The One Where I Try To Break Into The Legislature With Marit Stiles

Summary

Podcast Summary: Unlearn16 – "The One Where I Try To Break Into The Legislature With Marit Stiles"

Podcast Information:

• Title: Unlearn16: Class is in Session
• Host: Unlearn16
• Guest: Marit Stiles
• Episode Title: The One Where I Try To Break Into The Legislature With Marit Stiles
• Release Date: December 31, 2024
• Description: A teacher with a sarcastic wit whose passion for debate and discussion spans the political, social, and pop culture spectrums. PS - a solid metaphor can solve all life’s problems.

---

Introduction: Stepping Into Queen’s Park [00:03 – 00:40]

The episode opens with the host welcoming listeners to "Unlearn16," introducing Marit Stiles with a lighthearted banter about the pronunciation of her name:

• Host (A) [00:03]: “Class is in session. Hey, guys. Welcome to Unlearn16. Class is in session today. Today, I came all the way down to Queen's Park with Marit Stiles...”

This playful exchange sets a relaxed tone as they prepare to explore the legislative halls of Queen’s Park.

Separation of Church and State: Debating Catholic School Funding [01:15 – 04:30]

The conversation shifts to the pressing issue of the separation of church and state, particularly focusing on the funding of Catholic schools in Ontario. Marit Stiles (B) provides historical context and criticizes the current funding model:

• A [01:15]: “If the one thing I've learned. I kind of need to talk about the separation of church and state.”
• B [02:24]: “We say the Lord's Prayer the first Monday. I think the first Monday of every month, but we might actually do it more often.”

Stiles highlights Ontario as one of the last provinces still funding Catholic schools, contrasting it with the broader Canadian landscape:

• B [03:18]: “The speaker here, he also does a really good job of trying to bring in other faiths and things like that. But, yeah, I mean, there's definitely, like, I would say, like, there's respect for faith here.”

They discuss the implications of uneven religious funding and the necessity for equitable distribution across all faiths to maintain genuine separation between church and state.

Affordable Housing: Historical Insights and Future Solutions [05:23 – 08:22]

The dialogue deepens into the affordable housing crisis in Ontario, tracing its roots to policy shifts in the 1980s and 1990s:

• B [06:23]: “A lot of the co-ops that you see and rent, geared to income units and things like that were built in that era...”
• A [06:10]: “Brian Mulroney, federally in like the 80s... privatized government subsidies or building federally subsidized homes.”

Marit Stiles critiques the deregulation and privatization of housing subsidies, explaining how the dismantling of government-supported affordable housing programs has left Ontario heavily reliant on the private sector:

• B [06:57]: “The only way you're going to get it built anywhere is and guarantee it is to have a provincial, like, agency that works with nonprofits and municipalities...”

They explore potential solutions, emphasizing the need for government intervention to facilitate the construction and funding of affordable homes:

• A [08:22]: “How much? ... If we took that money and we said, you know what, we're gonna start to build homes that people could afford...”

Taxation and Government Spending: Balancing the Budget [08:24 – 15:11]

The conversation transitions to taxation as a mechanism to fund affordable housing and other social programs. Stiles advocates for progressive taxation, proposing higher taxes on the wealthiest to redistribute funds effectively:

• B [08:46]: “Are you taxing the wealthiest people at a higher rate? If you do that, you can actually pay for a lot more.”

They critique the current government's spending priorities, highlighting expenditures that could be redirected towards more impactful areas like housing and healthcare:

• A [09:40]: “What's the cost on that by the way? ... It's $400 per household in Ontario.”

Stiles argues for reallocating funds from non-essential projects to essential services, demonstrating how such reallocations could lead to long-term savings and societal benefits:

• B [10:15]: “We pay so much more for people who are being homeless...”

Healthcare Integration with Housing Solutions [10:17 – 12:12]

Linking affordable housing to healthcare, the discussion underscores how stable housing can alleviate the strain on healthcare systems by reducing homelessness and associated costs:

• B [11:16]: “We are paying right now for all kinds of crap that nobody asked for. A vanity spa project with the Premiers in downtown Toronto...”
• A [10:17]: “Because nobody wants to talk about the King by guns.”

Marit emphasizes that investing in housing not only addresses social issues but also leads to substantial savings in healthcare expenditures:

• B [10:24]: “You’re ending up in hospitals and it’s expensive, it’s so expensive.”

Current Political Climate: Minority Government and Election Dynamics [16:18 – 19:04]

The hosts analyze the instability of minority governments, discussing the likelihood of forthcoming elections and the public’s growing dissatisfaction with political leaders:

• A [16:18]: “What do you think? You think this is time? You think, you think the non confidence vote should go through and we should force an election?”
• B [17:16]: “People are so fed up... holding on to power for power's sake is not good enough.”

