Humans of the House BONUS Episode: The "Reluctant" Politician

In this special bonus episode, we celebrate and reflect upon the tenth anniversary of the bestseller book, Tragedy in the Commons, written by Samara Centre for Democracy co-founders, Alison Loat and Michael MacMillan. Samara Centre CEO Sabreena Delhon hosts this conversation to ask, what has changed? What has stayed the same? Where are the fault lines in Canadian democracy?

‍

‍

‍

THIS EPISODE FEATURES:

Alison Loat
The Samara Centre for Democracy, Co-founder
Tragedy in the Commons, Co-author

Michael MacMillan
The Samara Centre for Democracy, Co-founder
Tragedy in the Commons, Co-author

Andrew Coyne
Columnist
The Globe and Mail

Zain Velji
Samara Centre for Democracy, Board Member

‍

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter @TheSamaraCentre and on Facebook at the Samara Centre for Democracy for updates. Join the conversation using #HumansOfTheHouse.

This podcast is part of the Samara Centre for Democracy’s MP Exit Interview Project.  

This series is produced by Media Girlfriends (https://www.mediagirlfriends.com/) for the Samara Centre for Democracy.

Visit our website to learn more about how the Samara Centre for Democracy is working to secure a resilient democracy, and consider supporting our work with a donation. 

Humans of the House is funded by the Government of Canada and Rosamond Ivey.

The Samara Centre for Democracy and SSENC/RESCC have partnered on curriculum-connected teaching resources based on Humans of the House. Click here to access free accessible teaching resources for your classroom!

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

‍

Episode Transcript

Sabreena Delhon:

My name is Sabreena Delhon, I’m the CEO of the Samara Centre for Democracy in Toronto.

Welcome to a special bonus episode of Humans of the House

[theme music]

Our whole reason for being, at the Samara Centre, is to support a resilient democracy in Canada, and that mission power our projects. Like this podcast and the bestseller book, Tragedy in the Commons. 

It was written by the co-founders of the Samara Centre, Alison Loat and Michael MacMillan and published in 2014. It became a national bestseller.

Alison Loat [in 2014 book promotional video]:

This book tells them through the voices and experiences of 80 former MPs from all across the country, and all political parties, who served in the House of Commons, who openly told us what works, what doesn’t, and what needs to change, so that we can have a better and healthier democracy.

Sabreena Delhon:
Tragedy in the Commons is based on 80 interviews with former Members of Parliament, speaking openly and sharing about their personal experience in the political arena. Today, we have over 160 interviews with former MPs with longitudinal analysis underway. This podcast was based on our latest batch of interviews. But how did it start?

Let me bring you back to 2014, and even earlier, because the book started as a research project that took years to complete. So think back to that era. It was a pre-Trump, pre-pandemic time. What kind of phone were you using in 2008 or 2009? Emojis were still pretty new. Black Eyed Peas were at the top of the charts. So was Taylor Swift (okay, fine, some things don’t change). 

Here in Canada, Stephen Harper, leader of the Conservative party, became prime minister in 2008, going on to win three general elections. 

And around the world, people were just discovering Twitter, and social media in general. It was in this environment, that our book landed, with its dramatic title: Tragedy in the Commons.

Andrew Coyne:

My name is Andrew Coyne and I’m a columnist with The Globe and Mail

The Tragedy of the Commons, it’s a series of exit interviews, or based on a series of exit interviews, with members of Parliament as they were leaving parliament, after they’ve been through the wringer, and what are the lessons they learned from it.

The impact of the book, certainly on me, was profound. I think we all have had a sense that the power of Parliament, the power of MPs within Parliament was declining and people had written about this over time. But to hear it straight from the horse’s mouth,  as it were, was certainly alarming and depressing. To hear the completeness of it, the degree to which their every move is basically scrutinized and controlled by the party command, I think, was maybe a shock to some people. Maybe people hadn’t realized, maybe you don’t absorb these kinds of things until you have these concrete details. 

Zain Velji:

My name is Zain Velji, I’m on the Samara board and I also work in progressive politics.

