Ontario MPPs Take a Five Month Break from the Legislature - Ford Accused of Dodging Accountabilty

Ontario's legislature is heading into a remarkably long summer recess, but the political debates aren't cooling down.

In this episode of On the Ledge, I’m joined by Tim Hudak, Kathleen Wynne, John Wright and Keith Leslie for a wide-ranging conversation about what happens when MPPs leave Queen’s Park for nearly five months. Is this a reasonable balance between constituency work and legislative duties, or does it weaken accountability and democratic oversight?

We also dig into the growing controversy surrounding Billy Bishop Airport expansion plans, including questions about lobbying, transparency and who ultimately stands to benefit from major changes on Toronto’s waterfront.

The conversation then shifts to Ottawa, where reports of internal Liberal caucus tensions raise questions about Prime Minister Mark Carney’s leadership style and how leaders manage dissent behind closed doors.

Finally, we look ahead to Ontario’s next round of teacher negotiations, examining funding pressures, class sizes, declining enrolment, school infrastructure and what parents can expect heading into the next school year.

As always, the panel brings experience, perspective and a healthy dose of political realism to the discussion.

#OntarioPolitics #DougFord #MarkCarney #BillyBishopAirport #OntarioEducation #QueenPark #TeacherNegotiations #OnTheLedge #OntarioNews #CanadianPolitics 

You can watch OR listen to this episode on our YouTube Channel (Be sure to subscribe!)

Follow Dave on Facebook, Instagram, LinkedIn and X

And you can leave us a voice comment here!

For more information go to Dave's website.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:02):
Once around the Park James and don't spare the horses.

Speaker 2 (00:17):
It's show Dad.

Speaker 3 (00:23):
And welcome in. Here we go.

Speaker 4 (00:24):
It is the ultimate episode of on the Ledgere Ontario
politics podcast I'm Dave Trapper, ultimated as much as the
final one before we get back to things with any regularity,
and we're not quite sure when that will be yet,
but we'll we'll figure that out. So lots to talk
about though as we wind things down the legislature, wrapping

(00:47):
things up for you know, I wouldn't even say the
summer break, Holy cow. Anyway, we'll get into that around
the table this morning on Thursday, June the fourth. Tim
Houdak is here for Leader of the PC Party now
at the Council Public Affairs. John Wright is our resident pollster.
Kathleen Wynn is the former Premier of Ontario, and Keith

(01:09):
Leslie he is the you know, veteran voice at Queen's Park.
You hear and see him on HTV a variety of
other podcasts, and of course has been a regular contributor
here on the Ledge Wow almost eight years. So this
has been kind of cooking along. Yeah, it's not bad, right.

Speaker 3 (01:27):
So one of the things that I think we got
to get this out of the what's that?

Speaker 5 (01:33):
Where's Keiths?

Speaker 3 (01:33):
The records?

Speaker 2 (01:34):
Record?

Speaker 3 (01:36):
Is your laundry?

Speaker 2 (01:37):
Yeah, I've still got the water in the basement issue
being dealt with my sewing room. Actually, so the records
are safe. They were nowhere near the water, but I
can't actually play them right now. So it is a
bit of a pain.

Speaker 3 (01:49):
Right save make sure you save the records, right.

Speaker 4 (01:52):
Absolutely, Let's get this out of the way, because there
was a good deal of conversation about it, and you know,
I realize that you know that the argument is going
to be, well, MPPs are working even when legislature is
not sitting. I will default to the two former MPPs
in the room. Tim, I get it, But boy, twenty

(02:17):
one weeks is it something like that? It's like almost
five months away from the legislature. And forgive me for
suggesting that, yes, I understand that I want my MPP,
you know, kind of cruising around my neighborhood just to
get a feel for what's happening locally and what are
the local issues and what are the concerns, whether you know,
on a very grassroots maybe in the weeds issue. But

(02:40):
I fully expect my MPP to be present at Queen's
Park debating legislation more often than that. I mean twenty
nine days in the last session. And we were joking
just before we came home. We can all dress up
as as going door to door MPPs for Halloween and
we still might not see them in the legislature. They're
off for that long. This just seems overly indulgent to

(03:04):
be taking that much time off away from again, I
can qualify it away from the legislature.

Speaker 6 (03:11):
There there was a line by political Satriss PG or
work who preferred the American state legislatures that met every
two years because they could do a lot less damage
less they were in the in the state legislatures. So
maybe that's the thinking. Yeah, look, there's there's a balance
here to aspects the job as an MPP. Right when

(03:34):
when you're in a rite in the writing, you know
a lot of folks think the houses is sitting, you're
not doing anything. It's quite the opposite. That's where you,
in my view, you know, really earn a good portion
in your paycheck for for two reasons. You're there in writing,
you know, helping constituents solve issues in your constituency office.
You are running around the writing constantly right good seven
seven days a week, attending events, especially as things warm up,

(03:56):
people get outside, and event season happens, business opening, sixtieth anniversaries,
all of that stuff, which is part of being seen,
part of doing your job and understanding what's happening in
the riding, and also as a way to fine tune
your political barometer, understanding how people think about issues, how
they talk about issues, and how those issues rank out.

(04:17):
The other part of the balance, though, David, is being
there in the legislature holding the government to accountable. Whatever
side of the floor you're on. It could be legislation,
but most important part, I think is an effective, the
most effective tool for the opposition to hold the government
to account, to shine the light of day and daily
question period, to be there with the media to make

(04:39):
sure that the government is acting responsibly. And the less
you have that, the more the system falls out of balance.
And I don't know what the trend is over time,
but it seems like it is it is decreasing, and
at some point you're on the opposition side of the
house and you're taking away tools that you two are
going to need. Look my last comment here, I mean
the Ford government has been very efficient. They you know,

(05:01):
in the consulting world, they line up bills well ahead
of time, they mark them out, they do more night sittings,
they get fewer things done faster. But I do worry
that we're going to be increasingly out of balance and
any time that the oppostction does not have a chance
to do their job in shine the light idea of
government decisions and spending, the worse it is for democracy.

Speaker 3 (05:24):
Kathleen.

Speaker 4 (05:25):
It was one of those things where this seems to
have been sort of a slow trickle that the time
away from the legislature gets increasingly longer, et cetera. And
I think you and Tim have made the point in
the past around you know, the new trend of the
day kind of turns around and bite you in the butt.
When you lose you know, government and you're now in opposition,

(05:45):
you're going to have that challenge. So this is one
of those things. But I still think that there's a
perception out there that you know, for a government, for example,
that might criticize teachers for only, you know, not working
two months out of the year all of a sudden,
well okay, hello.

Speaker 1 (06:00):
Yeah, I mean I will say off the top that
like most and MPPs, it was very irritating when I
would hear newscasters say they're off, you know, they're on
a break and they're on a break for X number
of weeks because you do work, you're in your constituency office,
and that can be very rigorous.

Speaker 5 (06:22):
But I will also say that.

Speaker 1 (06:25):
When when I was when I was premier and coming
into after that leadership in January of twenty thirteen, you know,
I made a commitment to come back according to the
legislative calendar, as soon as the leadership was over.

Speaker 5 (06:41):
We came back after family Day.

Speaker 1 (06:44):
I tried to stick to the legislative calendar because built
into the legislative calendar are constituency weeks. You know, there's
time built in to get back to the ridings. As
a Toronto member, you know, it was it was much easier.
But for members who are outside of Toronto, I understood
that it was a challenge and so obviously those those

(07:05):
weeks are important. I think there are a couple of
things about I think that this premiere is not particularly
comfortable in question period. You know, I think he doesn't
I don't think he likes it. I don't think he
likes the scrutiny, I don't think he. I mean, he
may like like the cut and thrust, but his staff
sure don't like it when he gets into it. You
know that that is a problem for this government. I

(07:28):
also think it's a very reactive government. And so Tim,
you made a little bit of a slip there. You
said they were getting fewer things done faster. I think
you meant getting more things done faster. I would argue
that it is getting fewer things done faster.

