Steve Paikin: Welcome everyone to the OnPolitics podcast. I'm Steve Paikin.

John Michael McGrath: And I'm John Michael McGrath.

Steve Paikin: Today on the pod, the government is proposing big changes to Ontario's freedom of information law. We'll have one of the reporters central to this story on to explain why this matters.

John Michael McGrath: The Ford government has made a number of announcements about courts, crime, and law and order. We'll go over the details.

Steve Paikin: And we'll check in on Guelph, Niagara, Hamilton, and Toronto as we keep an eye on this year's municipal elections. And in your column, my column, I'm going to talk about a new report out about the future of Sault Ste. Marie.

John Michael McGrath: And I am going to talk about a bi-election that's happening in Scarborough Southwest. That is, what do we say, JMM? The gift that keeps on giving. Boy, is that a juicy story.

Steve Paikin: It's March 20th, 2026. So, let's get to it. Hello, my friend.

John Michael McGrath: Hello, sir.

Steve Paikin: Always some sugar to start with.

John Michael McGrath: Yes, indeed. Do you think people who are only listening to this but not watching it on television understand what's going on when I say that?

Steve Paikin: We have periodically explained that it's not like you're kissing me on the cheek or [laughter] something. But yes...

John Michael McGrath: Not that I would mind doing that, but just so people know. I mean, I am rather affectionate to you, but yes, we're just fist bumping because that's our little thing to start out with.

Steve Paikin: That's how we start off the podcast and start off our mornings.

John Michael McGrath: Can I raise a little complaint with you now as we go? Okay. I'm starting to see t-shirts repeating themselves and I'm expressing my disappointment.

Steve Paikin: Well, I'll work on the t-shirt budget, but in the meantime, yes, this is my axolotl questions t-shirt, which I am wearing because we are going to discuss as you mentioned in the intro, we're going to discuss the freedom of information changes. And I just remind people that asking a lot of questions is part of what we do and part of what all citizens can do.

John Michael McGrath: 110%. That's exactly right.

Steve Paikin: Now, I feel in a way the Oscars just happened this past weekend, right? So I feel like I should be saying today I'm wearing Yves Saint Laurent or today I'm wearing Givenchy. No, today I am wearing Leslie Frost. And I will stand a little bit just so people can see. There he is. That's actually his nickname was old man Ontario. But that's a very young picture of Leslie Frost. He's not looking too old there. Why am I wearing Leslie Frost? Well, here we go. Here's my tortured logic for the day. It was one year ago yesterday that Doug Ford was sworn in for the third time as the premier of Ontario. The last guy to win three straight majority governments as Doug Ford has done. And everybody gets this wrong. I ask people this question all the time. Who's the last guy to win three straight majority governments? Who do you think the first person is that people guess?

John Michael McGrath: Uh the namesake of this studio, Bill Davis.

Steve Paikin: Correct. The first everybody guesses, Bill Davis. Mr. Davis won four elections in a row, but of course had two minorities in the middle. So no, he's wrong. The second time people guess, they say Dalton McGuinty, who won three elections but was one seat short of a majority for the third one. No. The last guy to win three straight majority governments before Doug Ford was this guy, Leslie Frost. And you've got to go all the way back. This is a hard achievement. 1951, 1955, 1959. No disrespect intended to Doug Ford because it is a huge accomplishment to win three straight majorities. But by two different what do the statisticians say? Metrics. Two different metrics. Leslie Frost's record is a little bit better. Now, let me just nerd out here for a second and I'll tell you why. Frost won his third majority in 1959, which was Bill Davis's first election as a backbench. Incidentally, he got 72% seats in the legislature. Ford won his third straight majority with 64% of the seats in the legislature. So Frost had a few more seats, a little bit more impressive. Frost captured 46% of that total vote in his third election. Ford got 43%. So again, Frost a little better. But there is one head-to-head matchup where Doug Ford does better. Frost's total vote was the same in elections one and two and then down a few points in election number three. Ford has increased his share of the total votes for three straight elections. He got 40.5% in election number one, 40.8% in election number two, and 43% in election number three. So, three straight elections where he increased the percentage of the vote. So, and I got to say that is also a hell of an accomplishment because the notion that you could actually be getting more popular as the years went on um is really something worth noting. So, there we go. That's why I'm wearing Frost and not Yves Saint Laurent. [laughter]

John Michael McGrath: Uh interesting though that you know Ford's uh absolute number of flesh and blood voters was highest in his first election in 2018 and uh both he and the opposition parties uh have subsequently uh lost uh uh votes in the in just the absolute count and and I I I think it's just worth reminding people that the 2018 election really was a a very high turnout election by the standards of recent Ontario elections. Now, usually at this point after we've had our little chitchat about nerdy Ontario political history stuff, we throw to issue one. But I want to just take a pause here to say that I have what we call the appearance of a conflict of interest on the subject that will make up issue one. I have a family member that works directly for the minister in question that you guys are going to talk about. So, I will be absenting myself from the discussion uh which you will have with someone who happily knows way more about this subject than I do anyway.

Steve Paikin: Yeah, he's pretty smart on this stuff. So, uh, I will see you for issue two. And in the meantime, here comes issue one.