Tragedy in the Commons is well, more than a book but at the heart of it, is a book that kind of woke us up to frankly, their emotions, their psychology, their mental health, how they thought the job was going to be versus what it turned out to be. I think it exposed a lot of us, for the first time, to some of the true inner feelings that folks that run our country, who legislate our big decisions, actually feel about the job.

If I ran into someone at a party today and they asked me, What’s going on in Ottawa? Andnd their question to me was, well, why? Why is that going on in Ottawa? One of my first recommendations would be this book.

Sabreena Delhon:

Today, A decade on, we are revisiting the impact of this original book, asking: What’s changed? What hasn’t? Today, I’m in conversation with the co-founders of the Samara Centre for Democracy and authors of the book, Alison Loat and Michael MacMillan. 

Hi, Alison. Hi, Michael. 

The book, the Samara Center for Democracy, it's all about thinking very deeply about the practice of politics in Canada. What did people think about that idea at the time?

Alison Loat:

When Michael and I first set out to figure out what this was, we undertook quite an extensive series of conversations with leaders of all sorts in all different geographies and sectors to try to put a little frame around what we thought a lot of people were feeling. And we originally came at it with a policy lens. What are issues that we're not tackling as well as we could? And what we really felt was underneath a lot of the concerns, people were saying it transcended any topic. It was really about whether, you know, the way we work as citizens, the way our political institutions work, the way that topics and debates get reflected in the media, wasn't up to the challenges of the 21st century. And that's why we framed Samara around democracy.

When we first started this in ‘08, ‘09, I mean, I think people thought, you know, my recollection anyways, people are like, oh, you're crazy. You know, democracy, that's not a problem in Canada. You know, we've got a good democracy. What's the issue? You know, what are you guys rattling on about? And I think we were a little bit ahead because now of course it's all over the news, at least the Western media of just concern about whether the liberal democracies that we've lived under for many years can continue to sustain our prosperity and success in the future. 

Michael MacMillan:

I think that's a very good point. I think back when we were starting Samara, people would often say, what is this Samara thing of which you speak? I would be at a cocktail party or whatever. And it would take four or five sentences and their eyes would often just not be glazing over, they're looking over my shoulder to see somebody else more interesting to talk to or a topic they could relate to. And a bit of a struggle to convey what we were talking about. Today, when I'm asked, what is Samara up to?

It doesn't take me more than a sentence, half a sentence, and people go, oh my goodness, yes, democracy is a delicate flower and it is under real pressure. And it's quite amazing how in the fifteen years that have passed, it's unfortunately much more immediately understood to be under threat.

Sabreena Delhon:

Well, when I was doing the interviews for Humans of The House, I was surprised at how open and even emotional our interviewees were. What was your experience? What surprised you?

Michael MacMillan:

One thing that surprised me was, or that I noticed at least, well, it's important to say, by and large, we went to where they were. We went to their homes or to the local coffee shop or to their place of work or whatever. We went, we saw them, we met them in their own natural habitat. And that was really, really important. You arrived in Sundre, Alberta or Halifax, Nova Scotia, wherever it was. They may have forgotten that they'd agreed, it was 10 o 'clock that morning, you knock on the door and I'm here, I'm that democracy fellow. And okay, finally, oh yeah, right, often their arms would be crossed. They'd be, okay, how long is it gonna take? Ten minutes. And it was usually a reluctant welcome. But interestingly, because we were interested in them and we asked about them and their story and how they came into public life, without exception, they warmed up and opened up and almost without exception, by the time the allotted hour and a half was over, they wanted to keep talking. You know, at that point their feet were up on the coffee table, they were pouring the third cup of coffee or whatever it was and because this wasn't about policy. This wasn't about a political stance. This wasn't about partisanship or the level of taxation or immigration or whatever else. It's about their role as an MP. It became very personal and therefore without exception they became engaged.