Speaker 5 (07:43):
You know.

Speaker 1 (07:43):
I think that they actually don't have much of a
of a proactive agenda. I think that they react to things,
and apart from building infrastructure, there isn't really a vision
of the of what they want the problems to look
like like certainly not in healthcare, certainly, not in education,
certainly not in social services.

Speaker 5 (08:04):
Those things. They react to issues.

Speaker 1 (08:06):
And right now they're going into teachers negotiations for example,
So that's not that's not going to be a comfortable
place for them. So I understand why they want to
be away from the house. So I think that I
think that it's a problem. I think that they could
have you know, they could have stayed and then come
back saying that they're worried about the municipal election getting

(08:27):
in the way. I mean, they have not been shy
about interfering in municipal politics from the time they were elected,
So I think that's that's just an excuse.

Speaker 5 (08:37):
And so I think it is a real challenge for MPPs.
And I'll end on this.

Speaker 1 (08:41):
For MPPs, they get disconnected from the center, you know.
I mean, it's harder to hold the team together. And
already there are challenges for this premieer. We're going to
talk about some of those later in terms of caucus cohesion.
So I think it's a problem both for them and
for the public.

Speaker 4 (09:01):
Yeah, John, when we look at this and it's all
around public perception as much, that just gets ingrained. And
I echo what Kathleen said. I mean, we're calling back
to the twenty eighteen after you and I put our
pencils down following the election, we thought, Okay, you know,
new government, they're going to take time, they'll get their
cabinet in place, has sworn in, blah blah blah blah.
We'll be back at it at just after Labor Day.

(09:23):
Of course, then the province steps up into sides. They're
going to cut Toronto City Council in half. We put
out the clarion call and Keith answered, and we were
doing the podcast all summer. So it's kind of ironic
to suggest for a second that they were doing this
to avoid any kind of suggestion of interference in municipal politics.
But there is a public perception that they're not doing

(09:45):
their job. And I don't care how often and we
can all agree that MPPs are working in their constituents constituencies,
the perception is they're not doing their job if they're
not at their desk at Queen's.

Speaker 7 (09:58):
Park, I suppose.

Speaker 8 (10:00):
So I think, you know, Number one is that we
look at the two main governments that are that affect us,
the federal government and the provincial government. Forget about the
municipal side of the ledger for a moment. And you know,
Mark Carney's at fifty percent in terms of vote right
now as he moves ahead and makes a lot of

(10:20):
decisions which are clearly not engaging a lot of people.
We see in the province now the repair of the
public opinion polls where the premiers back to.

Speaker 7 (10:31):
Where he was at around forty one percent.

Speaker 8 (10:33):
So you know, maybe maybe some people took the advice
that we all had on this, you know that the
Premier may should take a break out of the limelight
and just extended it to the whole assembly.

Speaker 7 (10:42):
Look, there's I think there's another thing that I was thinking.

Speaker 8 (10:45):
About last night before coming on here, and that is
that we live in a very interesting age, which I
would I would say is the appearance of publicly associated autocracy.
We have a series of governments for a number of reasons,
whether it be post pandemic or whether it be because
of Donald Trump and the impact on our society, where

(11:07):
governments have given themselves almost without any problem whatsoever, incredible
powers Bill C five federally, Bill five provincially. The fois
both federally and provincially. You know, strong mayors powers that

(11:28):
have been given over like there's there's been a centralization
of power.

Speaker 7 (11:31):
And we see almost parallel.

Speaker 8 (11:33):
Issues between the MPs who are making waves nationally. Uh
you know, within Mark Carney's caucusing you're not consulting with us,
And I'm it is much broader than it appears to be,
especially even amongst stakeholders where decisions are made and just
move forward. And we see that as well in the
Premier's caucus. It just strikes me that we've we've got

(11:56):
a situation where legislation and regulation controlled and central laws
is allowing governments to basically move away from the accountability
of the legislature.

Speaker 7 (12:06):
The Prime Minister has been in the House, what twenty
four times?

Speaker 8 (12:11):
The Premier has been in the House, but the government
now is deciding that it's going to take you know,
the many months off. So it's an interesting circumstance here
where you could say, well, they just don't want to
meet in the legislature. Well, that may be fairer, but
it's also a case you don't have to in many ways.
It may not be until you know, the new Liberal

(12:31):
leader gets in the House, the you know, whether or
not the teachers negotiations forces them into the House or something.
But actually, over the last five months or so, governments
across this country have absorbed significant powers that they've never
had before to make autonomous decisions and to avoid scrutiny.

(12:52):
And that usually has come at a time when there's
weak opposition. There isn't anybody there to hold them together.
To me, I'm actually even thinking further ahead, like what
does this mean for the opposition parties to the next
election campaign, how are they going to run you know,
you know, on opening government or doing more stakeholder engagement,
Because it seems to me that in the short term,

(13:14):
whether it's a Billy Bishop airport, or whether it's a
four seventeen, or whether it's you know, almost anything in
this province, it may be a view that there should
be accountability in the legislature, but they don't have to
be there, like I mean, they now have the regulatory
control to do a lot of these things. So I
just again I reflect that we're in a very interesting

(13:35):
time where the public has acquiesced to the external environment
politically and allowed governments to absorb all of it powers. Basically,
we're just going to make deals. We're just going to
do our thing. We're going to as as a conservative
whild say we're going to get things done. And that
seems to me where that's led us to almost today.

Speaker 4 (13:53):
Well, and then that's that the heart of getting things
done has been sort of the good, bad and otherwise
for the for government Keithan as much as it's double sided.
Sure you can point to it and say we've accomplished
these things, but in the effort to do many of
those things. There have been you know, stumbles, if not
on the verge of scandal involved in some of the files.

(14:15):
And that has happened, you know, brought to the attention
because the opposition's been in the in the House and
the and the press gallery has been very active on that.

Speaker 3 (14:23):
Can I just suggest that.

Speaker 4 (14:25):
Perhaps the press gallery or reporters in general should stop
saying it's gonna make my job harder. You know, I mean,
I get it. But at the same time, sweet merciful
baby Jesus, you know, we've got to be in a
place where, you know, let's make sure that we're holding
the government to account and you know, be in your

(14:45):
lane to do that. But I get the I get
the spirit of it. It's not you're not gonna well,
but you're not gonna get the premiere on a on
a hallway scrum.

Speaker 2 (14:55):
I get that generally not but you know, when he's
arriving in the car, you can stake out with the
cars or right, premiums have been staked out on the
way in before. I mean, I was always fair to
governments when they took the legislative breakscis you know, they're
back to their constituency office.

Speaker 3 (15:08):
We'd point that out.

Speaker 2 (15:09):
It's not just they're off, But I do think in
this case it's fair to point out that this government
is taking five months to avoid accountability. What you know,
normally you would rise early to mid June and be
back early to mid September. That's three months off. That's
generally enough for a government to get itself together to
a cabinet shuffle that they have to get the new
ministers up to speed. But we're coming back a few

(15:30):
days before Halloween. I mean, that's just a government that's
trying to avoid accountability. And to hear Premier Ford, he
just dismissed being held to account in the legislature as well.
We're better off we can get a lot of stuff
down outside the house instead of just being here arguing
with each other. Well, it's not arguing with each other.
It's public debate about public policies, and this is what's

(15:51):
needed to shape the policies to make them better. He's
just avoiding that completely and renting stuff through on himself
on their own. And he even can confirmed that when
he said you can do lots of things by orders
in council, Yes you can.

Speaker 3 (16:03):
You sure can that's.