Steve Paikin: Last Friday, the Ford government announced their intention to update Ontario's Freedom of Information and Privacy Protection Act, a 40-year-old law the government says badly needs updating. The catch? The government also wants to substantially restrict the public's access to some government documents. Documents the public currently still has the right to know about, at least for a little longer. Journalists have used Ontario's Freedom of Information Law to break major stories, including the Greenbelt scandal, the controversy about the Ontario Science Center, and even the sorry state of Ontario prisons. But journalists are not the only ones who use VIPA. This information is valuable to lawyers, researchers, and activists. Under the law, as it stands, the right to these documents isn't just for reporters, it's for everyone. With more on these proposed changes, joining me in studio is Isaac Callan, journalist at Global News. Isaac, thank you so much for joining us today.

Isaac Callan: Thanks for having me.

Steve Paikin: So, let's just start off with the brass tax here. What changes is the Ford government proposing to the province's current freedom of information framework?

Isaac Callan: Right. So, the way it currently works is that anyone in Ontario who pays a $5 fee can access some of almost anything the government does. That is communications, presentations, data sets, slide decks, all sorts of things. Put in a written request and you get access to that information. Currently, everyone who works for the government from the premier down is subject to those laws. So things they write could be subject to that disclosure. What the government's doing is they're essentially putting a ring around some of the elected officials, the political side of government essentially. So the premier, his cabinet ministers, his parliamentary assistants, and all of their staff will, if these changes go through, be shielded from those freedom of information requests. So journalists and advocates and other people will still be able to access written communications and all sorts of documents from civil servants. But when it comes to the actual decision makers and the politicians, their records, their communications, who they met with, things like that, that would all be shielded from the public.

Steve Paikin: And just to give people a sense of the scale here, well, two points here. One, this this does mirror the federal uh freedom of information law. Uh reporters very very frequently complain about the scope of the federal law. Um but also just the uh the fact that it would include the premier, ministers, and parliamentary assistants. What we're functionally talking about is almost every elected progressive conservative MPP uh would be shielded by this law.

Isaac Callan: Almost every elected progressive conservative MPP and their staff, right? So, it's one thing to exclude the premier, for example, the decision maker, but it's also it would include all of his directors of policy, all of his communication staff. So, it's it's a very large number of people who are now going to be excluded from this act. It's not just the premier and his cabinet ministers when they're talking about things that happened in cabinet, for example.

Steve Paikin: So let's just uh go down the list of some of the the controversies uh of this government where freedom of information laws have been uh freedom of information requests rather have been relevant. We could talk about the um the the spa deal at Ontario Place uh some of the government's changes to uh private healthcare uh shutdown of the science center which I mentioned previously. you know what uh what do these changes mean in terms of uh breaking these kinds of stories in in terms of making that information public?

Isaac Callan: I'm going to take the science center as an example because I think it's a it's an easy one to understand that this is a government who communicates very regularly but doesn't always tell you everything they're doing and why. So the science center if you know cast your mind back felt like this emergency announcement when they made it. It was a Friday before the long weekend. The government came out and said in a matter of hours they were going to be closing down the science center. It wasn't a case of get your last visit in next week or having a closing ceremony or anything like that. They said the roof was essentially in such bad condition that the science center had to be closed hours hours from the announcement.

Steve Paikin: There was a wedding that was canceled.

Isaac Callan: There was a wedding that was [laughter] canceled. People had their events refunded. All sorts of things. What we were able to find out through freedom of information request specifically to the minister's office was that it wasn't quite as urgent as the government had made out. Now, I'm not casting explosions on the report. So, I'm just saying that records and communications showed that about 10 days before they made that announcement, the government knew about the roof's condition, they'd started planning it. They drafted the news release about 10 days before they made it public. So, what that tells us and what Freedom Information Requests were able to tell us was that the government gave the impression that it was really urgent and had to shut the science center down. A cynic would say to coincide with the long weekend, so the news story was buried. Yes. And they could have made that decision a week earlier. They could probably have given it another week for people to say goodbye. You know, it's not the biggest government policy by any means, but it's just gives you an idea of why getting an idea of what decision makers said behind the scenes and when they knew certain bits of information is really important to our democracy so that we can analyze whether the government is tell what what the government is telling you if it's the whole truth and if it's the full motivation as well.

Steve Paikin: Now, your employer global news is uh a bit more uh directly involved in this whole uh file. give us a bit of the the story why global in particular has been pursuing a specific bit of information.

Isaac Callan: So this this goes back to 2022 the the QP strike. Uh my colleague Colin Dlo and I were watching Doug Ford's news conferences. This is when he tried to use the notwithstanding clause. There was essentially a threat of a general strike in Ontario when the government then walked that back. One of the things that Doug Ford said at the news conference where he walked back the decision to use the notwithstanding clause was that he'd been on the phone all night. And it's been an open secret in politics for years that Doug Ford uses his personal cell phone, that he gives out his number to constituents, and that it's always been part of the Ford brand. Right? So, we decided it would be interesting to get an idea of who had been calling the premier, right? Who who was it who called the premier over the week before the QP strike, who was able to so influence him that he decided to walk back using the notwithstanding clause. So, we put in a freedom of information request for his personal cell phone and for his work cell phone. What we got back was the fact that the premier hadn't used his work cell phone period. for the for the period of time he just had not used his work phone and so we and they didn't give us access to his personal phone because they said well that's the premier's personal phone.

