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

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

Steve Paikin: Today on the pod, the Ontario legislature has now broken for the summer. We'll get you up to date on what MPPs achieved during a very short indoor session

Steve Paikin: as they embark on a very long outdoor barbecue circuit.

John Michael McGrath: After showdown with the premier, a Tory MPP has lost his position within the party's caucus. [music] We'll talk about what went down.

Steve Paikin: And this being Indigenous History Month, we thought we'd show you some of a speech in the Ontario legislature which was not in English and was not in French, but it was quite historic.

John Michael McGrath: And in your column my column, I'll look at the eternal debate over democratic reforms at Queen's Park.

Steve Paikin: And I'm going to talk about what a disgrace it is that Canada, a G7 country after all, has a prime ministerial residence that is so dilapidated two consecutive PMs won't even live there. But there's a group with an idea to change that.

Steve Paikin: It's Friday, June 5th, 2026, so let's get to it.

Steve Paikin: JMM, we are both t-shirted up today because little sugar for starters, it is so gorgeous out these days.

John Michael McGrath: It's wonderful weather.

Steve Paikin: Summer has finally come and because I am both a Star Trek and a Star Wars guy, I recognize what that t-shirt is right away. I'm thinking this is the I mean this is how you blow up a Death Star, right?

John Michael McGrath: Yes, exactly. So, this is uh loose targeting computer from the final attack on the Death Star and uh I'm wearing this in honor of Marcia Lucas who uh was George Lucas's wife, but more importantly for our context was the editor one of the three editors credited uh for the 1977 Star Wars uh film. Uh unlike George Lucas, Marcia Lucas won an Oscar for her editing um and she passed away last week uh and our editor Colin Kisch uh alerted me uh to that fact and there is a uh a very substantial debate online about various allegations about like how how important her role was in the editing of Star Wars as a whole. Very now kind of famous YouTube video basically saying that her editing saved an unwatchably bad film and made it into Star Wars. Now, that's a very contested argument. But what seems to be relatively strong consensus is that the final sequence, right? Luke Skywalker, you know, zooming down that trench about to blow up the Death Star, Han Solo coming in at the last moment. Sorry, spoiler alert for a 50-year-old film.

John Michael McGrath: Uh that whole sequence and and the editing of that sequence is is very much the product of Marcia Lucas's genius and uh

Steve Paikin: Well, good for her cuz that's that's a brilliant brilliant scene.

John Michael McGrath: She won an Oscar, right? Uh so, I thought it would be nice to honor Marcia Lucas. I happen to have this t-shirt anyway

John Michael McGrath: because, you know, I'm big nerd. Um and, you know, I know that nobody has any strong feelings about Star Wars on the internet, so I'm quite certain we will not get angry letters about [laughter] anything I've just said.

Steve Paikin: Now, the thing that I want to hearken back to Were you alive in 1977?

John Michael McGrath: No, I would I was -4.

Steve Paikin: You were -4. I thought so because I actually I mean, this just in as well, there's a bit of an age gap between the two of us.

John Michael McGrath: a little bit.

Steve Paikin: And I do remember lining up around the block to go see Star Wars at a theater when it first came out and I feel a little sorry for young guys like you that you didn't get to experience that cuz that was incredible.

John Michael McGrath: Yeah, I I guess I would have I fell in love with Return I first and I would have been like five or six and to to date myself, I didn't get to line up at the theater, but I got to watch it so often on VHS that like the the rental store could see me coming and it was like, "Sorry, kid, it's already taken today."

Steve Paikin: Very good. Very good. Well, I'm going to get us back on brand here because today, if you insist I insist [laughter] because today here I'm going to stand up, there's George Drew. Now, I know I had George Drew shirt on a little while ago because uh there was an anniversary several weeks ago that I wanted to acknowledge. But But the reason I've got George Drew back right now is that the anniversary that he represents is truly one of a kind extraordinary in Ontario political history. Let's just recap for a second. George Drew was the first Progressive Conservative Premier in that line of 42 straight years of PC governments in Ontario. So, the dynasty lasted from 1943 to 1985. He was the first Premier. And 78 years ago tomorrow, Premier Drew experienced something that no other Premier has experienced in Ontario history. He won a majority government, his third consecutive victory, incidentally, and lost his seat.

John Michael McGrath: Huh.

Steve Paikin: That's hard to do.

John Michael McGrath: Yeah.

