 Good afternoon from Stockholm. I would like to begin by acknowledging that I'm speaking to you today from the traditional unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabe people. The Algonquin peoples have lived on this land since time immemorial. My name is Tom Cormier and I'm proud to lead the parliamentary center. The center since 1968 has been supporting more effective and inclusive governance in Canada and in over 70 countries worldwide. Very pleased to collaborate with International IDEA on this discussion today. I had the privilege of working for IDEA for three years in Myanmar where I opened their first office. So it's near and dear to my heart. I'm particularly grateful for Secretary General Kevin Casas-Amour for his leadership on the Defend Democracy Campaign, which has brought together an impressive number of organizations and leaders from around the world to highlight the need for us to think about democracy and its importance during this really difficult time that we're all going through together. I'm excited to have this discussion. Today, but so many distinguished individuals who among them have a depth of experience in democratic governance, foreign policy, academia, and it's truly remarkable. And the audience is equally impressive. A mix of democracy practitioners, academics, foreign affairs and development professionals all looking for sage advice from our panelists on options to react during this time. How's keeping it? Just first off, we have a panel of five amazing resource and I want to make sure we can hear from all of them. So I encourage crisp answers from our panelists of two minutes each so that everyone gets a chance to share their thoughts. And I will remind you that I do retain the power of intervention. And to the audience, questions are highly, highly recommended. We want to draw from the knowledge, experience, and insights of our panelists. So please do so via the Q&A function and where possible, please direct your question to a panelist to make sure you get the answer you're seeking. And I'll do my best to incorporate those in the discussion. Now to our esteemed panelists. At the age of 19 years, Elena Pantulidze found herself in student organized protest in Tbilisi, Georgia, sparked by video footage that showed prison guards abusing inmates. As a result of these protests, Georgia's Interior Minister stepped down and President Sakashvili suspended the entire country's prison staff. Elena writes on democracy development and cooperation, peace mediation and protracted conflicts from the College of Europe in Bruges where she works and I think is today, and for the Georgian Institute of Politics where she's a policy analyst. She is co-author of Global Democracy in COVID-19, Upgrading International Support, a paper that the parliamentary center was pleased to review and endorse. And some must read for anyone looking to support democratic institutions and actors in his unprecedented times. We'll send a link to the paper in the chat if you haven't already received it. As a youngster in Costa Rica, Kevin Casas-Amora voted for the first time at the tender age of five. He cast his ballot to elect the president of his first grade class. This takes place in classrooms all over the country to socialize democratic norms from an early age and clearly it worked. Kevin went on to become Costa Rica's second vice president, Minister of National Planning, Secretary for Political Affairs, the Organization of American States, Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution and National Coordinator of the UNDP's Human Development Report. He's written extensively on campaign finance, elections, democratization, security and civil military relations and he now serves as Secretary General of IDEA where Canada has been a member state since 1997. In the historic Pearson-Diefenbaker election of 1962, a young Colin Robertson accompanied his mother as a scrutiny error for Margaret Connance, a candidate in Winnipeg South. In the election just a year later, he licked envelopes and put stamps on campaign material with his rameter who was an activist working with the Manitoba Farmers Union. During a very accomplished diplomatic career, Colin represented Canada in Washington, Los Angeles, Hong Kong and in New York at the UN and he is, through his career, was instrumental in the Canada Free Trade Agreement and the North American Free Trade Association's. Colin Robertson is vice president and fellow of the Canadian Global Affairs Institute and writes extensively on foreign affairs for leading publications. Kevin Devoe learned out of Canvas for votes when he was five years old. He was a candidate for local council in Cole, Harvard, Nova Scotia. His charm made the difference in his father won. In 1989, Kevin went on to win a seat in the Nova Scotia Legislature and was reelected in 1999, 2003 and 2006. Since 2001, Kevin has been working internationally to strengthen parliaments and democratic institutions. He's worked in over 50 parliaments and with MPs from more than 110 countries with the UNEP, International Idea, NDI and the works. He now leads Devoe International Consultants, providing technical assistance to parliaments, political parties and organizations that work with these political institutions globally. We will have with us joining shortly Anita Vandenberg, who had a very special guest in her constituency this morning. The prime minister was dropping in for a visit so she let us know that she would be a little late but she's very committed to joining us so she will do so shortly. Anita has worked in over 20 countries on inclusive governance and women's leadership since 2015. She's been a member of parliament for Ottawa, West Nippian and now serves as parliamentary secretary to the Minister of National Defence. She's also a member of a special committee on COVID-19 pandemic for the parliament in the hybrid form. And she's also a former board member of the Parliamentary Centre and mains a passionate advocate for democratic development. So I would like to start with Elena. And I would like to ask, thinking about the policy paper that you co-authored, that was looking at challenges to democracy and the importance of international support. What key democratic governance areas did you find were most threatened in this current crisis? Tom, thank you very much for introduction and thanks to ID International and Parliamentary Centre for organising this event and invitation. It's honoured to be part of this panel and indeed you have already mentioned that this policy report that was commissioned and funded by the European Endowment for Democracy was a great opportunity to bring together the leading experts from major democracy organisations, including the Parliamentary Centre and ID International to work together and to rethink what are the major challenges of democracy challenging the faces today and not only reflect on what are the areas of concern but also think about what could be solutions and provide also suggestions and guidance to the major international organisations, governments and people who are concerned by democracy, including the civil society organisations or activists across the world. Indeed, the major areas we have covered and we have analysed many areas that have been concerned with the pandemic and this altered context that the pandemic has provided really changed the context and also the measures that were sometimes necessary and justified and also constitutional really provided an opportunity to different governments to intervene and to use some democratic limitations. But the most important thing for us was to look into and analyse whether these kind of interventions, the implementation of lockdowns or the measures that were implemented by the governments how they were aligning with the democracy norms and standards that are valued internationally. And when speaking about the governance dimensions, what you have already mentioned, we have seen that in many countries due to the COVID-19 pandemic, there have been the delay of the elections and over the 100 countries across the world, the elections have been delayed. And we see that this kind of institutional processes that are important for each country have provided the challenges to various countries and this helped the challenge not for the governments and specific countries across the world but also the international organisations which work on elections to provide the election monitoring and also to help them to see that the elections are provided and implemented within the democratic standards. And what we have seen also is that under the COVID-19 pandemic, we have seen that in a lot of countries it was not possible to have these checks and balances working as in traditional situations, not only in different countries, for example, autocracies and I want to specifically note here that within our report, even though we provide different examples of many countries both within democracies and autocracies, it was not our aim to assess how different countries have performed but to see what have been the distinctive outcomes of the COVID-19 pandemic or the democratic processes. And we have seen that it was not possible to have this traditional