Isaac Callan: So since then myself and Global have been engaged in a a yearslong transparency battle with the government to try and get access to the premier's cell phone based on the argument that if he's not using his work phone at all he must be using his personal phone for government business. And through that appeal, we've gone back and forth uh in front of the information privacy commissioner, who's the transparency watchdog who kind of adjudicates for information information requests, gone back and forth in front of her. And through that process, the government has acknowledged that yes, Doug Ford is using his personal cell phone for government work. He's also using it to run the PC party. He's using it to run caucus. He's using it for family things. Everything goes into that one device. and the government and then Doug Ford's lawyers subsequently have essentially said that while it might be true he's using his personal phone for work, it would be a massive invasion of his privacy and a completely impractical task to try and separate out which calls might relate to running the province versus which calls relate to running his household. Um it's you go back to about a year and a half ago the information and privacy commissioner who is that transparency watchdog. They sided with global news and with an Ontario doctor who's pursuing a very similar appeal to us and found that Doug Ford was using his personal cell phone for work and therefore that bits of it at least should be publishable and accessible to uh the media.

Isaac Callan: The government then sought a judicial review of that order, tried to have an Ontario court throw it out and say that the information privacy commission had gone too far. That was heard at the end of December 2025. It took a panel of three judges less than three weeks, including the Christmas period, to throw out that attempt for judicial review and the government then said they would seek leave to appeal. That's sort of where these new changes come in because what we've described so far in terms of exempting cabinet and the premier from free of information requests is also retroactive. Yes. So the government hasn't explicitly confirmed this, but it's very much our understanding that if these changes passed as they've been described, the government would effectively kill the court's decision by applying its law retroactively and saying, "Well, even if the premier is using his personal cell phone for government business, it's not part of the freedom of information laws and global and any other journalist who wants access to it has has no right to it."

Steve Paikin: Yeah. And this is, I think, well, in a a column for our website, I described this as egregious, right? This is the the the tell if you like that the it's it's one thing to change the law. It is quite another to uh make those changes retroactive. Uh constitutionally the legislature has that power. We don't always have to like it. Uh you did mentioned an Ontario doctor and I do want to actually because I think this has flown under the radar, but this is Dr. Brooks Fall who uh has alleged that uh he was denied a promotion or a position at a an Ontario hospital because of his criticism of the premier during CO 19. um he is trying to get access to the phone records to prove or disprove that allegation as I understand it.

Isaac Callan: I think it's also interesting right because it shows that it's not just journalists. This is a very real world example of someone who believes rightly or wrongly they've not been proved right or wrong but they believe that their employment opportunities were potentially frustrated by the premier. They're using this publicly accessible tool to try and prove their allegation or not. So it's it really isn't just advocates in the media who use this. It is a tool that anyone is able to use. And and I will just add like this is a a problem that the premier has made for himself because like there there is a reason why government officials are issued government phones to keep their personal and their public work separate and if the premier had since 2018 been keeping these things separate this would not be an issue.

Steve Paikin: There have of course also been critics and not just in uh the press corps. Uh I'm going to just read a bit of a quote from the uh current information and privacy commissioner Patricia Same uh who uh reacted very strongly to uh these proposed changes saying freedom of information laws exist to provide Ontarians with vital information about how government decisions are made on what basis who influenced them and whether the public interest is being served. Um issue a very strong statement. It probably makes sense just to say that you know mechanically what this law will do is make the information privacy commissioner less powerful. So she has very direct stake in how that law is changed. Opposition parties of course have also uh criticized the government. I mean what do we make of the idea that this law needed to be updated though?

Isaac Callan: I think there's certainly some truth in it. I think that a law of that age does need to be updated in some way. I I have a lot of sympathy to be honest for the idea that if I were a government minister or a staffer, I wouldn't want every text I've ever sent to be accessible to someone just because they're kind of fishing for something. I do I do have some sympathy for that argument. and I think the uh information privacy commissioner does as well. But I think she has suggested so I I I interviewed her this week and she sort of suggested that there were ways around this which involve maybe tidying it up. Tidying up some of the shrapnel that comes out in just a digital world versus the important decision-making process excluding some things that maybe are a little bit more mundane. I'll meet you around the corner for coffee. That kind of stuff doesn't need to be accessible to the public. The public doesn't learn a huge amount from that. But who was able to call the premier? Who did the minister of health meet with? when did Michael Lindseay tell King Serma that the science center needed to be closed down? All of those things are are much more key to understanding how our democracy works.

Isaac Callan: And I think something else the information privacy commissioner has said this week is that she's not convinced by the argument that Ontario is coming in line with other provinces. She's suggesting that Ontario is essentially going a little further by excluding these communications from the act altogether. So the way she explained it is that in other jurisdictions or at least some of the jurisdictions she's looked at a lot of these things cabinet communications for example would be exempt from the act but they wouldn't be excluded. The difference is that an official in the civil service would still collect the document from you but they would redact the whole thing and they wouldn't give it to the media or an advocate. Whereas what we have in Ontario as I understand the rules proposed is that you don't need to give that document to anyone. The premier doesn't need to give his cell phone. the Minister of Health doesn't need to give her calendar to anyone in the civil service to look at at all. So the difference which she says puts Ontario in her words offside with other jurisdictions is that Ontario is keeping them out of the legislation altogether whereas other places just stop them from being released. you know a minor difference but one she sees is very important

Steve Paikin: right and [clears throat] you know I think the the the importance there if I can sort of draw that out a little bit is you know if the data is at least be being collected there's at least a theoretical possibility that it might be accessible to the public uh but if it's not being collected at all if it's not being cataloged and organized and and all the things that we currently do with uh the the freedom of information regime in Ontario then it's it might as well just be shredded and that goes to historical keeping of records, right?

