD SAY A COUPLE OF THINGS, STEVE. FIRST OF ALL, YOU KNOW, THE PUBLIC'S AVERSION TO ELITES IS NOT JUST EMPTY POPULISM. I MEAN, THERE'S SOMETHING HERE, RIGHT? BUSINESS, POLITICAL, CULTURAL, ACADEMIC ELITES WHO ULTIMATELY SHAPE OUR KIND OF PUBLIC DISCOURSE AND THE KIND OF IDEATIONAL FRAMEWORK IN WHICH WE TALK ABOUT POLICY AND POLITICS AND SO ON HAVE MADE SOME BIG MISTAKES IN THIS CENTURY. YOU KNOW, THE WAY WE HAVE ENGAGED... CHINA, IN HINDSIGHT, IS A BIG MISTAKE THAT WE'RE NOW TRYING TO CORRECT FOR. THE GLOBAL FINANCIAL CRISIS WAS A BIG MISTAKE IN WHICH ELITES WERE PRIMARILY RESPONSIBLE. FRANKLY, THE WAR IN IRAQ. YOU KNOW, DAVID WORKED IN THE CHRETIEN GOVERNMENT. IT'S ONE OF THE FEW GOVERNMENTS AROUND THE WORLD THAT WAS RIGHT ON THAT ISSUE. AND OF COURSE THE PANDEMIC FIASCO THAT WE'RE SEEING IN THE PAST SEVERAL MONTHS IS ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF ELITE FAILURE. I GUESS MY FIRST POINT IS, THE PUBLIC HAS SOME BASIS FOR THOSE FINDINGS. THE SECOND POINT I WOULD MAKE, IF I CAN JUST TRY TO CLARIFY SOME OF THE THINGS I SAID BEFORE ON THIS QUESTION OF POLITICAL RESPONSIVENESS AND REPRESENTATIVENESS. MY PRIMARY CONCERN, HAVING SPENT TIME THINKING ABOUT THE POLITICAL EXPERIENCE ACROSS THE WEST IN RECENT YEARS IS, HOW DO WE ENSURE THAT OUR POLITICAL SYSTEM IS MORE REPRESENTATIVE AND RESPONSIVE OF MINORITY VIEWS? AND I THINK ONE OF THE MISTAKES THAT WE'VE MADE IS WE'VE SOUGHT OUT AN EFFICIENT POLITICAL SYSTEM AT THE EXPENSE OF REPRESENTATIVENESS AND RESPONSIVENESS, AND I WORRY THAT THAT CREATES THE CONDITIONS FOR REAL POLITICAL DISRUPTION DOWN THE ROAD. YOU KNOW, SOMETHING LIKE 40 percent OF CANADIANS HAVE MISGIVINGS ABOUT CANADIAN IMMIGRATION POLICY, AND YET THEY CAN'T FIND A VOICE IN OUR MAINSTREAM POLITICS. THERE IS SYSTEM LIKE 25 percent OF THE POPULATION, PERHAPS HIGHER, DEPENDING ON THE QUESTION YOU ASK, WHO HAVE MISGIVINGS ABOUT THE CANADIAN LEGAL SYSTEM WITH RESPECT TO ABORTION. SIMILARLY, THAT SHARE OF THE POPULATION CAN'T FIND EXPRESSION OR VOICE IN OUR POLITICAL SYSTEM. AND I COULD GO DOWN ANY NUMBER OF OTHER ISSUES. SO IT SEEMS TO ME ONE OF THE THINGS WE NEED TO FUNDAMENTALLY GRAPPLE WITH IS WHAT STRUCTURAL OR INSTITUTIONAL CHANGES DO WE NEED TO MAKE, INCLUDING PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION, TO ENSURE THAT OUR SYSTEM IS MORE REPRESENTATIVE AND RESPONSIVE, RECOGNIZING THAT THAT WILL COME WITH TRADE-OFFS. BUT I THINK IN THE LONG RUN, THAT IS THE SAFER, MORE STABLE, AND ULTIMATELY MORE DEMOCRATIC WAY TO MOVE FORWARD.