Speaker 2 (16:04):
Another job just referring to their power. They can do
a whole lot of things by orders in council, which
just means government takes action and acts things, and the
opposition parties are left on the sidelines trying to get
someone to say, hey, hey, that's not you know, they
can get no attention. The government is just doing this
and they can use their right to do this. This
is absolutely avoiding accountability. Is it's anti democratic. If you

(16:25):
do esa three months off in the summer, it should
be good enough for any government to get it back
together again. For the false sitting this is. And the
whole argument about interturing with the municipal elections is laughable.
It truly is laughable. And we're talking about a government
as well that you know, we had an election campaign
a year ago, there was a federal campaign. Did either
one of those governments ever mention anything about, you know,

(16:46):
privatizing the airport or excuse me, revamping Billy Bishop airport. No,
these governments are just doing things that are not accountable
and not bringing this stuff in the legislature. And what
are we seeing on the Billy Bisious example. And we're
trying to get the federal liberals to come in on it. Well,
we don't see an official plan yet, we don't know
what's going on. Because there is no official plan. The
government's just writing this out premium for it, says I

(17:08):
want this. There's nothing really to debate, so they don't
debate it. This is really really a terrible way to
shape public policy, but it is to the benefit of
the government of the day for sure.

Speaker 4 (17:18):
Tim on the on the Airport file a couple of
stories this week The Star going kind of deep on
who actually is pulling the strings in terms of the
company that runs the airport specifically, and noting that really
it's being controlled by JP Morgan, Big you know, US
investment firm, et cetera. And then none of this was

(17:42):
disclosed when we were having the conversations, who was going
to benefit from it, all of those sorts of things,
And then the Trillium or it might have been Toront
today one of the village media outlets saying, you know,
we wanted to see some of the details on Billy Bishop,
but they got quashed because of FI. So all of
a sudden, that's what's left in the wake here. Does
the does the JP Morgan thing kind of stink or stick.

Speaker 6 (18:07):
I'll say neither. I'll say neither, but you know, I
fire opposition leader. I would certainly try to make make
either of both happen. I don't know. I just take
this at at face face value, something I thought about
during my time politics, and and since I remember being
there when I think reporter launched, we're being there as

(18:28):
you know, Tourism Culture Recreation minister celebrating, you know, more
flights coming into that airport. I just I believe that
that Billy Bishop has evolved to a place where it's
part of the provincial infrastructures, no longer a municipal airport.
I think people want to see greater access to choices
there because of frustration they have at Pearson. I believe

(18:49):
a lot of major cities, you know, have two choices
to a downtown in an outskirt you know, airport or
or more so, I just see this as part of
a overall infrastructure plan of the four government to invest
in transportation capacity, to create more convenience for travelers and
create more business investment and activity. I don't see a
boogeyman here, but your job's opposition kind of light on it.

Speaker 9 (19:16):
Just can I just jump in, Dave, I mean, I
if indeed people, Tim, you're saying people want to see
this expansion. I think the JP Morgan story is significant
in that it's quite clear. I mean, we kind of
knew this intuitively.

Speaker 1 (19:35):
And the you know the poll that said seventy percent
of Ontarians want this to happen. I mean that that is,
you know, most of those people are not affected by
the airport at all in any way.

Speaker 5 (19:48):
And you know the question.

Speaker 1 (19:50):
I think the question couched the whole thing in terms
of safety and the expansion of the runway. Well, yeah, okay, people,
there has to be an expansion of the runway in
order for there to be to meet safety standards. That's
different than bringing in jets and expanding it to the
links that they are going. But I think the JP

(20:10):
Morgan story is important because it really shines a light
on how the people who are interested in this have
absolutely no connection or interest in what the people of Toronto,
where the airport is located, are interested in or in
their needs. And there was no discussion to Dave's point,

(20:33):
there was no discussion in any of the platforms of
any of the parties that went into the last elections,
and there has been no consultation, no discussion with the
people of Toronto. So I just think that it's one
more piece of evidence that this is a project that
really does has not been demonstrated to be in the

(20:55):
best interests of the people who are going to be
the very most effect did buy it.

Speaker 3 (21:03):
John.

Speaker 4 (21:03):
The whole question around the JP Morgan connection to to
Newport aviation, that is that for a long time, you know,
we the the ownership of that particular corporate entity was
a little vague and it took some digging by the
by the Toronto Star to figure out who was doing

(21:24):
what and who was pulling strings.

Speaker 3 (21:26):
I find it.

Speaker 4 (21:26):
Hard to believe that that the folks at Queen's Park
would not have known that, that the folks at City
Hall would not have known that. So should not like
some of that transparency is shared by all three levels
of government in terms of, you know, what the hell's
going on at the airport. This is not just a
provincial thing. The whole it suggested to me a lot
of a lack of complete transparency in terms of who

(21:46):
was benefiting from any converse conversation around expanding the airport.

Speaker 7 (21:53):
Well, I don't know how to answer that.

Speaker 8 (21:57):
And the reason is there's lots of entities that are
owned and operated by others or invested in that we
don't know of, and that governments clearly know who's pulling
certain strings. Or maybe it's a passive investment. The real
issue is whether or not there's an organized opposition that
forces these out into the open. I mean, if it

(22:18):
hadn't been for the digging of a Toronto Star journalist,
we wouldn't be in the business section. We wouldn't know, right, Like,
It's just kind of and then from a public perspective,
does it matter at the moment, it doesn't. It's completely benign.
It's kind of like, Okay, there's an investment. I mean,
the only argument you could have there as well, you've
got private sector versus public sector, and public sector is

(22:39):
good versus private sector is bad. And then I go
back to this, without an effective opposition to whatever government
is in power, where there's a vacuum, there's going to
be a breakaway. Like I said last time, I mean,
governments have got a breakaway on the Saint Lawrence River.

Speaker 7 (22:57):
It just kind of goes.

Speaker 8 (22:58):
And the problem that we have right now is that
you know, Olivia Chiao has got an election coming up,
and there's real noah opposition to this, although she can,
as I said last time, make it her own ballot
question referendum for downtown.

Speaker 1 (23:12):
Uh.

Speaker 7 (23:13):
There there isn't.

Speaker 8 (23:14):
Anything there that is being I mean you could you
could say basically assets are controlled by American big interests
in you know, investment companies, and we don't have an
in there, like there's there's framing that could take place there.

Speaker 7 (23:27):
But Dave, I don't.

Speaker 8 (23:29):
I don't know how in the absence of a good,
solid opposition and it's not merit styles you know in
the ndpk uh. You know, God bless her for what
she does, but it's not her because it doesn't have
the same Oh but I if you have a federal
government and MPs who in fact are not going to
comment on this for a bunch of reasons, and if

(23:50):
you have a municipal government that's not going to raise
its higher and what they're basically saying is we're not
going to comment on it until we have more more information.
And if you don't have a solid opposition across the
floor in the provincial government, I don't know how else.

Speaker 7 (24:07):
You deal with this. It just is a fact they
own it.

Speaker 8 (24:12):
There's you know, even Richard Florida has come out and said,
you know, we may quibble. I can't remember the exact
phrase he used, but it was kind of like, we
may not agree with the way in which the premier
has done it, but it is the way it is.
And this is how, like Tim said, there's lots of
other places around North America where there are two airports.
I come back to this whole sense that there's there's

(24:34):
almost a publicly associated autocracy feeling that's going on here,
but that's in the absence of opposition. So I mean,
people get the democracy they elect right now, there's a
whole group that are completely silent on this, including the stakeholders.

Speaker 7 (24:50):
Well, Keith.

Speaker 4 (24:50):
The thing I thinks will stick in people's craw here
is the notion that somebody at JP Morgan can decide
who the CEO is at Newport Aviation. This isn't just
about whether or not they're going to make money on it.
They have they pretty much complete control over how that
airport is run on an operational level day to day.

(25:11):
And I understand John's point around you know, there's no
opposition banging the drum on it effectively. But you know you,
I think it's a master in diversion and communications actually
to be able to say everybody wants an airport. Well,
I think he's probably right, we want the airport down there.
But it's really easy to mix the you know, muddy

(25:33):
the waters effectively here by by saying that kind of
stuff and divert from it. And I just as we
go along there seems to be more what are you hiding?
The whole lobbying process here seems to be way out
of line. I mean that they were supposed to be
making declarations in terms of who they were answering to,
et cetera, both federally and provincially, and they didn't do it.