They debate the effectiveness of minority governments in fostering democratic accountability versus the propensity of political parties to cling to power without meaningful reforms.

Question Period and Legislative Decorum: Seeking Transparency [21:11 – 27:38]

Addressing the procedural aspects of the legislature, the conversation critiques the theatrics of Question Period and the ensuing lack of substantive discourse:

• A [25:03]: “The banging on the desks, I just, I honest to God, I teach grade 9...”
• B [25:50]: “They have to respond. They have to respond.”

Stiles advocates for a restructuring of Question Period to prioritize genuine accountability over performative theatrics, suggesting that calmer, more structured interactions would lead to better governmental transparency and effectiveness.

Electoral Reform: Proportional Representation and Ranked Ballots [19:53 – 22:44]

The discussion shifts to electoral systems, with the hosts advocating for proportional representation and ranked ballots to ensure a fairer and more representative political landscape:

• A [21:53]: “What do you think about an elected Senate?”
• B [21:56]: “I would definitely prefer an elected Senate to an unelected appointed Senate.”

Marit Stiles explains the benefits of diverse representation and how such reforms could diminish the dominance of major parties, allowing for a broader spectrum of voices in governance:

• B [22:04]: “We benefit from having a diversity of voices... people feeling like their vote matters, which is so important.”

They acknowledge potential challenges, such as increased fragmentation, but emphasize the overall advantages of a more inclusive and representative electoral system.

Conclusion: Vision for Effective Governance [28:36 – 32:53]

As the episode winds down, the hosts reflect on the need for substantive policy discussions and effective governance. They iterate their commitment to key issues such as affordable housing and accessible healthcare, outlining a vision for a government that prioritizes the well-being of its citizens over political theatrics:

• A [32:07]: “Adequate house. I mean, we're gonna build.”
• B [32:21]: “We're going to connect people to family health teams and community health centers...”

Marit Stiles emphasizes actionable strategies to alleviate housing shortages and enhance healthcare infrastructure, underscoring their potential to create systemic change and cost savings.

• B [32:45]: “It’s gonna save us a lot of money and it’s gonna put...”

The episode concludes with a humorous yet earnest attempt by the host to engage more directly with the legislative environment, symbolizing their endeavor to bridge the gap between political institutions and the public.

---

Key Takeaways:

• Separation of Church and State: Urgent need for equitable funding across all faith-based institutions to maintain genuine separation.
• Affordable Housing Crisis: Historical policy shifts towards privatization have exacerbated housing shortages; government intervention is essential for sustainable solutions.
• Progressive Taxation: Implementing higher taxes on the wealthy can fund critical social programs without overburdening lower-income populations.
• Healthcare Integration: Affordable housing directly impacts healthcare costs by reducing homelessness and associated medical expenses.
• Political Accountability: Minority governments necessitate greater democratic accountability, but current practices often undermine this potential.
• Electoral Reforms: Proportional representation and ranked ballots can lead to more diverse and representative governance.
• Legislative Transparency: Reforming Question Period to focus on substantive issues over theatrics can enhance governmental transparency and effectiveness.

Notable Quotes:

• A [08:46]: “Are you taxing the wealthiest people at a higher rate? If you do that, you can actually pay for a lot more.”
• B [10:15]: “We pay so much more for people who are being homeless...”
• A [21:53]: “What do you think about an elected Senate?”
• B [22:04]: “We benefit from having a diversity of voices...”

---

This episode of "Unlearn16" with Marit Stiles offers a comprehensive exploration of critical political and social issues in Ontario, advocating for progressive reforms and government accountability to foster a more equitable and efficient society.

Transcript

[A]

Class is in session. Hey, guys. Welcome to Unlearn 16. Class is in session today. Today, I came all the way down to Queen's park with Mara Stiles. You know, she said her name because nobody can say her name properly, so she jumped in and said it. Right. You know what? It's one syllable. I know, Mara. Yeah, but I think it's two syllables.

[B]

It is two syllables. Maritime.

[A]

But you don't say it like that.

[B]

I know. I say Martin.

[A]

All right, we're gonna walk around Queen's Park. I'm gonna give you all the. I'm gonna sneak into all the places I'm not supposed to be.

[B]

Oh, God. Okay.

[A]

And we're gonna talk about politics.

[B]

Are you ready? Yeah. Let's go. All right, let's go.

[A]

Before we leave, she has to sign something. I think this is a big part of her job. You guys are seeing politics in action right now. Thank God.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

Okay, so we are trying to decide how we're going to film this as we' I want to hold it like this, but Marit's people are, like, super, super lovely. They're like, we can hold it and film you guys as you walk. And I'm like, I don't want to do that because my nose is crooking.