Steve says BUT, DAVID MOSCROP, IF I CAN SORT OF COME A BIT FULL CIRCLE HERE, THOSE NUMBERS SUGGEST TO ME AT ANY RATE THAT THERE IS AN APPETITE FOR POLITICS, FOR DOING DEMOCRACY AMONG MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC IF IT CAN BE DONE CLEANER, IF IT CAN BE DONE MORE EFFECTIVELY, IF IT CAN GIVE PEOPLE A SENSE THEY HAVE SOME SKIN IN THE GAME. HOWEVER, IT SEEMS TO STOP, NOT AT THE RIVER'S EDGE, BUT IT SEEMS TO STOP AT ADJOINING POLITICAL PARTIES. WE GET BACK TO THIS NOTION OF WHETHER POLITICAL PARTIES ARE ABLE TO CHANGE OR REFORM THEMSELVES, OR DO THEY NEED TO SOMEHOW BE, YOU KNOW, SENT THE WAY OF THE DODO BIRD BECAUSE THEY'RE JUST NOT HELPING?

The caption changes to "David Moscrop, @david_moscrop."

David says YEAH, I THINK... WELL, I DON'T THINK WE CAN GET RID OF THEM. IT WOULD BE TOUGHER FOR THEM TO GET RID OF THEMSELVES. IT'S ALSO, AS WE'VE LEARNED, TOUGH TO GET THEM TO REFORM THEMSELVES. WE SAW MICHAEL CHONG TRY WITH THE REFORM ACT. WE SAW WHAT HAPPENED WITH THAT. THERE WERE SOME GOOD BITS THAT CAME WITH IT BUT THERE WASN'T A TRANSFORMATION OF THE PARTY SYSTEM AND STRUCTURE AND HOW THEY OPERATE. WE JUST WITNESSED THE NDP CONVENTION, THE LIBERAL CONVENTION, AND PRIOR TO THAT THE CONSERVATIVE CONVENTION. YOU SAW HOW GRASS ROOTS PARTY DEMOCRACY WORKS. YOU HAD ALL KINDS OF DIFFERENT THINGS DEBATED, RESOLUTIONS THAT HAD BEEN ADOPTED, SOME THAT WEREN'T EVEN DEBATED IN THE CASE OF THE NDP'S, LET'S BE CHARITABLE AND CALL IT A GONG SHOW. BUT WATCH AND SEE WHAT HAPPENS TO THOSE WHEN THEY GO THROUGH THE PARTY PROCESS, INTO PLATFORMS, AND PERHAPS BUT PROBABLY NOT INTO POLICY. FOR INSTANCE, THE LIBERALS HAVE BEEN VOTING FOR BASIC INCOME AT THEIR PARTY CONVENTION SINCE 1970. THEY'VE BEEN IN GOVERNMENT MORE OFTEN THAN NOT AND WE HAVEN'T SEEN ANYTHING AND THERE'S LOTS OF EXAMPLES OF THAT. INTERNAL PARTY DEMOCRACY IS A SLOW, GROANING MACHINE. I'M NOT SURPRISED PEOPLE SAY I DON'T SEE MYSELF IN THESE PARTIES. HERE IS WHERE REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY IS GOOD. I'M OKAY WITH SOME PARTICIPATORY DEMOCRACY. I AGREE WITH DAVID THAT REFERENDA ARE NOT A GOOD MECHANISM. THEY TEND TO BE DIVISIVE. THEY DON'T LEAD TO THOUGHTFUL ENGAGEMENT. THEY MAKE PEOPLE MORE CYNICAL. I THINK THAT'S WHAT WE NEED TO BE MOVING TOWARDS PERHAPS MORE THAN REFERENDUMS ALL THE TIME, WHICH WON'T DO THAT. I'LL CLOSE OFF ON THIS POINT: YOU KNOW, PARTIES WANT TO GOVERN. THEY WANT TO STAY IN GOVERNMENT. AND THEY'RE GOING TO DO EVERYTHING IT TAKES TO DO THAT. BUT ULTIMATELY WHAT PEOPLE WANT IS SOLUTIONS. AND WHEN YOU LOOK AT POLLING AROUND TECHNOCRACY, PEOPLE WANT THAT, THEY WANT GOVERNMENT BY EXPERTS IF EXPERTS CAN DELIVER THE SOLUTIONS. HOW DO WE BRIDGE A GOVERNMENT THAT'S SOLUTIONS BASED BUT ALSO PARTICIPATORY. THAT'S WHY I WANT TO COMPLEMENT IT WITH OTHER INSTITUTIONS. HERE'S THE THING I LIKE ABOUT REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY. I DON'T HAVE TO BE A CITIZEN ALL DAY EVERY DAY. I CAN WALK OUTSIDE. I CAN GO TO THE BAR. THE NICE THING ABOUT REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY WHEN YOU'RE NOT LIVING THROUGH PANINI, YOU GET TO GO AND ENJOY YOUR LIFE OUTSIDE, PROVIDED YOU HAVE THE BASIC RESOURCES TO DO SO. WE SHOULD DO THAT COMPLEMENTING THEM WITH REPRESENTATIVE INSTITUTIONS THAT BRING PEOPLE ON BOARD A LITTLE BIT TOO.

