The Agenda with Steve Paikin (Audio) - What Will Future Generations Look Back On in Horror?

Episode Date: June 27, 2025

Smoking in elevators, movie theatres, or airplanes. Goaltenders playing hockey in the NHL without a mask. Burning tons of coal to generate electricity. Today, we look back at these practices and wonder, how did we ever allow that to happen? Because today, of course, we know better. But what about the future? What do we do today that future generations will shake their heads at? And how do we chart a different path to ensure we make better decisions going forward? See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In 2017, it felt like drugs were everywhere in the news. So I started a podcast called On Drugs. We covered a lot of ground over two seasons, but there are still so many more stories to tell. I'm Jeff Turner and I'm back with season three of On Drugs. And this time it's going to get personal. I don't know who Sober Jeff is. I don't even know if I like that guy.

On Drugs is available now wherever you get your podcasts. Smoking in elevators, movie theaters, or airplanes. Goaltenders playing hockey in the NHL without a mask. Burning tons of coal to generate electricity. Today we look back at these practices and we wonder, how did we ever allow that to happen? Because today, of course, we know better. But what about the future? What do we do today that future generations will shape their heads at? And how do we chart a different path to ensure we make better decisions going forward? To explore this, we are joined in Midtown in the Capital City by Ken

Dryden, Hockey Hall of Famer, author, and former federal cabinet minister. And with us here in studio, Sabrina Maddow, Director of Communications for Global Public Affairs. Akwasi Owusu-Pempa, Professor of Sociology at the University of Toronto and Chair of the Board at Massey College. And Madeline Ashby, a futurist and science fiction writer.

And it is a delight to welcome everybody here into our studio. And Ken Dryden, so great to have you there on the line from points beyond. I want to start. Look, we get ideas for programs all over the place. Sometimes our producers pitch them. Sometimes it's because I'm talking

to somebody on the subway. And sometimes it's because a month ago, Ken Dryden and I had a phone call. And he said, you know, I got an idea for one of your last shows. What are we going to look at 50 years from now that people are going to look back at and say, how the heck did they ever allow that to happen? So Ken, kudos to you for pitching this idea.

Everybody here loved it and now we're doing it. You heard me in the introduction talk about things like tobacco use and playing hockey in a very vulnerable way. There's all sorts of hard data that suggests that these things are stupid. And for some of them, we don't do them anymore. But for some of them, we still are doing them. And Ken, let me get you to start,

since this shows your idea. Why do you believe that authorities who are in a position to improve things don't take the decisions that logic would suggest they need to in order to eliminate problems that decades from now we're going to say they could have. Why didn't they? I think in part it goes to the word

that you used, which is foremost in their minds, is that logic would say. And that they assume that logic is enough. They assume that awareness is enough. And that if both of those things are present in our minds, then the rest will happen. And of course, the rest that is supposed to happen then is really hard to make happen.

With big questions, some of which you mentioned, and then others that we'll get to, I mean, they have been around for a very long time, not just because we have been unaware that they've been around for a long time. But because people disagree on some of it, people have big self-interests in things being the way they are. And they don't want to get into a fight over these kinds of big changes.

And so then years will pass. The assumption is then, well, more awareness will be the answer. More science will be the answer. And whether it's climate change or whether it was tobacco or any of these questions, the answer will come more easily without the kind of fight that would otherwise be required. And so let those answers happen without the kind of effort that is needed in order for them to really happen. Just out of curiosity, did you ever

play goal without a mask on? I did. I mean, I played without a mask until university hockey. And it was only at that time that it was required to wear a mask. And that's when I started wearing one. And I would have been, say, 18, 19 years old at that time. And when you look back, I mean, do you ask yourself, how in heaven's name did I ever think

that that was a smart thing to do? Well, I do. But then, of course, it's not unless you look back on it and realize that there were reasons that made sense to me at the time. And then, of course, it's not unless you look back on it and realize that there were reasons that made sense to me at the time. And that's why I didn't do it. I mean, in part because other goalies didn't

wear masks at the time. And it was understood that part of the demonstration of the braveness that is required to be a goalie was that you were willing to play without a mask. If you insisted on wearing a mask, then that precluded you from being a goalie because then you weren't courageous enough to play. And the other thing was that, again, the shots weren't quite as hard. Any kind of mask that you did wear, we thought, you know, the people see the masks that we wore at that time, they think it was nothing.