[B]

And I mean, these are the things. These are the things we have to worry about. These are the priorities.

[A]

Look, if you're. If you don't look good on camera, who's going to believe you?

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

If the one thing I've learned. I kind of need to talk about the separation of church and state. Like, what? First of all, and. And why is there a. Do. I don't think this guy was in this picture originally. What do you think? What do you think about the separate. And this is a legitimate question, actually. This is funny. Yeah.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

But what do you think legitimately about how we have done in this country, in this province, for the actual separation of church and state? Because we're one of the last provinces to still fund Catholic schools.

[B]

That is true. And, you know, even here at the legislature, we say the Lord's Prayer. What? Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. And it was brought back, I think, under the conservatives. But look, you know what? Honestly, like, I know that the speaker here, he also does a really good job of trying to bring in other faiths and things like that. But, yeah, I mean, there's definitely, like. I would say, like, I would put this way, I think there's respect for faith here. But, yeah, I mean, things like this. Images like this. When do you Say the Lord's Prayer the first Monday. I think the first Monday of every month, but we might actually do it more often.

[A]

Yeah, we also, and then we also.

[B]

Sing God Save the King.

[A]

Okay. Oh, Canada makes more sense, right? Nobody wants to talk about the King by guns.

[B]

No, Doug.

[A]

But I, I, I never knew that the Lord's Prayer was ever said here. I don't, I, I'm gonna stand firmly opposed to that. But I'm gonna go you one step further. Catholic schools.

[B]

Catholic schools exist and there's some historical reasons for that.

[A]

And, but only three provinces, I think, in Canada still do that.

[B]

Maybe. I mean, I know I came, I grew up in Newfoundland and we had, I think when I was growing up, we had seven school boards because. Representing different places, including an amalgamated process.

[A]

Well, that's different. Listen, I've, I've often said if we're going to have any sort of religious funding, right, you got to, you got to do it across the board or you shouldn't do any.

[B]

Oh, you're going down a, you're going down a road. We can't reach over there.

[A]

That's a fun road, though.

[B]

But you know what? It is just, it is interesting because like, what, like I said when I was growing up, you know, we had a lot of different faith group represented in those school boards in Newfoundland. And then it was when there was this abuse that happened that kind of turned things upside down and shook it. And there was a, the premier there held a referendum which ended that education in that province.

[A]

Okay, we're going to push for a referendum in Ontario. Tell me what you guys think.

[B]

I am definitely not saying that.

[A]

I'm saying, I'm saying it right here. I'm going to get her to sign something later. Okay, I'm gonna need to know why so many old pictures.

[B]

So as I understand it, a lot of these were donated by somebody many, many years ago. Donated. A whole collection. And they're all reproductions of like old masters European pictures. So they're not even real. And I can tell you honestly, like, there's a ton of more contemporary art and, and diverse art in the archive of the Ontario government that, you know, you'll see in some places. But some of us would like to see a little of that more maybe present it out.

[A]

I mean, I just don't, I, this is, I honestly.

[B]

You're need a different premiere for that.

[A]

You.

[B]

I'm just saying.

[A]

Where are the good snacks?

[B]

The good snacks are in the press gallery.

[A]

I haven't, I don't have a cookie I don't have a cake. I don't have. Let's go.

[B]

Come here, I'll show you. Oh, okay.

[A]

Well, here's a brownie.

[B]

My big daddy cookie.

[A]

Oh, Mars bar. Guys, I think we found the prettiest place in Queen's Park. Stand by. Oh, it's so nice. We still could talk about separation of church and state, but nonetheless. Oh, look at this art. This is, look at that. That's incredible. That is beautiful. Guys, this is the art to come see right here. That's gorgeous.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

Okay, so if you could. They're breaking Christmas trees over there. If you. One thing on your agenda. You get elected tomorrow. Bye, Doug. You get elected tomorrow. What's the number one on your agenda?

[B]

We gotta start building homes. Like affordable homes for people.

[A]

Can you explain something to me? Everybody's passing the buck on homes and affordable homes and who's. Whose fault it is and who did it. First of all, I did a bit of a digging. I. From what I found Brian Mulroney, federally in like the 80s. Such a lovely generation, the 80s. From what I read, he, he privatized government subsidies or building federally subsidized homes.

[B]

Okay. So what I know is that up until actually like the mid-90s, federal and provincial governments were still building some of that non profit affordable housing. Okay.

[A]

So both provincial and federal governments would throw in money for that.

