The Bridge with Peter Mansbridge - Your Changes To Canada's Political System

Episode Date: January 4, 2024

The question to you was "Name the one change you would make to Canada's political system". And you had answers, lots of them and today we scan the mail and award one of the suggestions with a special prize. It's a new format for the Thursday edition of the Bridge. But the Random Ranter remains in place!

And hello there, Peter Mansbridge here. You are just moments away from the latest episode of The Bridge. If you had one choice to change Canada's political system, what would that choice be? That's your turn. Coming right up. And hello there, Peter Mansbridge here in Stratford, Ontario. It's Thursday of the first week of January of 2024. And for Thursdays, it's your turn in the Random Rant here, and we've shuffled things up a little bit. We're going to try something out this year. Change is good, right? Change is good.

And what we're doing here is kind of asking a question each week. I'll try to put it out on Mondays, what the question will be, and then give you an opportunity to answer it in as brief a way as you can, hopefully in less than a paragraph. And the time limit will always be have it in by Wednesday evening, six o'clock Eastern. Well, we tried this out this week, and the question was pretty straightforward. If you had one choice of how to change Canada's

political system, what would that choice be? I was amazed at how quickly and how immediately, once we put that question out, people started submitting their answers. There was a bit of an incentive. You get a prize, the winner, and the winner is judged by me. And let's keep in mind, the winner doesn't mean I agree with the suggestion. The winner means that I found there's the most intriguing idea, the most interesting idea, perhaps even the funniest idea. But it was an idea worth celebrating,

and the celebration this time is going to be a signed book, one of my books. And today's book is likely to be How Canada Works, the one written along with Mark Bulgich. So, let's give this a whirl. As I said, there have been an amazing number of entries to this. And they've really been thoughtful and really interesting. Not surprisingly, as I suggested on day one, electoral reform would come up a lot. And it has. And that will be reflected in some of the answers we give.

But there are also some other ones that I've got to say I've either never heard before or never thought of that much before. So they're all in here. And they make interesting reading and interesting listening, I hope, as well. So let's get at it. What would you change about Canada's political system? As I said, there have been dozens and dozens of entries. I've narrowed it down to these.

And, you know, I'm sorry for those who chose not to follow the rules and wrote really long. They either just didn't make it into the cut or I've just isolated one small part of it. But I would prefer going forward to try to maintain the rules, which is name, location, a lot of you forgot location, and keep it concise. So here we go.

No particular order, but bunched together in certain segments. Here we go. Electoral reform got the most votes, by far, actually, and some were repetitive, of course, but we had different angles as well. Jeff in Thunder Bay, Jeff who conveniently forgot to include his last name. But Jeff writes, I feel like the most important concern for the future for the country and Canada's political system is electoral reform. Canadians should be able to vote with their heart and feel confident that their vote

will actually count to prop up a candidate or party that they believe can move the country forward. You often hear people say they are caught in a position where they feel they have to vote strategically to keep a candidate or a party out of power. Instead of voting for who you truly want in power, it's disheartening as a way to vote. Zach Henry from Ottawa. I think a ranked

ballot would be a huge way of changing our elections and give people more satisfaction in their choice in candidates. The parties use it to pick their leaders. When that happens, everyone seems to agree that it moderates candidates and cools down extremism. But when it comes to the general electorate, what's good for the goose is simply too much for the gander. Ranked ballot is, you know, I won't go into detail here, but it's pretty straightforward. You rank in preference the candidates who are on the ballot to you. And if there is not a majority on that first vote, that the bottom candidate drops off and then you do the counting again. So that's the way a rank ballot works,

as opposed to now where it's rare that anybody gets a majority. The object here is to find somebody who gets a majority. Mary Solos. Forgot her location. Make every riding a two-member riding with one seat reserved for a female and one seat reserved for a male. The cost would be trivial in terms of the overall cost of government, and both representation and deliberation would be significantly improved. Man, that's a lot of MPs in the House, though.