Speaker 2 (25:57):
They normally didn't do the proper lobbying registration to make
it clear that was JP Morgan that they were representing
this Newman company. But I mean it's the lobbying by
them and that brought this to the forefront of the
guy I'm in. The island. Airport expansion has been debated
over the years, but it was definitely in a low period.
It wasn't mentioned in the federal and provincial elections last
year and all of a sudden doug Ford is a

(26:18):
champion of this idea because lobbyists. He's been lobbied so
hard and so heavy on this. What else other conclusion
can we come to. He didn't mention it in the election,
it wasn't a priority. Then it's nowhere been debated in
the legislature to doug Ford idea by a government that
was lobbied. So were the opposition parties. The federal government
was lobbied, the City Hall was lobbied. Apparently they even

(26:39):
hired a new Democrat lobbyist. These guys A they've got
the coin and B they know how to set an
agenda in a city. There's nothing wrong with the business
trying to expand its business, whether they're privately owned, publicly owned, American,
and that's not the issue. The issue is how did
they get this on the agenda simply by buying the
right lobbyists and getting them to go to work on it.
There's nothing illegal about any of that. That's all a

(27:00):
proper and above board. But this is how public policy
gets made. They find a politician is going to champion
their ideas. The lobbying works really effectively, but they should
have at least been straight on the lobbyist registry that
it was JP Morgan that was at the top of
this food chain and JP Morgan that directs who's going
to run Billy Bishop Airport.

Speaker 3 (27:19):
Kathleen.

Speaker 4 (27:19):
I don't know if that's you know, just too far
down on the weeds on it, but you know, it
kind of lends itself back to the green belt discussion.

Speaker 1 (27:28):
Yeah, I think I think that's right, Dave. I mean
I think that people when they don't.

Speaker 5 (27:33):
Have any input, when the process is murky.

Speaker 1 (27:37):
And there hasn't there hasn't been any discussion about or
in fact, I mean in the case of the green belt,
there was the exact opposite statement that there wasn't going
to be incursion into the green belt, that you know,
the premier is going to keep his hands off the
green belt.

Speaker 5 (27:55):
But in this case, it literally came out of the blue.

Speaker 1 (27:59):
And I just I think that it is consistent with
the kind of what is what is this government trying
to hide?

Speaker 5 (28:09):
Why?

Speaker 1 (28:10):
Why was there no conversation? I mean, it is a
bit beyond me. Why the MPs are not speaking out,
the liberal MPs in the City of Toronto.

Speaker 5 (28:19):
I don't get that.

Speaker 1 (28:21):
I don't understand why they have not made it clear
to the Prime Minister. And maybe they maybe they are
in that process, but I think that it would make
a lot of sense for those liberal MPs to make
it clear that this is not something that is going
to help them at all. I mean, it's starting to
come out a little bit now that you know their

(28:44):
constituents are not going to be happy with this. If
the waterfront like the other that's the other thing. There
is a lot going on down at the waterfront, you know.
I mean if you talk about Ontario Place and the
Science Center and all of the all of the building,
there's going to be a lot of change down there.
And then you add on to it a huge runway
that's going to go. It's going to go across the

(29:05):
waterfront in a way that it hasn't in the past.
I think that I think that people are rightly anxious
about all of that. So yeah, I think that this
feeds into this government's brand, which has become we're not
going to talk about this publicly, We're just going to
try to do it.

Speaker 5 (29:24):
And I think they've gotten away with it.

Speaker 1 (29:26):
And John, I know you will tell me that Doug
Ford's numbers are very high I get that.

Speaker 5 (29:31):
That doesn't mean it's right. It doesn't mean what they're
doing is right.

Speaker 1 (29:35):
It doesn't mean that they aren't engaged in, you know,
trying to avoid scrutiny, because I think that's exactly what
they are trying to do.

Speaker 5 (29:44):
They're trying to avoid scrutiny. And maybe John that actually
works politically.

Speaker 1 (29:50):
I don't think it's good for democracy, and I don't
think it leads to good public policy.

Speaker 5 (29:54):
That's my concern to me.

Speaker 3 (29:56):
You might say.

Speaker 4 (29:56):
That that the federal liberals are trying to avoid scrutiny too,
I mean just by laying low and let this thing
play out. I mean, we don't want to get involved
in the in the in the cat fight here.

Speaker 6 (30:06):
Oh, they probably support growing the airport, like I mean,
Carney is a cast himself as a builder. You know,
he wants to see our economy revive. He's certainly been
successful a lot of major cities that have more than
one airport. Like I I'm finally been here because I
have my own internal Batman rule, and I think we
crossed the Batman line. So Renumber. One time I was

(30:27):
on Pacon Show, but the premieer Win was was on
what we usue this regularly. She used to hop my
car we drive around this film. We were sort of
climbing the ladder in our in our own parties. So
he might have been on that day and I was
going on a particular rant about Mayor David Miller and
some conspiracy theory.

Speaker 3 (30:43):
Right, it's somebody.

Speaker 6 (30:45):
Texted and that's right, and the Mayor hopped in the
car with a joker and penguin and got away.

Speaker 3 (30:49):
Right.

Speaker 6 (30:49):
We we often will see into those that are on
the other side and we'll build in sort of nefarious
thinking and I just don't think that this this passes that,
and it's violent him a batman role. Like my recollection
was that Mayor rob Ford was a big supporter of
expanding Billy Bishop Airport. Doug was always at his side,
whether as counselor or campaignmenters. It seems very consistent.

Speaker 3 (31:13):
With his worldview.

Speaker 6 (31:14):
He also, you know, we are where we come from.
He has focused on Toronto a lot as Premier, maybe
got involved more than others would have if they weren't
from from Toronto. He's a major builder of infrastructure. Whether
you like what Doug Ford has done or not, Boy,
he talks a lot about expanding infrastructure, particularly transportation. Say

(31:34):
what you will about the tunnel, right, but there's another
example of you know, big projects that work. Just yeah,
you should be clear in the lobby as you got
to follow those things, right, we need to. Lobbying is
an important role, right. You can be a voice for
those that don't have a voice. You can make your case.
You get information to government and opposition decision makers they
may not get otherwise, but you got to.

Speaker 3 (31:54):
Play by the rules. Agree with that. I just don't.
I just don't see the Batman conspiracy here.

Speaker 4 (32:00):
I'm still with you, Tim in terms of the conversation
that's coming out of that was.

Speaker 3 (32:05):
Enough and yeah, well I like that.

Speaker 4 (32:09):
Yeah, the Carney's a yeller, And I just wonder whether
or not that's sort of a symptom of what we're
seeing with the Toronto MPs saying okay, we've had our say,
whether they've been shouted down or not.

Speaker 3 (32:22):
I think you're right.

Speaker 4 (32:22):
The Prime Minister has already waived the flag for the
doug Ford planet at Billy Bishop, So you know whether
or not that's good leadership in the in the caucus
room or not. I know you guys have got a
thought on that, but there's a little bit more going
on behind closed doors as far as the caucus is
can turn than just you know, the outward smiles and handshakes. Yeah,

(32:47):
I a lot lot here.

Speaker 6 (32:49):
Saul Child's to be relatively brief, and I sneak preview
where we're taping this Thursday morning, So I'm looking for
Premier Winds comments on the Deadton Show. I needs talk
later today on this very topic about caucus dynamics and
the role leaders play in it.

Speaker 3 (33:06):
Look, I.