Steve Paikin: Now, William Hearst in 1919 was a Progressive Conservative who lost a seat, but he also lost government. David Peterson in 1990 lost his seat, but he also lost government. George Drew won a majority government and lost his seat anyway. And the story, of course, is delicious. The demon run got him, right? There was a big issue around booze. And Drew was in favor of liberalizing booze sales in Ontario, not selling it on Sunday. We're not getting crazy here.

Steve Paikin: But liberalizing booze sales, and as a result, a temperance candidate, an anti-alcohol candidate named William Temple, ran against him in his seat in High Park, running for the CCF, which was the party before the NDP, and beat him. He beat a sitting Premier in a year when the Premier won a majority government. So, I thought, let's bring George Drew back cuz that's just such an extraordinary accomplishment, if you want to call it that, it deserves remembering.

John Michael McGrath: A a unique experience.

Steve Paikin: There we go. Yes, indeed.

John Michael McGrath: And so, the other thing that we just wanted to mention, uh and this is one of the times we have to fess up to taping on a Thursday morning, uh we are seeing chatter that there is going to be a cabinet shuffle. The premier was asked about it today at a news event in Toronto and and said stay tuned.

Steve Paikin: exactly deny it, did he?

John Michael McGrath: No, exactly. Um it's very possible that the cabinet shuffle will be announced Friday, in which case you will be watching this after it has been announced, but we do not know what the details are and we will of course cover that next week.

Steve Paikin: Of course, we'll recap it all next week if in fact that's what happens and you and I, given the sources that we have, are reasonably assured that that's what's going to happen. So, such is life.

John Michael McGrath: Yes.

Steve Paikin: And with that, let's get off to issue one. Well, you know the drill at Queen's Park. MPPs have a winter and then spring sitting, then they break for the summer, then they come back in the fall and do it all over again. But, this year's version of the Ontario government is doing things a little differently. Well, actually a lot differently. Their winter break was unusually long, their spring sitting was unusually short, and now their summer break is going to be a marathon. Okay, what's going on here?

John Michael McGrath: So, as you said, the spring sitting was already shorter than usual. And and when we say shorter than usual, I am using the the baseline here of the calendar that is set out in the legislature's standing orders, right? The the document that is supposed to spell out the the normal rules of of how the legislative session is supposed to be organized and it includes basically a default setting for the legislative calendar. So, normally MPPs would have returned to Queen's Park after Family Day in February. They did not do so until March 23rd, you will recall. MPPs would normally return from the summer break on September 14th. The PC majority voted on Tuesday to adjourn the house and not return until October 27th, the day after municipal elections. The legislature sat for just 30 days in the spring and even if they sit for all of the remaining days in the calendar, as set out in the standing orders, that will be just 23 more days for a combined total of 53 sitting days in all of 2026. That makes it by far the shortest legislative year outside of an election year since 1974. And it may in fact be longer than that, but that's how far the legislature's easily accessible records go back. I really want to emphasize this is unusually short for a sitting year. The average for all years since 1974 is 85 sitting days, and if you exclude election years, it is 92. So, this year the legislature will sit for just a bit more than half of the average length from the last 50 years.

Steve Paikin: Can I ask you something?

John Michael McGrath: Yes.

Steve Paikin: Did you actually go back and check all that?

John Michael McGrath: I did indeed. [laughter] Somebody Somebody flagged it for me on Twitter, and I I I have lots of well-informed and and and gracious followers on social media, but like any good journalist, I had to check it out, and I went back to the legislature's numbers, and yes.

Steve Paikin: Good for you. Doing your due diligence, which is wonderful. Now, the explanation that the government has given for delaying the return of the house in the fall, when they, as you pointed out, would normally come back in September, but instead they're going to take six additional weeks, not come back till the end of October. They have said they don't want to interfere with the municipal election campaigns, which I guess election day is the third week of October. Does that hold any water?

John Michael McGrath: [laughter] None whatsoever. It's a transparent excuse, because

Steve Paikin: Well, we have municipal elections every four years

John Michael McGrath: Exactly. It doesn't normally stop the legislature and in fact, I think there's two ways to look at this. One is the purely partisan political management of it, right? It reduces the opportunities for the opposition parties to criticize the government in question period, which is obviously the most visible part of the legislative day. But I also think there is a policy side to it, which is that the government is trying to be much more careful and deliberate in what it passes. In their first term, they ran into a lot of trouble with laws that were passed in a rush and then had to be walked back or were struck down by courts. This time, they are trying to ensure that what they do pass is robust and can survive scrutiny, even if that means doing less.

Steve Paikin: But it also means that a lot of outstanding business doesn't get addressed. Ontario has no shortage of crises right now, from healthcare to housing to education contract negotiations. When MPPs aren't at Queen's Park, it can look like the government is sleeping on the job.