Isaac Callan: She's also raised concerns about cyber security, right? If if you're not using your government device and those sorts of things for these conversations, you're not necessarily giving them to civil servants. Who knows what you're doing with them when you leave government? That raises all sorts of cyber security and security questions about decision-making documents as well. You know, before we wrap up, I I I do want to say, you know, I I don't want to be um a total sort of doomer on this topic. Uh you know, the public should obviously know that, you know, information it finds ways to get out in I think the the old internet meme of the information wants to be free. Um legislative officers uh you know the auditor general, the ombbudsman um the information privacy commissioner perhaps you know they have ways of of uh formally using their powers to make documents public. Uh the government gets sued uh in court and uh as part of those lawsuits uh documents can be made public. Sometimes motivated public servants find ways to hand reporters documents uh in brown paper envelopes and we always love when that happens. Um you know information does find its way into uh the public realm. These proposed changes if they go forward uh they they will make it harder. They will not stop uh reporters or anybody else from doing their job.

Isaac Callan: Yeah. And even on the freedom of information laws themselves, the way that we're looking at it, I think, is that 80% of what we currently get through freedom of information is probably going to remain the same. An awful lot of civil servants are frankly better at writing things down than politicians. Civil servants have cleaner communication than politicians. They don't have reasons to pick up the phone instead of writing down. So, a lot of the information we find out does come through freedom information requests to the civil service, which as the government has said are not changing. That bit doesn't change. I think what we're possibly losing or what information will have to find its way out through other avenues like you say is the most explosive stuff. So it's generally the smallest portion of how we use freedom of information requests. But you know to take the premier's cell phone as an example. There's also cases of potentially using personal emails during the green belt scandal. These kind of really highprofile elements that involve the big decision makers. That's the information that is going to be a little frustrated that's going to have to find more creative ways of getting out to the public. But it's not, you know, we should be clear, right? It's not like the government is killing the entire freedom of information system. They're just getting rid of the most explosive part. [gasps]

Steve Paikin: Uh Isaac Ken, Global News, thank you so much for joining us today. Uh before we go, you have a book coming out later this year.

Isaac Callan: I do, although nothing to do with Ontario politics. Uh it's about the soccer team I grew up supporting, Hibernian. It's an Edinburgh soccer team. And uh my wife said I needed a hobby that wasn't work. So, [laughter] I I found a way to write that was technically not work. Uh, it's coming out in May. It's called Hibernian Heroes. Uh, for anyone who wants to feel better about the Toronto Maple Leafs, [laughter] they went 114 years without winning the Scottish Cup before my team won it in 2016. So, if you think 1967 is bad, uh, feel free to take a look through that. [laughter]

Steve Paikin: Well, I'm sure uh, there are somebody in our audience who is also uh, interested in uh, Scottish soccer. So, uh, they can find that book in bookstores in May. And uh once again, thank you for joining us.

Isaac Callan: Thanks for having me.

Steve Paikin: I think it'd be fair to say that the Ford government signaled that they prioritize law and order and being tough on crime. No news there. And when the provincial government disagrees with a particular approach to an issue, sometimes the easiest way to affect change is simply to turn off the financial taps. That happened this week when the premier announced he's cutting funding to supervised drug consumption sites again, which this government philosophically opposes. Okay, let's go through this. What happened here?

John Michael McGrath: So, this builds on changes that the government has been making uh now for more than a year. Certainly, this started about 18 months ago when the government announced it was substantially restricting the number of supervised consumption sites in the province, particularly in the areas around public schools. Uh the announcement this week will functionally, it seems, close the last remaining sites in the province that were still providing these services. Uh there were seven sites remaining, two each in Toronto and Ottawa, one in Niagara, Peterborough, and London or one each in those cities. Uh the province's explanation for this is is that these communities now have operating heart hubs. That's H A R T or uh homelessness and addiction recovery treatment hubs. Uh the creation of these heart hubs was uh part of what was announced 18 months ago. Uh at the time, some supervised consumption sites were still permitted to stay open. uh the province is now closing that window. Uh the end of provincial funding will come uh June 13th.

Steve Paikin: The government's position, and let's just put it on the record here, is that these sites were disruptive to the neighborhoods in which they found themselves, that there was open drug use happening, that there were used needles being left on the ground, that kind of thing. Researchers and advocates who think this is the way to go say otherwise. The shift in the heart hubs comes with some real money attached. It's 550 million bucks so far according to the government. So, um i guess we should ask the question now. Is this going to help?