Alison Loat:

I think related to that, one surprise to me and probably well to us, was just that the most interesting insights were not actually the question, around the questions we thought would be interesting. We thought, okay, they're going to care about reforms to institutions and all of these kinds of things. None of that yielded much. Some of the most interesting responses, and this picks up on Michael's point, came to what was really our warm-up question. How'd you get into this in the first place? And those reflections were much more fascinating. And in particular, how many of them communicated a massive reluctance to go into office. So even though, you know, hey, I've been a volunteer in a political organization for twenty years, but I never thought of running, it's like, really? You know, we started the book actually with an anecdote from somebody who describes the same thing and, oh, you know, maybe one day, but I never really thought I would have, had to be asked, you know, over and over. And, you know, who said that? Paul Martin, you know, prime minister, right? His father was in cabinet. He grew up in politics. So we thought like, huh, I wouldn't have expected this self-identification of a reluctant outsider from so many people and independent of party, gender, region. So again, some of that really surprised me. I had anticipated a much more sort of policy-driven or kind of reform-driven conversation, but it was actually unsurprisingly, given the context Michael described, very much about personal stories and what that says about the state of our democracy and politics.

Michael MacMillan:

And at the same time, we assumed that we would get different responses or different points of view based on party affiliation. We assumed the Liberals would feel this way, the Tories this way, the Bloc, NDP, and so on. And that really wasn't the case. It was remarkable how consistent the comments were and the attitudes were across party lines. That was really a shock. And then when they began to bring up topics that we weren't even asking about. This sort of reluctant parliamentarian, framing themselves as the outsider. We never asked, do you feel you're an outsider? Were you reluctant? That was never on the list and yet they all, well most of them, went there regardless of party affiliation. That was a surprise.

‍Sabreena Delhon: 

So what does that say about the expectations we have of politicians? And have you seen changes over the course of the last ten years?

Michael MacMillan:

I'd say that what it tells us, first of all, they weren't outsiders. They were active citizens. They were, many of them were volunteers. Many had served in other levels in political life as a mayor or MPP. But they were certainly very active in their communities. They were not outsiders. They portrayed themselves as being reluctantly dragged into this. Okay, sure. They were the very logical candidates in so many cases. What it tells us is that they know in what bad odour politicians are held. 

Alison Loat:

I agree with Michael. I think what they're really reflecting is they understand that people don't like politicians and they want to be different. And that's a good thing. We should want politicians who do want to be different. One of the provocations, though, that we had to them in response to this is, why wouldn't it be normal to just say something like politics is a fantastic way

to make a difference in my country, community, and I was excited for the chance to do it? That doesn't feel overly offensive, at least to me. Obviously I like this stuff, so maybe I'm a biased sample, but when we reflect back on the stories we tell ourselves, well, when our own leaders are standing up and saying, uh, ee, eh, you know, well, can you really blame an 18-year-old for saying, well, why should I bother? So I think we really, I would still very strongly encourage, you know, anybody running for office to really come up with a strong and compelling rationale as to why this is a great way to spend time.

Michael MacMillan:

It's a very good point when one sees parliamentarians dissing the role of government and of parliamentarians. What do we expect regular citizens to think and act? It's not helpful.

Sabreena Delhon:

Yeah. Well, the other insights from the book have to do, you know, the outsider idea and how disingenuous that can be, that's a key insight from the book. So is a centralization of power and the role of the parties. Talk to me about these key findings and how they have endured or changed over the last ten years.

Alison Loat:

The role of the party is another one of those examples where we didn't have a section on, you know, let's talk about the political party at all. And so this is another one that came through in an unexpected way, you know, and in a similar vein to how people tried to distance themselves from the, you know, profession of politics, people also distance themselves from political parties and most notably their own political party.

