The One Where Marit Uses the 'C' Word

Summary

---

Podcast Summary: "The One Where Marit Uses the 'C' Word"

Podcast: Unlearn16: Class is in Session
Host: Unlearn16
Guest: Marit Stiles (Leader, Ontario NDP)
Date: December 16, 2025

---

Episode Overview

This episode centers on political accountability and transparency in Ontario’s legislature, focusing on recent scandals, government corruption allegations, and the state of the province’s public education system. Host Unlearn16 and guest Marit Stiles—a teacher-turned-politician and current Ontario NDP leader—combine wit and candor to dissect government dysfunction, share behind-the-scenes insights, and highlight how public trust is eroded by the very people meant to serve. A running theme: "bad business" in politics ultimately hurts everyone, especially kids in the education system.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. The Reality of "Unparliamentary Language" & Calling Out Corruption

[00:37]

• Unlearn16 lauds Marit Stiles for being kicked out of parliament for calling Premier Doug Ford “corrupt.”
• Stiles explains what counts as "unparliamentary language":
  • "I can't say that somebody's lying. I can't say that somebody's corrupt... can't even hint that a member is absent." – Stiles [01:45]
  • Reasoning: Rules aim to keep the tone of debate higher than the reality often suggests.
• Students touring Parliament are shocked by rowdiness and rules: they must remain silent, while MPPs can shout and bang desks.

2. The Scandal Behind the Skills Training Grants

[06:00]

• Stiles discusses a major $2.5 billion skills training grant program overseen by Labour Minister David Piccini.
  • The Auditor General found the process was corrupted: grants ranked low by civil servants were bumped up by ministers for political allies, friends, donors.
  • “When you're giving out government dollars in exchange for something else, that is corruption.” – Stiles [10:15]
• Stiles refused to withdraw or apologize for calling out government corruption, breaking with parliamentary convention.

3. Is Corruption ‘Business as Usual’ in Politics?

[10:30 / 12:07]

• Host presses: Isn’t this just how politics works?
• Stiles rejects this cynicism, explaining there are supposed to be strict rules and non-political experts making funding decisions. The system only works if politicians uphold their duty to ALL citizens, not just political allies.
  • “You are elected to do the right thing for the most people.” – Stiles [12:07]
  • Misuse of funds and erosion of oversight breaks public trust.

4. Advertising, Gaslighting, and Manipulation of Public Perception

[14:05 / 14:48]

• Comparison to U.S. campaign finance excesses.
• Stiles notes Ontario laws are stricter but loopholes and wiggle room exist.
• Political advertising is critiqued: using tax dollars for government self-promotion instead of public service announcements.
  • “They're gaslighting you. Right. But they're using…your tax dollars.” – Stiles [16:22]
• Unlearn16 advocates for real transparency: forcing televised debates, town halls, and minimizing manipulative ads.

5. The Greenbelt Scandal & Lack of Accountability

[18:22]

• Discussion shifts to the Greenbelt controversy:
  • Protected land was quietly set up for deregulation; insiders bought land at low prices; after the rule change, land values skyrocketed.
  • “As soon as he deregulates it, now it will be available for industrial development…something that was worth $100,000 is now worth a million.” – Unlearn16 [20:48]
• Stiles confirms RCMP and Integrity Commissioner investigations are ongoing but slow.
• The same political insiders keep turning up in scandals.

6. Structural Flaws in Democracy & The Political ‘Four-Year Cycle’

[22:03]

• Stiles on the pitfalls of short-termism: “Government shouldn't be run in like four-year cycles… Everything is being run in a certain way and then... it's really fast. Right. Instead of thinking longer term...” – Stiles [22:03]
• Rushed, ill-considered laws passed for political advantage often have unintended consequences.