John Michael McGrath: Well, this is of course the question, right? I mean, some advocates uh certainly do not believe that uh hard hub services have been adequate since they were announced. Uh one outreach worker has said publicly that uh hard hubs are functionally not even operational uh in Toronto yet. Uh late last year, Toronto saw a spike in overdose calls uh for the city's EMS service and advocates attributed that in uh press reporting. Uh they they attributed that spike in part to uh the closure of some supervised consumption sites. Uh the research on this I do want to say is is a bit mixed. Uh researchers have identified things like there was a a closure of a uh supervised consumption site in Red Deer, Alberta. Uh and so there's a case study around that closure that showed that uh there was in fact an increase in uh overdoses uh uh when that site closed. Um but there's a a more recent systematic study that was uh funded by the federal government, though it's not a a a federal document in that sense um that found that it was very difficult to attribute uh what they call, you know, population level changes in mortality, right? Like broad statistical increases in mortality. So for the premier, this tends to be a law and order issue. So while we are on that subject, let's continue on and talk about what pepper spray and bail hearings may have in common.

Steve Paikin: Yes, indeed. These are uh two items that are on the premier's to-do list this week. Um and the thing they have in common is that they're not really straightforward things that the province can order itself. Um so we're going to start with the pepper spray. Uh, Attorney General Doug Downey wrote a letter to his federal counterpart Sean Fraser last week urging the feds to legalize the use of pepper spray by private citizens for self-defense. Um, we actually got a letter in the mailbag about this and I'm going to just break our format uh for a second here. Uh, Hal Graham of Kingston, Ontario wrote in to say that this idea uh, Hal's words follows the American pattern that has proved corrosive to American society. This reliance on individual self-defense. Uh I I think Hal might also be alluding to American firearms uh laws in in that context as well. Um and Hal asks why would it work any better here. Um I think it's always a fair question to ask uh what Ontario can learn from other jurisdictions. And so it may not surprise you to learn that I went down a bit of a rabbit hole on pepper spray regulation.

John Michael McGrath: I'm shocked. I'm shocked. [laughter]

Steve Paikin: Yes. Uh I I am not going to read out the Wikipedia page uh that uh denotes all of the various forms of uh regulation for uh uh what is it called? Olio Capsain. Um but I I will just say that it's not just the United States where pepper spray is legal for private citizens. Uh it is uh legal in many jurisdictions though of course not everywhere. Um the state of regulations I I found very fascinating. There are places where it is regulated by age, where you you don't let minors have it. Uh some places require a license and training, other places do not. A wonderful tapestry of regulations [laughter] with many different ideas. Uh but the status quo in Canada right now is that pepper spray is a a a controlled prohibited weapon. Uh it is illegal for individuals to carry with the exception of bear spray which is uh still pepper spray but it is uh intended specifically for warding off uh wildlife and and obviously as the name implies uh bears. Uh if you are carrying something uh labeled as bear spray uh and you are as we are in this studio very far away from dangerous wildlife uh it is still a crime and uh I would not advise you to do that. [laughter] I will take that as a compliment that you think you are far away from wildlife when you're doing this show.

John Michael McGrath: You have your quirks, but you are not wildlife. [laughter]

Steve Paikin: Reasonably civilized guy to sit across a table from, right?

John Michael McGrath: I I don't fear for my life here.

Steve Paikin: Good. Uh how about bail hearings? What's going on with that?

John Michael McGrath: Right. Bail hearings and and you know, like the uh pepper spray issue, some of these changes that the government wants are probably going to require changes in federal legislation. The government is uh proposing to live stream bail hearings in Ontario. Uh the premier has said that he he sees this as means of holding judges accountable. The implication here of course being that judges have been releasing people on bail in unacceptable contexts and that the public has a right to know about these decisions. Um you know we already discussed freedom of information law with Isaac earlier. Uh I'm going to just put my cards on the table here. As a journalist, I support transparency in the court system in much the same way that I support transparency uh in all areas of the Ontario government. There are a few hiccups here, though. Uh while the province administers the courts, uh it's the criminal code that dictates a lot of the the processes. And in this case, the criminal code allows for publication bans uh that cover most of the information that would be disclosed in a bail hearing. So the province can install these cameras. It can train people on their operation. But judges and lawyers and particularly the lawyers of defendants are going to have some ability to simply turn off these live streams even if the cameras are on. I'm certain that some uh bail hearings will in fact end up being live streamed because of these changes if they go forward. Uh but it's going to be less than what the premier wants.

Steve Paikin: In that case, let's get out of here. Off to issue three.

Steve Paikin: We have focused our attention on the municipal scene a few times lately because this is of course a municipal election year in Ontario and so things are heating up at the level of government closest to the people. While there are 444 municipalities across the province and races I think pretty much in every single one of them. Understandably the race for mayor in the capital city gobbles up a disproportionate amount of attention. In part because Toronto is the country's biggest city and in part because the personalities kicking the tires on this race are so wellnown. JMM, interestingly enough, the current mayor of the capital city has not indicated yet for sure whether she will run again. Spoiler alert. Of course, she's running again, but she hasn't said so yet. But there are plenty of other reasons to pay attention to this race anyway.

John Michael McGrath: Yes. Fire away. So, the biggest change in the last few weeks was the announcement uh by John Tory that he will not make an attempt to return to the mayor's office. Uh but John Tory has a constituency of people who uh would like to see a conservative challenger to Olivia Chow and uh not all of them uh love the idea of Brad Bradford, who I think at the moment is is the uh most prominent conservative challenger to Olivia Chow.