Mark Wynn from Kelowna, British Columbia. the house though mark when from colonna british columbia my wish would be to be able to vote for my local federal candidate but also vote directly for the prime minister regardless of his or her political color kind of a hybrid between the u.s system and ours got a number of people suggesting similar changes like that. Interesting. Here's a section on cameras in the House, pro and con. Tom Wilson in Edmonton, I would remove all cameras from the House of Commons. The cameras have resulted in a devolution of question period

from an excuse to opposition parties holding the government to account or suggesting ways for improvement into an opportunity to create meme videos for a base. It's a way to never stop campaigning. Get rid of the cameras. Answered is enough. But Ron Fisher in Moncton says we need more cameras. I would add a camera facing each seat in Parliament and the Senate and live stream them all to a parliamentary website so any citizen can see what their MP is doing at all times. If they're not there, then their public calendar can be there. I think if we could watch what our MP is doing at all times,

we might wonder exactly what they're accomplishing or how they are behaving. Ian Ricketts-Moncour in Ancaster, Ontario, has an idea about who can use House of Commons pictures. I suggest limiting access to House of Commons broadcasts or recordings exclusively to the House of Commons itself and use organizations accredited by the Canadian Parliamentary Press Gallery. Any alternative usage would necessitate written approval by the Speaker.

This measure would prohibit MPs and their staff from extracting House of Commons segments for dissemination on social media or in advertisements, preventing the potential distortion of context and misleading impressions of the actual proceedings. Consequently, the distribution of misinformation derived from, or disinformation, both, derived from parliamentary activities would be curtailed, discouraging the pursuit of sensationalized moments.

Additionally, it would stop the use of taxpayer-funded House of Commons content in partisan political fundraising. Implementing these measures would have the added benefit of helping to reinstate accredited media as the foremost credible source for political reporting in Canada. That's interesting, Ian. How the House of Commons works. A little segment on this. Doug Haw in Priceville, Ontario. The one thing I see to change is voting in the House of Commons. I'd like it to be changed to secret voting for all members on all matters. I think you would get a better view of all members and who they represent and calm the conversation.

Doug Hubble writes, I would make it mandatory to answer any question asked in the House of Commons. If the Speaker, sorry, if an MP answers with a statement that has nothing to do with the question asked, the Speaker should have the ability to force an answer or apply some sort of penalty to the party that did not answer the question.

Limited time or forfeit the next question. Suzanne Holmes in Toronto. During question period, members of Parliament should have some of their statements fact-checked in real time by artificial intelligence. MPs should be held to a higher standard. There should be more emphasis on accountability from them, particularly when they are incorrectly quoting published, verifiable facts and figures. I'm just so tired of not believing anything coming out of politicians' mouths, particularly the tear-it-all-down populace

whose only goals are to create outrage and confusion. Jason Cook of St. Albert, Alberta. Using the same standards as apply in a court of law, make any factual untruth spoken by an elected politician subject to an immediate recall vote. By this I mean you're elected. You're caught lying. It goes back to the people of your riding to decide whether you stay.

This would correct the current approach used by some where constant lying is a form of campaigning and might wake the electorate up to what is fact and what is clearly manipulation of the uninformed. Term limits. We've got quite a few on this. Randy Kudar from London, Ontario. I think we need to have term limits for MPs. If you have not been able to implement your key ideas in two parliamentary terms, you are not going to implement it. Let's set up a system whereby an individual has six years or two parliaments to work at accomplishing his or her ideas. Then they should be sent back to the non-government system and work. We need to attract people to Parliament who are more than policy wonks with a law degree, but have never had to meet a payroll or ensure that an action or idea had to be executed and

achieved. And term limits for Prime Ministers as well. Robert Piccolo in Toronto. There's only one thing I would change about the Canadian political system, and it is the only thing I would take from the U.S., and that is two-term limits. Over the past 30 years, Canada has had three three-termed prime ministers, Chrétien, Harper, and now Justin Trudeau. One could argue that by the end of their respective terms, most Canadians were either fed up with the Prime Minister, their messages, or with the government as a whole, which in some cases resulted in ineffective