checks and balances mechanism working because of the different and altered contexts of the pandemic. And there was also the limitations of the public inclusion and participation in the decision-making process which is a major democracy standard. And when we are looking into solutions and suggestions for the democracy support organizations, this was one of the areas where we suggested to focus that all the public inclusion and inclusiveness in the process of political performance should be encouraged and promoted by the democracy support organizations. And... Can I get you just to wrap up quickly? Yes, and two major areas I wanted to mention was certainly the corruption cases and also this dimension should be explored by international organizations and measures should be undertaken to help the governments and also organizations working locally in different countries to have the tools for the oversight to the public procurement cases happening during the pandemic. Thank you, Elena. And I'd like to welcome Anita. We mentioned the reason for your delay and it is very much understood, but I welcome you hardly to the discussion. And I would like to flip over to if I can. Elena mentioned the challenges of oversight and I know that you sit on the special committee, the COVID-19 committee, which was designed for the hybrid parliament to have an effective check on government during this unprecedented time, but you also have been a participant in this parliamentary rapid response team, which brings together legislators from a number of different countries. Can you let us know some of your reflections on how parliaments are adapting to these challenges by ensuring effective oversight at a time of unprecedented government spending in many places? Well, I think that in some ways it's actually really enhanced the representative role of parliament. Early on in the pandemic, we started doing daily phone calls with all members of parliament. And it was rapidly, things were changing so quickly, programs were being rolled out so quickly and government's capacity to be able to respond to the public and do the kind of analysis and stakeholder outreach that they normally would do was completely at a minimum. So it was really members of parliament that were the entry point for most Canadians into government. And we, instead of programs that would normally have taken two, three years of all kinds of policy analysis and outreach and planning, we were putting out programs and then relying on members of parliament to bring the feedback to see what's working, what's not working, what needs to be changed. I've never seen government move so rapidly. And those calls, I sometimes wish, and I think it's because the media wasn't on those calls, I sometimes wish the public could see that because all parties, all members of parliament were on these daily calls with officials and advocating on things that really, where the gaps were. And it was changing. Sometimes I would raise something and the very next day I would say the same thing. Yeah. Go ahead. Go ahead. No, please continue. I think the representative role of course has been enhanced. The legislative role of members of parliament is a little bit more difficult. Obviously because of the being physically in the House of Commons has been so much more difficult. Although we did pass a lot of pieces of legislation, we did that more by going back and forth to the leadership of the different parties. So the role of individual MPs where we would normally be doing legislation review through committee and hearing for witnesses, not as much. I hope that we will be able to do a lot more of that in the coming session. And as far as the oversight role, I think this part because of the way that question period was done, I've had a number of members of the opposition also saying that the question period was actually better. There was a back and forth. There was an ability to question ministers directly every single day. And so I think in that sense, we may want to actually take some of the examples of how that COVID committee was able to do that question and answer session and continue. Yeah. And any thoughts on your international engagements in linking up with members of parliament from very different countries from around the world? What were some of the challenges that you found in common but really other challenges that you think really do require international support? Well, I've always believed legislators, we elected people are a different line of democracy. And we know that authoritarian anti-democratic forces are working together globally, but legislators are not. And for a long time I've been because of my previous experience before politics, trying to build networks so we can connect MPs, parliamentarians from around the world. It's actually been a lot easier because of COVID. Before, I would be asked, can you go to Kenya and do a women's workshop with candidates? Or can you fly to Haiti to do something? And of course travel when you're an MP is going to be difficult. Now it's things like this. It's Zoom calls. And I've done more international work since you know, 7 a.m. I'll be on a Zoom call with members of parliament from Singapore to Ecuador and everything in between. And I'm finding it's actually easier to work globally. Maybe because of the cyberspace, those geographic boundaries are disappearing. We did create the parliamentarian rapid response team. This is through the parliamentarians for global action. Very much this notion that when a legislature is in a back slide, when there's an attack on a parliament or a parliamentarian, it's really parliamentarians and parliaments that have the voice to be able to speak out. And we've been working very well actually with Zoom calls and WhatsApp. Being able to just connect with other MPs from around the world through WhatsApp is the technology is there. It's simple. It's quick. It doesn't take any real upfront money, but it's very effective. I'm working right now on trying to establish a global network of women parliamentarians in defense portfolios. There's terrible issues. So I'm working with an EU member of parliament from Germany to change that going. So we've been able in some ways because of COVID, I think to do more when it comes to the international mobilization across different countries. And then of course the in-person sittings in our own parliament is more limited. Indeed. Thank you. Kevin, Casas Zamora. I.D. and others have forcefully advocated for the need to defend democracy. And have called on policymakers to continue support for democracy building efforts. How can decision makers in your opinion coordinate these efforts? And what should they be doing collectively to prepare ourselves, not only to respond for this particular moment, but to prepare ourselves for the future moments to come? Well, thank you so much, Tom. And it's a real pleasure to, for me personally and for international idea to partner up with the parliamentary center. I didn't know, by the way, that you had a, that idea was in your past. You see, this is the, this is like the rock song that, you know, you can check in anytime you want, but you can never leave idea. So, I mean, it's great to be here and to share this panel with such distinguished speakers. Look, I think there are several, there are several things that need to happen if we want to be effective in defending democracy in the current context. I mean, the first thing is that we have to realize that we cannot do this alone, that we cannot go it alone. I mean, the crucial task, given the magnitude of the challenges that we were facing, challenges many of which were there, that were there before the pandemic struck, but the pandemic has brought more salience to. And given the magnitude of those challenges, I mean, we have to realize that we cannot go it alone. Number one, and that the truly crucial task at hand is that we build, that we weave together a sort of protective network for democracy, which is a global protective network for democracy. Second thing, we have to realize that this, that we're in for a twilight's trouble, that this is not only about this time and place, I mean, this will go on for a long time. And here, one of my main concerns is that the, and I've been thinking a lot about this, I mean, this is ideas 25th anniversary. So it's a good time to look back and think a little bit about the differences between this time and the time when idea was created 25 years ago, it was a time of global optimism about democracy. Everybody was upbeat about the prospects for democracy. Well, not anymore. And part of the reason why we are not so optimist right now is that the international incentives for democracy, the international context has changed dramatically. So the headwinds that we are facing in this task of spreading the democratic creed are much stronger than they were. I mean, we're gonna be at this for a long, long time. And in practice, what this means is that, you know, what we're trying to do with the call to defend democracy, I mean, you have, if you believe that we need a global protective network, I mean, you have to talk and walk the walk. You have to grab the phone and start calling people. Justice, you