So it has some of the same psychology, right? We know that we don't like these places and I'm different. But again, very odd, right? I mean, you know, the MP joined this organization, they, you know, put their name on the sign, they ran under the banner and yet were extremely critical, less of other parties, more of their own and the way that they felt constrained and the way that they were made to act, follow directions from people that they didn't agree with, but yet they did it, and felt very uncomfortable and maybe a bit remorseful about that in retrospect. But when you really push the thinking on that, if the people who arguably benefited the most from being members of political parties, i.e. they were elected and got to serve in Parliament, which we shouldn't forget this, to a tee, they all acknowledge is a huge privilege. But when they themselves are so critical of the actual body that brought them to public office, i.e. their political party, to me that really provokes, and I still feel this way, a desperate need for discussion on how these organizations are managed, led, how their resources are allocated and spent, and bluntly, the lack of transparency with how they operate, which I would argue is just as much, if not more of a problem now as it was back then.

Michael MacMillan:

One of the things that we saw in these interviews, to push that point further, is that they were quite critical of those in their party who were closer to the center of power in the party. It was rarely defined but there is, these others in the party that were a few steps or a few layers closer to the very center. Those were the ones that were receiving the greatest criticism. Oddly enough some of these criticisms came from cabinet ministers, came from people who were long-time operatives, who were very, very, very close to the center of their parties. They weren't just a maverick MP who was on the edges. So it was, again, part of the apparently necessary narrative. But I believe they also did feel it, because they complained about being choked, or they would use phrases as like, you know, why do I have to be a trained seal? Why do I have to be given talking points, why can't I speak my own mind? So they had some, there was substance to it, but it was if they needed to be perceived as the maverick.

Sabreena Delhon: 

So what was the manner in the interview? So maybe it starts off a little bit cold, but once things started going, did you feel as if the record was being corrected or if there was some like, what was the motivation for your interviewees to share what they did? And then, you know, back to using the exit interview as this device to kind of ground this role in something relatable, talking about it as a job. How did the interviewees kind of just accept that, receive that? What did they choose to do with it?

Alison Loat:

My view is a lot of them were motivated to speak to us, and took the time they did, out of a lot of the same things that really drew them to public life when you got to the heart of it, and that's a desire to actually improve where we live and how we do things. So that's where I think a lot of them were probably coming from. And as I mentioned before, what was interesting to me is that the advice that they gave, whether directly or indirectly, had very little to do with the policies of the day or how committees were organized or when votes took place or any of this kind of stuff. It had very much to do with how one belongs and one conducts themselves in these types of roles. And I think the hope they all had that the future would be better for them. Some of the most inspiring and powerful stories, at least for me, were very much around the entrepreneurial aspect of politics, which I still believe is very strong for people who take it. There are many stories, I mean, there was a really good one, and this is back in the 1990s, so the dark ages now, I suppose, but when a lot of MPs who were in university ridings banded together to come up with some really creative ways to try to re-energize the research agenda at Canadian universities and position our schools as global leaders. And that was something that was very much an initiative of a number of MPs who saw concerns and heard concerns from their constituents around very important institutions in their riding and figured out creative ways to come together around that and push the government, of which they were a member, to actually do, I think what many would argue is a very advantageous series of policies to stimulate more research funding. So that kind of thing is possible. But it takes a certain mindset, takes a certain persistence, and it takes an attitude, which is, you know, I'm here to get something done. And yeah, there's constraints. There's constraints everywhere. Politics is life. But I'm to figure out a way through it. And again, I wish we could spend more time in those sorts of narratives, because those are much more inspiring and powerful than ones of sort of helplessness or “trained sealedness,” that's the word, which it's not.

Michael MacMillan 

And while they were being critical of their own party, for example, I don't think that was what, when they finished the interviews, I don't think that's what they felt had been their main point. All of them spoke, as Alison mentioned, about what an important role it is, what a great honour it was. Many of them spoke about sort of the awe and the weight on their shoulders that they felt when they first walked into Parliament after being elected. Most thought it was worthwhile. But they all felt that what they had been trying to do was very, very important. I think that's why they talked to us.

Sabreena Delhon:

Yeah. Well, and I want to go back to the fact that you traveled across the country to go to people's homes, to meet them in their local cafe. You really prioritized the human touch, which helped ground these conversations and, you know, kind of take away some of the fanciness that restricts critique about what we're talking about here. Like Michael, you had someone pull you out of a ditch. Like, can you help us understand just how real

your interactions with the interviewees could be.