[B]

Yeah. And they had different programs. And so like a lot of the co ops that you see and rent, geared to income units and things like that were built in that era. Right. They're all built back before the mid-90s. And then around the early 90s, I think the feds canceled it. And then after that, Mike Harris came in and canceled it. Here in Ontario. Do you want to know something interesting? We are the only province that doesn't currently have a program like that. We don't have it, we don't do it, we don't build it. We just rely entirely on the private sector, which, I mean, is bananas. No wonder we don't have affordable housing. Right? Because they, they have.

[A]

Why would they. They wouldn't. Yeah, I mean, there's no business. Not only is there no impetus for private companies to make affordable housing, it's actually, I would expect it's counter to their mandate. If I have a corporation, my, my, especially if it's publicly traded, my mandate is to make a profit. If I start being nice, I'll get sued by my shareholders. So literally the only people that can be in this game to be doing this job has to be the government.

[B]

I mean, I think there's like, there are some more. Some developers who do some really interesting stuff and who are, who are interested in building, you know, a mixture of different kinds of housing and stuff like that. There's definitely some folks like Daniel Spectrum, there's some really interesting stuff. But, yeah, generally, no, I mean, you have to make a profit. Right. And that's why building isn't happening right now. It's not happening because, A, it's still too hard, B, it's too expensive, and C, they just can't sell them at the rate. At the, at the. For the price they want. It's not really worth it to them. So right now, in the province of Ontario, yeah. Affordable housing is not getting built. And the only way you're going to get it built anywhere is and guarantee it is to have a provincial, like, agency that works with nonprofits and municipalities and stuff and actually builds those homes and makes and finances it and provides like, say, provincial land. Right. There's lots of ways to get it done. And I, I meet people all the time who already have a plan ready to go and they just have no way to fund it. So let's do it. Let's just get going.

[A]

Okay, I'm going to ask you the hard question. How much?

[B]

Oh, my God.

[A]

Well, that's what they want to know. They want to know, are my taxes going to go up? How much are they going to go up? And I'm so exhausted hearing anybody ever say, don't worry, I'm going to either A, cut your taxes and you get the same services, or I'm going to keep them the same and nothing's going to change. But that's also. I don't think that that's realistic.

[B]

Yeah, no, that's not realistic because you have to have revenue. Right? So, but it's really. Who are you taxing? Are you taxing the wealthiest people at a higher rate? If you do that, you can actually pay for a lot more. And maybe folks who earn less aren't going to have to contribute as much. And there's other things we can do, like just, just, just talking generally about taxes and fees and stuff. Like we're saying, hey, the provincial government should pick up a bigger portion of the bill for things like transit and infrastructure with, you know, cities and towns and municipalities. And then if we have that kind of thing, we can, we can negotiate with them then, like, quid pro quo, like, let's reduce some of the fees that you pay for certain things. Right. Let's reduce Some of those, those additional costs that you have in communities, it's another way for government to pick up the bill for that. And you know what, I'm going to just say it. We are paying right now for all kinds of crap that nobody asked for. A vanity spa project with the Premiers in downtown Toronto. Right. I mean we are.

[A]

What's the cost on that by the way?

[B]

2.2 billion right now and it's gonna go up and that's a 99 year lease. And you know what, I did the math and it's $400 per household in Ontario. $400. So you are paying for that. And that's what I like to tell people is you are already paying for that. What if we took that money and we said, you know what, we're gonna start to build homes that people could afford and it's going to pay for itself. It's going to pay for itself because people are going to be doing better. It's going to cost us less in the end. You know I'm going to say, and I know you're going to get tired of this, but we pay so much more for people who being homeless, you.

[A]

Know, like think about it, because then.

[B]

You'Re ending up in hospitals and it's expensive, it's so expensive. You know those things, hospitals, you know.

[A]

What the problem, you're 100% right. But the problem is that nobody's put a number to that in a clear number. So if I say, if we actually created reasonable living structures, we took people off the streets, we gave them access, we gave them education, we gave them all those things. If I talk about all that, that's a clear number. On the flip side, it's not clear when you say, okay, what happens when that person gets sick, what happens when crime is committed, what happens when that person gets arrested? All of those costs kind of get lost in the fray. And I feel like if we could somehow really nail those down, it would make sense. A lot more sense than let's say the Conservative party saying, well, this is how much a homeless person, like what did Doug Ford just say? He just said, get a job or I'm going to find homeless people.

[B]

Yeah. And you know what, like new, who's done that though? And you can put this in your video afterwards is Andrew Buzari. He's this doctor and he's really into like housing stuff and he's done all the math and figured out, you know, what it costs for somebody to be a day in a hospital, day in a shelter, all that. But you know what? Like, a lot of these things, like rent, your income, co op housing and stuff, it pays. People are not. Not paying. They're paying rent, they're paying fees.