Steve Paikin: He's on city council right now for those living outside.

John Michael McGrath: Currently the counselor for Beaches East York. And uh so they they went casting about they went shopping for uh potential other candidates. Uh one of whom was uh Rod Phillips uh a a a colleague of John Torres and and uh I would say I think you could fairly say they are like-minded uh men. uh

Steve Paikin: former finance minister

John Michael McGrath: former finance minister of course uh uh Phillips very quickly put out a statement saying that uh thanks but no thanks uh we've mentioned Bradford um and then Michael Ford's name started popping up as we say conservative uh uh backers uh in the city looking for somebody uh to to put uh in the competition. Um Michael Ford of course uh was uh he was a schoolboard trustee. He was a city counselor. He was an M PPP. He was a cabinet minister uh under uh Doug Ford's government. Um and then he he left provincial politics. I I don't mean to be uh uh unkind, but I I think it's fair to say he did not have like the most distinguished uh career in provincial politics, but you know, he rose to the level of of minister, so you know, prominent. And of course, he has the Ford family name, which which helps. Um people are clearly trying to uh figure out how this horse race is all going to shake out. And I do have to uh mention I actually got pulled. I I'm one of those people who still has a landline so I still get opinion polls and uh uh

Steve Paikin: do you do them?

John Michael McGrath: Yeah. I I I always want to know who's what questions they're asking. And so

Steve Paikin: because you know the first thing they say is you know if you're a member of the media or you're a member of a political party or something like that.

John Michael McGrath: Oh this was just a robot. Oh this was a robocall. If I get an actual human, honesty compels me to say like, "I'm happy to answer your poll, but I am a member of the media." And and then they usually say, "Oh, thanks for nothing. Bye." [laughter] Um, in this case, it was it was clearly some I mean, I'll use the words fly by night operation. It was not a an established pollster that I recognized, let me put it that way. Or if it was, they weren't using their real name. Um, but they they they did poll uh Olivia Chow, Brad Bradford, and and Michael Ford. And they specifically asked uh whether the respondent uh saw Michael Ford's association with Doug Ford as a plus or a negative. I think it's interesting that the question is being asked because people are are clearly trying to sus out what Michael Ford's strengths and weaknesses are.

Steve Paikin: Now, the the math of a race that Michael Ford gets into gets complicated. Yes. Because of course Olivia Chow has sort of the center left lane all to herself and if Michael Ford jumps in and Brad Bradford's already in then the center right vote gets divided between the two of them. Yes, that theoretically makes it easier for Olivia Chow to win. We'll see how that unfolds. Now, uh lest we be accused of focusing inordinately on the capital city, we should, as we said at the outset, note that there are lots of other municipalities in the province where they're going to have some decent races. And what else you want to tell us?

John Michael McGrath: We're going to do a bit of a lightning round through some other municipalities here. We're going to start with GE where Mayor Cam Guthrie who has won three times in 2014, 2018, and 2022 has opted not to run for a fourth term in the mayor's office. Now, a a three-time mayor of a big city uh choosing not to run again, that would be notable on its own. Uh and I'm sure we wish him well in his future endeavors, but there is a provincial political angle that I thought I would explore. Uh Steve, remind us all who is the MPP for G.

Steve Paikin: I'm pretty sure that's the leader of the Green Party, Mike Shriner.

John Michael McGrath: Yes, indeed. Uh and despite being the leader of the Green Party, people keep asking him whether he's interested in other jobs. Uh most notoriously that that incident where some prominent liberals uh invited him to run for the leadership of their party. So, I thought to myself, hey, I wonder if Mike is interested in being the mayor of G. So, I asked.

Steve Paikin: You're being very mischievous today, aren't you?

John Michael McGrath: Uh yeah, I thought I would have some fun with it. Uh but uh no. Uh Mike Schneider is a no on the G mayor's race. Uh he says that he is grateful for Mayor Guthri's years of public service. Uh and quote, "There is still a lot of work to be done to make our province a better place to live, and remaining the leader of the Ontario Greens is the best way I can make a difference." Uh so I am not much of a political troublemaker,

Steve Paikin: but I will say nice try. [laughter]

John Michael McGrath: It was worth a shot, right? It was indeed. Okay, let's keep going. Niagara region, what's going on?

John Michael McGrath: Right. Uh so a short addendum to this story because we have discussed it a few times in the last few weeks. Uh but despite the resignation of the uh Niagara region chair Bob Gail. The premier reiterated this week that his government is going to in his words streamline operations at Niagara region. Uh when we last discussed this I had left the the question open as to whether Gail's resignation would take the steam out of this issue. It did not. Uh, Premier Ford has a bee in his bonnet about the fact that Niagara region has more local elected representatives than the Ontario legislature does. Uh, he says that the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, Rob Flack, will be bringing forward legislation in the spring sitting, which of course begins next week.

Steve Paikin: Now, that is a bit of a different position for the premier because of course up until now he always said any legislative changes to representation in Niagara region have to start with the municipality itself. We are not going to lead that process. Sounds like he's changed his mind on that.