John Michael McGrath: There's no question it requires opposition parties to get a lot more creative about how to bring these issues to the public's attention because obviously when question period is happening, you have a built-in institutional way of bringing these issues to the public's attention. You in some respects control the agenda of the province or you have a shot at doing it anyway, if you've got question period. Without question period, they're going to have to get more creative and we'll see what they've got up their sleeves. Obviously, teacher unions are going to be out there doing what they do during contract negotiations. They'll be protest, they'll be press conferences. So, those are opportunities, but you know, sometimes it's sometimes it's hard to get the public's attention during the summertime, right? Schools out, kids are away at camp or doing their own thing or you know, if you got a cottage, you go to the cottage. It's a it's a different vibe.

Steve Paikin: Yeah, and I will say I mean somebody who I have some passing familiarity with for example like TVO's Google Analytics. I will say that you know, our audience shrinks substantially over the summer and so even when it is our job to try and help get the the facts of these stories out, a lot of people are just not reading about provincial politics during the summer. So, it does make the job of the opposition parties even harder.

John Michael McGrath: But, we shall stand on guard for thee. Don't you worry. We're on the case.

Steve Paikin: And with that, we're off to issue two. Doug Ford may be seen by many Ontarians as a folksy guy who's managed to do so well in politics that he's won three straight majority governments. But, from time to time, we do see the other side of the premier as well. That's the side you do not want to cross. Will Bouma found out the hard way about that this week. The MPP from Brant, just west of Hamilton, had been the chair of the Progressive Conservative Caucus at Queen's Park until he reportedly tangled with the premier during a caucus meeting. The result, Bouma is now out as caucus chair. What do we know?

John Michael McGrath: Right. So, Bouma apparently spoke his mind in caucus on behalf of other MPPs. That's sort of the role of the caucus chair is to represent the interests of the party independent of the government, right? So, he's supposed to express the concerns that are not unique to the premier and his cabinet. And this was regarding the MPP pension plan that was created after the election last year. Might recall that the parties all agreed to basically hold their fire and let this law get created very quickly in one day at Queen's Park. They can all agree when they want to. And so, they created a pension plan restoring a a MPP pension that had been eliminated by Mike Harris back during the common sense revolution years. But, there's a problem because you've just created this pension plan in 2026 when at least some of these conservative MPPs have been serving since 2018 and they were hoping to get some of that years of service recognized. And the way you do this normally in a in a pension plan or a an RRSP or sorry, a pension plan is you you buy the years of service back with money. But MPPs, not all of them have substantial means and so the government was going to make some public money available to them. And then the the so-called gravy plane happened. The premier tried to buy a private plane for him his use and for the use of cabinet. That obviously did not go well for him and part of the fallout for that was that the premier and his his staff came to believe that now was a really bad time for the government of Ontario to be seen to be spending tens of millions of dollars so that MPPs could retire in more comfort.

Steve Paikin: What did the MPPs think about that?

John Michael McGrath: Well, and this is where Boma crossed swords, so to speak, with the premier where he said, "Hey, like we are being punished now for a decision that was made in the premier's office."

Steve Paikin: I think it probably was a little stronger than that. It was probably, "We're paying the price for your screw-up."

John Michael McGrath: Yeah, I He would be within his rights, I think, to have been used stronger language. Um, I'm not sure if you swear a lot in caucus meetings, but who could blame him, right? Anyway, um, Boma expressed his reservations and the reservations of caucus and then was uh pulled aside at the end of that caucus meeting and told he would no longer be a caucus chair for the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario.

Steve Paikin: We have seen in the past that this premier, although he can be a, you know, jolly good fellow, he can also show no tolerance whatsoever for dissent when it comes to some of his backbench MPPs. And just as you looked into the bowels of the archives to find some examples, I did a bit of the same thing. Here's a bit of a list, folks. Goldie Ghamari, Roman Baber, Rick Nicholls, Belinda Karahalios, Randy Hillier, Chris Scott. Scott's a bit of a different situation, admittedly, because you know, he's been charged with a crime and as a result uh he has been ejected from caucus pending all of that winding its way through the courts. But all of the others got ejected for a variety of reasons, some of which had to do with publicly disagreeing with government policy at the time. Uh there were some

John Michael McGrath: Notably COVID. A bunch of those were all basically related to objections to public health measures during COVID.