know, we got on the phone at some point, the two of us, and start doing things together, start doing projects together, start doing statements together, start working more closely, rather than competing for an ever dwindling pool of resources. And I guess, you know, in a more substantive vein, if we want to be effective about protecting democracy and about protecting democracy, not just now, but also for the next crisis, there are a few things that are essential. We need to protect, in particular, press freedom. We need to protect civic spaces for civil society to make its voice heard. We need to protect the capacity of democracies to celebrate, to hold adequate elections. And all those things are important in their own right, but they are also functional to protecting democracy and preventing this kind of calamity from happening again. I mean, with this, I finish, you know, there's this long-standing discussion around the question that the famous economist, novel laureate Amartya Sen post a long time ago, that why is it that there are no famines in democracy as well? It has to do with the fact that democracies allow for the free flow of information and the powers allow for collective action that is able to correct a policy policy. So they are better in terms of preventing famines and they are better in terms of preventing pandemics and they are better in terms of preventing preventable calamities. So we need to be particularly focused right now, not just for the sake of this pandemic, but for the sake of the next one. We need to be focusing on protecting press freedom, on protecting civic spaces and on protecting the capacity of countries to celebrate adequate elections, which very often are the only safe devolved that a political systems have in times of great stress. So I would say that. Okay, thank you. Colin Robertson, you wrote recently that the G7 should consider bringing in India, Indonesia, Korea and Australia. And I'd appreciate your thoughts on why deepening ties between democracies is crucial in a time of COVID and also to ask the question, are we due for a shakeup in the international world order because of the totality of this challenge? Well, thanks Tom to answer your last half of your question. Yes, I think we are at the COVID moment just as events in the past have shifted the international order. I think COVID is having that effect. It is a global international health crisis, which has caused an economic and financial crisis and it's accentuating some of the other challenges we're going to deal with climate migration and has been mentioned dealing with the rise of authoritarianism and the rise of China. So if we can deal with the international health crisis in six months on, I think the verdict is still in the balance that Antonio Gutierrez said, this is a real test of the multilateral system. And by his standard, we're not doing very well. And the democracies, yes, I certainly agree with democracies are the best form of government, but it doesn't appear to me that if you look at the two of the biggest, the United States, for example, in India, they, Brazil, semi-authoritarianism, but democracy, we're not doing as well. The some are doing well. I think we could look to Taiwan and Korea and New Zealand, but these tend to be sort of small and they've managed it. So I think that's been a challenge. I look at Canada, I think that, again, I think we've made best efforts, but as a federation, you go across the country with different approaches, what we're lacking, and I see the same thing in the European Union. They haven't got their act together. And certainly, as I said, the United States doesn't. So globally, the democracies who should be acting together are not, and we've tended to deal with this global pandemic on a kind of national and sub-national level. And when we need, in fact, because this is a transnational crisis, we shut our borders, but that's not gonna succeed for long. We should be dealing with this in an international basis. And while I'm heartened when Anita says she's talking to counterparts, that's important, but I don't see the plan. And certainly, if you look at the UN and you look at how the EU and we haven't got at a time when we should have an international health strategy and we created institutions like the World Health Organization to do so, we're not there. Yes, the World Health Organization needs reform, but can deal with that at a later date, but in the meantime, it should be working better than it is. So maybe I'll stop there. Thank you. Thank you very much, Colin. I see we've got Kevin back. We had some technical difficulties, but I'm very glad you've been able to join us with video this time as well. If I can ask you, Kevin, you are a real watcher of parliaments in every corner of the world. And I see it on my Twitter feed and my LinkedIn feed every day. What are you seeing as both worrying trends, but also trends that really are hopeful and what can Canada do to be supportive of those things that are going right, but also intervening in those things that are not going right as regards to parliaments and their ability to adapt to this and be a force for good during this pandemic. Thank you. I appreciate the opportunity to speak. Look, I think that with regard to parliaments globally, I think to me, what we've seen is following up on what Colin was noting, some of the countries perhaps that have been more challenged by COVID. Some of the issue I think is trust. Trust in parliament, trust in government. If I can writ large, trust in independent institutions, I think where those are robust, where there is a level of trust, where there is an understanding between political parties, I think there's been more success in maintaining democracy, but also in fighting COVID. And those two things I think are interlinked. One of the factors I think that affects parliaments, and I'll use Canada as an example, but I could probably use others as well, is where you have electoral systems that promote no majority party, the European model maybe most importantly, but in Canada we see where we've had minority or hung parliaments during this crisis. We've seen more collaboration, we've seen more time in parliament, and where we've had majority governments we've seen less. Honestly, if this was a majority parliament right now in Ottawa, I'm not sure we would have had the exact same rollout of oversight and committees that we have seen, but we have, and I would say that's because of the minority parliament. So electoral systems have, I think, a lot to do with accountability in general, and particularly during a crisis. So I mean, on the plus side, I think that as I say, that trust issue is there and one that we need to build on. I think the look internationally, one of the things that parliaments, you saw very quickly, were the parliaments that were able to adjust to virtual online engagement. Some had already been doing that. I know that I appeared before the Foreign Affairs Committee in Ottawa a year and a half ago. I was in Bangkok and there was video conferencing already available. So I think that is a good thing, and I think Anita was pointing that out as well. The representation, the engagement, I think will expand. I think it needs to expand further. I think there needs to be some discussions about how there is more online dialogue, but where the parliaments have been able to make that shift, particularly to committees, where you had committees that had staff, that had resources, that had access to technology. You saw the ability for them to move quickly to, we all know that, well, most should know, committees are the workhorses of the parliament. They're the ones that do the detailed work. If you can get them functioning, and that's what I saw a lot of parliaments able to do, relatively quickly, in a virtual manner, it made a big difference in the ability for people to see that parliament was still a part of that discussion. Where we haven't seen that, or where the trust issue is more prevalent, I think those are where we've seen that breakdown perhaps, and that's where people are beginning to question. If I can just say one, I know there'll be other opportunities to speak, but just to say, I actually am not so negative about the impact of COVID. I actually think, I look back to 1918, 1919, and it was a serious time, but it was a time that people moved on from. And I understand this is a crisis, and one that we need to be serious about, but I suspect in the long term, there won't be those major upheavals or shifts that people are sometimes talking about. And I think that there will be a tendency to want to go, move back to somewhat to normal, whatever that is. And I think a lot of that will also play out in democracy as well. Okay, thank you, Ken. I'm going to explain that. In the paper, you looked at some of the challenges particularly facing women marginalized groups, the LGBT community, pushback that we've seen increase during this time. Any advice to policymakers on how they can address these things by providing direct support or providing support to parliaments to better engage these communities to try. And then thank you for the question, Tom. This was one of the areas we have looked