It was nothing except it was more than something, except it was more than nothing. And by being more than nothing, it seemed like a big something to us. And push, what you did is that goalies are not entirely stupid. You end up adapting as we do in other fields. So what, how did goalies adapt is that you adapted by playing what those who know and knew about goalies, what was called a stand up style. You played with your head as high above the bar as you could. And by putting your head above the bar, then you lessened your vulnerability

to a shot that was below the bar. And so I'm sure if we look at all the other fields that we're going to look at, there were really good, sound, solid reasons, it seemed, why we did as we did for all these stupid years that we didn't do anything. I remember your friend Gump Worsley was once asked, your fellow goalie at the Montreal Canadiens, Gump, do you have to be crazy to be a goalie? And he said, no, but it sure helps. Madeline, when you look at this topic and you think about the things that 25 or 50 years from now

we're going to look back at and say, how in heaven's name did they allow that? What's on your list? Oh, wow. It's a big list. But I think that we've landed on the uniting factor of them. So if I were to say the things that I think future generations will sort of either laugh at us for or react in horror for, obviously, they're going to look at things like global warming. They're going to look at things like global warming.

They're going to look at unchecked artificial intelligence. They're going to look at the loss of rights, the rollback of rights in many cases, unchecked authoritarianism, all kinds of stuff. The thing that unites all of those is something that we've already landed on, which is the willing suspension of disbelief

or the willing suspension of fact. Which is okay when you're going to a Hitchcock movie. Exactly. But not in real life. And I think the part of it is that we've diminished the role of intelligence. We've diminished the role in whether we mean secrets intelligence, or whether we mean intellectual intelligence, or whether we mean just hard facts and data.

These are problems that we have lots and lots of data about. And it's a choice to ignore them. And I think that's the choice. And I think that choice is backed up by a sort of, as a novelist, I would call it sort of a personal main character syndrome issue. Personal main character syndrome. Yeah, so the idea that all those stats apply to other people,

but I'm the hero of my own story. So that could never be me. And so I think that there are, you know, I think also leaders want to believe that about themselves. Akwasi, pick it up. I think absolutely. There's a measure of self-interest in all of us, right?

I think we're self-interested beings. And I think that in conjunction with the main character syndrome is a big part of the problem that we have here, especially with the world leaders. Like the suspension of facts, the lessening of importance of expertise, and like reality, and what is reality, of course. But these are things that concern me.

And when we have people who are so self-interested, certainly see themselves as the main character, not only in their own story, but global stories, and we have those people in power in multiple places around the world and reducing the rights of the individuals over whom they have power. I think we get into this problematic situation

that we're in now that looks like it's getting worse, that we will look back on in 50 years and say, how did we let these powers go unchecked? How did we let these individuals amass so much power and ignore these pressing issues, climate change, mental health, that are absolutely pressing we let these individuals amass so much power and ignore these pressing issues, climate change, mental health, that are absolutely pressing and are having a devastating impact as we feel now and as individuals feel in their daily lives around the world.

Given that you're younger than the rest of us here, I wonder, I'm just going to take a guess here, but I'm wondering whether the thing, if not at the top, near the top of your list is, how do we ever allow housing prices to go to one or two or three or four million dollars a house, thereby shutting out my entire generation from ever being homeowners? Is that on the top of your list? Absolutely.

I mean, the housing crisis is a generational catastrophe. And when we're talking about self-interest and comfort with the status quo, I think we can talk about that from a generational lens as well, is you have a lot of people and older Canadians who are benefiting from the status quo, and there seems to be a lack of leadership to really uphold what was the social contract

for generations that every new generation would at least have the opportunity to be better off than the last. And yes, there's not always equal equal outcomes but there's a certain level of opportunity and mobility and being able to advance up society based on merit and that's completely flipped on its head now right. The older generations are just reaping more and more gains while younger ones continue to... there are seemingly new ways they suffer every single year right. It started with

housing and now there's you know mass youth unemployment and their economic prospects going forward are just completely diminished and I do think that future generations will look back on that and say how how could people just abandon their youth their kids their grandchildren in this way without concern for the future and that's historically abnormal, right? So what went wrong with the collective psyche that this was allowed to happen? Ken, I do want to ask you about the thing that has preoccupied your life for so many years and has been one of your prime missions, namely to get the headshots out of hockey because we know

that you can't sustain multiple concussions in hockey and not have it ruin your life. My question for you is, given the effort you have put into this, do you think the sport is now at a point where it recognizes to an adequate level the damage concussions do? And are they being policed out of the game adequately in your view?