Steve Paikin: No question and you know, the premier's office found some of the comments uh inflammatory. And I remember Rick Nicholls declined to take a vaccination after the premier committed that all of his members would be vaccinated. So anyway, there were some disagreements along the way and some of the members of the caucus paid for it by being Now, Bo has not been kicked out of caucus, but these others have been kicked out altogether. I would simply note that the the fights across the floor of the legislature often create a great spirit of solidarity within a caucus. And I remember people in the Mike Harris years when you know, the the opposition was going crazy, the unions were going crazy, members of the public were going crazy, the media was going crazy, the common sense revolution was on and what did the PC caucus of that he think about it all? They thought it was just great. A lot of them had said it made us feel like a real team in it together uh all paddling at the same time in the same direction. Well, when the fights happen within the family that's when you really get some serious discrepancies and disspiritedness and that can lead to It can lead. I'm not saying it's going to happen here, but I've seen in the past where the fights within the family is what leads to drip drip drip um more of the same and and less cohesion and less solidarity within the family and leaders can pay a price for that down the road.

John Michael McGrath: Yeah, and I think you look at the record of of some of the uh stronger prime ministers, stronger premiers and you know, it's it's not something that you see as part of the public role as much, but being a good manager of caucus is inescapable part of the job, right? We are already hearing the stories I the Toronto Star's Althea Raj has a column this week about some of the

Steve Paikin: Good piece.

John Michael McGrath: Yeah, very good piece about some of the the descent within Mark Carney's caucus federally.

Steve Paikin: He yells.

John Michael McGrath: Yes, he he he's a yeller.

Steve Paikin: That's what the backbenchers say. He yells.

John Michael McGrath: Um and that's probably about an example of great caucus management I would offer, but then again, I've never had to manage a caucus. What I will say is that people do not have perfect control over their MPPs. Premiers do not have perfect control over their MPPs. At the end of the day, every MPP gets to decide what is in their best interest, right? They can either decide to stay with the team and continue to sometimes take punishments that they they feel are undeserved. Like for example, you know, I I I imagine Mr. Bowman is not feeling like he deserves to have have lost this this position within the party. But, you know, he can keep being a good team player, but a different MPP might make a different decision and just say, "Hey, you know what? Like it's a big old world. There's other opportunities out there for me. Being in politics is not the be-all and end-all of my life, and they can just leave." Right? And and at a certain point it's already a government that is in its eighth year. People people do get tired, right? And quite aside from the the like internal machinations of any party, right? People get tired and they might choose to leave, and we've already seen Caroline Mulroney who opted to take a break from politics at the very least. Rumors of a cabinet shuffle coming. More people might choose to leave, and that that drip drip drip you're talking about, that's how these things can add up. People just make their own choices, and they can they can find their way to the doors if they need to.

Steve Paikin: Caucus can be There's no question caucus can be a difficult thing for a leader to manage. And you know, we don't have to go too far back to remember that Justin Trudeau by the end of his premiership had pretty much lost much of his caucus and they wanted him out. And they made you know, and of course Chrystia Freeland put the knife in very publicly.

John Michael McGrath: Yes.

Steve Paikin: You mentioned Caroline Mulroney. I think you know, I've only been watching politics for a few years. I can't think of a guy who managed caucus relations better than her father.

John Michael McGrath: Right.

Steve Paikin: Brian Mulroney was the absolute legendary the best at it. The best at I mean this is a pejorative term but the care and feeding of caucus is what they call it. And he was so good at it. He knew when birthdays were coming. He'd invite people to 24 Sussex from the caucus to have lunch or dinner or whatever. He understood how important having caucus onside was. And and let me put it this way. When the Progressive Conservative Party was polling at about 11 or 12% in the polls under Mulroney's leadership which essentially meant there were more people who believed Elvis was still alive than were prepared [laughter] to vote for the PC Party under Brian Mulroney's leadership. He had nobody cross him publicly. There was no Nobody left the caucus. Nobody walked the floor. Nobody held a press conference to say this guy's got to go. They all stuck with him because he had attended to the care and feeding of caucus for eight years at that point. So, yeah, I caucus can be difficult but there's an art to it and you really should try and do it because it's in your interest to do it.

John Michael McGrath: And I I would just add one other thing. You know, I I would remind people that you know, Doug Ford did not choose the caucus he was elected with, right? He he became leader of the PC Party so late so so close to the election that most of the candidates who ran under the PC Party banner had been chosen by his predecessor Patrick Brown. And I think one of the things that was very interesting over the last several years and And not something that is necessarily like a big showy part of the of the provincial politics, but I do think there was a sense in which the caucus really did become much more of Ford's team particularly over like three election wins, right? That that he had earned the trust of his caucus in a way that I don't think was there on like day one as premier in summer of 2018.