Michael MacMillan:

Well, for example, Dale Johnson, Alberta MP, I was going to his home to interview him and being a Toronto city slicker that I am, I was driving probably a two-wheel drive, you know, whatever it was, in the winter and I was going to his home and I managed to skid off the road into a ditch and I couldn't get my car out, quite pathetic. So I called him, I had his phone number because I was going to his place. He showed up immediately, hauled me out, you know. He pulled my car out of the ditch with his truck. That was a great icebreaker. We could engage as individuals and that was really important. Going to Ed Broadbent's home in Ottawa to watch him assemble a piece of IKEA furniture in front of me in the morning as we were chatting. These are profound and yet simple human interactions that I think made me happy in all those cases, but I think it enabled them to speak with an openness.

Alison Loat:

It also underscores what I think anybody who thinks about politics knows, which is how just broad and diverse the country is. I remember interviewing somebody in a bit of distant, not too distant if you're a Newfoundlander, but distant for the central Canadian, and I was given the vague directions of, Turn left at the Tim Hortons. And you're on these in very remote rural places. And there's incredible people there with incredible experiences.  in this particular.

case I was interviewing John Efford who'd had a career in provincial politics in Newfoundland and then and then a federal career as well and you know, he was a hero and he drove all around the town and showed all kinds of things. And then we went back to his house and his wife was there and being lovely. And you could see her sort of listening around the corner. And you just realize how very, very important politics is to people's lives. And that, again, that doesn't always get heard and reflected across the country in a way that it should. And I'm glad we were in a position to write it into this book and kind of capture some of those stories for the future as well.

Michael MacMillan:

I recall being in Sundre, Alberta to interview Myron Thompson who was a larger-than-life character. He's a large fellow physically but he also wore a cowboy hat pretty much everywhere. His wife was there bringing us coffees three or four times during the two hours I was with him. He would sort of summon her to bring in various memorabilia from, I guess, the rec room downstairs, whatever, plaque about this and the point is, he was delighted to talk. And that kind of brusque cowboy hat guy, he came across so differently and so proud of what he'd what he'd been doing as an MP.

Alison Loat:

And this actually gets to one of, know, back to the job we were talking about in the job description and how murky it frankly is. We didn't make this point, but one of the other questions we started to ask kind of after a few was, you know, how do you describe the job of an MP? And the job descriptions were all over the map. Well, you kind of think, no wonder it feels chaotic. Like no one agrees on what their actual job is and they all have the same job. And one of the big reasons for that is there's a job in the constituency and there's a job in Ottawa and they are fundamentally different. You know, your job in the constituency is obviously to be present and glad-hand and you know, but it's also frankly to be a, you know, a frontline bureaucrat for cracks in the public service when people can't get help and they're desperate. You know, and there's, so that's obviously a very human job. But then you're in Ottawa and this, you know, beautiful building and people are yelling and you know, I mean, there couldn't be more different. One of the interesting articulations of that that stuck with me was when I interviewed in London a woman named Sue Barnes, she's a lawyer by training and she had a really nice way of framing it. And she said, my job in my constituency is to deal with politics as it is today. And my job in Ottawa is to think about how to create a better politics, better policy for tomorrow. And those are really different skills, really different talents. So it is an extremely, extremely difficult job. you're really talking about completely different worlds, completely different worlds.

Sabreena Delhon:

So one thing that's changed since the book came out is the role of technology and its influence on our democracy. And headlines today frequently will be about politicians saying that they're leaving because of the hate and harassment that they receive online, but also at work. And the book looked at a kind of toxic professional culture that was really disorienting for people who were otherwise very you know, capable, talented, active citizens. But people are now explicit about that being the reason that they're leaving because of the culture and because of the online hate. We've researched this too. Did you foresee any of that when you were doing these interviews and when you were writing the book? What did you kind of, did you foresee any of this in Samara's early days?