into which groups have been specifically affected by the pandemic, and indeed, as you have already mentioned, women were one of the marginalized groups which were heavily affected by the pandemic. And we have witnessed during the pandemic because of the lockdowns and mandatory stay at home. We have witnessed that the domestic violence rates have raised dramatically in a lot of countries across the world, both also in European countries, which was very dramatic to see. And there was also dramatic rise in the calls, in the emails, asked for the shelter from the side of the woman. And when it comes to considering what could be the solutions and just to add a small bit, besides the fact that there have been a dramatic issue of facing in terms of violence, women at home also undertake a lot of roles and it is also very difficult to manage working together with the social roles women are having at home. So there have been a lot of gender gaps and issues women were facing during the pandemic. And when we were talking about what could be the solution and how policymakers should address the issues, I would personally suggest to, first of all, have the local understanding of the policy issues. And when it comes to the solutions, there is always necessary to have the engagement of women when coming to tailor-made the solutions. And the local context for sure, because it's the first country to country, then certainly the engagement of women because they know the best, the context of the challenges and they could provide the best guidance for the solutions. And the third one is that a lot of international cooperation happens during these times and a lot of international organizations cooperate. But I would suggest that it is very important to empower the local organizations which protect human woman and particularly work on the safeguarding of the women rights. And certainly there should be a lot of money allocated to provide shelter and support to the women who are need at the local level. Thank you. Anita, picking up on that point about women's political leadership, there has been a lot written about different responses to, if we look at New Zealand, Germany that have brought into focus sometimes the different attributes that women bring to the leadership that affect policy outcomes. What do you think we've learned about women's political leadership during this time? And this was also another area. Can I just ask for Anita? But thank you, no worries. Sure, if she wants to answer. But absolutely jump in if you'd like and Elena. No, no, I thought it was a follow-up question. Happy, okay, go ahead. So sorry. Sure, I guess I'll let, yeah. Well, this is obviously an area I've done a lot of work. I actually with international ideas, one of the partners and working with Kevin DeVoe on that as well through GPBS and UNDP was managing I Know Politics which is a global network of women in politics. And I do think that you do see, without going to an essentialist view of women, I do think you see a difference when you have more women in elected roles. And a lot of that is different lived experiences. And in fact, not just women, but more diversity. Like any organization when you have too much homogeneity, people with the same lived experience, same ideas, you won't come up with as many solutions. I think COVID has been particularly hard on women in politics. Even just myself and some of my colleagues and anecdotally the tension that is out there does seem to manifest in violence or online or in person against women in politics. And this has gone up since the pandemic. I also think though that women at the table definitely bring a different experience. They will bring different issues to the table and different ways of engaging. And this is absolutely vital. I do think having a cabinet with 50% women has significantly made a difference. But it also makes a difference in terms of what, what younger, a young woman who sees herself reflected. Whether an intersectionality as well, you need to have women who are amongst themselves very different in terms of lived experience. So it does make a difference. Okay, thank you Anita. Anything to add Elena before we move on? No, no, I just wanted to say that we have also particularly emphasized that women leaders had the advantage and it was widely also noted that women leaders performed really, really well during the pandemic. Maybe it just gives a reflection to across the world that there should be more engagement of the women at the decision-making level and at top levels that they really managed during the crisis pretty well. So just a reflection, thank you. Good, thank you. Kevin Casas-Zamora, Max Cameron, a professor of political science from UBC University of British Columbia has a question for you. And the call to defend democracy notes that democracy does not guarantee competent leadership and effective governance. What can we do to improve the quality of leadership in democracies? Do you think elected officials need better training or those aspiring to be and support for their preparation to be effective in public service? Sure, I mean, that can only help. So my short answer is yes, the more training we provide for aspiring politicians the better, which I guess is a way of saying that in most democracies we have to work more with political parties because the natural vehicle for that sort of training should be political parties. And then we can get into a very complicated discussion about the kind of incentives that different electoral systems and different political regimes create for political parties to be a permanent institutions rather than electoral machines. And I guess that in turn would lead us to the question which is of course, as you alluded in your introduction, your kind introduction, one of my favorite issues in the world is campaign finance. And one of the things that you can do through election subsidy through state funding for political parties is nurture a more permanent structure able to provide that sort of training to aspiring politicians. And not just that, also the kind of structures that would have resources to enable leaders from vulnerable and marginalized groups to emerge as a force within political parties and eventually within the system. So the question of money is of the essence if we want to take seriously the ability of political parties to provide that sort of training which I think we need more of that. Thank you. Can I linger on that topic of political parties because I happen to agree with you that they are a very important institution but we all recognize I think among, if you look at surveys, they rank among the lowest in terms of trust worldwide. And so to my colleagues that have been in elected office and have worked on democracy strengthening, what do you say to those that are really worried about getting involved in supporting political parties because it's messy and it can be dysfunctional and it's risky? Is it worth the risk to do so? And in doing so, what's necessary to make sure that it's done in a professional way in a way that manages risk appropriately? Can I throw that out to Anita first and then Kevin? I really appreciate this because I think that political parties, certainly today are looked at with so much skepticism and yet that is really, if you want to make a difference, it is the way to go about it. When I was in university and if you wanted to be an activist, you joined political parties and you joined different groups. I was a member of Amnesty International, the Green Club, the Civil Liberties and I was president of the local liberal club on campus. And those were not seen as mutually exclusive. You were an activist, you were also in a political party. Now, especially, and maybe this is because of technology, but with a lot of young people, if you are in a political party, you are seen as not being able to be an activist. You are somehow a sellout or you're leaving activism and it's not. And frankly, we need more activists with a political party. We need people to go back and forth. A lot of the work that I did on gender, many of the women who were elected overseas were elected from civil society, from their home and then they felt when they got into those roles that they lost their constituency because it's a different hat. And I think if we can get, I know that the World Movement for Democracy has a crossover project where they're trying to show stories of women or anybody who has transferred from being a human rights defender, a democracy activist into government or parliament and then back again. And the understanding of those different roles of the capacities that you have within those, I think is incredibly important. And there's a divide today that I have never seen before between the two. And I would strongly encourage any projects that encourage people to go into elected politics and then back into activism. Kevin, can I ask you then, is this something Canada should do more of? There are very few development agencies that have taken a strong role in supporting political party development. Is there room and is there a need for Canada to be more present in that pursuit? Yeah, thank you. Yeah, I think the short answer is yes, but I think