7. Crisis in Education: Funding Cuts & Manufactured Distraction

[23:04]

• EQAO standardized test scores questioned; results withheld, then disappointing when finally released.
• Conservatives replace low-paid, locally elected school trustees with $350,000 partisan appointees.
  • “I know. $350,000 to go do what a trustee is supposed to do… have you ever heard of bad business ideas?” – Unlearn16 [23:57]
• Government blames trustees and system flaws but refuses to address chronic underfunding and increased classroom complexity.
  • “It's going to cost money. Yeah, that’s it. It's going to cost money. And this is what nobody's willing to say…” – Unlearn16 [26:42]

8. Underfunding, Overcrowding & the Real Cost of "Efficiency"

[28:26 / 29:10]

• Failure to increase education funding with inflation = real cuts.
  • “It's a $6 billion cut. It's $1,500 per student.” – Stiles [29:10]
• Educational assistants (EAs) underpaid, struggling to manage unsafe environments; special needs students often sidelined due to lack of support.
• Principals forced to oversee multiple schools.
• The host underscores: underinvesting in education isn’t just immoral, it’s bad business for Ontario’s future.
  • “If you're a businessman, Mr. Ford, how do you not invest in the future business of your province?... The only goal I can see is you're looking to break it so you don't have to pay for it anymore.” – Unlearn16 [32:12]

9. Broader Political Strategy: Undermining Public Education

[33:06]

• Stiles and Unlearn16 believe the end goal is privatization under the guise of “school choice.”
• Repeated distractions used by the government to avoid real accountability.

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On breaking parliamentary convention:
  "As soon as she said withdraw, I stood up and I said, you know, I can't because it's true." – Marit Stiles [07:35]

• On system corruption:
  ”The only job creation program the government has is for their own insiders.” – Marit Stiles [21:46]

• On education’s bottom line:
  “If you're a businessman, Mr. Ford, how do you not invest in the future business of your province? This is it.” – Unlearn16 [32:12]

• On the deflection of responsibility:
  “Every time we ask these questions… what we get from the minister is a whole bunch of distractions… you have had the reins for eight years, your government, things have gotten worse under you. That's on them. And the answer… is right before you… you just have to invest in kids.” – Marit Stiles [33:48]

---

Important Segment Timestamps

• Parliamentary language & rules: [00:54] – [04:38]
• Corruption allegations in grant allocations: [05:54] – [10:15]
• Cynicism around politics & need for integrity: [10:30] – [13:07]
• Political advertising/gaslighting: [14:05] – [16:22]
• The Greenbelt scandal explained: [18:22] – [21:43]
• Democracy’s structural flaws: [22:03] – [22:39]
• Education cuts and test scores: [23:04] – [28:26]
• EAs, systemic underfunding, and policy failures: [29:10] – [33:06]
• Final remarks and call for accountability: [33:06] – [33:55]

---

Tone & Language

The conversation is witty, sharp, and passionate, mixing teacherly sarcasm with pointed policy critique. The hosts' and guest’s frustration is evident, but so is their dedication to candid discussion and real solutions.

---

Summary for the Uninitiated

If you missed the episode, you’ll leave with an unvarnished view of Ontario’s political scene: an education system and grant process beset by patronage and underfunding, public trust undermined by government doublespeak, and a political environment where challenging entrenched interests takes both nerve and principle. The hosts call for informed engagement, higher ethical standards, and investment in the future—not just for kids, but for the whole province.

Transcript

[A]

Classes in session. Hey, everybody, and welcome to Unlearn 16 classes in session. I've had a bit of a break, just so you know. I've had a bit of a break from my podcast because I had my book, I did speaking engagement, blah, blah, blah. But I'm just being kicking back, but okay. However, my lead in to my. I think it's my fourth season is you. Not that there's any pressure.

[B]

Oh, yeah, no pressure at all.

[A]

So if you could just like, you know, stream in. Oh, I thought I'd drive down to Queens park in a snowstorm. Yeah. And come hunt you down. Cause I have some questions.

[B]

Okay. I'm like, I'm here for you.