Steve says I WANT TO FOLLOW UP WITH THE EXPERT ON PUBLIC OPINION, WHICH IS YOU, MR. HERLE, ON THIS CHEEKY WILLIAM F. BUCKLEY QUESTION, YOU REMEMBER HE SAID I'D MUCH RATHER BE GOVERNED BY THE FIRST 100 NAMES IN THE PHONE BOOK THAN BY THE TOP 500 PROFESSORS AT HARVARD UNIVERSITY OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. WE HAVE HERE CANADIANS, BASICALLY TWO-THIRDS OF CANADIANS HAVE SAID THE SAME THING. THEY'D RATHER BE GOVERNED BY 100 REGULAR FOLKS THAN ALL THE EXPERTS IN THE WORLD. WHAT DO YOU INFER FROM THAT KIND OF RESULT?

David says FIRST OF ALL, I WANT TO GO BACK AND SAY SEAN CAME CLOSER THAN ANYBODY EVER HAS FOR GIVING ME CREDIT FOR MR. CHRETIEN'S DECISION ON IRAQ AND I THINK IT'S ABOUT TIME.

He laughs. Susan laughs.

The caption changes to "David Herle, @TheHerleBurly."

David continues I THINK THOSE 34 percent OF THE PEOPLE ARE 100 percent WRONG. AND I'M GOING TO GET MYSELF IN TROUBLE HERE BUT I MIGHT AS WELL SAY SOMETHING. THE OUTGROWTH OF THE CYNICISM AND ATTITUDES ABOUT POLITICS THAT YOU'VE BEEN LAYING OUT THROUGH THIS SURVEY ARE CREATING A PROBLEM, AND THE PROBLEM THAT IT IS CREATING IS THAT WE ARE NOT ATTRACTING GOOD ENOUGH PEOPLE INTO POLITICS ANYMORE. AND IF PEOPLE THINK THAT THE COUNTRY SHOULD BE GOVERNED BY THE FIRST 100 NAMES IN THE PHONE BOOK, THEY'RE COMPLETELY WRONG. IT'S A DIFFICULT, DIFFICULT JOB THAT REQUIRES A LOT OF JUDGMENT AND A LOT OF EXPERIENCE. AND I DON'T THINK WE'RE GETTING THE SAME CALIBRE OF PEOPLE WE USED TO. I WOULD ARGUE THAT IN THE MIDDLE OF THIS CANADIAN PANDEMIC, THAT WE HAVE HAD THE WEAKEST GROUP OF FIRST MINISTERS IN MY LIFETIME AROUND THE TABLE TO DEAL WITH IT. AND IT'S NOT AN ISOLATED OCCASION. IF YOU TRY TO RECRUIT CANDIDATES NOW, THE FIRST THING USED TO BE, WELL, HOW DOES IT AFFECT MY LIFE OR HOW DOES IT AFFECT MY FAMILY? NOW EVERYBODY NEEDS TO TALK ABOUT THEIR REPUTATION AND WHAT THEIR FAMILIES ARE GOING TO GO THROUGH IF THEY RUN IN A PUBLIC SENSE. AND SO I REALLY THINK, YOU KNOW, COMBINED WITH THE DISCREPANCY IN COMPENSATION BETWEEN THE PRIVATE SECTOR AND THE PUBLIC SECTOR AND THE REPUTATION OF THE PUBLIC SECTOR, I THINK THAT THAT IS AN EMERGING CRISIS IN OUR COUNTRY THAT WE'RE NOT GETTING GOOD ENOUGH PEOPLE.

The caption changes to "Produced by: Wodek Szemberg, @wodekszemberg."

Steve says WE MAY BE IN FACT A LONG WAY FROM THE DAYS OF BILL DAVIS AND ALAN BLAKENEY, ET CETERA, ET CETERA. SUSAN, I'M GLAD YOU SAID WHAT YOU SAID BECAUSE WE GOT A REALLY GOOD SHOW OUT OF IT TODAY. DAVID HERLE, SEAN SPEER, DAVID MOSCROP, SUSAN DELACOURT. THANK YOU FOR SPENDING SO MUCH TIME WITH US ON TVO TONIGHT. THANKS SO MUCH.

All the guests say THANK YOU.

Watch: Do Political Parties Have A Future