it should be done through the political parties. I've done a review of the Mr. Foundation for Democracy, well, it's five years ago now, but we found the strongest, most impactful work that they were doing was through the political parties with a sister-to-sister approach. And it's because there's, I remember being in Bosnia and talking with someone from the Social Democratic Party in the federal parliament and they said, oh, look, our relationship with the Labour Party is such that, we just pick up the phone and we have a, there's an immediate trust because we know we're on the same side. There's a brethren there, probably because there's these international organizations like Socialist International or Liberal Democrats or I forget the one for the more conservative parties. But so I really think that there is a need for that, but for example, I think Canada is probably one of the only major countries, probably the only G7 country that doesn't have this. Our political parties don't have an international wing. They don't do work internationally. Australia does it, New Zealand is doing it. Most of Europe, obviously the UK and the US and we don't. And I don't understand particularly why that has been the case. I mean, we can get into this sort of culture of Canada, but I mean, I think that that is something that could be done differently. There needs to be support for that. There needs to be rules and standards, but at the same time, I think there is room for that. The other, just picking up on Anita's point, can I just say as well that I agree with her that I'm also still currently president of a local writing association here. I agree there is that divide in a way that hasn't been in the past. But I think it's also an opportunity if I can look at it a little more positively. I think we're looking at a, probably in moving towards political parties being more a coalition of those who are concerned about particular agendas or issues for an election or maybe two elections. So someone may come into a political party and may become a minister or maybe an MP and will be involved in trying to advance the agenda that maybe is in that manifesto. And maybe in 10 years they move on and do something else. Maybe 10 years before they were doing something else. They may even been a member of a different political party. I think there's a little more fluidity in the population that I don't think the political parties that often require very strong loyalty. Often people will note who left and came in and out of a party and in a very derogatory way. I see Anita nodding so she understands. So I think that we need to look at political parties more as a broker of ideas and the coalescing and coalition around ideas that drives a government. And then perhaps that doesn't give people this sense that they are signing in blood that they're gonna be a member for life. And I think that that change maybe is necessary as well. Tom, can I come in here? This is very interesting, the last point. I'm gonna strike a slightly contrarian note here. And I'll preface that by saying that I'm a political party kind of guy, right? I mean, I just said a couple of minutes ago that if you want to provide training to politicians you should try to do it through political parties and so on and so forth. Well, it so happens and I'm pretty sure that this is true about all of us. I've been attending different kinds of meetings where the future of political parties is discussed. And we invariably, we all end up saying, including myself, that political parties should be nurtured and strengthened because they're essential for democracy. Okay, that's great. I've been doing this, Tom, by now for 25 years repeating that message. And we have nothing to show for it. I mean, the credibility of political parties has never been lower. So, I mean, there's some soul searching to do here. You know, at some, there are times when I just wonder if political parties as we know them are creatures of the 20th century and perhaps we are just flogging at that horse and that we need to rethink the whole notion of political parties. And that's why I like about this notion of being sort of transient coalitions that can drive policy agendas. That's one way to think about this. The other thing that I cannot help but to think is that political parties, I mean, I'm here, I guess I'll talk about the experience in Latin America, which is what I know best. Political parties have been lousy in terms of leveraging information and communication technologies. And one of the effects of that is that they have been terrible in terms of speaking to young people. I mean, if you don't use this, if you don't maximize the possibilities that this gives you in terms of communicating with young people, you're toast, you're toast. And, you know, that's, you know, the thought, I mean, for, I know very few young people that can bear the thought of spending endless hours sitting on, you know, a party committee meetings, you know, that's not their thing. Just as the idea of signing up for life to a political party is entirely inimical to their ethos. So this is a long-winded way of saying that we really have to think systematically in a better way that we've done so far about the future of political representation. I don't think we've done enough of that. I don't think political science has done enough of that. But, you know, I guess this is a warning that simply repeating, we have to strengthen political parties and we have to find ways to attract people to become party members. That's not going to work. I mean, that hasn't worked for as long as I've been in this business for 25 years. You're muted, Tom. I see Kevin Devaux want to jump in very quickly. I see we've touched a nerve with political parties. No, it's a very good point because they are at the heart of democracy. Look, I agree with the other Kevin. I think that, you know, the 20th century parties, you think about trade unions, you think about business, they were more rigid. The 21st century is about networks. And I think parties have to adapt. In your example from Latin America, maybe what we saw as a result of that, you know, before COVID was all the protests that were going on in Chile and Ecuador and Peru and other places in the Latin America because the parties have lost that disconnect with the population. And I think the percentage of people who are members, at least in Canada, has dropped dramatically in the last 30 years of a political party. And so they need to find, it used to be they had a certain core group that they could rely on, they can't anymore. I think they need to look at it as coalition building and brokering, you know, a coalition. And until that changes, I think parties are going to struggle. Colin, I'd like to ask you, listening to this discussion, clearly more thought needs to be put into this. There is no dispute that parties have continue to play the central role in democracies, but thinking about Canada's opportunity to contribute to a very important dialogue like this and also the importance of building democratic institutions, is this an opportunity for Canada to demonstrate leadership globally as a middle power? Is this good for foreign policy to take calculated risks because I think we've all said this is, there is an element of risk in engaging this. Is this something Canada should do? Promote democracy. Well, yes, I mean, I think we have been and I'll just say in terms of political parties 20 years ago, I had a conversation with Frank Fukuyama who's in Washington or embassy at the time and we were discussing exactly what we've been talking about. What should Canada do to promote democracy? And he made the point that the glue of democracy in his view were political parties. And he later wrote two big books on democracy, but if you look and you'll see, he talks about importance of political parties as a brokerage mechanism for ideas, but they were more than movements. And what I worry about with the stuff I hear is that Kevin and others say, well, we see movements. We saw this in the Arab Spring, I think the Macron movement, Boris Johnson is a movement, Mr. Trump, please a movement, but it's not really a party. I think that in our country we've got a kind of mix, but I think that the parties are still the basis of and the kind of work that we do when find our niche, the work that Parliamentary Center does, I'm not as pessimistic as Kevin was about 25 years, because I think it's democracy, well, it has its origins in ancient Greece. If you look back over history, it's a minority movement. It enjoyed a golden age in a sense after the Second World War and probably peaked in 2000. Since then we've been on the back foot, but it's still, as the Churchill said, the worst of all form of government, but all the rest. And I think that this is, the COVID crisis is blind again, that there are challenges to democracy, but do we prefer the alternative? I don't think so. So to go to your question, are there things that Canada can do? Yes, and I think the kind of thing that Anita was talking about with talking with other women in the defense studies, for example, that's a useful form of using a political party to work with others who may be like-minded. And