I think that it depends on the level, that in terms of the NHL level, no. In terms of everywhere outside of the NHL, and that includes the best players in Europe, so the highest leagues in Europe, and all of minor hockey, so kids and youth up to age 20 or so, everywhere in the world. Yes. And it all, again, it comes down to the decision maker and how do you make decision makers make decisions that they otherwise resist making?

And again, we give the decision maker almost a free pass in all of these things, almost instantly when things aren't changed, then the scientist thinks it's the scientist's fault because they haven't delivered the best science. The journalist thinks it's the journalist's fault. It isn't. It's the decision-makers fault. They have in their hands to make different decisions. They have all the information they need to make different decisions, and they are not making those different decisions. And so when not making those different decisions. And so when I look at some of the big changes that

have been made in the past, one of them that comes to mind is in terms of tobacco. And for decades, there was a pretty strong belief that tobacco caused big problems. But no big answers were delivered by levels of government or by the tobacco industry. And I think what really changed it at the end was the congressional hearings with the tobacco CEOs.

And what eventually happened with a public that had kind of accepted, sort of accepted for a long time that this is just kind of the way stuff is, and it's always been this way, and so I guess it'll always be this way, that at a certain point, the public started to say, no, actually, that's not right. There are lots and lots and lots of people who are dying because of tobacco. And I am not listening to you, CEO anymore, of what you say. I think that what you're saying is totally wrong. And in fact, and it is dishonest and you're a fool.

And, and, and in what you're saying is that you are pretending then as if I'm a fool. And I reject being a fool any longer than this. You are the one that is the fool and you have no right to do this to us. And every time I look at you and every time I hear a word that's coming out of your mouth, I'm going to see fool. And you, tobacco tobacco executive need to know that everybody who is a member of your same club Who you've you've you've respected each other for years and years and years the person who's your next-door neighbor Those people who are your peers? They look at you and think you're a fool And so at a certain point then and your kids are starting to look at you as if you're a fool. And so at a certain point then, and your kids are starting to look at you as if

you're a fool, then the stakes start to become really, really high. And so I think in all of these, these questions is that they, you need to personalize them. These are not just kind of random people who are the decision-makers who, you know, get off the hook on it. sorry you know you're making these decisions these decisions are killing people and they're killing your kids and my kids and my grandkids and I'm not going to accept it anymore well to take Ken's example then across see I wonder whether we have to get to a point I mean it clearly we did with

smoking where people stopped accepting the fact that millions of people were dying of lung cancer. We finally said it's enough of that already. Is somebody going to have to die on the ice in the middle of a hockey game for the, I mean, he said the NHL is still a problem, other leagues are doing better. Is that what we have to wait for in order to make some progress on this?

I really hope not. And I'll admit, I'm not one that I'd love to play, but don't watch a whole lot of hockey. So I can't tell you the volume of headshots at the moment, but perhaps. But if I can, and I'm going to, take this in a bit of a direction, because Ken's raised the issues of substances, tobacco being a big one that we've done a major flop on. And as Ken has said, the public went from accepting what they were told, which was yeah, you're fine to smoke, to rejecting what they were told and acknowledging that there were the risks.

And I see the opposite happening in a line of work that I'm heavily focused in that I've spoken on the show about a number of times before, and that's currently controlled drugs, recreational drugs that have therapeutic properties or uses as well. And we've seen a big shift, of course, with cannabis. And we can debate whether or not that was a success.

But a similar example, we were told for decades that this was something that would upend and ruin your life, and you would die and do all kinds of horrible things. And that's not been the case. Do we have problems with cannabis legalization in a recreational sense here? Yes, we do. But I think about a number of other substances that we have problems with cannabis legalization in a recreational sense here? Yes, we do. But I think about a number of other substances that we have.

Psychedelic drugs, for example, that again in the 1960s were really suppressed. And the promise that they hold, for example, for mental health. And then other currently controlled substances, you know, from cocaine to heroin to others. Our approach to those, I think, has been very wrong. And it's been one that has had a huge number of negative consequences for our society. We have had leaders, business leaders, and importantly, political leaders tell us now for decades that we should have a tough on crime, very enforcement

approach to dealing with these drugs. And it's one, from my perspective as a criminologist, that has been hugely harmful to society. It has not reduced levels of use. In fact, it's allowed for a tainted drug supply to make its way on the streets. And it also fuels organized crime, which then can go off into a whole host

of other types of organized criminal activity that, again, negatively affect our society. So one of the things I think we'll look back on in 50 years is, why did we allow our politicians and other decision makers to so misguide us with respect to these substances, their potential for benefit? The harms are most definitely there. And then how did we allow a criminal underworld

to dominate a market that could otherwise be heavily regulated by our government? So, Brina, let me move this to kind of the flip side of the equation, which is to say, I want to find out what you believe the role of personal responsibility is here. To this end, a lot of people who play professional sports, and let's focus on, I don't know if you're a football fan? Not super much.