Speaker 6 (33:10):
You can hear from one caucus member, and keith Ole
has certainly done this in his time as journalists. Another
caucus member, you ho from the Premier is representative of
you triangulate where the truth is. It's always somewhere in between.
On this Carney stuff, I put it in the league
that there is a new seriousness in Ottawa that was lacking,
especially in the tail end of the Trude administration. Carney

(33:30):
is more focused on what he wants to do with
our economy, the US international relationships, on trade, getting big
projects built. So my guess is he wants to focus
on that agenda, and if caucus members bring up sort
of whiny things are off agenda, he maybe have less
patience for it than the previous leader. But I suspect
it's all within bound. Certainly talking to folks in the

(33:51):
consulting business. You know, liberal friends, you got to come
prepared when you meet at the Prime Minister. He doesn't
tolerate fools. You don't know your briefing note, you're quickly
shown on the door and you probably don't get invited back.

Speaker 3 (34:02):
But I respect that.

Speaker 6 (34:03):
You know, in the situation that we're in here today,
there there's a special dynamic. And I'm so fortunate for
twenty one years being part of the PC caucus and
how you know issues are raised, how COX members can
work together, the way they'll send signals more than a
direct confrontation.

Speaker 3 (34:18):
When they want change.

Speaker 6 (34:19):
They'll blame staff or communications or such to drive a
larger point, and there are ways of doing so that
are within the game, and things will change. I do
suspect the Premier a lot about the Jedier plane in
the province of Ontario. But sometimes you go outside the color,
outside the lines, and you gets snapped back, whether that's
by the leader or a champion or defender within caucus.
So I suspect I'm going to on this one I

(34:41):
going to call in favor of the Prime Minister.

Speaker 4 (34:44):
Yeah, Kathleen, I knew were saying this before we came on,
the idea that he has not sort of grown in
the culture of the caucus and the party, et cetera,
and the dynamics there. And I can see, given with Timos,
that that can cut both ways in terms of benefit
and dam image. But what's the outcome and what's the
what's the result. So I don't know if we end

(35:06):
up cutting up some slack on that or or or
how it works, But just your general thought.

Speaker 5 (35:11):
Well, a couple of things.

Speaker 1 (35:14):
I think that I think my overarching concern is that
it's being talked about publicly.

Speaker 5 (35:19):
You know that that whatever.

Speaker 1 (35:21):
Is going on, that somehow there are caucus members feel
that they need to talk about it publicly. That if
I were the leader, I would not be happy about that,
and I and I would ask the question, so, what's
going wrong in terms of the caucus dynamic? And and
I think that that is as a as a liberal

(35:41):
who is very supportive of what the government's doing, supportive
of the Prime Minister and of of his caucus, it
worries me that there might be that kind of that
kind of tension. The second thing I will say is
that yelling is in the ear of the beholder, you know.

Speaker 5 (35:58):
I mean, I don't know, I don't know what it means.

Speaker 1 (36:03):
If if Mark Carney thinks that he's the CEO of
the caucus and is behaving in that way and really
doesn't have a grasp on the fact that he is,
you know, first among equals in terms of all of
those people having been elected the way he was elected
in his riding, then that's a problem. You know. I

(36:25):
think that's something that in our system you really have
to remember because those people.

Speaker 5 (36:31):
I always remember Jeff Leo.

Speaker 1 (36:33):
Coming back from Peterborough and talking about, you know, the
guys at the tim Hortons, you know, and and giving
us an update when we were bringing in the minimum wage.

Speaker 5 (36:44):
You know, it was a real problem.

Speaker 1 (36:46):
The guys at the tim Hortons thought that we were
raising the minimum wage, that that was a problem. So
so I think that, you know, I don't hear it
as whining when I mean, tim you talk about MPPs
or MP's whining. I mean, people bring their concerns from
their constituencies, and the part of the job of the
leader is to listen to those concerns. If that's not happening,

(37:09):
that's a problem if the prime minister's.

Speaker 5 (37:11):
Style is.

Speaker 1 (37:14):
More bombastic or less patient than the previous prime minister.

Speaker 5 (37:19):
But you know what, there were lots of There was
lots of chatter.

Speaker 1 (37:22):
About Prime Minister Trudeau's interactions or lack of interactions with
caucus as well. I mean there's an element of whatever
you do, there's going to be you know, there's going
to be criticism here. But I go back to my
first concern. I don't know why it's being talked about publicly,
like what's going on in that caucus, that this needs

(37:43):
to be leaked out. I think that's that's actually the
biggest problem for the leader.

Speaker 5 (37:47):
To deal with.

Speaker 4 (37:48):
Well, to your point on yelling, I just think I'm
making my point forcefully. When I make my point, I
get accused of yelling. And Keith, there was a day
a lot I can and I willingly admit there are
days when I would not have wanted to work for me,
So I you know, it's just I'm just saying that
that those things, those things can happen, But you know,

(38:11):
at the same time, you need to be able to
and you used the phrase earlier.

Speaker 3 (38:15):
As far as the fur governments can.

Speaker 4 (38:17):
Get stuff done, I mean, you know, at some point
you got to take control and move it forward.

Speaker 2 (38:22):
I will admit that my wife on occasion has told
me don't project at me.

Speaker 3 (38:26):
Yeah.

Speaker 2 (38:32):
I think we have to remember that Mark Curney has
only been a politician for just a little over a year. Uh,
and we gave him high marxis the CEO class coming
in as a politician. I mean, his performance in the
House was pretty good. His performance in the election was
way better than a lot of people expected it would
be for someone who hadn't been, you know, aligned politician
and hadn't come out through those rights. So perhaps his

(38:53):
weakness is his caucus control, because it's a private thing,
and maybe this is where he's you know, he's he's
got to get his fet on him a little. It
better as you say to hear a couple dozen I'm
coming home complaining at this point seems a bit rich
when you know, he give him time to get his
feet underneath him, as I say, get him to establish himself.

(39:14):
And that seems I guess if he yelled at it
upset a few sensibilities, But for goodness, sakes. You know,
things are supposed to get heated in a caucus meeting.
Things are supposed to people are supposed to be able
to get upset and pissed off if they have to,
and argue their points and then come out in the
end with an agreed upon resolution.

Speaker 8 (39:31):
Someone.

Speaker 2 (39:31):
You know, sometimes you have to put a lot of
water into your wine, as they used to say, or
sometimes you can actually reach equal things. But caucus needs
to be able to freely speak its mind to some degree.

Speaker 3 (39:41):
In the prime Minister.

Speaker 2 (39:42):
Or the leader provincially, they have to be able to
handle that input and make everyone sort of come together
on the page at the end of the day. And
so to hear this public dissension this early in his
administration is a bit rich, really, I have to tell
I have.

Speaker 5 (39:59):
To just tell it. What anecdote about my kids.

Speaker 1 (40:01):
As you all know, I raise my voice, you know,
I get carried away.

Speaker 5 (40:07):
I was not. I tried really hard not to.

Speaker 1 (40:09):
Be a bully in terms of caucus and so on,
but my kids. I realized what my kids were dealing
with when one day one of them said to me,
you know, like there are kids in my class who
get really upset when the teacher yells like, what's the
big deal? That's like, why are they upset?

Speaker 5 (40:32):
This is.

Speaker 3 (40:36):
So John?

Speaker 4 (40:36):
Does this suggest that you know a problem at you know,
in terms of a grassroots caucus level, or is this
sort of just we're getting a glimpse of the humanity
that is Mark Harney.

Speaker 8 (40:47):
Well, I think every leader of every party brings to
the table their personality shaped by where they've been in
their occupations and everything else.

Speaker 7 (40:55):
This is a CEO.

Speaker 8 (40:57):
I mean, you could see him sitting at the cabat
table this deep old hands saying we're moving.

Speaker 7 (41:02):
Ahead, thank you very much.

Speaker 8 (41:03):
Like I don't need to go to Parliament that often.
I'll go when I have to, but we're in a
crisis situation.

Speaker 7 (41:09):
I'm here to make deals.

Speaker 8 (41:12):
I mean, he basically said to David Ebee, I mean,
Mark Carney, did you don't like this deal?

Speaker 3 (41:17):
I'll take it elsewhere. I mean.