Steve Paikin: For sure.

John Michael McGrath: And you know, and that gets you a lot, right? Like that you know, three election wins really does buy you a lot of confidence from your your caucus, but it's not infinite.

Steve Paikin: Correct. Everybody's got a best before date at some point. Yes. We shall see. This premier's done pretty well on that front so far. And with that, off to issue three. The rules in the Ontario legislature used to be that you had to speak English when making a speech or participating in question period. Then in 1967, our centennial year, Premier John Robarts changed the rules to allow Canada's other official language, French, to be spoken as well. This week we saw a rare exception granted to allow an MPP to give a five-minute speech in a third language. Here is some of that speech. That is member of provincial parliament Sol Mamakwa from the northern Ontario riding of Kiiwetinoong speaking not French, not English, but his native language Oji-Cree. That is his first language. And I believe what he just said there was Queen's Park's simultaneous translation goes like today, the month of June and the heart-shaped strawberry month is the national indigenous history month. And this is actually a little more complicated than you think because obviously the Ontario legislature has English and French translators standing by at Queen's Park to deal with simultaneous translation. There is nobody who speaks Ojibwe Cree at Queen's Park. They had to fly somebody in from Northern Ontario who can speak that language and who would be available to translate it in real time for all the other 123 members of the legislature who don't speak Ojibwe Cree. So, there was a lot of effort that went into this and it was a very historic moment.

John Michael McGrath: Yeah, and and I would just add one other thing that is probably not visible to people who are not giant nerds is that um the if you speak English or French in the legislature, your remarks get recorded in Hansard very promptly if not instantly. Um Over the days since MPP Mamakwa spoke in the legislature, we've been I've been discreetly like refreshing the Hansard page for those remarks to see if they would be published in the at least last time I checked there was just a notice saying you know translation pending more or less [laughter] and and you know I I I like the reminder that this stuff does not happen automatically that there are very skilled hardworking individuals working at the legislature in the Hansard office in the broadcast services all over the legislature just doing the um fiddly technical stuff so that our elected officials can properly debate the important issues of the day.

Steve Paikin: Now, this is not the first time he has done this, right?

John Michael McGrath: This is not the first time that Mamakwa has spoken in his language in the legislature. We have drawn attention to it before here on the podcast, but I I I do think it's notable every time you actually posted to social media about how silent the house gets when he speaks and it is just remarkable. It is it can be a a boisterous place during some debates and it's you know particularly during question period. Now Mamaqua was not speaking during question period. This was part of the the members statements part of the day but yeah, you you can always hear a pin drop when he is speaking. Now obviously this is national indigenous history month and that was the immediate context for MPP Mamaqua's remarks but I also want to highlight some of the context of what he said. Here of course I'm relying on the translation provided by the legislature. So my apologies to the MPP if I get something wrong here but at one point he addressed young indigenous people saying protect our language, our culture, our identity, our way of life, protect our lands and waters and the animals who live here, learn the language, our culture and our way of life. And you know, I might be stating the obvious here but part of protecting indigenous languages is is exactly what MPP Mamaqua is doing here using his place in the legislature to assert that his language which has as much legitimacy in the the important public debates in our province. It is as important and as as legitimate a a language for those debates as the imported European tongues of English and French.

Steve Paikin: Amen. And with that, let's get 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 we wrote for the TVO website tvo.org over the past week. What you got up your sleeve?

John Michael McGrath: So I want to talk about democratic reforms but I don't want to talk about electoral reform. That topic gets a ton of ink and pixels perennially both federally and provincially and I think it's a worthy debate to have sometimes but I also think it kind of sucks up all the oxygen and and it sort of consumes everybody's attention for potential democratic reforms in our political system and frankly there's a lot of other things that need attention. Uh and I I frankly don't see the needle moving on electoral reform that soon. So, recent events have provided us with a few different examples of uh things that we could change at the provincial level that would I think improve the functioning of our democracy that are not uh proportional representation or ranked choice balloting or that kind of thing. So, uh let's look at Scarborough Southwest where the Ontario Liberal Party uh let's say did not administer a nomination race that would uh meet the perfect definition of uh uh electoral scrutiny, if I could put it that way. Um as we've mentioned before, a lot of different people saying that we need to get uh more much more serious about nomination races in this country and in this province. Uh we need to administer them better, more fairly, more transparently. Uh Broadly speaking, uh empowering uh MPPs uh uh in opposition to the government, if I could put it that way. And here I want to talk about the the very short sitting year. Uh as we always say, when the legislature breaks for a longer than usual uh time, you know, MPPs' jobs don't begin and end at the doors of Queen's Park. They they obviously have other work that they do out in their constituencies, but it is the case that when you shorten the sitting calendar at Queen's Park, you by definition concentrate power in the government's hands. And you give less power to MPPs, and I think that's something worth discussing. Uh we could look at Mr. Will Bouma uh and talk about empowering the party caucuses against their leaders, right? Uh the federal parliament adopted the Reform Act to give uh some party powers back to their caucuses.