[A]

You know I am. Listen, this is on the heels of one of the best things I've seen in parliament in a long time. And in all fairness, getting kicked out of Parliament because you called him out. You called Doug Ford out on being corrupt.

[B]

Yes.

[A]

Is my favorite thing of 2020. Really?

[B]

You know, I'm hearing that from a lot of people.

[A]

No, it brings my heart joy. So can you explain? Okay, first of all, just so everybody, unparliamentary language. I think this is the most hysterical thing I've ever heard, considering what I hear. People shout in the middle and they bang on desk and they act like, in all fairness, grade nines.

[B]

Yeah. It's like the whole thing seems very unparliamentary. Like there's all the bad behavior in there. I know what you mean. And you know, like, we've talked about this before when students come in to watch the Times. Like, I see them come into the chamber and they got these great happy faces and then they're there for five minutes and their faces are like, what is happening? But so, yeah, the unparliamentary language means, like, there's things that you're allowed to say and things that you're not. And the things that you like. For example, things you can't say are. I can't say that somebody's lying. I can't say that somebody's corrupt.

[A]

Can you tell me why that is? The corrupt is one thing. I'm going to leave corrupt over here because it has legal implications, which I think are 100% deserved. But lying. When you say you have lied, can you say you like, is there another.

[B]

Word I can say? I've heard people say that's inaccurate or I'm sorry, but that's not the case. Things like that. But I mean, I think at the end of the day, and I'm no expert on all of these rules. But at the end of the day, the idea is to keep the tone of things higher. And if the other things, funny things. So I can't say you've lied.

[A]

You.

[B]

Obviously there's words, even if you can prove there's bad words that we all know that we can't say. No swears, no swears. Fair enough, no swears, no swears. But yeah, not, not using a word like corruption, not saying that the government is lying to people or misleading, even. Misleading, you can't say. But I'll tell you something. I know, but you, you also can't say, which is another one that confuses a lot of people. Like if Doug Ford is not sitting in his chair, for example, and I, I can't point out that he's not there. If a minister or anybody in the, in the, in the legislature isn't sitting in their chair, they're not there. They are not in the chamber. I can't say that. And the reason they do that is that they say that it's because, and it's true to some extent that we all have lots of other things that we end up having to do sometimes. We're not always in our chairs all the time because we take turns in some cases in debates and everything. And so they try to. There's an understanding that nobody calls that out. But people also often say to me, it's kind of funny because I will notice that you're asking the premier question and he's not even sitting there. So I usually will do that as a kind of way of saying, okay, well, you may not be sitting there, but I'm still going to ask you the question.

[A]

So, so wait. Okay, so you don't call him out about not being there. You'll be like, okay, so Mr. Ford, can you please. Oh, sorry, can somebody, can somebody else answer that question?

[B]

They'll just answer, no, I can't. I can't because I can't even hint that he's not there.

[A]

Oh, my.

[B]

I know.

[A]

Okay, listen, these are some of the rules we're going to have to change, I think, because it's, it's a little bit, it is exhausting. And I did bring my students here not too long ago. We did sit the chamber. We did listen to some back and forth and the yelling and the whatever. Here's the funny. I gave, like, I read my kids the ride act before we went in. I said, guys, you're not going to whisper to each other. You're not allowed to clap. You're not Allowed to. You're not allowed to wave to anybody. You have all of these rules. And my, you know, got to know my students were terrified they were going to do something. And I'm like, because you'll get taken out and then we'll all have to leave. And. And as they get let in, they sit down, they start watching, and then. And then, you know, the hilarity ensues. And the guy from the back's yelling and he's calling them out and he's banging the table. And I can see my kids going, like. Like, I'm behind them. They're like, wait a minute. They can do all of that and we can't do anything. So that was actually.