[A]

You just don't get it. It's.

[B]

You know what? At the end of the day, it's going to. It pays for itself. But I will. I will tell you. Yeah, government should be investing in those things, and government should be investing in the basic stuff, right? Health care, schools, housing. These are the basics. And then people shouldn't have to worry about that their tax dollars are going into doing the things that are going to matter the most to them. You know, you shouldn't have to worry every day about those basic things. Right. You should know that your government's taking care of that.

[A]

Can we go in the legislature?

[B]

No.

[A]

All right. Well, this is nice lighting, I think. Let's just get. This is nice. It's like very high school. So I'm gonna play devil's advocate a little bit because a lot of people who speak about the NDP or speak about the left will say that you guys want big government, that you guys want more bureaucracy. Everybody hates that word. First of all, nobody understands what bureaucracy is. Second of all, they think it's very expensive. It gums up working and it gums up being efficient. I think a lot of the times people confuse efficiency with a skeleton crew, and a skeleton crew doesn't necessarily make you efficient. Right, right. So when it comes to things like, like, let's say, building projects and taking it out of the private sector, how are we supposed to talk about big government and how much is going to cost?

[B]

Well, first of all, you're right. Like, and this is a narrative that the Conservatives, the right wing, have been using for years and years and years about the left or the NDP or whatever. And the funny thing about it I will start by saying is, you know, Doug Ford and the Conservatives here in Ontario have the biggest government of any government ever. Like, the biggest cabinet. They have more ministers than ever in the history of Ontario. So first of all, that.

[A]

And they all get paid more, and.

[B]

They all get paid more, and they have loads of staff and stuff. So it's like a lot of money that goes into the politicians that head up the government. But, you know, like, what is government? It is. So I will say this. NDP governments all across the province have actually been the most fiscally responsible governments. Like, we balance our budgets. We've got a very good record on that. So that's just baloney from the Conservatives. But the Other piece of it is like your question about, you know, how do you make government, like how do, how do government doing things in a government program save money? Because. And it's not always the right thing to do. Right. Like sometimes the private sector can do a better job of certain things. But I can tell you, like in healthcare, for example, what you don't want is to be making cuts to programs and care and stuff so that somebody makes a profit. And when we see like long term care, like during the. Right. Like they made a mess of it during COVID Right. Because they were more worried about like making a profit still because that's kind of what they have to do instead of actually caring for people. And in fact, what we find over and over and over again is that we can do some things like healthcare, education, stuff generally more efficiently through the public. Through public, through the government. But like, what is a bureaucracy? It's the people who work, you know, like driving your bus. All the government services that are out there that we depend on. You know, that's, that's what that is. And these guys, and they talk a lot about it, but they've got one of the most inefficient governments that I can, I think has ever existed in the province of interior. They're spending more money and delivering less for people than, than we have seen in generations.

[A]

And all they need to do to sell that is say, don't worry, I'm going to give you back your license plate sticker.

[B]

It apparently it works. But you know what? I don't think so for very long because I think a lot of people, they look at like, well, they'll be going to be thinking like over the holidays, people get together with their family and it'll be like everybody's going to be saying, complaining about the cost of food, the cost of everything. Rent is through the roof. You know, I can't, you know, my kid can't get support in school. I, I'm on a wait list for a family doctor for four years, right? Everybody's complaining about this stuff that is on the forward conservative government, right? That's on the government in power right now. They have to take responsibility for that.

[A]

Okay, we're gonna walk down the stairs while filming. Guys, this is a real testament right here. Let's talk about. We're in the middle of probably one of the states and us are in one of the most chaotic. Oh my gosh times. I think, well, I don't know if I've ever seen, I think I've seen A lot of chaos, but it, it's, it's crumbling. Right. You have the Liberals being potentially forced out of government. You have Jagmeet Singh basically saying, that's it, we're done.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

What do you think? You think this is time? You think, you think the non confidence vote should go through and we should force an election?

[B]

I think that like what we got right now is what they call minority government. So they don't have a majority to seat. So they really, those kinds of governments, they don't last forever. Right. That's the reality. And while I'm not very happy about what I think the outcome of the election is going to be in people in Canada, I, I think people are fed up. You know, like I, I keep hearing from people is like, people are so done. And one of the things I was thinking about this morning was, you know, like, I think people are. Generally what I hear from people is they are so sick and tired of politicians, leaders, governments that care more about holding on to power than they do about actually doing things for people. And that's how it seems to people. And I'm not sure that's always true, but I understand that like things are getting really bad right now and it's like you're just holding on to power for power's sake is not good enough. It's just not good enough. It really isn't.