leadership on both domestic and international issues. My sense is that restricting the number of terms to two would keep the ideas and the messages fresh and prevent governments from getting long in the tooth. Seating in the House. Derek Dillable. Derek, just because you've written before doesn't mean you get a pass on having to say where you're writing from. So Derek forgot to include that. The change I would like to see to have our Parliament MPs sitting in the House

mirroring how they represent their writings geographically across the country. In other words, not by party affiliation, liberal, conservative, NDP, etc. but in respect to the geographical manner in which they represent the country. I believe it would make for a less partisan, less tribal, more respectable government. It may even lead to more cross-party working groups, where MPs can feel like they are providing more value to their local ridings as well as their party. Getting to know the person on your left and right better could lead to some real progress. Michael Berrio in Bragg Creek, Alberta. An additional small 10% number of seats in the House of Commons could be allocated to parties on the basis of the popular vote.

These seats would only be assigned to parties with sitting members. This might reinforce with Canadians that every vote does count. Allow parties to add to their caucus from areas and groups underrepresented and erode the cultivation of base pandering. Now, Chad Mader in Lakehurst, Ontario, has an opposite view to that. Instead of increasing the number of seats in the House, as I believe will take effect before the next election, he's right. Yeah, you're right on that, Chad. If the election is after April 21st of this year,

there will be 343 seats contested, an increase of five from the present 338. Anyway, back to Chad's letter. I think we should cut the seats in half, merge two ridings into one across the country. We could then take the salaries, expenses, pensions that would be saved only having half as many MPs and invest in more local riding infrastructure. That could be more staff, longer hours, more offices. The idea is that MPs are supposed to represent their constituents first and foremost. But things have become so extremely partisan that I think this is getting lost. Bill Flowers from Amherst, Nova Scotia What I would change relates to the Constitution.

I would set aside seats in Canada's House of Commons for Indigenous peoples, that is the Inuit, First Nations and the Métis. Corleen McKinnon in Qualicum Beach, British Columbia When I think about the ancient roots of democracy, Corleen McKinnon in Qualicum Beach, British Columbia. When I think about the ancient roots of democracy, I think of the citizenry expected to step up and take their turn working for the state. I think Canadian politics would benefit from equal gender representation that more often rotated among conservation officers

and nurses and teachers and engineers rather than the usual lawyers, economists and career politicians. Everyone would have their areas of expertise and would make a variety of contributions. Who can run? David Clark writes this from Hamilton. I propose implementing a maximum age of 75 years old for holding elected office. We already have a minimum age for voting and holding elected office, that's 18, and both minimum 30 and maximum 75 ages for the Senate.

I believe this is an implicit recognition that there is an ideal age range during which an individual's holding leadership positions and exercising judgment are most likely to lead to good results. Importantly, this is not about disenfranchising anyone. The right to vote past age 18 would remain. However, there are myriad historical examples, including very relevant current ones, of politicians losing aptitude as they age, and our politics would be better served by requiring such individuals

to cede the floor of statecraft to the next generation. Luc Roy in Ottawa. My idea would involve implementing a political literacy test facilitated by Elections Canada to encourage informed voting. In this framework, Elections Canada would present a set of questions to each political party on the ballot covering significant issues. Parties would respond with multiple choice answers, and voters would be required to correctly answer these questions to participate in the election. I realize the potential challenges and pitfalls to this,

including the need to address concerns about fairness, potential biases, and avoiding disenfranchisement of minority groups. But the concept aims to foster an electorate that is well-informed and actively engaged in the democratic process.