Speaker 7 (41:19):
A few days later they announced the L ANDNG deal
out there, but.

Speaker 8 (41:21):
It was it's kind of like, look, we're here to
make deals, and it's we've heard oftentimes about how the
PMO centralizes how decisions are made. This one is tighter
than any that I've seen in the past. Decades that
I followed politics. It is is right into the minister's
office is so deep that their announcements made in staff

(41:43):
have no idea until after the fact. So this is
just it's a matter of style. It is like I
do deals. That's what Tim Hudson does. He goes out,
he gets the deals done and if you don't like it,
we're going to play the deal because we have that's
what we've been elected to do. And look our numbers
at fifty percent, So shut up. Brian mulroney was very different.
Shan Christia was very different, you know, working with indigenous leaders,
working with cocas, all that sort of stuff. Keep them happy,

(42:05):
keep them on the side. It's where they've come from,
I would so I think a lot of the time
this really, you know, has to do with the individual personality.

Speaker 7 (42:16):
Again, I was getting thought to.

Speaker 8 (42:17):
This as we close off this chapter of the legislature,
and I want to say this in the least pejorative fashion.
You know, you look over the years and every premier
has their own persona, and I know we have well
from a premier here which which was you know, it
was about education, it was about care, it was about
looking after people, and especially those who are marginalized. We've

(42:39):
had others who have been builders and things like this.
Doug Ford strikes me as the mayor of Ontario. I
don't mean that in a pejorative sense. I mean, if
that's what it is, it could be made to be
a virtue. It's like, all right, well, I'm I come
from where the people live. I hear from the people
on my cell phone.

Speaker 7 (42:58):
I listen to them.

Speaker 8 (43:00):
I go about making decisions that are very local, so
I'm not really interested in the big legacy protects. And
especially in Toronto where I've come from, I understand that
I understand how school boards work and I don't.

Speaker 7 (43:11):
Like the way things are done.

Speaker 8 (43:12):
So I'm or even safe sight in Jackson's I don't
like it because of the way in which the needles
are left on people's lawns, and that should be dealt with.
It's not a big esoteric thing to try and figure
this out. So, as I said, it's not pejorative, it
can be turned into a thing of you know, the
province has a mayor, meaning that he's involved in communities

(43:34):
and making decisions around that. And if that means that
the caucus comes and they're going to have some discussions
and dissensions around certain things. Fine, but it may not
be the priority that the Premier is giving it. And
it's like okay, depending upon as the Premier win said
the confrontation of that, I can get somebody else to
fill that role and that'll go away. Having said all

(43:57):
of that, though, the question is really you want to
silence those those people?

Speaker 7 (44:03):
You know, it's one thing to do it, it's another
thing too.

Speaker 8 (44:06):
I've found that the best leaders I've ever dealt with,
especially in public policy, are those who surround themselves with
contrarians who actually see the other side and who are
able to advance those arguments a little bit like West Wing.
Remember those where Jed Bartley would be in there, they
all be yelling and everything. It would educate him and
then he'd say, I made this decision. Well you kind
of hope that goes on, and I've seen that happen

(44:27):
in a few cases. But in this case, again shaped
by the individual leader in the office, you would think
after three terms, with the political capital that is premier has,
that the big legacy issues would be confronting some of
the bigger issues that we have, such as the steep
demographic issues that we have going on in as province,

(44:47):
and it's really focused on two things. Number one, local lives,
local does, and the second thing is no taxes, which
puts a squeeze on the revenue bottom line for almost
everything that we need done and hospital capitalization and education
and capitalization, all that sort of stuff. But that seems
to be how the government is framed. And if you

(45:09):
are against that, well then there's another chair for somebody else.

Speaker 4 (45:13):
I guess, well, we can just flip into the caucus
drama at Queen's Park then, Tim, and you know where
the Premiere fires is caucas chair. Because the chair we're
speaking out on behalf of other Tory MPs who were
concerned about the way the new pension plan was going
to be framed. And now that sounds way down in

(45:34):
the weeds, but seems as though the backdrop of that
conversation was holy crap, you're going to spend twenty eight
million dollars on a plane and we got to fund
our own, our own pension it all. You know, sounds
kind of contrary. The Premier seemed to have a very
short fuse on that in terms of making a decision
as to who was going to be the CAUCAUS chair.

Speaker 2 (45:56):
I don't know.

Speaker 3 (45:57):
That's my triangulation right there.

Speaker 6 (45:59):
There's this stories from some caucus, other caucus, the premier,
premier spokesperson, and it's probably the truth is none of
the above is some combination of each. Just to finish
on the on the Carnie thought, yeah, I mean the
premier wind brings up a good point, right, you need
to be able to stay in touch with your caucas
They need to feel they played that they're part of

(46:20):
the system. And that's listening to commentary, seeing trends. It's
also reaching out it's a birthday, their daughter was born,
or they you know, moved in important to initition forward
that was important to their constituents. You need to maintain
that over time. So we'll see. My gut on that
one tells me this is all not this is all indirect.
It's probably greater discomfort with Carnee, you know, moving more

(46:44):
to the right from where Trudeau was in the lack
of comfort by some.

Speaker 3 (46:47):
MPP of MPs.

Speaker 6 (46:48):
I just think it's people often criticized indirectly as posted
directly of what the real issue is within caucus. Okay,
back to the forward stuff. You know, I had the
I was I was caucas chair for a while when
John Tory was was PC leader, and certainly was thoughtful
when I was leader on the caucus chair role. And
I've not dug into this. It makes kind of comfortable.

(47:10):
I've got no insider scoop on this to share on
the ledge. But when your caucus chair, your job is
more to be the referee. Make sure debates are heard.
Everybody has their say, that you finish on time. The
key issues are the agenda and the right time is given.
You make sure the debate can be passionate, but make
sure you know it is focused at the end of

(47:32):
the day. And there will be times where you need
to bring something to the leader, but you bring it
to him or her, you know, directly as caucas chair
in a private meeting or with a senior staff member.
That's part of that. You don't do it in front
of the gang. So I don't know exactly what transpired,
but there are certain rules of the game when your
caucus chair to support debate but not to stand out

(47:53):
in it.

Speaker 4 (47:55):
Yeah, well I guess, but you know, I don't know
what the dynamics are in in that Kathleen In as
much as you know, I suspect that the interesting part
of this story, the reporting done by it seems the
entire press gallery for the Toronto Star, is that in
a closed door meeting of Tory MPPs at which no

(48:17):
aids were present, So it means that it was MPPs
who were making the.

Speaker 5 (48:20):
Call the members only and the members.

Speaker 4 (48:23):
So it was it was it was a member who
was actually you know, relaying what was going on behind
behind closed doors. I felt, to your point, making it public.
They felt, you know, concerned enough about it that they
were quite happy to talk about what happened there. And
again it was about the pensions and about the you know,
the not being communicated well enough to the the MPs,

(48:45):
the Tory MP's MPPs. But at the same time, the
hint that they were sort of throwing up the plane
in his face. That to me sounds far more concerning
from a caucus perspective than what's going on in at
a while.

Speaker 3 (49:01):
But you'll know better.

Speaker 1 (49:03):
I don't know if Tim, are you having PTSD on
the pension issue because you were in government when the
pensions were canceled and you've created a whole passl of
trouble over.

Speaker 5 (49:16):
All these years, I can tell you. So the frustration is.

Speaker 1 (49:20):
That the MPPs realized they were going to have to
put their private dollars down to buy back their pensions
to keep them whole, and they thought there was going
to be government money that was going.

Speaker 5 (49:30):
To go into that.

Speaker 1 (49:31):
So, you know, I completely agree with Tim that the
caucas Chair, I mean when I was premier or the
caucas Chair, and when I was a member, the Coucas
Chair would have conversations with the Premier about what he
or she thought was going on in caucus, and that
would be a private conversation. So it is a measure

(49:51):
of to my mind, it's a measure of the frustration
that Will Obama must have been feeling.