Well, I can tell you that it is indisputable that to play professional football is to shorten your life. And the players who play the game know this, but they are kind of making the grand bargain that in exchange for emerging from the game with aches and pains like you and I can't imagine and concussions and a lifespan that will be shorter, they are making that bargain because they're going to become very wealthy in the short run

and experience adulation and all of the things, the teamwork and all of the joy that comes with sports. They've taken that personal responsibility upon themselves. Does that kind of absolve the leagues from making decisions that might actually improve their health? I don't think it does absolve them. I mean, ultimately, yes, there's an element of risk in everything, and then we have to decide what's the appropriate level of risk, but also how are we incentivizing people in

a way that they might feel pressured to make choices that they wouldn't otherwise or that they don't fully understand. For me with professional sports, if you have adults who are knowingly taking on risk, that's one thing. The real problem here is that you have youth playing these sports and choosing to go into these sports, and they're also exposed to risks that they don't understand

and potential long-term effects, right? And I think that plays back into, again, why are we not prioritizing protecting our youth? And that can be in sports, or we can look at things like social media. We know that social media founders don't allow their own kids on their own products a lot of the time,

right? And there have been studies after studies, we know all the data around mental health, eating disorders, bullying. I mean, you can go on and on. You know, the gamification of life, living on a screen leading to loneliness. You look at stats these days that say youth use fewer substances and perhaps they're not having as much sex,

but that's because they're not leaving their basement because they're behind the screen an entire time. So what does that do to a generation of people? And the fact that we can't separate an adult who uses social media, and there's also harmful effects there, but then youth under a certain age and the impacts on them. And that translates to sports. It translates to so many things that, again, why aren't decision makers, whether this is an industry or politics, moving to protect young people?

I mean, yes, it's ultimately up to the decision makers, as Ken points out, to police this and to make sure people are as reasonably safe as is possible. But where does, in your view, Madeline, where does personal responsibility enter this mix? I think you have a personal responsibility to be informed, to inform yourself,

and to consume information that is vetted and verified and well researched. But football players all know. They know the game they're playing is going to ruin their health. And they play it anyway. So where does that leave us? I think that the league still has a huge responsibility to them,

because the league actually makes more money than they do. It makes more money than they will ever make. To use Chris Rock's terminology, they are rich. The league is wealthy. To use Chris Rock's terminology, they are rich. The league is wealthy. And so they are entirely able, if they leverage all of their power, of which there is a great deal, if they leverage that power to either research this more, develop better gameplay standards, develop better technology, why haven't they opened their own brain

medicine health center? Maybe they have, I don't know, but they could be pioneering. I think like that's the other thing that really bothers me about this is that all of these problems that we've discussed are opportunities for leadership. They're opportunities for somebody to get in on the ground floor and say, this is my issue. I'm claiming it. And I want to lead on it from a position of authenticity and a position of fact and really drill down into it and become associated with solving that problem.

And I think that's where you can't claim to be in a position of leadership and then not lead. Well, OK, let me get Ken Dryden on this. Because Ken, I think you'll agree, there's nobody who plays hockey or football today that doesn't understand what a concussion like hit can do to your life and your future. So where do you believe personal responsibility

enters this discussion? I think it goes back a little bit to what Madeline said earlier on about the main character syndrome. It's that these things can happen, but they're not going to happen to me. They're going to happen to everybody else and not me and I have a hundred reasons why they're not going to happen to me. I play a position that is less vulnerable. I play it in a way

that is different than the way others play. It's still not going to happen to most people that by the time I'm really going to suffer some consequences. There will be better treatments There will be better better medications. There will be there will be answers in a way in which there are not answers now and And and and so it's I'm I I seem to be vulnerable, but really I'm not that vulnerable. And in fact, part of my existence, part of my identity, part of my pride is to deal with vulnerability. That's what I've done all my life. I find ways of dealing with vulnerability and consequence and making it not apply to me. And so, you know, those decisions are so easy to take. In part, it's why, you know, that the, as I was mentioning earlier, the most successful