Alison Loat:

I've thought about this a fair bit and I actually, I did go back and read the book again, just because it has been some time. And we do allude to some mentions of social media, but neutrally. And I remember at the time this book came out, it was, I would say we were on the cusp of hope and despair when it came to the role that social media companies were going to play in our discourse, our media environment, our public dialogue. And the social media companies employed people to help politicians get online and help use these tools to better connect with citizens. And there was an edge of hope. Obviously, any analytical person would also realize that there was a downside and a dark side behind that. But it wasn't clear which side was going to win. Well, I think we know now. And perhaps the country didn't address things early enough with those companies. And that's a whole different topic. So did we foresee it? I don't know, we thought about it. We were starting to organize some talks around it at the time that I left Samara. And I've been really pleased obviously that Samara’s continued to sort of advance that conversation, but my anecdotal observation is it's in a far worse place for a public official than I might've ever feared it might be.

‍Michael MacMillan:

I would agree and I'd say that, and specifically with respect to these interviews and the reports in the book, we didn't really get there, didn't really come up that much. We asked questions about the media a lot. That was one of our sort of set, target, focus set of questions and we didn't get much. Most of the comments on the media were about the local coverage from their local newspaper and whether they had decent photographs of them recently. I mean, it was pretty limited to local coverage and not so much anything else.

Sabreena Delhon:

Hmm.

Alison Loat:

And we didn't really use any of it in the book. Sorry, Michael, just to jump in on that.

Michael MacMillan:

Yes, because we didn't really see much of a trend. They didn't want to talk about it and therefore we had no message on their behalf to relay. I had a somewhat older cohort and they really weren't talking about social media. And it was a long time ago. I don't mean to be critical with that, it just, it didn't come up.

Sabreena Delhon:

Yeah, no, I understand.

Alison Loat:

Yeah, because we did the interviews, you know, let's call it between, what 2010 and 2012-ish, like the book was a later manifestation of it. And many of them had been out of office already so when you just, I mean Facebook didn't even exist in Canada for a bunch of them, for example. So anyway, yeah, I'd forgotten we had actually deliberately provoked that question and it led to nothing. I would guarantee that would be very different today.

Sabreena Delhon:

Yeah. Well, to date now we have over 160 exit interviews with former members of parliament and a common theme across them that we have seen is this complicated relationship with mainstream media. What changes would you like to see in terms of how politics is covered in the news?

Michael MacMillan:

That's a toughie. First of all, it may be that the whole activity of news gathering needs to be somehow strengthened and supported. News gathering in Canada, North America, Europe has suffered tremendously as advertising has moved elsewhere. Unfortunately, you're opening the can of worms about where the whole state of play of journalism is today, not just in terms of political journalism.

Sabreena Delhon:

Mm

‍Alison Loat:

But also, you know, there is a fundamental business model challenge facing news gathering, which we're in the middle of and, know, in full disclosure, my husband runs a media company called The Logic. So this is, you know, probably in our dinner conversations, you know, seven days a week. And Michael is correct. I mean, we have a fundamental challenge in how we support the third estate in a way to ensure that we get sophisticated, appropriate, balanced coverage of what is going on in our country. And without an ability to do that, we cannot frame and articulate the challenges we have to face collectively in a way that can move the agenda forward. So that just has to be a priority. It's becoming politicized. That's extremely unfortunate. This is obviously a much bigger topic that's very close to our house or home and my heart. But I think there are small changes I would definitely love to encourage the press gallery to make. One of them is to stop treating a voice that might differ from his or her parties as you know akin to treason. I think actually if we could articulate you know how an issue is being played out on the fact that there are multiple perspectives that we have to navigate through, you know, as a just a default rather than, Oh wow, you know, we've got this is World War three when, listen, like, legitimate difference is actually a healthy thing and a strong thing. So I think there's again some tweaks and just how stories could get framed that would again start to improve things, but I do think it's a long road ahead. Long road.

Michael MacMillan:

And on that score, it's interesting that a thoughtful MP like Michael Chong, who occasionally votes differently from the rest of his party, is sometimes called a maverick. In fact, his voting record is probably 99.2 % with his party, and occasionally he differs in a thoughtful way. And yet, that can become a negative headline, which is frankly ridiculous.