Jeffrey Cahan in Los Angeles. Jeffrey's formerly of Montreal. I would like any and all seeking office to pass a basic knowledge quiz and pass an ethics and philosophy course of some sort and for the grades of both to be openly available to the public. And if the aforesaid is too onerous for some, then that is likely a solid indicator of their level of commitment

to the people whom they seek to represent. Maggie Bear in Ottawa. Way back in 2009, the Harper government cancelled the per-vote public subsidy to parties in a bid to increase individual small donations. All these years later, we can see that the Conservatives have succeeded at persuading individual donors beyond their wildest dreams, exploiting the worst excesses of social media, deliberately staging question period clips, and manipulating the simplest of emotional appeals have all combined

to dumb down our political discourse to new lows. How do we repair this damage? Can we design a system of funding that is more fair, more public? It's like public broadcasting. Do we care enough to ensure a playing field that is not easily manipulated and serves the public as opposed to promoting simply the loudest or most commercial? What's our democracy worth? Money in the House of Commons. I would like to see parliamentary resources allocated to MPs instead of to parties. At present, an MP in a party with at least 12 seats gets access to more resources than does an independent MP or an MP in a party with fewer seats. think that there is too much centralization of power in the prime minister's office and that mps are almost reduced to the status of markers that determine who gets control of the pmo

an mp who let's make sure i've got this in the right order yes sir um an mp who leaves or is ejected from a party loses resources that help both with service to constituents and with contribution to Parliament. This gives a party greater control over MPs. Attaching resources to MPs would force the party, as well as the MP, to consider the costs of disagreement. That might force the PMO to give greater consideration to various points of view within the group of MPs that the PMO needs for support. An elected Senate. Percy Phillips in Portage-le-Prairie, Manitoba.

The single item that would change Canada's political picture is an elected Senate that represents the regions of Canada and an elected regional Senate. An elected Senate of seven elected Senators per province, with one of them being reserved for an Indigenous Senator from the province, would change the entire political process in Canada and address the structural imbalance that continues to be divisive in Canada. One example, the resource industry, oil and gas in Canada affects BC, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Newfoundland, and Nova Scotia, but is a regional issue and priority despite being our single

largest export dollar-wise. However, the automotive industry is almost entirely contained in Ontario and is thought of as being of national interest with a direct pipeline to the Federal Treasury make in Canada and the way politics works in 2024, and I believe it would improve the dismal current state of national unity as well. I told you this was interesting, right? This is like some really interesting ideas, some great ideas, some, you know, not as great, but pretty good ideas. This has just been a fabulous exercise, and I really appreciate so many of you taking part in it. How we vote.

Martha Orloki. She's in southwestern Ontario. I can tell that by her telephone area code. Or at least she has a phone with that area code. It's like, I'm in Stratford, but my area code is a Toronto one. Because it's a cell phone, I don't have a landline. Finally got into the 21st century here. Anyway, Martha writes, let's all vote at the same time nationwide.

From BC, 7 a.m. to 7 p.m.. From BC, 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. Maritimes, 10 a.m. to 10 p.m. That way everyone would feel their vote counts. This has always been an argument in Canada, right? Gordon Dodd has an even, well, it's kind of a more radical idea along those lines. Gordon writes from Parksville, British Columbia. There's still a feeling out west that much of the song and dance is done by the time that western provinces and territories have input.

I propose the following simple yet potentially impactful change to our election design. Now, this is radical. Every second election should be spread over two days. On the first day, the territories and the provinces from Manitoba West get to vote and have their ballots counted first. The information is shared and we pause for the night. On the second day, the election is picked up from Newfoundland

and moves through to Ontario. The tally is completed and the outcome determined. What do you think of that one? Eric McVeigh from Edmonton. I propose lowering the voting age to 16 and integrating it into high school education. This involves setting up voting stations at each high school and implementing a curriculum to equip students

with the tools for informed decision-making. This approach demystifies the process, reduces uncertainties, and ensures that young individuals enter adulthood with the confidence to actively participate in our democracy. Ultimately, it can contribute to a higher voting turnout in future elections, emphasizing the trust placed in young citizens to engage responsibly in the democratic process. Mark Seaton in Lakeside, Ontario.

I would legislate mandatory voting. We all have to vote at all levels, federal, provincial, and municipal. If you don't vote, you are financially penalized on your income tax. Voter apathy, low voter turnout at all levels seriously erodes our democratic system by allowing governance that represents an alarmingly low percentage of eligible voters.