areas in this field now are in terms of youth hockey, because at a certain point, even though parents have stars in their eyes, there are enough parents and more parents all the time that are saying, you know, I know this stuff a little bit better than you do, you know, my child. And this has to do with stuff that is going to change your life. This isn't a bad knee or a bad shoulder. This is something that will change your life, you as a person, and you do not mess around with stuff like that. I mean, one of the things that I found interesting about our discussion

is that I got into concussions and brain injuries and things like that for the reasons that we've talked about of why it shouldn't be. This is nuts that this happens. At the same time, as all of us from our own personal experiences have dealt with, it applies to every one of our fields. Whether it is drugs and addiction or housing, it's all about making decisions on things

and how do public decisions happen. The fields that we're working in now, fields we will work in I mean one of the Fields that I work in now is in terms of climate change all of this is precisely Associated with that same question is that we have this problem that is immense We are starting now to say how could we be so stupid? We know that our kids and our grandkids are going to look back at us 10, 20, 30 years from now and say how could we have been so stupid?

And so how do we end up finding ways, whether it's in climate change or brain injuries or whatever it is, same problem. How do we find different solutions and better solutions this time? Because it's not going to be fun for us to be 20 and 30 and 50 years older and having people point the finger at us

and say how much we were idiotic at that time. That is a very future looking question. And since we have a futurist here on the set, I should ask you what the answer is. I'm going to combine my hats. I'm going to wear both hats. Because I think that as a storyteller, I would tell you that how we tell the story of the future

and how we tell the story of the present really influences the decisions that we make. So it's one thing to say, for example, concussions can have an impact on your emotional health. Concussions can have an impact on your ability to perform tests. Concussions can have an ability on, can impact your mobility. What we tend not to tell kids, or we don't we tend not to tell teens, is there are sexual side effects to traumatic brain injury. Now it would be a

very different conversation. So if we put it that way, if we said, you know, hey, by the way, it might not happen for you. If this happens to you, that might get their attention. Yeah. And I think it is, you know, down to what we choose to emphasize and how we choose to emphasize what and whose story gets to be important. I think like, then I think you look at the stories being told on the other side of that, the power of the athlete narrative, right? The power of football especially in the United States, right? And when you talk about personal responsibility it's not the same for all players. You have your superstars that are incredibly powerful and incredibly wealthy but there are many many more players in the league, right? And by the time they get to that professional level, you know,

they've gone through youth football, they've gone through the NCAA where there are still huge power imbalances between athletes and the NCAA. I was an NCAA athlete. We could do an entire segment about that. What did you play? Soccer. I was a goalkeeper as well. What team? St. Bonaventure University in Western New York. Oh, okay. I was a Bonnie. Yeah, that's right. They're the Bonnies, right? Go Bonnies. But by the time you get to being a professional athlete, you might not be making as much overall as, you know, the superstar is. You've built your entire life up to this. You only have two years maybe of college where you didn't necessarily pay the most attention in classes because you didn't have to. Your university

supported that. And what else are you going to do if you just step away? Maybe you're supporting your family, your friends back home. It's not as easy as just saying, sorry, I'm done. Acquassia, I want to pick up on something Ken said earlier and harken back to a quote I remember Brian Mulroney once telling me, which was, if you want to be a success in politics, you have to have a great capacity for self-deception, or you'd never get out of bed in the morning. And I wonder if part of what Ken

refers to, you know, this isn't going to happen to me, yes terrible things happen in this game but not to me because... Is that self-deception preventing us from making progress on these issues because at the end of the day we just think it won't happen to me, it'll happen to someone else. There may be some self-deception. And I think those in power often get deceived by those around them, too. They are often surrounded by a small circle

of people who repeat back to them what it is that they think they want to hear. And so I don't think that it's just the individual who's involved in that deception, but those who have influence around them and those who hold power around them as well. And so I think it's a point well taken. When I think again about these big issues and I think about the people who have the power to change them, I ask myself why don't they make those moves?

And there are some, I can think of leaders south of the border for example, who I think frankly doesn't care. I think frankly does not care. It just feels that they themselves are rich and powerful enough that they and those that they care about will be protected from these big issues. And then I think about other world leaders who perhaps don't have the same power, perhaps the same mindset and what's getting in their way and is it their own political futures that they're concerned about? I can't remember the name of the film now, but I remember a television host transitioning

based on the encouragement of his viewership into politics. And he came out as a kamikaze politician. He said, I don't care about winning the next election. I care about doing the right thing. And made comments. I guess I smoked cannabis. I put it to my mouth, and I inhaled, kind of ripping on the Bill Clinton, not inhaling. But all of that to be yes, I smoked cannabis. I put it in my mouth and I inhaled, kind of ripping on the Bill Clinton, not inhaling.