I think that's the route to go. And I think we just keep beavering away. So to the other Kevin, I'd say, don't lose, sometimes you get too close to it and you get dispirited, but don't lose hope. It's still, we're still doing the right thing. And this kind of session is exactly what we should be doing. And it is all about ideas. And for ideas to flourish, democracy is still the blessed form of that kind of debate and discussion with outcomes. Let me just, I see a couple of questions. Can I say something real, really quick? I mean, I haven't lost any hope on democracy. I think the case for democracy remains remarkably strong and losing faith on political parties. The specific thing, which is a different discussion is one that we can have. I mean, there's nothing written in the stars about any, that any political institution should be with us for eternity. There are many institutions that have disappeared into the ash of history. So, you know, that for all I know, that might well happen to political parties as we know them. But I'm not betting against democracy as such in any way, quite to the country. I'm actually quite, despite the headwinds that we are facing, I'm actually quite optimistic about it. Anita wanted to jump in before I go to Elena, but Anita, quickly. Yes, thank you. Just on political parties, I think one of the issues that we have in Canada unlike some other countries when we do development work, we don't want to be picking the winners and losers. We're very reticent, certainly our development funding to go to political parties or political actors. And I think we need to understand the distinction between non-partisan and multi-partisan. And we could be doing a lot more through multi-partisan channels. I know that when Kevin came to testify at the Foreign Affairs Committee to the question of what Canada can be doing on democracy, there was a very strong report that came out of that that built on a report from 10 years ago that Canada needs to have some form of a democracy institute that can be a clearinghouse for a lot of the ideas for these multi-partisan linkages. And we actually, this was in our platform in 2017 to create the peace order and government center. I'm still very strongly pushing to make sure that happens. But I think that if there's one thing that we could coalesce behind as democracy promoters in Canada would be to really get that off the ground and include all the political parties in it so that you can have those linkages to other parties but through an institutionalized center. I appreciate Elena's thoughts on this as you listen to sort of what's happening in Canada or globally with respect to parties. What's the situation you've experienced in Georgia as in your democratic transition? How have parties responded to the challenges of more citizen demands and frustration oftentimes with their inability to be responsive? This is quite, I would say that trends are also quite similar in my country. And it's also, I would say that the situation is even more severe in terms of when we talk about political parties we have an extreme polarization. So we have a government party, Georgian Dream and we have an opposition very strong political party from the previous government. And basically both there are extreme polarization in regards of every level of the society. And when we're talking that it was also mentioned that by different panelists that there is a lack of trust towards the political parties and I would say that in Georgia, this would be pretty much the case. And when we talk about the inclusiveness of the different political parties in the political system we see that political parties really lack the trust from the people. And I also observed that there is a lack and lack connection between the communities and constituencies towards them together with the political parties. And in our country we have perceived that it was because of the political system maybe we were having and it's already for the years we are trying to move to a new parliamentary system and or to fully parliamentary system. And also we have also changed our electoral law to make it more proportional because it was the advantage in the system we were having before it was the advantages for the government parties. But still I would say that the process remains still stuck and when we talk about the challenges we are facing in Georgia, I would also like to mention that in my country we do not have this ideological strong basis the parties would follow. So when we were talking about somehow empowering political parties that in the country like I'm come from which is kind of following the transition democratization process I would say that strengthening this ideological and basis in the countries should be the first thing that could be done. I would say this would be easier than for electorate and for the people to accommodate themselves and to affiliate themselves towards one or another political parties. And if it does so I would say that the process would become more inclusive and also more professional and not rather the populist which is the case currently in my country. Thank you. Can I ask you Elena, just a quick follow up. What's been your experience with the role of the international community in accompanying Georgia on its democratic transition, providing support for those who want to talk about these issues? And is it something that is still valid? I mean, is there a role for this experience sharing to help have good conversations that are inspired by the experiences of others? Yes, I would say yes. And even now it is becoming more and more important. I would say we are in the process of our European integration process and there is a valid let's say so there is a still democratic conditionality and there are still norms that my country needs to comply because we are so eager to integrate in the European family. And I would say that yes, there is a lot of work to be done on this democratization agenda. I would say there are improvements in many, many areas. I already mentioned they have moved to a fully parliamentary system. We have elaborated a new electoral law and which was also part of the civil activists and the protests and it's kind of still the case in my country that all the processes are motivated by the process and the pushback from the civil society but it's still good. It shows that there is a still democratic process happening but I would say there is a lot of work to be done and dear colleagues from for example, from NDI and IRI are very much engaged in the process of helping with working with the local communities also in the decentralization process and working on the electoral reform and certainly from the youth part there is a lot of work to also currently undergoing in terms of supporting the civil society organizations but I would say this would not lose the relevance and in the future there should be more international cooperation happening and for sure in terms of post COVID recovery period I believe that there will be many areas arising and many challenges that would require the help from the international society. Thank you. Kevin DeVoe, clearly in this time there is urgent need for humanitarian responses showing up healthcare systems in countries that are really struggling. What's the argument to say let's not forget about democratic institutions? There's an urgent issue and it's really important for Canada to be there and it has stepped up internationally. What is the argument to say let's make democratic institutions a part of this response in the emergency phase but also to ensure a more chance of inclusive recovery? Yeah, good question. Look, I think everything's about governance. That's the short answer. We can talk about health systems and I suspect there'll be a lot of money going in the countries I visit when I start visiting them again. There will be a lot of money being poured now into health systems. We always, they say in politics you don't fight the last election or you don't fight the last war. I think in some ways development has a tendency to focus on what was the issue with the crisis in the past and until the next one comes along. I remember how many people were talking about youth engagement after the Arab Spring, right? Very good points but there's a tendency to be retroactive. So I think that all of this though ties into governance. You need to have effective independent oversight, institutions, parliament, auditor general, human rights commissions, electoral commissions in order to have the robust institutions that allow for the development to actually flourish. You need to have accountability. You need to have transparency. Those are governance issues. And just look south of the border, all these issues around the election. They don't have a federal, they do have a federal electoral commission but very weak one. Every state, every county in some places is making up their own decisions about how mail-in ballots will occur without those robust independent institutions. You're ending up, I think with, and that comes under governance then all that development money will end up just going in the wrong direction and you'll have a lot of corruption. We see already some