[A]

But again, on the flip side, as we had this conversation a little bit before, on the flip side, I, part of me understands, it's like you see the polling numbers, you know, that Poiev is, you know, in the position that, that he is in and however he got there, he got there. And the idea of like, okay, well, if they want to force an election, you force an election, you have a non confidence vote. But the notion that we, it's like we can see the writing on the wall about the next government that's going to take place and the lies that are being told. It's funny because you're being much more democratic about it. Where I feel like I might lean the other way.

[B]

Yeah, well, you know, I mean, I guess I look at it this way. Every government would hang on to power, I think not every, but a lot.

[A]

As long as you can hold on.

[B]

As long as they possibly can. You know, they're, they're making good money. They've got like the biggest cabinet in Canadian history here in Ontario. Like they're doing great and they never go to an election. But the truth is there's an end date and sometimes you Gotta pull the plug. And I will also say, Joe, and this is like, you know, I, I hope. But anything can happen during election. Things can shift. The, the NDP in Saskatchewan went up, I think 25.

[A]

Yeah, they did.

[B]

You know, in that. In the course of a few weeks of election. So things can change. And you know what? People, people's attention shifts. Right.

[A]

And I think, yeah, I think people feel very out of control. And I think an election, even though it's a little bit of a pretense, but it gives a little bit of a glimpse of having control over what your future is. And even though I might not disagree, I might disagree with the choice that's the point of a democracy is in order to make it, you know, make sure that you have that consistently.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

All right, so federally, the ndp, because the Liberals were in a minority position, that the NDP have had this incredible power federally in order to push their agenda. Right. Dental care.

[B]

That drives the Conservatives crazy.

[A]

Well, of course it does. They call it a coalition and they call it like, you know, back room deal. It's not back room, guys. They're talking about it in full view.

[B]

It's actually kind of a cool thing. Right.

[A]

I think that's the way I, I usually appreciate a minority government actually better. Because what it does is it lends itself to being moderately rational no matter who's forming it. Right. Because they need to make concessions with other political parties. And I think the concessions with other political parties is what is true. It's, it's way more democratic. Yeah, right.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

What do you think about an elected Senate?

[B]

Oh, well, I'm a big. Okay, first of all, I do not believe in an unelected Senate. I'm not even sure I really have a lot of confidence in the need for a Senate, but I, I would definitely prefer a elected Senate to an unelected appointed Senate.

[A]

I like you. You, you're like, I don't know if I even like a Senate.

[B]

Well, I mean, you know, we, we at the provincial level, we don't have a Senate. I will say I do think that sometimes the Senate, the senators here in Canada have been like, they call it like sober second thought. Right. It's like an opportunity to say, okay, this government wants to do this wild thing, we're going to take it away for a minute. They give it a little more thought, think it through a little better.

[A]

Often just like, right. Rubber stamp.

[B]

But a lot of time they've been rubber stamping it and that's because it's often appointed. So the, the, I Think the election said it's a lot smarter. But you know, on this thing about the, like, the agreement that they had, you're right. Like, that's way more democratic. And actually some of the biggest changes and most important changes in Canadian history have happened as a result of those minority governments because they had to kind of get together different perspectives and negotiate things and actually, like dental program. Like, I'm already meeting a lot of people who are benefiting from that. Yeah, I can imagine it's a pretty big deal. It's a big change for a lot of people.

[A]

Can we go in the legislature?

[B]

No.

[A]

Proportional representation or ranked ballots?

[B]

Proportional representation.

[A]

Just provincially or nationally? Both.

[B]

But I think ranked ballot can work really well, like a municipal. My personal.

[A]

Interesting. So, okay, so let's say for those who don't know, okay, so a rank ballot would mean this. Whatever political parties are on the ballot, you don't just go in and vote for your. Whoever you want to win. You actually rank them first through whatever. Right. And what ends up happening is those get averaged out. So the person that's going to actually win will have the most favorable ranking. It'll be some mathematical problem that I don't want to do. It'll be a most favorable ranking. Now, here's my problem with proportional. All of a sudden you have 24 parties, maybe, and you definitely have a.

[B]

Lot of different voices. So, like, for some people, they might say, oh, you know, I really don't want all those people that are too far left or too far right to have representation. But you know what? Like, I gotta say, like, I think we benefit from having a diversity of voices. And I think you're still in Canada. Like, we have a pretty, you know, we. I don't think we're gonna have as much of a problem with that. But, like, I like the idea of having different voices, and I like people feeling like their vote matters, which is so important. Right. Like, you know, in my writing, there's always, you know, there's people who vote green and they can't elect a green member in my writing. Right. They're elected a few and. But they would have a chance to have probably more people elected.