Steve Paikin: Well, the Conservative Party did anyway. I'm not sure the other caucuses [clears throat] did.

John Michael McGrath: the other parties have not availed themselves of those powers, and uh sorry, I'm going to very quickly I'm just going to say it drives me absolutely nuts that the Liberal Party went through the extended prolonged pain of trying to push Justin Trudeau out the door, and then the moment Mark Carney won the leadership, did they uh avail themselves of the powers available to them in the Reform Act? No, they did not.

Steve Paikin: not.

John Michael McGrath: [clears throat]

Steve Paikin: Anyway, uh maybe there's a lesson to be learned, but what do I know? Um anyway, this is a debate we've had before at Queen's Park. In the 1970s, there was the Camp Commission, Bill Davis uh responding to some pressure from uh conservative backbenches uh professionalized and and arguably democratized Queen's Park more than it uh had been through the '50s and '60s. But this is not just a debate that you only ever have once, right? There's a need to constantly renew and refresh our ideas of what democracy means, and uh I think now might be a time for us to do that.

Steve Paikin: Good thought. You've heard of the White House.

John Michael McGrath: I I have indeed.

Steve Paikin: You have heard of uh Number 10 Downing Street.

John Michael McGrath: Uh sure. Who hasn't?

Steve Paikin: I suspect you've even heard of the Elysée Presidential Palace in Paris.

John Michael McGrath: Uh yes.

Steve Paikin: I could go on, but you're getting my point here, which is to say other G7 countries seem to be able to find a place for their heads of government to live, and we can't.

John Michael McGrath: No.

Steve Paikin: Apparently we we have a nice place for the leader of the opposition to live. It's called Stornoway, but we have not yet figured out over the last decade or more how to find a a reasonable place for the Prime Minister of the country to live. So, I wrote a column this week on the disgrace that is 24 Sussex Drive. It is a rat-infested, asbestos-laden um Well, I I you know, it's a piece of garbage right now. It's really It's completely falling apart. The last several Prime Ministers before Justin Trudeau who lived there uh when it got to be wintertime, the insulation wasn't good enough to keep the freezing out, and they you You you had to put blankets on and wear sweaters the whole time. Anyway, I'm we're not uh crying crocodile tears here for first ministers of the country because they don't have a place to live. They live somewhere. But, the fact of the matter is it's a bit passing strange, I would suggest, that a G7 country doesn't have a a kind of um reasonable place for the Prime Minister to live which adheres to the security concerns of the 21st century. And as a result, Justin Trudeau did not live there, Mark Carney does not live there. A group has come forward with a solution. There are a couple of guys who've been around for a while. One's name is Charlie Peelsticker. He's a former insurance executive. And Bruce Thomas, who's been a long-time lawyer um in this province. They've come forward with an idea. They've said it's probably going to cost 50 million bucks to solve this problem. Now, whether that means renovating 24 Sussex or ripping it down and building something new and making sure that it adheres to all of the security needs of the 21st century, they probably figured it's going to cost 50 million bucks to do that. What if you asked foundations and well-heeled individuals across the country to give a million bucks apiece, not corporations because we don't they don't want to give the impression that anybody's currying favor.

John Michael McGrath: Yeah.

Steve Paikin: Give a million bucks apiece and there's your budget. The problem in the past has been prime ministers have not wanted to do anything about this because they're terrified that the public would react in fury if they spent tax dollars fixing up their place to live. Uh these guys have even suggested you could democratize the whole thing, turn it into a bit of a nation-building thing, maybe give for 24 Sussex Drive 24 bucks. You could give 24 bucks and have a kind of a figurative brick in the wall uh for for 24 Sussex. There'd be a website and there's your name on the on the brick in the wall that you gave 24 bucks to this. The National Capital Commission, which, you know, is this uh other level of government, if you like, in the nation's capital. They're in charge of the land. They're in charge of the project. And apparently, for the first time in a long time, they are listening. Now, we we don't have to do what Trump did, right? We don't We don't have to, you know, rip down the East Wing and put up a new ballroom. We don't have to laden the whole thing with gold.