of the spending that has been caught. God only knows how many things haven't been caught during the spending that's been going on and I mean that globally. I think about a minister in Zimbabwe who was charged with taking money that was supposed to be procured for personal protective equipment. So there are things out there that need to be done but its governance is at the core of all of that. Okay. Kevin causes the more, we talked a lot about the challenges and the real threats we see. What do you feel are the bright spots that you've been confronted with to see innovation, perhaps the use of technology or the people figuring out how to respond and adapt approaches in this time to, and with a notion to say what needs to be supported to allow those good things to flourish. There are good news. I mean, and there are the good news at the macro level which I guess have to do, and here I will qualify a little bit what I'm gonna say. I mean, this is gonna be a long process. This is not one crisis but a cascade of crisis that will play out in the course of several years. But we have early success. Let's put it that way. We have early success at the macro level which you can see in the cases and they have been alluded to here of democracies that have proven very able to deal with the pandemic so far without sacrificing basic tenets of democracy. I mean, you know, the likes of New Zealand, the big Germany, Taiwan, I mean, you Canadians might, you know, are often a little bit shy but I would say Canada. I would include Canada in that group. So there are success, and not few, there are success stories so far, so far. So I mean, this notion, this speaks to the notion that this, you know, the countries and people that are insisting on using this lens to see this crisis as a kind of competition between the markets and democracies and authoritarian systems to see who respond more effectively to this crisis. I mean, that's the wrong lens. That's the wrong lens. I mean, and here I guess I'll go back, I'll digress and go a little bit into the previous question. I mean, to me, I mean, I have to recall the old Huntingtonian insight that is, this is a case in which a far more important than the kind of government that you have is how much government you have. So the short answer, I mean, I fully agree with Kevin's answer to your question. It's all about governments. It's about state capacity. It's how you build effective institutions to deal with this. Part of it has to do with the question of institutions of the side. How you build institutions that are able to make decisions and implement decisions in an effective way. So there are success stories at the macro level and then there's the more specific interesting things that are happening and that very likely will survive after the pandemic. What's happening, for instance, and this is something that we at IDEA are doing a lot of work on, the question of special voting arrangements as a critical tool for all electoral systems. I mean, we tend to be very anxious about participation levels, electoral participation levels and absences in a lot of places. Well, I mean, this pandemic has forced us to think through the question of how we make casting your vote easier and how we make available different ways to cast your vote. I mean, ranging from early voting to postal voting to different modalities of electoral voting. That's a discussion that will outlive the pandemic, for sure. And we are seeing very good successes when it comes to that. I mean, the case, and here I'm going to mention this, I'm just going to mention this, the case of South Korea, for instance, they held a phenomenally successful elections a few months ago, partly because they were able to make available different ways to exercise your voting rights. But also, in terms of innovation, and you guys know more about this than anybody else, I mean, all the innovations that we're seeing happening in partners around the world. From introducing virtual sessions in countries like my constitutional amendment, in countries like Chile or Singapore to creating different uses for technology, for digital technologies, to enhance the communication between parliament and society. I mean, all those things that were sorely needed before the pandemic will outlive the pandemic. So we are seeing very interesting things happening. Mostly around the use of digital technologies. Kevin, I see your hand up and please jump in and I wanted to follow up with another question after it. Yeah, sorry, just on something that there's an intersection going on. We have technology obviously is a dominant driver of and it will under COVID because of social distancing, but I think it will be a trend that will continue. Technology will be a major driver of potentially conflict as we're seeing in some countries, but also potentially, you know, coalitions. We also have the desire for more inclusivity. How do we get voices from women in marginalized groups more engaged? And then, so one of the things that I've been sort of picking up on though is and picking up on Kevin's point. There's been a move to, in parliaments, to create more opportunity for all MPs to be able perhaps to work virtually. We see that because of COVID and some are saying, why don't we do this permanently? And I've been a voice, maybe sometimes a lonely voice saying we have to be careful about that because we want to have more voices and we want to have, we need more flexibility. We need more family friendly parliaments, but I worry that some, those who choose to spend more time in their constituency away from the capital because they see the opportunity to work virtually while working at home in constituencies. I worry that their voices then will become a second tier voice. They're not in the room. They're not the people who are making those decisions. It's ambitious. It's to be frank, mostly, you know, younger, maybe male members, not always, but that are going to be the ones that are going to have the opportunity to fly to the capital and be in the room making decisions. And I worry that virtual proceedings, there's a need to engage people virtually. I agree. But the actual MPs need to be in a room. They need, it's those conversations they have informally that make a difference. And if we promote this as a permanent solution, I worry what that will do, particularly to women MPs, but also those perhaps from certain communities. So I just wanted to point that out. Thank you. I see Anita with a thumbs up. I did, Anita, can I ask you, clearly the work being that we do as international democracy supporters and engaging with people in very different systems with different cultures, different histories. This is not about exporting models. This is about sharing of experiences. But that being said, is there, what is it about Canada that is worth sharing in terms of what you've been exposed to around the world. And when you, and now that you, all the work you did before you were a legislator and now that you are a legislator, what are those experiences that Canada gets right that ought to be shared more? Well, first of all, I think we have struggled with many of the same issues as a country throughout our history and today that a lot of other countries are facing. And it's, I mean, we are a country that we have the indigenous populations. We have two bounding, I guess, languages and cultures. We have a lot of immigration. We have constitutional issues. We have so many of the things that countries are struggling with. Canadians, I find that, for instance, unlike Europeans, instead of codifying everything, certainly in international work, I've noticed that a Canadian will go in and say, what do you all think? Okay, you think this, well, if we all agree, let's just do it. Instead of feeling like it always has to be written down and formalized, it's more practical. And I think that also comes from our history of engaging different groups and trying to be inclusive. And Canada tries very hard, but I also think that it is, it's a style thing. We don't go in with a, you know, we know best colonial kind of attitude. We go in very much Canadians who are doing this kind of work with a let's learn from each other. And I can tell you that I've learned as much in the way that I do politics, from the work I've done in other parts of the world, in Africa and elsewhere, even the weekly coffee hours that I do. And I'm one of the few MPs that does it the way that I do it, where it's the same place, same time anybody can come. Now it's, of course, on Zoom, but I'm from women in Africa. And when I was in the Congo, when I was in other parts of Africa working, doing democracy work, the women in particular had very limited public space available to them to campaign. And the one space they had was the Saturday Market. And they were making use of that Saturday Market to be able to campaign, to be accessible. And when I started, when I decided to run, I thought, well, too bad, we don't have Saturday markets. And then I thought, yes, we do. We have shopping. Sure. By Saab out of Tim Hortons at a local company every Saturday. And this is something I have now carried throughout three campaigns. And as an MP, I never miss a Friday. I've moved