Speaker 5 (49:56):
That he did it in a different way.

Speaker 1 (50:00):
There must have been a lot of turmoil if if
indeed it did happen the way it's being reported, Dave,
there must have been a lot of pressure on him
to make a statement too, I mean, not to go
public necessarily, but to do it in front of in
front of his caucus colleagues. So so this is you know, again,

(50:21):
I think this is a measure of people's frustration.

Speaker 5 (50:25):
You're right with the with the jet. But there are
other things that have.

Speaker 1 (50:29):
Been going on in the government that have been building up,
and we've been talking about them on this pot. You know,
We've we've talked about the Skills Development Fund, We've talked
about the green Belt repeatedly, We've talked about the jet.

Speaker 5 (50:42):
So those are the FOI requests.

Speaker 1 (50:44):
I mean, those those decisions that have been driven out
of the Premier's office are you know, they build up
in the in the the feedback that MPPs get from
their constituents that builds frustration, and then being told that
you got to put a couple hundred thousand dollars down

(51:06):
to buy your pension back is kind of the straw.
I think it's kind of the straw on the camel's
back actually, So that to me is if I'm if
I'm looking at this situation, that's.

Speaker 5 (51:17):
What I see. And you know, I guess to.

Speaker 1 (51:21):
Our original conversation, the premier is probably very happy that
everybody's going back to their constituencies right now and he's
not going to be in caucus meetings for a while,
which doesn't make it all right. It doesn't make it
go away, It just it just kind of quietens it
down for a while.

Speaker 4 (51:38):
Well, that might be quiet, Keith, but you know, this
is a summer of negotiations with the teachers start today
or tomorrow, you know, and Minister Calander's saying he's confident
we'll have something by Labor Day. I'm not sure i'd
put the money on the under on that, but you
know I posted yesterday and tell me I'm wrong.

Speaker 3 (51:56):
This is going to be the script.

Speaker 4 (51:57):
The union will say the government is is chronically underfunding
our education system. Public education is at risk. They're they're
not taking care of our kids period. Government will say
we have spent record amounts of investment in education over
the years. The unions are just still holding our kids
and parents hostages. And most of the general public are

(52:18):
going to say, palks on both your houses. Just get
a deal done. We don't want any disruption in the class.
Is that fairly close.

Speaker 2 (52:25):
I think it just summed it up completely. That's everybody,
just get a deal for goodness sakes. You've got lots
of time.

Speaker 3 (52:30):
To do it.

Speaker 2 (52:31):
The issues are there. Just before we move on from
the caucus thing, though I do want to the Toronto Star,
I'm sure talk to more than one caucus member because
they had three bylines on that story. Yeah, the lead
of the lead of the story is what got to me.
A chill went across the room. So when Will Booma
said to the preview, well, that's kind of you know,
talking about the pensions and the you know there won't
be government money. You know, I don't want the governments.

(52:52):
That's kind of off brand for you spending twenty nine
million on a jet. Whether that was just naturally came
to him or whether it was something that was on
his mind so heavily, it's hard to know. But he
did say it publicly in front of the caucass room,
and that, I ben really did send a chill right
throughout the room. I can see it, especially if there's
no staff there, no one else. And so hopefully that
message got through to Doug Ford. I mean, but he

(53:14):
clearly took some bit of retaliation for it. He didn't
like it getting it publicly, and maybe that was the
wrong way to do it.

Speaker 5 (53:20):
On it.

Speaker 2 (53:20):
The education thing. I know that you know, you secually
say you've summed up what people want. But I did
notice a glimmer of hope there, or at least what
I took to be a glimmer of hope when when
Paul Calandra said that he agrees that this system they
have every year of sending out layoff notices to teachers
and staff every fault or every towards the end of
the school year in the spring, and then you know,
basically most of them end up getting jobs in the

(53:42):
in September, but in between, you know, there's a lot
of angst, a lot of upset people getting layoff notices.
He wants to get a better system for that, and
the teachers, I think, and the keep the other supports
app all want a better system for that. So I
think that just that showing that the government's willing to
move on that which has been an irritant for a
long time, may get them some progress. At least it's
a good start. The class size things is always going

(54:04):
to be an issue, and the unions have made it
very clear that put some very specific numbers down what
they want to see.

Speaker 3 (54:10):
Will the government agree to fund that.

Speaker 2 (54:11):
I mean they have in the past, but then they
bring neg down and they've ended up with much larger
class sizes than were promised. So it'll be interesting to see.
But it's going to be a tough negotiation and they
know it. It's going to set in negotiations. They're quite
far apart right now. And then the argument that despite
the I think the one hundred billion is it now
is going into public ages some astronomical amount, that it

(54:35):
still isn't enough to keep up with all that's need.
We're seeing that the special needs students in particular are
not getting the supports they need. Canceling at the outdoors
Education project this one really caught me on that one
because those crazy fins over in Finland. They discovered that
they brought forrest floor dirt and preaded on the playgrounds
of preschool and kindergarten kids and they all became healthier

(54:57):
within a year just being exposed to that kind of dirt.
Canceling the outdoor programs, the fins are gone. The other way,
schools are bussing kids if they're not near an area
with then go walk in the woods, are bussing in there.
They're making regular walks in the woods, just something that
simple as part of their education and health programs. And
here we are canceling outdoor education programs. So there has
to be better priorities set. But this government is hell
bent on it's going to decide how this money is

(55:19):
spent by taking over control of these school boards. So
I think they're losing a lot of good programs here.
But there is an awful lot of money being spent,
and a record amount of money being spent.

Speaker 3 (55:28):
The government is right on that.

Speaker 2 (55:30):
Maybe it has to be divided up better or allocated
in better ways. But right now there's a lot of
money going, but there's a lot of services being cut
or not being met, needs not being met that should
be met.

Speaker 3 (55:41):
Johnny, you look like you want to say something.

Speaker 7 (55:45):
Well, yeah, it it just strikes me.

Speaker 8 (55:47):
I mean, it's a paradox for the education system. I
go back to the demographics of our society, and even
though immigration has been tapped out for the time being federally,
it hasn't had that much of an impact in filling
the backlog of less students.

Speaker 7 (56:04):
I mean, that's kind of what we're dealing with here.

Speaker 8 (56:06):
Like, if you go back ten years or even even
five years ago, the amount of students that we have
at the elementary level going into school and then exiting
the other end is incredibly diminished, especially in a place
like Toronto where your expectations, well, it's growing all the time.

Speaker 7 (56:23):
It isn't.

Speaker 8 (56:24):
The core is being haulowed out. Older and older people
live here and there's not as many young people. So
you have this paradox where if you have a formula
that's built on granting money to boards based on how
many pupils you have, and if you have a decline
in the demographic, which is a natural thing. I mean,
I keep saying this. Everybody should go to Stats Canada.

(56:45):
Take a look old young projected out for the next
thirty years. Fill your boots. It's a natural circumstance. The
money provided on a per pupil basis is less, that's it. However,
what you have then is the paradox of increasing costs.
I mean, you're not closing schools that are half empty.

(57:06):
You've got big buildings and salaries and everybody else that
you've got to run, and you've got inflation that's going
on top of that.

Speaker 7 (57:14):
Plus you've got backlog of capital costs.

Speaker 8 (57:17):
So it's like, of course, it's I don't know how
you solve it, that's not my job. But what you
have is there's a diminishing return based on natural circumstances
of children not being born in this country and not
enough filling the backlog and still sitting with the same

(57:37):
infrastructure and all the demands on top of that. So,
I mean, governments can claim that they're spending more and
more and more on everything, healthcare, education, all this sort
of stuff, but you're not solving anything. Like we're not
dealing with in the same way the healthcare system is
not readying for the demographic that is coming or just

(57:57):
about there in every part that is going to have
an immense impact. We're not actually addressing the real problem
as we have shrinking people, and that is really we're
more than half a baby short right now and that's
showing up take a look out ten years. Unless something
is done to address that and the infrastructure around it

(58:19):
and how much we're paying to keep schools open that
are half empty and all those things, then we just
go through this endless you know, wash rent cycle and
it's just happening.