But all of that to be said, I don't think we have enough people involved in leadership who care about the mission, the goal, the betterment of society. And not that they're not there, but they get misguided and other interests and self-interest, that main character syndrome, comes back into play. And it's a matter of self-preservation

and reputational preservation, which 50 years from now might not look the same way as it does five years from now. Right. With a few minutes to go here, Ken, give us some help. The road ahead. How do we get the decision makers to make the right calls so that 50 years from now, people won't look back and say, how do they allow that?

Well, I think a little bit of it really is not to be nice about it anymore. I mean, people who make decisions, whose decisions really hurt people, I don't know. You may look like a nice guy, but I don't think you're a nice guy. And so I think that's part of it. And to be just really, really tough about it, part of it, as I was saying earlier, is make it personal.

Is that you, CEO, you, senior decision maker in government, you've got kids. You've got grandkids. I know that you think about your kids and about your grandkids. I know for sure that you do. And I know that you're going to think about them more and more in the future. And, and I know that what you want more than anything now, and, and you're going to want even more than that in the future is you're going to want to know that they are going to be okay. That's what you want.

You can help in little ways into the future for them to be okay, but really for them in the big ways, for them to be able to live a full life, then they're going to have to be really okay. So you keep that in mind when you are making those decisions and also know that your kids and grandkids increasingly are going to have that in their minds. And they're going to be saying at some point, you know, dad or mom or grandpa or grandma, how come you did this and how come you didn't that you did that? How come you did this?

And how come you didn't that? You did that. And as awkward as it is hearing that from a constituent, hearing that from your own kid or grandkid, that is a million times tougher. Madeline, more naming and shaming? Yeah, definitely more naming and shaming. These people have names.

They have roles. They have positions that they hold. I think that, so I agree there, I think, and I also think that the more that you do that, the more that you sort of call things out, it then makes, it then emphasizes when you call people in or reward good behavior. If you see someone in leadership or you see something like a development that you actually really appreciate, publicly name those people, too. And because people do respond to positive enforcement.

And so it's also important to be appreciative when things go right. You've watched politics for a while. More naming and shaming, more positive reinforcement? I think a bit of both. I do think the positive reinforcement is important too. Even as a columnist, you know you're always going to hear from the people that hate the column, much more than the people that like it.

But it works both ways. And I think when we talk about self-deception and personalization it's also important for leaders to try to get out of their silos. Whether it's politicians who are just so trapped by the party system and party discipline these days or its leaders or people who are living online where you end up in these algorithms where you only hear from like-minded individuals or you're not out in third spaces meeting people who you wouldn't cross paths with in your everyday workplace or life. That's so important to really

understanding the reality of these issues and hopefully then being motivated to make the change we need. I have time left enough to do two things. Number one, to thank everybody for a great discussion here tonight on TVO and particularly if I may say to Ken Dryden for giving us this idea in the first place. Ken, I hope this discussion met the standards that I know you hold very high because you're a regular viewer of this program and when we don't meet the standards, you let me know and I'm grateful for that. So there we go.

That's number one. Hopefully you get positive reinforcement from Ken too. Go ahead, Ken. Just on top of that, you're moving on into your next life and in what you're doing. And I know you well enough to know that as you move on into it, you're going to be asking yourself questions like this. And if not just all the questions you've been asking for 20 years to people on about things that are going wrong Is that you're gonna want to ask of them? Okay now that's but but you know, how do we get to a different place?

You know that that what I want to hear from you is not just about what is wrong now I want to know about this different place that we need to get to, you know, 10 years from now and 20 years from now. And I think it'll be fascinating for you and for your viewers to move along in that experience with you. And it'll be really fun to hear and see where that goes. From your lips to God's ears. Thank you very much.

And the last thing I want to say is, there are two very small individuals in the green room right now, who I bet have something to do with you. They sure do. Who are they? That's my son, Keanu, my daughter, Roya. And you brought them along today.

Brought them along today. So they could watch Dad on TV. I was supposed to be hanging out with them today because their school's finished. Uh-huh. Yeah. But I figured this was quite the experience for them. I'm sure none of this will be remembered by them at all.

But the fact that you are here, and somewhere down the road, they'll be able to watch this program and say, hey, Dad, that was pretty cool. Beautiful. Thank you. We're glad that you brought them. Thanks so much, everybody. Appreciate having all of you on TVO tonight.

Thank you. Many thanks. Thank you.