John Michael McGrath: Yeah, again at the uh press conference where he also talked about um shooting home invaders, he uh mentioned that uh you know he was he was looking for support from the local mayors and then I think the phrase he used was like the moment they got any kind of criticism they all melted like chocolate or something and

Steve Paikin: chocolate soldiers they melt when the sun comes out.

John Michael McGrath: Yes. Um, and you know, I'm I'm trying not to be sort of overly cynical about this. Uh, but you know, there there are times where the where there are genuine local issues that bubble up into uh the the you know, pro provincial state of affairs. And the premier says, "Oh, well, here's, you know, there's a a local issue. We'll have our government address And then there are other times where it's actually coming from the province, but they want the perception that they're addressing a local priority. Um, and like I guess just to put it bluntly, I think the events of the last few weeks have told us what is actually happening here. He's not wrong on the math though. If you think about it, there are 124 MPs for 16 million Ontarians. And there are 126 local counselors, officials, etc. for Niagara region for 500,000 people. So that's a lot of representation if you compare it to the Ontario legislature.

Steve Paikin: Okay, can I do one more here? I want to get a shout out in from my hometown of Hamilton, which has I would suggest the best mayor's race anywhere in the province happening. And just a little background here, of course, former Ontario NDP leader Andrea Horvath, uh she lost the election in 2022 to Doug Ford and then just a few months later decided to run for mayor of Hamilton and she won. She defeated a guy sort of more on the business side of things named Keanin Loomis, but it was close. 135,000 roughly votes cast and she won by 1663. So 1%. It was a really tight race. Guess what's happening this fall?

John Michael McGrath: Rematch.

Steve Paikin: Rematch. You got it. [laughter] Yes, they are going again. It'll be Horvath versus Loomis. But with a little extra flourish here because a third candidate is now capturing attention too. Hamilton City Councelor Rob Cooper. He's also in. And Mr. Cooper, I've never met him, but he I mean, he's got a hell of a resume. He's got, I mean, just tons of experience all over the place. He's been endorsed by former mayor Bob Ratina, who also ran last time and came third. It might be the best mayor's race in the entire province of Ontario. You got three high-profile, talented, experienced people who are going to go at it. And uh i'm going to keep my eye on that one. That's for darn sure. I'm sure it will come up again in the podcast.

John Michael McGrath: Amen. And with that, it's off to your column, my column.

Steve Paikin: Time now for our regular feature, your column, my column, in which JMM and I reminisce about the columns that we wrote for tvO.org this past week. Start us off, sir.

John Michael McGrath: Uh, right. So, I wrote about a recent report uh from the Institute on Research and Public Policy uh about um the economic difficulties and uh potential for Sault Ste. Marie. You know, this is to me such a an interesting city because you've got, you know, the single largest private employer, the Algoma Steel Mill there is going has historically been very troubled, has gone through many cycles of ownership. And uh so the the question for uh both local and provincial and federal governments is, you know, how do you protect a community like Sus Marie when it is clearly exposed to among other things the whims of a US government that has suddenly decided it doesn't want Canadian steel? um right the province and frankly not even the federal government can like change the direction of the global steel industry right um there are some things that the province could do uh you know one of the perennial complaints uh in local Sault Ste. Marie politics is that while uh Ontario lottery and gaming OLG is headquartered in Sault Ste. Marie and uh has been for many years. Uh while you know there was a big to-do when they moved the headquarters there over time a lot of those jobs have had this tendency to migrate back to Toronto. And I think at this point it's something like 50/50 or or even uh even fewer jobs are actually in Sault Ste. Marie. And so, uh, Mayor Matthew Shoemaker among many others has been said like, you know, one of the easiest things the province could do for us is make the headquarters actually be the headquarters and move some of those jobs back to, uh, Sue St. Marie. And then, of course, there's issues about like the the local college, the local university. They have uh suffered because of the changes to uh both provincial and federal uh post-secondary uh policy. So, you know, all of these things uh come together, but I think the the real message in the report is that, you know, more than any one policy that uh you know, could potentially help out Sault Ste. Marie. Uh what we really need is is better coordination uh amongst the three levels of government. And so my column just goes into a bit of that in a bit with what that might look like.

Steve Paikin: Sault Ste. Marie is a great community. I've been there many, many times. People

John Michael McGrath: on my list I've never been.

Steve Paikin: Oh, really? I'll tell you the people are wonderful. If you love the outdoors, you know, cross country skiing, downhill ski, I mean, whatever it is you like, it's very close obviously to the border with the United States if you if you want to go into the US. Uh it's a great place, but you're quite right. Many of those jobs have migrated back to Toronto and uh it's an issue again. So, there we go. Okay. Can I talk about the gift that keeps on giving? Yes. I do admit that I am somewhat fascinated with this bi-election that's happening in Scar Bro. And I'll just do a quick background check here. Bill Blair was the MP for Scarborough Southwest. He got appointed to go over to the United Kingdom, represent Canada over there. That opened up a seat. The deputy leader of the Ontario NDP, Dolly Begum, got poached by Mark Carney's government to sort of flip to the Liberals and she got appointed to be the candidate for the federal bi-election. But that of course opens up a seat at Queens Park. Same writing, Scarborough Southwest. And it's now an open seat and the Liberals have decided they're not going to appoint anybody provinially. They're going to have an open nomination and Nate Erskin Smith who I think is your member of parliamentar East York.