Now we're stuck in the 60s now, the low 60% on federal elections, not as good on many provincial. Jamie Capelli in Toronto. I work in the software industry and have never understood why in 2024, we can't vote online or on a smartphone. If we can break, if we can bank online with confidence and security, why can we have the security and facility to vote? Why can't we? Elected officials are now able to vote remotely. So, you know, why can't we? Elected officials are now able to vote remotely, so, you know,

why can't we? Making voting easy. Let's vote online. Persistence would improve dramatically. And more importantly, let's meet the youth vote where they are, on their phones. Hino Dosing from Hamilton, Ontario. Extend voting to permanent residents.

Many of our OECD peers allow non-citizens to vote. Some only extend this right for municipal elections. Some require non-citizens to live in the country for several years before they obtain the right. Extending the right, however, allows non-citizens to live in the country for several years before they obtain the right. Extending the right, however, allows non-citizens to feel included in our society and increases their incentive to get involved in our democratic process. This would be a great benefit to our country, where many of us are immigrants, myself included.

All right. This is the longest one that we've accepted. Comes from W.J. Giffen. Doesn't tell us where he's from. But it's pretty provocative. If you don't have, if you don't or haven't paid income tax, you don't get to vote in a federal or provincial election. I know this will get a rise out of some people, but let me explain.

Let's get rid of any personal deductions involved in income tax. Let's create a flat tax whereby everyone working has skin in the game and is required to pay income tax. A percentage can be set but equal to all, no matter if you're in $100 or $100 million. If you're involved in a family unit whereby one parent is at home looking after children or an ailing parent and the other is working and paying income tax, they both get to vote.

If a person's retired, paid into the income tax structure for X number of years, and is collecting CPP to which they paid into, they get to vote. If a person is collecting unemployment insurance to which they paid into, they're allowed to vote if they're eligible to collect unemployment insurance. The moment a person receives taxpayer funding as an example, welfare, and there are many others, they are not eligible to vote until such a time they're contributing to the system again or not receiving taxpayer dollars. Interesting.

Matthew Delaney is in Wakefield, Quebec. In an election, leaders should only talk about themselves and the policies they wish to put forward to Canadians. No slamming each other. Just tell us what your policies are and how they'll benefit the electorate. No pointing fingers and accusing each other of lying. Just tell us what your vision is for the country, your economic policies, and how you'll make Canada better.

Educating voters. Terry, there were a number of these ideas on this one, but Terry Wasylenka, who didn't tell us where he was writing from, our system did seem to work for several decades. The difference may be that many Canadians no longer understand how our system actually works. What are the federal government's responsibilities? What are provincial responsibilities?

What do municipal governments do? What is and isn't in the Charter? Educating the next generation of voters might more effectively soften the impact of disinformation campaigns and empower voters to see through the thickening fog of political spin than proportional representation.

We might even prevent protesters asking the Governor General to arrest the Prime Minister. Yes, we do remember that. Marnie Ross writes from one of the many, many beautiful places in Canada, but certainly one of my favorites, Souk, British Columbia. Marnie writes, There is so much knowledge that is extracted from the workforce

when a person retires. If the government implemented a program whereby an upcoming retiree could formally pass on their knowledge prior to receiving their pension, I believe Canada's up-and-coming workforce could be better prepared and able to deliver a better product. Presently, it feels that there is quite the disconnect when passing the baton. I see examples of ineptness in my day-to-day dealings and know that if the young person in front of me on the phone or behind the

screen had had the opportunity to learn from their predecessor, society would benefit greatly, run a whole lot smoother, and not suffer from the brain drain that currently exists. Now, here's no surprise. There were questions or suggestions about the use of the notwithstanding clause. Barbara Kaganen in Ottawa. The institutional change I would most like to see is the deletion, ideally but unlikely, or the significant restriction of the notwithstanding clause in the Charter.