[A]

Absolutely.

[B]

And, you know, I think that.

[A]

And have more voices heard. Yeah, we're going to have to talk about the legislature, because I don't think any voice gets heard. No. All right. Right behind me, guys. We have the legislature. We're going in there.

[B]

Let's go. What do you mean?

[A]

No, I'm just gonna. Shouldn't be locked to the People, here's what we really have to talk about. What goes on. I know you're not gonna let me in there, but it's really not up to me what goes on in the. In Parliament, like in the House, the fighting, the banging on the door. I'm not gonna lie to you. It looks like grade nine.

[B]

Yeah, I know.

[A]

Yeah. I don't understand. And I. And I. And I feel as though we should have a major shift in the way in which those debates happen, because, number one, I'm tired of hearing cheers and boos and whatever. It's exhausting.

[B]

It's kind of like team sports, right?

[A]

It's stupid. Just paint your face and get it over with. But it doesn't. It doesn't encourage anybody to think that there's serious work being done right in the. I really don't. I think it's one of the worst. It's like, if you're going to think about advertising or propaganda or. I said. I didn't mean propaganda. That just lived up or like. But like branding. It's a horror. And this is true provincially and federally. Right. They throw garbs back and forth. It really does, because it's like, what are these people doing?

[B]

We often talk about the fact that you'll see these. We'll be sitting in the chamber down here in our cell seats, and you'll see, like, a grade four class come in, right? And they come in.

[A]

Grade four would be embarrassed, right?

[B]

And they come in. They come in and they. And they come in and they're all, like, happy and excited, and they sit down and they're in there for a few minutes and their faces just drop. And it's. It's terrible. But, you know, I would say, like, most of the. What I would call, like, the theater of it happens during question period at the beginning of the day. And then there's all these debates that happen later on, which are a little bit different. And I think, frankly, most people are. Start watching that part of it.

[A]

Right. So we need to figure out how to get. Well. Well, two things. Question period should be questions, rational questions, not sarcastic, you know.

[B]

Well, yeah, but at a certain point, if you're. If you're not getting the answer over and over, like, I get exasperated.

[A]

Sure, absolutely. But shouldn't that be the speaker's job?

[B]

Yeah, And I think it's.

[A]

Whoa, whoa. You didn't answer the question, sir.

[B]

Yeah, no, no, but you see, the thing about it is, you see, they call it question period for a reason. It's not question and answer period.

[A]

The banging on the desks, I just, I honest to God, I teach grade 9, grade tens, and like, you know, that jeering that goes back and forth, I just, I don't, I don't get it. I don't think it serves anything at all. And I don't understand why there everybody talks about decorum and you talk to the speaker. For those who don't know Canadian politics, you don't speak directly to the individual. That's supposed to stop them from acting a fool. But. So you're supposed to speak to the speaker and this.

[B]

And it's supposed to keep it. Sorry, but like, it's like if you're in a meeting and you're talking through a chair and the reason you talk through the chair, so you'd say like through you, speaker to the member's office, blah, blah, blah. But the reason you do it is it's supposed to take a bit off of this personal attack. It's supposed to be less like you. And so when like Doug Ford, for example, says you I'm going to come in after you in the legislature, to me, he gets in trouble for that. Right? He's not allowed to like directly go after me. He has to go through the chair. And that is supposed to keep it a little less personal.

[A]

What if. Just throwing it out here because again, we lose everything in it. In that, in that context, if it's a majority government, let's be quite honest, doesn't matter.

[B]

That's true.

[A]

That doesn't matter.

[B]

Well, I don't know about that, like, because I think that, you know, for the, for the government, for example, like when we're asking them questions and exposing certain issues that are going on, whether it's, you know, we talk about somebody who's, who showed up at an emergency room and it was closed because the government's not funding health care appropriately. Like when we tell those stories and we bring them up in the legislature and we ask the government to answer for that, you know, I mean, yeah, like they don't have to give us an actual answer, but they have to respond. They have to respond. And so when they stand up, somebody has to, to speak for that. And I think holding them to account, that's why we have questions, period. But the drama, like a lot of that goes back to sort of parliamentary tradition, like, oh, look at the UK and how it is there. And I, I, believe me, I don't even know why half of it. I don't even know why it is like that. Like the bang of the tables. We do that for specific things. Like when there's a certain kind of vote, we are. That's how we do it. But I don't know where that tradition comes from. I have no idea.