Speaker 7 (58:28):
More and more.

Speaker 8 (58:29):
So you're right to frame the debate the way you're
framing it, Dave, is going to It's going to happen.
But to address the issue on both sides, whether it
be healthcare education, it's more complicated, but that's what it is.

Speaker 3 (58:41):
Tim.

Speaker 4 (58:42):
Is this another gelopi in the garage that is beyond repair.
I mean, I mean, look at the system. No, but
look at Batman. But look at the system, right, I mean,
And to John's point, we quickly talk about contracts with
teachers as if we are rebuilding or revisioning the education system,
and there're two different things. I understand how closely they

(59:04):
are related, but it's getting to be a problem where
we were having a harder time to get our arms around.

Speaker 6 (59:11):
I appreciate the reference to my Jilopi analogy for healthcare.
The Batman I talked about. My insights may not be
interesting or particularly useful, but they're memorable at the end
of the day.

Speaker 1 (59:25):
I don't think it's.

Speaker 6 (59:26):
Quite ready for the shop yet, but I agree with
part of that. I just see more people choosing independent schools.
There has been a growth in independent schools and people
opting out of the public system. There's no doubt there's
been a shift out of the public system towards the
Catholic system, particularly in the poster s orry in the

(59:47):
high school level, which I think is some people may
not be Catholic, but choosing what they'll proceed to be
a greater values based education. So there is dissatisfaction with
that all had. The insight is this is not a
government that is looking for major structural change nor a fight.
I don't think the unions will view they can push
this too far because debut characterizing very well the lack

(01:00:09):
of tolerance for parents for any kind of disruption. So
I suspect we'll have a compromise if I could put
my wishful thinking on the table. You know, I do
hope that the government will be part negotiations. But there
are too many schools that are half felled close to
other schools that could be closed, and those funds can
be put into classroom education, especially for kids with special needs,

(01:00:29):
and I'd like to see some sort of compromise in
teacher absences. I just note that with with Maitland, we
saw it before with Miller, that the growth and teacher
absences which has not been good for quality of education.
Maybe the union can bring something to the table and
we can actually get to a greater point of stability
with the classroom teacher Yeah.

Speaker 4 (01:00:46):
And Kathleen, this isn't necessarily a political stripe thing, because
you know, you guys had your own challenges in government
with teacher negotiations.

Speaker 3 (01:00:54):
Etc.

Speaker 4 (01:00:54):
And you know, so I think the teachers kind of
march their own march and bying their own drum on this.
But the public perception is do what you gotta do,
but just don't bugger up the kids school year.

Speaker 1 (01:01:08):
Yeah, I think that's true. But I think to paint
every government with exactly the same relationship to the education
sector is just not fair. I just I don't think
that is I don't think that's a fair description. You know,
if this government were really concerned about declining enrollment in
certain pockets, and I will just note that there are

(01:01:29):
two to two point one million kids in the education
system today, in the publicly funded education system, and you
know how many there were when I was Minister of Education,
two to two point one million. So the and the
declining enrollment issue is that it's not evenly distributed. So
there are places where there is severe declining enrollment and

(01:01:51):
there are places where there is burgeoning. And the writing
that I represented there was not an empty school. There
was there were kids across the socio economic levels that
were in schools that were full. So it depends where
you are in the province the declining enrollment issue, and
if this government were really concerned about schools being empty

(01:02:13):
and you know, lack of consolidation of school buildings. Then
they wouldn't have tied the hands of boards in terms
of closing schools. We put a moratorium on closing schools
in order to change the system. By way, it changed
the way schools got closed and consolidated, and to put
some more incentives in place to consolidate and share spaces,

(01:02:35):
for example between Catholic and public and French and English.
None of that happened, and they just kept the moratorium
on and didn't allow school boards to close schools or consolidate. Well,
guess what they are letting the supervisors do. They're letting
the supervisors close schools because they that's the only way
that you can deal with declining enrollment. There is so
much wrong with what the way this government has dealt with.

Speaker 5 (01:02:58):
The education system. And it is not the same as
the way our government dealt with the education system. I
don't you know.

Speaker 1 (01:03:05):
I mean, we can go chapter and verse on every
single policy, but there are major differences.

Speaker 5 (01:03:11):
And yeah, sure there were conflicts with.

Speaker 1 (01:03:12):
The with the school, the school community, the workers, the unions,
the federations in some cases, but nothing like what we
saw under the previous the government before us, you know,
there was a completely different relationship and that was one
of the things that you know, was really critical to

(01:03:33):
our government. So this government, you know, maybe they have
got some money in reserve, and you know, that's why
Paul Calandra is feeling so confident. Maybe they parked money
in their fat contingency to deal with the with the
labor issues around education. Maybe that's why he's sounding confident

(01:03:54):
about his ability to get a deal.

Speaker 5 (01:03:57):
But class size is about actually kids getting what they
need in the classroom, you know.

Speaker 1 (01:04:02):
I mean it sounds like a kind of anodyne, bloodless thing,
but it is.

Speaker 5 (01:04:06):
It is about not.

Speaker 1 (01:04:07):
Having thirty kids in a kindergarten, in a full day
kindergarten class and allowing those little babies to actually get
a good start. So I think it's going to be
a difficult negotiation. I think yes, of course, the epos
on both your houses. That comes after a certain amount

(01:04:28):
of time when things drag on.

Speaker 5 (01:04:30):
I hope we don't have labor disruption.

Speaker 1 (01:04:32):
I've got you know, I've got five grand or four
grandkids who are in the publicly funded system. I want
it to go well. And Tim to your point about
the Catholics. You know, people going to the Catholic system.
The way I see it, you know, when I was
Minister of Education, the public the public system is the

(01:04:52):
system of last resort. It's the system that has to
take everybody. And so whether you go, you know, if
you're in the French system or you're in the Catholic system,
there's an element of choice in that which there isn't
in terms of the publicly funded system. So it's where
the bulk of the kids who have major concerns end up.

(01:05:14):
It's the system that takes everybody. And in terms of
people leaving to go to private school, yeah, that may
be true. In the large centers, there are not you know,
there is no UCC in wah Wah. So the fact
is that kids go to the publicly funded school still
well over ninety percent of kids in the province.

Speaker 5 (01:05:35):
It was ninety five percent.

Speaker 1 (01:05:36):
It's probably around that still go to our publicly funded
system because that's the school that's available to them.

Speaker 5 (01:05:42):
So we have to get this right.

Speaker 1 (01:05:44):
And I will just say this government has not made
publicly funded education a priority right from kindergarten through to
post secondary. And we you know, we haven't even talked
about post secondary, which is in a huge mess. So
I think it's going to be a difficult negoti and
this government has a relationship with the education system that

(01:06:04):
was colored.

Speaker 5 (01:06:05):
By COVID quite frankly.

Speaker 1 (01:06:07):
You know, they went through negotiations during COVID and everybody
had to kind of pull up their or swallow their
swallow their concerns and get a deal.

Speaker 5 (01:06:18):
I don't know if that's we're going to see this
time around.

Speaker 4 (01:06:21):
Okay, well let's leave it here and if need be,
we'll revisit this conversation as we watched the negotiations carry on.
So for the short term, we're going to take our
leave of all use. But thanks for being here and
you know, listening, watching sharing the podcast. It's always great
to have the feedback. And for those of you who

(01:06:41):
listened on the radio, thanks for doing that too. In
Windsor and in Toronto, John Wright, Tim Houdak, Kathleen Wynn,
Keith Leslie, enjoy your time off. We'll be back before Halloween, though,
I guarantee it. I'm Dave Trafford. This is on the
ledge You're Ontario Politics podcast.

Speaker 6 (01:07:01):
Pay no attention to that man behind the Curt