[B]

And it's funny, like, if you looked at, like. And, you know, kind of public parliamentary geeks like me might do this occasionally. But if you look at, like, go on. And you Google the UK Parliament and you look at what they do, like, some of their sessions are even wilder. And I think it is partly that tradition, like, things like a bit of heckling or banging on the table is a way to. Sometimes it's an expression of support, or it can be an expression of unhappiness. It can be a way that we actually bang the tears to get a vote happening faster. There's some kind of weird stuff like that that actually isn't really negative, but it looks weird. And it looks. Yeah. Rowdy. And it is rowdy. It's rowdy in there. And there are definitely. People get called out all the time, but not removed from the legislature.

[A]

Okay, so let's get to that, because I want to know, did you. A, you know, the language you can't use, B, you know, what's been going on with this government? And just, you know what. Did I even say that you were the leader of the NDP party?

[B]

No, Maybe not. I don't know.

[A]

Hey, guys, this is Maritz Stiles, the leader. You know what? If you don't know and you're following my channel, do better. Find out who the leaders are. Do a little bit of homework before coming to me for all your lessons. So you walk into Parliament.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

Do you know, you're like, today's the day. I'm calling this guy out. Or did you just have enough?

[B]

No, actually, that day I really just had enough. I mean, I. I write out my questions. I think a lot about what I'm going to ask and what they're going to, the kinds of questions I want to ask. And I'm usually pretty careful what I write down is, you know, I'm careful not to write things down that I can't say. But, you know, I got up and I was sort of talking about how about this scandal that's happening lately? And I've been asking this particular minister, the Minister of Labor, who heads up all the sort of programs that are supposed to help.

[A]

What's his name?

[B]

His name is David Pacini. And he's supposed to be, you know, delivering a program that, like grants. And it's like two and a half billion dollars worth of grants.

[A]

It's all about skills training. Right.

[B]

For skills training. And, you know, I think this is something like these days we're all talking about the lack of jobs, young people. Lots of young people are looking. Highest unemployment rate for young people is in Ontario of all the provinces. So, you know, big issues. And I've been asking questions every day about this and trying to get some answers, and I got really frustrated and I said, you know what? They're a party that's just full of. They're just grifters and icers. Yeah, I know. What I'm trying to say.

[A]

Is that what you're allowed to say, grifters?

[B]

I seem to be getting away with that. I don't know. But I said, and you know, I'm just going to say it, they're corrupt. And as soon as I said it, I knew, because I know as soon as I said the word, I thought, okay, I'm going to have to withdraw this.

[A]

Withdraw and apologize or.

[B]

Yeah, they just make you usually get up and the speaker says, you know, the member from Davenport will withdraw.

[A]

Take it back.

[B]

Yeah. And so I usually. You just kind of immediately go, yeah, withdraw and withdraw, and then you move on. Because sometimes we do say things that we don't really mean to right in the moment. But as soon as she said withdraw, I stood up and I said, you know, I can't because it's true.

[A]

I've had it in this particular. So according to this. This particular two and a half million dollars and the skills. What is corrupt about it?

[B]

So what's happening is usually these kinds of programs, like you'll have all these, like, bureaucrats, civil servants who given the responsibility to rank applications. So you apply for a grant to do some training of.

[A]

Yeah, let's give an example. Let's say, I want to be electrician.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

Is this, Is this the thing?

[B]

No, you'd be more like if you had an organization or a union or, you know, an organization that is going to provide some very specific training.

[A]

Oh, and then I can get that grant and then I can pass it on in scholarships to students.

[B]

Yeah, you can, you can set up a program to train people in as we electricians or. You know, a lot of. A lot of this is. It's.

[A]

So I'm running an electrician school or I'm a union that realizes that I need. We need electricians.

[B]

We gotta increase our member skills. Amazing.

[A]

There we go. And so you're gonna give me a grant and I'm gonna. I'm gonna fund. I'm gonna give scholarship out to my people in order to do this. So what's corrupt about it?