it on to Zoom. But that engagement, those ideas, we don't go in with the attitude of, we have it right. We're going to come and teach you how to do it. We very much Canadians go in with, let's work together and solve the problem together. It is very different. And that's why I think we need to be doing more of it and really be a bit of a clearinghouse internationally for some of those best practices. Colin Robertson. Obviously you maintain a pretty strong network internationally of people like that, such as yourself, that have devoted their lives to foreign policy issues. What does the one from Canada regarding this issue? In terms of democracy. Yeah. Democracy. Yeah. I think that, you know, as Anita said, I think that Canada does bring something special. I think it's a function of both geography and climate. I might say the Americans who could just send in the cable, we weren't able to do that. We're too small a country and we're too diverse a country. So I think that that really has made us practice and practical. And so I think those are two great virtues, which make us also pretty good at diplomacy. But in terms of what we actually do well, I think I would list managing elections. I think, again, in contrast to us, we do that really well. And that's something we can take abroad. I think the management of diversity, because of the fact that half the people in Toronto, our biggest city, were born outside the country. When I tell that to others, they're always kind of astounded. Well, how does this work? Well, I say that's why the EGATAN set up the Centre for Pluralism in Canada. That's why when Nelson Mandela came to Canada and said, you know, you get it right. And certainly my observation when I go abroad, is that that's something we do pretty well. I realize policing is now under a cloud everywhere, but I think we do policing reasonably well, in part because a lot of our police have different languages. So we can go down to a place like Haiti and be useful. And that's a vital piece. We know the outside, we listed some of the vital pieces. Judiciary, I think that that's something we do reasonably well. After the sort of the Velvet Revolutions in Eastern Europe, we had a program of teaching how to bring in an independent judiciary. And years later, I ran into people who take on this course, who were judges, and they said, you know, I learned this, not from the Brits, not from the Germans, not from the French, not from the Americans, but from you Canadians. So I think there are a number of niches that we do really well, managing federations, for example, sending out the federated, but that's what we should be focusing on. We don't think we do it all. I think we pick Asia and we pick the places. The place I'd pick today would be Hong Kong, where we have real interest too, because I think we also have to be the interest driven. There's at least 300,000, half a million Canadians there. They were to have an election. They didn't have it because it got canceled. Well, if we can do an election, as you point out in Korea, but we also just did an election in... in Brunswick, and it had a higher turnout. So I think we should be working in places where we have interests to bring something. And I would... Again, I come back to Hong Kong because we've got... It's a significant, a small piece of our population. I think there's going to be problems there. And if we don't... If things don't go right, we're going to have a major influx at some point from Hong Kong, people wanting to return, and those who have relationships with Hong Kong that are going to want to come to Canada. So we do this for good reasons, but we also do these things out of interest. Elena, listening to this, obviously not a Canadian, what's your sense? Do you think, based on what you've known about Canada, what we've talked about today, is there a role for a larger presence for Canada in this sector? For sure. I would definitely start with that there is already. And I think that it's kind of... This country is really pioneering in democracy support. And there are a lot of things to be learned from this country, both from the internet governance or the already engagement on the international scene in the democracy support. And first of all, what I really like, and Anita also mentioned, that it's a very Canadian approach of having a collaborative approach and not to bringing just the best knowledge out of it. And I think that this is really something, a distinctive approach that Canada could bring to international scene and also in the democracy support, because what we have witnessed, that sometimes this knowledge in international organisations or policies which are tailor-made to different... which are developed, are not tailor-made to different countries and the context. So I would really think that bringing this... what Anita has mentioned, that this collaborative approach of experience sharing and knowledge that would really help best to think and develop the strategies that could work best for the specific countries and the specific regions because we have already discussed that in the context and traditions different countries really, really far. And as a woman myself, I would say that, yeah, for sure, having this feminist foreign policy and having a special focus on this, I think there's a lot of countries and also democracy support organisations could have learned on this and I would really support of having more focus on this and specifically taking the Canadian approach with benefit, not only just the mainstreaming of the woman's engagement in politics, but I really believe that there could be better solutions and policy makers if there are more women engagement in real life. Thank you. Can I say something? Can I come in? Kevin, go ahead. I mean, seriously, this has been such a wonderful conversation because, I mean, to this last point, of course you should do more. I mean, people are willing to listen to you guys. I mean, in that respect, you're not terribly unlike the Nordics. You know, I'm doing this interview from Sweden. And when you talk about democratic practices, democratic norms, democratic principles, people are more willing to listen to you. I mean, you don't have an imperial past in all the countries. You don't carry with you a baggage that comes with being a superpower. Yeah. And this is something that I experienced very closely when I was at the OAS. I mean, Canada is a very important presence, but it's a very constructive actor there. And sometimes, to tell you the truth, I was wishing that Canadians were more assertive in many ways. I mean, you guys are too modest and too respectful, which is great. It's one of the reasons why people listen to you. But the other thing that is wonderful about the experience that you bring to the table when you talk about this issue is that in so many ways, you combine strands of the American experience and strands of the European experience. And that... Anything else in between? I mean, you sort of... Your institutional setup in many ways reflects that. And that's very unique. Yeah. That's very unique. So, I mean, you have so much to offer when it comes to this. And the most important thing is that the people are, in my experience, really willing to listen to what you guys have to say, particularly in the way you say it. Thank you, Kevin. Listen, I think we could go on. But I just want to briefly reflect, certainly on what I heard. I want to thank the panelists for being so open and interacting with each other. It shows me that this dialogue needs to continue. It shows me that we don't have all the answers. We need to do more research, but we need to do as we do that research. You know, this is a country where 25% of MPs in our Parliament are born outside of Canada. There's something unique about this place that's worth sharing. The Feminist International Assistance Policy was mentioned as something that gets noticed in the world, and it's something people want to learn more about. GBA plus the way Canada looks at policies on how they affect different communities and looking at intersectionality issues. I think it certainly makes a strong case for Canada to do more in an organized way. Anita mentioned the Canadian Centre for Peace Order and Good Government. We are full supporters of that and want to do all we can to dialogue about how it could be structured. There's lots of examples in the world to look at, but I think to have a platform where we could really take a leadership position in the world could really be a good thing. And also I think the modesty issue is an interesting one, and those of us that have worked in democracy support around the world, us Canadians, have often done so in the service of other countries, and it would be great if we could do so from home, but also with the colleagues we've met from Croatia, from Afghanistan, from Korea, from all these different places. So I do want to thank you for your contributions, for your thoughts, and I want to thank the audience as well for the questions that I saw rolling through and the answers that were given by our panelists. So thank you so much. Merci beaucoup, and to the next time. Happy Democracy Day. Thank you so much. Bye-bye. Thank you. Goodbye.