John Michael McGrath: need a UFC cage.

Steve Paikin: We don't need a UFC cage, right? Uh we don't have to turn it into a parking lot for Teslas.

John Michael McGrath: No.

Steve Paikin: But we can do something here. It just seems to me that we are, as a G7 capable of solving this problem. And um here's a group with an idea. They've had meetings. There seems to be a bit of momentum behind their idea. So, let's see what happens.

John Michael McGrath: I I I will say that the comparison to the East Wing of the White House is interesting because I do think like 24 Sussex is currently not fit for human habitation. We like there is no debate about this point. And I kind of think that whatever else happens during Mark Carney's government, like maybe one of the last things he does should literally just be to knock it flat. And like even if we cannot fix it in the the means that you are describing here and like rebuilding 24 Sussex, like actually just knock it down and leave it for the next guy to to build something because so long as it is still standing, I think we're going to keep having this argument. And just knock it over and force the question.

Steve Paikin: I think the Prime Minister has an opportunity here to to say I'm going to take the money from other people. Uh and if other Canadian citizens want to contribute, that's great as well. We are going to fix this problem. And I pledge to you that I will not live there.

John Michael McGrath: That's wonderful.

Steve Paikin: I I you know, I pledge to you that for however long I'm Prime Minister, I will not move into that home. It'll be for my successor. So, no self-interest here. I'm going to fix a problem for the next 100 years of Prime Ministers to deal with. You know, that's a way around it. So, I really, you know, it's it's it's hard for me to imagine in a country this smart

Steve Paikin: that they've not yet in 20 years been able to figure this out. 30 years, 40 years, depends how far back you want to go. It's kind of crazy. Anyways, shall we go to the mailbag?

John Michael McGrath: Let's do it.

Steve Paikin: Let's do that. If you got a burning question or insightful comment, we always love hearing from you at onpolitics@tvo.org. JMM, fire away.

John Michael McGrath: Right. Uh so, this is a letter from Dylan McGuire in Halton Hills, uh who writes, "Hello Steve and JMM. I was listening to your most recent episode where you discussed the premier's most recent outburst on homeless encampments and judicial decisions around them. Given that the existence of homeless encampments seems to be a real pain in the premier's side, and given that the issue has exploded under his watch, I think we can state that as an undeniable fact of the past 8 years, do you think the premier has considered actually housing these people as a solution? What would be the logistics of this, and why is it not being seriously considered or proposed by the government or any of the parties that wish to govern? Again, uh that's from Dylan McGuire in Halton Hills."

Steve Paikin: I don't know what your impression is, but but I spend a lot of time in downtown Toronto.

John Michael McGrath: Yeah.

Steve Paikin: I spend a lot I I I go into Hamilton every weekend, and I see downtown Hamilton, cuz that's where my dad lives, so we spend go for walks and we see stuff. Homelessness at the matter at the moment feels like it's worse than I can ever remember it. So, whatever's going on out there, whatever programs are in place to try to help house unhoused people,

John Michael McGrath: Yeah.

Steve Paikin: there's not enough of it working right now.

John Michael McGrath: And the policy that Dylan is describing is often referred to in in the jargon as Housing First, right? The idea that before you try and solve somebody's mental health issues, or their addictions, or their search for employment, you first provide them with stable, secure, dignified housing.

Steve Paikin: That's a cart and horse thing, isn't it?

John Michael McGrath: Exactly, right? And so uh actually uh in the last decade, Canada, and this was I believe this was actually a an effort that started under uh Stephen Harper just to show you that this is not a a clean partisan divide here. Uh but Canada uh had the um At Home or Chez Soi uh project, which uh across a number of different cities uh did exactly this of of providing uh uh subsidized housing uh to people uh and and then using that as a a way to address some of their other issues. And obviously this is all controversial, very you know, people have very differing uh interpretations of the data, but I would say among uh housing experts, it's broadly seen as a very successful effort. The problem, of course, is that scaling this stuff up is extremely costly uh and ignoring it is also costly, right? Uh homeless people have all sorts of interactions with the health care system or justice system.

Steve Paikin: Yep. [clears throat]

John Michael McGrath: Um

Steve Paikin: You can pay me now or you can pay me later.

John Michael McGrath: Exactly. Uh I I'm not going to here here on a podcast, I'm not going to uh try to expand on which system is uh more affordable, but I think I I I do find the argument that uh one uh one choice would be more humane.

Steve Paikin: If we were going to put it that way.