In recent years, we have seen repeated use by provincial governments of the notwithstanding clause in the Charter. In recent years, we have seen repeated use by provincial governments of the notwithstanding clause, opting out of the Charter's fundamental protections. We have the Charter specifically to protect minority and other groups against the majority elected governments. It was never anticipated that the clause would be used in this way. We're essentially allowing the undermining of the Charter altogether. And we are doing this at a time when minorities are increasingly vulnerable to attacks and discrimination. We see politicians using and sowing these divisions. We can't be complacent. We need the protections of the Charter more than ever.

I know that no one is going to open up the Constitution, but I would want the federal government to go to court and vigorously defend the Charter against this disturbing trend, which so far it has failed to do. Perhaps it could launch a reference to the Supreme Court on the scope of the cause. Ditch the monarchy. Lawrence Rainey from Muskoka, Ontario. There were a number of comments around the monarchy and the future of it, whether to ditch it or not, and the role of the Governor General.

All of this came in for a fair degree of discussion, I must say. Here's what Lawrence Rainey from Muskoka, Ontario, writes. Canada finally needs to ditch the monarchy. I loved our Queen, who ruled as our constitutional monarch my entire life. And I was born in early 1952, as was her reign. Her very young portrait was at the front of my grade one classroom in southern Ontario, along with a huge Union Jack, back then in the late 50s. But Canada has changed dramatically in the intervening years,

as we both well know. I know our current constitution places a huge barrier to ditching the monarchy, with a significant majority of provinces needing to sign on. So it may not happen for many decades. But now is the time. An elected or appointed governor general, or whatever title you want to use,

can still fill the role of head of state, such as with the president of Ireland, performing all those ceremonial duties. The monarchy has become like an appendix in our body that we can do without now an evolutionary relic of a much easier time in our history okay I've got one more here

then we're going to take a break and listen to the ranter's rant his opening rant of the year one more here. Then we're going to take a break and listen to the ranter's rant. His opening rant of the year. And then I guess we'll come back and at some point we've got to I've got to pick a winner out of all these ones you've heard. And

I have a number of thoughts and as I've read them over here and I have a number of thoughts, and as I've read them over here, many of them here, it makes me, I've changed my mind a couple of times on some things. Anyway, here's the last one. Howard Kirk from North York, Ontario.

You know, I don't know, is Howard being cynical here, or is he being funny, or is he being bang on? Let's see what he says. Howard Kirk in North York, Ontario. I submit that we, as a country, are over-governed, with three levels of government to service a mere 40 million citizens. We need to get rid of one level. Under your rules, I can't elaborate further in this space.

So you pick one. And while you're at it, throw in the Senate. All right, Howard. So you pick one. And while you're at it, throw in the Senate. All right, Howard. You know what? Let's take our break, and then we'll come back and do the ranter. Once again, this is just a snapshot of some of the letters. I've tried to keep a sense of the country and the differences that exist throughout the country

in terms of feelings. Many of you wrote about similar things, and I haven't included all of those, simply as a time element. But I really appreciate all the trouble you've gone to in writing down your thoughts. And I hope we've found a new connection to help between the bridge and you, our listeners, by focusing one question a week and allowing you to kind of think about it and write in about it.

So there we go. Your letters for the first week. We'll pick a winner coming up later. First, we're going to take a break. Then we're going to hear from the random ranter. So let's get at her, Peter.

We'll be right back after this. And welcome back. You're listening to The Bridge, the Thursday edition. I'm Peter Mansbridge in Stratford, Ontario. You're listening on SiriusXM, Channel 167, Canada Talks, or on your favorite podcast platform. Whatever venue you're using, we're glad to have you with us. Okay, The Random Ranter is a regular on the Thursday program, and if you're new to the program or you've forgotten, The Random Ranter lives in Western Canada. We've pretty well isolated it down to the prairies.

All right? He is not involved in politics. He doesn't work for a political party. But he's an interested observer of the scene, both politics and non-politics. And every week he fires off a little missive to the bridge about what he's been thinking about. And this week he's once again thinking about, he's thinking about how we are expecting to generate power for our various needs at a time where we're also trying to generate fewer emissions.