Sabreena Delhon:

Well, something you mentioned in the book is how question period becomes the dominant image that the public has of what our MPs are doing and how they behave and how question period has been used or is currently being used as well for clips and for performance, and it's very performative. And then you also allude to this a little bit in the book, but that there is perhaps an over-reliance on polls to help us understand what's happening in our politics today. So I wonder, could you talk about question period and polls and how these are kind of two seemingly, I don't know, are those the right ways that we should be making sense of our politics right now? What do you think?

Michael MacMillan:

Well, both polls and question period don't have much to do with public policy or the actual work of parliamentarians. Unfortunately, they are the ways that most Canadians see it or are presented it. It's funny, you know, the talk with the law of unintended consequences, when the Bloc and the Reform Party came to Ottawa and there was more parties in the Commons, they needed to figure out a way to get more different questions asked without a fistfight. All the parties agreed to reduce the length of time for the question and for the answer, in order to get more stuff into the same length of time for question period. Guess what happens? It already was probably toxic, but when you try to jam in an extra 25 % more questions into the same period, by definition, you don't have any time to give an answer. By definition, it becomes more performative and probably insult-hurling instead of answer-giving.

Alison Loat:

This might be a terrible idea, I've often, I mean, question period can be a really good way for people to connect to politics because it can be short, it can be snappy, it can be entertaining. One of my problems is just how poorly done it is. Like I have sometimes, I'm like, why don't we just hire a couple of comedy writers? You know, to just script some slightly better questions and kind of help coach people to be a little more funny in their answers. These are serious issues, but I think sometimes there can actually be some wonderful, lighthearted moments that can actually get people to connect in a better way to their politics, we just don't do it that well. So again, I still have hope for a better question period, because I do actually think it can be a neat way that people can get a slice of humanity out of politicians from time to time. 

Michael MacMillan: 

It was one of the areas, where there was a real range of views. Many MPs complained about it, many gave us the trained seals  complaint, or the lack of decorum complaint. But others, I'm thinking about Bill Graham or John Godfrey, I loved it, it was great. The cut and thrust, and it was great to get a good punch in. So there were many who very joyfully described the fun of that kind of question period.

Sabreena Delhon: 

Well, in reading the book again to prepare for this, I noted that it is a fun read. And tell me about how you figured out what tone you wanted to have about this because the default mode for political conversations can be boring and intimidating. So tell me about how you just kind of set what kind of voice you wanted the book to have.

Alison Loat: 

I think we wanted to strike a balance between honouring and respecting and admiring, frankly, the people that spoke to us with the desire to encourage and provoke change in a nuanced way that respected the stories we were told. So we didn't want it just to be like, oh, here's a nice bunch of stories. We actually wanted to use it to provoke the agenda that Samara seeks to advance, which is really encouraging that much healthier quality of democracy. 

Michael MacMillan:

And the importance and the honour and the impact of the role that Alison just mentioned is so important because we believe that. But the title of the book, Tragedy in the Commons, could and perhaps was by some people taken as quite a negative thing. But it's only negative because this matters so much. Because the House of Commons does matter.

And government matters and the role of parliamentarians matters. So hopefully the word tragedy is taken in the context of the importance of the work of members of Parliament.

Sabreena Delhon:

So you've both reflected on how it was really special to be able to embark on this project and hear the stories that you did. How did writing this book change each of you?

Michael MacMillan:

I don't know that I would, by the way, we had a lot of help in writing this book. Our colleagues at Samara, it was a group effort. I guess, I don't know whether it changed me, but it certainly reinforced my long-abiding interest and admiration for those who embark on this work. I wouldn't have it in me to be a member of Parliament. I'm grateful that others do.

Alison Loat:

The book came at a very interesting time for me because my son was born about six weeks later. You know, I will say though, it's a good time to, being eight months pregnant on a book tour is actually not a bad idea because nobody ever beats up on the pregnant lady, right? So I got away with a fair amount. So, and what was interesting is that that also kind of marked a juncture. That was the last year I was at Samara full-time.