John Michael McGrath: Well, I mean, again, I'm going to say at the risk of stating the obvious here, I do remember when the square in front of Hamilton City Hall, who's named after a former mayor, Robert Morrow, that square was the site of a homeless encampment for many, many weeks going.

Steve Paikin: Yeah.

John Michael McGrath: And eventually the city came to an agreement with the people who lived there in tents in City Hall Square to move away. But the fact that you can drive by Hamilton City Hall and not see people living in City Hall Square does not mean that those homeless people have gone away. They have simply gone behind City Hall one block away, one block further east, and the homeless encampment is there now on a side street beside an historic old home in Hamilton. And and the conditions are awful. It's a terrible place for them to live. It's unsightly for people in the area. Um there's I mean I think Dylan's question is just so spot-on. There's got to be a better solution than whatever it is we're doing right now cuz whatever we're doing right now ain't working.

Steve Paikin: No, and and municipalities have struggled you know there have been cases where here in Toronto where people have been offered shelter spaces and have declined them. Cities generally this is one of the core disputes in these court cases that we discussed in in last week's podcast. One of the the the really key issues has been convincing courts that you're not just clearing the encampment but that you're providing the occupants somewhere safe to go.

John Michael McGrath: Yeah.

Steve Paikin: And that is an actual test that municipalities have had to clear and some have not been able to. In the case of Waterloo that we mentioned last week, the region of Waterloo has has admitted that they they cannot guarantee that level. They can't clear that threshold. In the city of Toronto has had some better luck. In some cases they they did I believe last year clear an encampment close to Kensington Market, if I remember correctly. And they they were able to convince a court there that they had, in fact, provided people with opportunities to to find shelter spaces elsewhere. But, um Yeah, it's it is genuinely a a tough problem. And as I say, you know, it it is, in some sense, a novel problem in that this really did explode during and after COVID-19. And this is one of those cases where a lot of our institutions, and frankly, a lot of our funding just hasn't caught up.

John Michael McGrath: Yeah. Dylan, thank you for that question. A very compelling question. And as you can tell, prompted considerable discussion here in our studio. Okay, give the email address, and let's get out of here.

Steve Paikin: Right. Again, if you'd like to ask any question about content on the show or Star Wars,

Steve Paikin: please email us at onpolitics@tvo.org.

John Michael McGrath: want to have one final note, though, before we leave. And that is this is our penultimate episode of the season. Next week will be our last show of the season. And we're going to have a very special guest come join us here in the studio to finish things off. The mayor of Sault Ste. Marie, Matthew Shoemaker, is going to fly down from Sault Ste. Marie because he will be here to talk about a new book that has been written about the only premier of Ontario ever to come from Sault Ste. Marie. And that's William Howard Hearst. And guess whose T-shirt I'm going to be wearing next week. I'll let you think about that for 1 [laughter] second. It is, I can tell you, it is fairly rare for books to be written about any of Ontario's 26 premiers. So, we thought we would give Mayor Shoemaker's effort a little attention that it deserves. So, make sure you tell your friends and family, everybody, where are you? Over here. Tell your friends and family next week's onpoli podcast with Sault Ste. Marie Mayor Matthew Shoemaker on his political hero, William Howard Hearst, happening right here in the studio.

Steve Paikin: Not William Randolph Hearst.

John Michael McGrath: and not William Howard Taft.

Steve Paikin: Right.

John Michael McGrath: Somehow an amalgam of all of them. Anyway, you're the troublemaker today. That is the On Politics for this Friday, June the 5th, 2026.

Steve Paikin: 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 [music] today YouTube channel.

John Michael McGrath: Any feedback you have, we're always happy to hear it, good, bad, or indifferent. [music] Write us an email at onpolitics@tvo.org. Please include your first and last name and where you're located.

Steve Paikin: This week's episode was produced by Tiff Lamb, editing by Colin Kish.

John Michael McGrath: Production support from Jonathan Well and TVO's digital media services team.

Steve Paikin: Lori is the executive producer of digital, Vanessa Case is vice president media.

John Michael McGrath: Special thanks to our studio crew including the guys who were cheering for the Montreal Canadiens. Yes, I can show them a little bit of empathy at this time.

Steve Paikin: of you.

John Michael McGrath: They had a great year. They're not in the Stanley Cup final, but they had a great year. Good for them. Yes, you guys can continue to troll me now for another entire summer and let's see what the Leafs do with that first overall draft pick. Anyway, until next Friday for our season finale, bye-bye.

Steve Paikin: Bye-bye.