All right? So given that background, let's welcome aboard our friend the random renter the government has announced a new zero emission mandate for all vehicles sold in 2035 and people are getting bent right out of shape about it. I can understand that, because if you fast forwarded 10 years from now with our current technology and level of infrastructure, well, there's just no way it could happen. So that's one of the reasons I'm calling BS on the mandate. At its very best, it's a letter of intent,

a bit of eco-signaling that amounts mostly to theater. Because the reality of the situation is that like it or not, a zero emission 2035 for Canada isn't a decision that's going to be made by Canadians. It's going to be made by the manufacturers and is going to be dictated by what happens in the American market. The entire Canadian market is smaller than California. And when it comes to the types of vehicles sold here, we get what the Americans get after they've had the first choice. So let's not pretend that some mandate is going to change that. But what it could do is serve as a wake-up call to the provinces to get off their butts and start building out the infrastructure required for the inevitable zero emission future. Look, no matter how you cut it, the only replacement

for fossil fuels is electricity. Period. End of story. And even though we appear to be at a bit of a crossroads where the EVs of today aren't quite apples to apples with their internal combustion counterparts, that's about to change. The auto sector is evolving at a breakneck speed in terms of new technology that will address all the objections. I mean, right now, on the immediate horizon, there are long-range solid-state batteries. Cummins is developing an internal combustion hydrogen engine. Toyota, BMW, and Hyundai are all working with hydrogen. Honda is developing a hydrogen hybrid. And a Chinese subsidiary of Volkswagen is launching the first production sodium ion powered car

that promises to be a game changer in terms of cold weather performance, safety, and most importantly, price. All those developments have one thing in common. They're going to require massive amounts of electricity because even clean hydrogen is produced with electricity. So here's the thing. You can argue the timeline, I mean it may or may not be 2035, but a zero emission future is surely coming at some point, and right now I'm not seeing a lot of new plans to expand green energy production, or dare I say, even nuclear, we need to be expanding our production and overhauling our grid to prepare for the future. And we need to be doing it now. The opening rant from the random ranter for 2024. And if you have thoughts on that, you know, let me know.

Always good to have the ranter with us. All right. We've come to that moment. We've come to that moment where we pick a winner and get the book ready. So here we go. I'm going to read. Once again, I could have awarded any of the entrants to this little contest because they're all good. They're all thoughtful. That's what I love about this program. When you engage with me or with the program in general

or directed at Bruce or Chantal or Janice, you always are thoughtful about what you say. And I really appreciate it. We don't have to agree. We all know that. But we like to have the conversation. So here's a letter I, I don't know, out of all the ones I liked, and I liked them all.

And this is the one that this week is going to get the nod. I'll read the letter first and tell you, remind you who wrote it. When I think about the ancient roots of democracy, I think of the citizenry expected to step up and take their turn working for the state. I think Canadian politics would benefit from equal gender representation that more often rotated among conservation officers, nurses, teachers, engineers, rather than the usual lawyers, economists, and career politicians. Everyone would have their area of expertise and would make a variety of contributions.

That comes from Corleen McKinnon in Qualicum Beach, British Columbia. And Corleen, you're going to have to write to me again to give me your full address, postal address, so I can send a book along. Now, you've got choices. I've written four books now, a couple of them with my good friend Mark Bulgich, the latest one, How Canada Works.

There was also Off the Record, Extraordinary Canadians, and One on One. So whichever of those books you would like a copy of, I will get it off to you once I've got your address. And yes, I'll sign it for you as well. So there you go. That's our program for this week. An interesting new departure for your turn, the Thursday episode of The Bridge, and we'll keep her going. Next week's

question, we'll put down the question each Monday. I'll have a couple of days to write. Name, location, keep it short, and get it in before 6pm Eastern Time on Wednesday. Tomorrow, it's Good Talk. Chantelle Hebert and Bruce Anderson are with me. And we'll get the year off to a good start with Good Talk. That's tomorrow.

I'm Peter Mansbridge. Thanks so much for listening today. Looking forward to talking to you again in 24 hours.