[A]

I just don't think it goes any. Honest to God. Like, I'm at a point, I'm at a point point where I'm like, okay, cool, we're going to talk about funding health care. I mean, you kind of want it to be like this.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

Could you send a representative up here? You send a representative up here, you're going to sit down.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

We're going to put a camera on you.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

And you're going to actually talk about the issue. I, I just think we're so far removed from something legitimate happening. Could you imagine how much would get done? And it doesn't matter who it is, but if you were sitting across from Doug and you said, listen, this emerge was closed. Right. This emerged. Like, I, I've seen the list of emergency rooms that have been closed in Ontario, which is a nightmare. What do we do about this? And really sit there very calmly. Nobody needs to yell. Nobody needs to whatever. And, and the only thing I can think of, the only kind of person that doesn't want that discussion is the person that doesn't know, doesn't care, and doesn't want to give a legitimate answer.

[B]

Yeah, true. And I think, I think part of the. It goes back to your question about like different ways of electing governments. Right. Like different electoral systems that exist in many other parts of the world. If we didn't have the system we have, our system kind of requires everybody to be kind of like very partisan, very divided.

[A]

You can party. Yeah. So we can do better.

[B]

We should all do better. And I totally, totally agree. In fact, one of the things we always are pushing for is things like more time for like committee meetings. Like, like, so they bring a piece, a law, a piece of legislation to a committee. And again, it can be very partisan, the back and forth, because the government, when they have a majority, they have no real interest often in actually hearing from anybody else. But you know what? That has changed a lot. Like, it wasn't always like that. When I was much younger, I worked not in this building, but in, in for, for somebody years and years ago. And it was totally different. Like the politicians actually would sit down in committees and they would work through issues. One party might say, you know, I have a problem with this part of that bill, that law. And then we, they try to work on some things and that has gone out the window. And it's, it's really to. Honestly, it started under my carris here in Ontario and it federally, Stephen Harper, like the Conservatives, I will say, started it, but it wasn't just them. Every party has kind of, I think, chipped away at some of that over the years.

[A]

And do you think it shifted?

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

Do you think it shifted because of television and social media?

[B]

Oh, I think that has really changed things recently.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

Yeah, I think, I think it's like, certainly you're playing to the camera and in social media, it's. It changes.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

It's fast. It's. It's. You look at some of the way that, like some of the politicians say somebody in Ottawa that you may not like as much who gets up. And I don't either. And he.

[A]

The way he eats a lot of apples.

[B]

Yeah. And he, you know, he plays to that. Right. He's like little sound bites and stuff. So I think it's a lot less about actually making a good point or having a real conversation or making. And actually like debating a real issue. But I mean, you know what I'm going to say again, if you watch actual question period, there are a lot of people who get up, a lot of MPPs who get up and they ask real questions about real things happening in their communities.

[A]

But again, we're just not seeing them. I think that's what I'm telling you right now. The public's not seeing it unless you're actively going to look for that. You're not seeing that.

[B]

Well, but that's also a good thing, a good point to make, which is that you should go and you should look up and see what is my member of parental parliament asking about in the legislature? What are they actually doing? You know, Because I think you find there's a big difference, and I would argue a big difference between parties, but also between different elected officials. Yeah. And there's a.

[A]

Look, just stand up. I'm gonna look right now. Hold on. Okay, we gotta wrap it up. I've been told by security who's really mad at me for trying to open those doors. That was.

[B]

Listen, Not a good thing.

[A]

It was. It's my house.

[B]

It is your house. You know what?

[A]

It's my house.

[B]

This is the people's house. The house. It is the people's house.

[A]

That's what I'm saying. There's probably going to be an election coming up. Right. Are we thinking Ford's going to call one?

[B]

Yes. I don't know when, but I'M thinking.

[A]

He doesn't really love what's playing out in the federal government. He's thinking about calling an election. Here you have three things that you get to talk about. That's it. That's all. Because we just discussed people don't have a good attention span. You got three things to talk about. You're going to talk about building.

[B]

Okay.

[A]

Adequate house. I mean, we're gonna build.

[B]

We gotta build homes.

[A]

Yes.

[B]

We gotta make life easier. We have to find people, family doctors and we need to make life just more affordable for people.

[A]

Okay, family doctors. What's your, what's your strategy?

[B]

Oh, we're going to connect people to family health teams and community health centers. We're going to reduce the administrative burden on doctors so that they can see more patients. But you know what? It's, it's gonna have to be like for me, that's like my 100 day strategy is to start to connect more people with actual primary care family doctors. It's huge. It's gonna save us a lot of money and it's gonna put.

[A]

It will, it's gonna, it will save a lot of money. Nobody understands that.

[B]

No, it's gonna save so much money and it's gonna take a lot of pressure off our emergency. Emergency rooms, which are overwhelmed right now.

[A]

Absolutely. And on that note, I'm just going to try to get in the legislature again one more time. Dismissed.