John Michael McGrath: He has been there for I think 11 years

Steve Paikin: and he has been very open in saying look I want to I mean it's right next door right Scarborough Southwest is right next to Beaches East York. I want to go plant my flag there. I want to win the nomination. I want to win the bi-election and I want to parlay that into a run for the leadership of the Ontario Liberals which is vacant right now. And you know, come on people, get on board. This is something that can start in Scarborough Southwest and then take on provincewide implications. So, um, he's obviously trying to make that case to people. There are several other candidates in the race who are not taking kindly to that suggestion. Kadira Jackson, for example, uh was the 2025 candidate. She was actually uh very unhappy with Mr. Erskin Smith because apparently there is sort of a courtesy in politics that when you decide you're going to get into a race, the candidate of record, meaning the person who ran there last time, if they intend to run again, and she always did, it's sort of courteous to give them a call and say, "Uh, hey, Cadira Nate here. Um, I know you ran last time, but you know, circumstances have changed. I'd really like to run this time and I just want to let you know I'm in the race and you know let's uh do what we can to have a good contest and then unite after it's all over.

John Michael McGrath: Yes.

Steve Paikin: He did not make that call for a month after announcing his intention to get in. So Kadira Jackson's nose was a little bit out of joint on that particularly since you know she's from the area she's raising her kids in the area. She's a lawyer, got lots of community ties, and she figures, well, not only does she think she's the better candidate, but uh she says people in the area don't want Nate Erskin Smith in the race, uh because he's from over there and I'm from here. Erskin Smith says, you know, just just because I'm from the other side of Victoria Park, which is the street basically the dividing divides the two writings. Yes. Assanul Hafi is another person who wants to run. He came to Canada 16 years ago as an international student and through dent of hard work managed to go from being a pizza delivery boy to a guy who now owns 30 Domino's Pizza locations coupling Quebec as well. He signed up 3,500 members. He thinks he's the guy to beat. He had a rather testy exchange with Erskin Smith as well on the issue of you know why don't you just drop out and join my campaign. He says no I really want to run but he lives in London. He lives in London [clears throat] Ontario but he's seeking this open seat in Scarborough Southwest. So this gets complicated. Mahmuda Nasarin is another candidate. She's an immigration consultant also from the Bengali community as Mr. Hafi is. She figures she signed up 500 people. This is just going to be an old-fashioned humdinger, right? [laughter] Because you got a bunch of people, all of whom want the same thing, all of whom have very legitimate claims to being the best possible challenger to whoever the other parties put up.

John Michael McGrath: Yeah. So the other other thing assuming that uh Natskin Smith does in fact uh become the uh liberal candidate and uh the when a bi-election is called uh in order to be eligible to run proincially. Uh Erskin Smith has to resign his federal seat uh not to become the liberal candidate but if he wants to be if he wants to register when the bi-election is called he he has to resign. So that will then create a further vacancy that'll create a bi-election federally in Beaches East York. And there was a poll out uh this week from uh Main Street uh that suggested uh that this could actually be a seat that the NDP could flip if uh Avi Lewis wins that party's leadership and were to run in Beaches East York. This is a federal seat that the NDP held before uh Erskin Smith won it in 2015 uh and and held it for the Liberals since. Uh but it's it's very much a a seat that has gone back and forward between the Liberals and the NDP. Uh certainly since I've lived there and uh so just one more uh wheel to add to all the machinery that is turning right now.

Steve Paikin: Follow the bouncing ball, folks. You never know where it's going to stop. Now, we've gone on so long here, we're not going to get to the mailbag this week. We'll come back to that next week, but you want to give the email address just in case people want to chime in?

John Michael McGrath: Yes, absolutely. People can always email us questions uh or comments. Uh they can send it to onpolitics@tvo.org.

Steve Paikin: Terrific. And that is the OnPolitics podcast for this Friday, March the 20th, 2026. A heads up, next week we'll still be on television for our usual 8:00 p.m. time slot, but our audio podcast will drop a little later than normal because it's Ontario Budget Week, and we want to take some extra time to give you real in-depth coverage. And of course, Finance Minister Peter Bethlenfalvy will be our special guest here on the program. You can follow our show wherever you get your podcasts so that you get notified each time a new episode is available. And you can see the video version of the podcast on the TVO Today YouTube channel.

John Michael McGrath: Any feedback you have, we're always happy to hear it, good, bad, or indifferent. Write us an email at onpolitics@tvo.org. Please include your first and last name and where you're from. This week's episode was produced by Tiff Lamb, editing by David Irwin.

Steve Paikin: Production support from Jonathan Hallowell and TVO's digital media services team. Lorie F is the executive producer of digital. John Ferry is vice president programming and content.

John Michael McGrath: We always at this point like to thank our crew for setting up the thing here and in particular this week Mark Ford has been keeping the trains running on time here from a technical point of view for 35 years and he's having you know we're having later this week one of these little u what do they call it service awards ceremonies for him. So Mark um yeah i can meet you on camera one if you like. Mark thank you for everything you do to keep this place running. You are, what does the premier say? You are a champion, my friend. You are a champion. 35 years and you've only just got started, so keep coming back. I wish you were in the control room to hear this, but anyway, [laughter] whatever. Until next Friday, everybody. Bye-bye.

Steve Paikin: Byebye.