So, you know, it was a wonderful punctuation for me. You know, Michael was modest in saying, it absolutely was a group effort, but, you know, Michael and the support of him and his family in starting Samara was instrumental. And, you know, I really just wanted to say that the conversations he's provoked through his support of Samara and obviously Sabreena, the work you and many of others have done is actually such a gift to the country. I just feel so honoured to have been a part of it and just so thrilled that, you know, we're still in a position to be talking about it ten years later. What a gift.

Sabreena Delhon:

Well, it is a privilege to do this work and we've been looking back but I want to look forward when you look ahead, what do you see next for the Samara Center for Democracy? What do you see next for democracy in Canada?

‍Alison Loat:

Well, I'll start, Michael, you should go last. So I mean, a couple of things. I still think a lot of the themes are important. I think anybody who's running for office, I pray they and their families read it and really think hard about some of what we've talked about with how you position yourself and your own story to drive change and to encourage participation. I still remain convinced that we have to think hard about the role of political parties.

in a much better and stronger way. And then to pick up on some, you know, not future-looking themes by any stretch, but things I don't think the book covered that we should be covering. One, of course, is the role of the changed media environment and how we want to handle social media. It is driving people out of politics, for sure, it is impeding the safety of good people and that has to be taken much more seriously and with much more urgency. And another comment I'll make, I think we as a country have to take much more seriously Indigenous traditions of democracy and how those actually play a stronger role in our broader democracy, in a really, in a real and serious way. I think there's a lot of history in this country of democracy that we don't integrate nearly well enough into call it mainstream for lack of a better, I don’t know what you call Parliament up there, but kind of the conventional way we think about democracy. And I think that's a challenge for everybody in the coming years. 

Michael MacMillan:

You know, Sabreena, I would say that it's been great in recent years under your leadership that we have taken, as well as the political science view, a social justice lens. Because why are we interested in making democracy work better? It's an issue of social justice. It's a bit of a Sisyphean task. It's not like we are going to improve everything and fix everything at once. It's very complicated. It's a journey. And the metaphor that the three of us have often used over the years is, you know, the body politic is not that different from the physical body. Even a body that's in reasonably good shape, you still go to the gym, you still try to eat well. And if a relatively healthy body person stops eating well and stops going to the gym, look out. So it's an ongoing maintenance program as well as, I hope, an improvement.

‍Alison Loat:

The other really exciting thing, Sabrina, for Samara, I mean, everyone in all their professions, you know, let's just get through the day, right? And creating the space which you and Michael and others have for the more important longer-term discussions around democracy is such a needed intervention in our society. And that is, I really think, the service that Samara does for Canada, and I'm excited to see it continue to do it.

Michael MacMillan:

Ten years goes fast. 

Alison Loat:

Does it ever.

Michael MacMillan:

Here we are. The challenges haven't changed very much and perhaps they've gotten even more complex.

Sabreena Delhon:

Michael, Allison, thank you so much for this conversation. You have such candid and wise insights and I'm really appreciative for them. Thanks so much.

Alison Loat: 

Thank you.

Michael MacMillan:

Thank you.

Sabreena Delhon:

This has been a special bonus episode of Humans of the House from the Samara Centre for Democracy, produced by Hannah Sung and Media Girlfriends. Thank you to our guests, Alison and Michael, and also to

Andrew Coyne of the Globe and Mail and Zain Velji, a current board member at the Samara Centre.

The Samara Centre for Democracy is a non-partisan registered charity. Our mission is to realize a resilient democracy with an engaged public and responsive institutions. To support our work visit samaracentre.ca and click donate. 

And if you, like us, care about the human side of politics, help spread the word about our show. Rate and review us on Apple Podcasts, you’d be surprised how much it helps. Tell your friends. If you teach, share this show with your class. 

This podcast is part of the MP Exit Interview project. To learn more about this work and other research, visit our website and follow us on social media @thesamaracentre

Thank you for listening.