[B]

Well, what's happening? Right, what we've discovered. And it wasn't just us, actually. It was the auditor general who puts out lots of reports. And she's. Her job basically is to look and see how are programs working, how is the government doing their job. And so she'll go in and she'll dig right down into an issue or a department or a program or grant program and say, okay, I'm noticing some problems here. And then she'll report out on it. And this particular one was really damning. Right. Like it was. She said there's been preferential treatment given. So what she noticed was that the civil servants whose job it is to rank these applications, we're ranking them a certain way, but that the minister himself and his political staff were coming in and they were bumping ones up from the bottom of the pile to the top. And she was the one who noticed that those she made. Did some research, is that these are often related to connections to the government, their friends, their insiders, their donors, you know, so. And the problem with it is there's lots of good programs. Like, this is a good fund. We should be doing this work.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

But once you start to get your politician hands over it and now it's connected to like, oh, yeah, you over there. And so this is what's happening, I think, is they're saying to people, yeah, you know, we might give you that money, but you got to hire our friends to lobby for you, to get out there and advocate for you. Or, you know what, you got to come to put on a fundraiser for us, make us some money for our. For the next election, things like that. And that is what we are connecting to it. And that's why I say, when you're giving out government dollars in exchange for something else, that is corruption.

[A]

Yeah, yeah. Well, I mean, as clear as can. Can be, I'm going to ask the hard question. Don't you think statistically or over the years that defines a substantial amount of politicians?

[B]

No, and I know that's a really good question.

[A]

I'm being honest here. This, this is what for the most part, people think about politics. I walk in this building at night and honest to God, when I, when I come in here at night and it's, it's quiet and it's not that late, but it, it's quiet and it's, it's beautiful and it feels. I don't even know the word. It feels powerful and it feels important and, and that can go away pretty quickly. Sometimes when there's certain people in the vicinity and I overhear them talking, I'm like, oh, no, you guys are messing up what this is about. Because do you find that to be a consistent issue?

[B]

Well, I think. Well, first of all, I think that is like, I mean, what you thinking that is not inconsistent with, I think, what a lot of people out there think, right? Like, I meet people all the time, people say, oh, but, you know, politicians are all the same. And it's always been like this. But it actually, and I mean, certainly there were times when I think this was how politics was done, but we've actually supposedly changed some of those things, right? There used to be protections in place. And one of the ways you protect that from happening is you say, no, we're going to have like, bureaucrats, professional people, the experts decide who's the best, you know, hand out that stuff and you get the politicians out of it. And I think that that's a fair thing to do. Now, I like to think that would never be. I would never do that. And I don't think I would because I have. I actually believe that's immoral and unethical. And that's not what I think. I, that's just part of what I really believe. And what has always upset me about the way that governments sometimes are run or that politics is done, to me, that should have no place. You know, you are elected to do the right thing for the most people.

[A]

Right?

[B]

You really are. And, and you're also, by the way, not only elected to represent the people who voted for you. You gotta represent everybody. And people, those dollars that they're spending.

[A]

Are not their, they're not their money.

[B]

They're the money that you, the people out there paid their. In their taxes. So I always think, like, no, actually you have a huge responsibility. And you're right. There's cases you hear about where some prime ministers and others have received, you know, you Hear like it comes out, there was an envelope, you know, I mean, it's not like this has never happened, but it is truthfully pretty shocking. And there are laws that have been passed to prevent this from happening. And even the government that's elected now, the Conservatives here in Ontario before they were elected in 2018, they were accusing the Liberals of exactly the same thing. And actually they were doing very similar things. Right. So, you know, they, they said, no, we're going to clean this up. Well, you know, stop complaining about the gravy train and actually do something to prevent it from happening.

[A]

Well, wouldn't you say it's like, you say it's moral and it's unethical, 100%, that's fine. But I would just like to tap into. Isn't it just bad business? Yeah, isn't it bad business to, to have somebody in Auto General or whoever to go through and they prioritize applications and they, and they use what I would assume to be a relatively objective system to say these are the really good ones all the way down to the ones that aren't so good. And if you're going to bypass that, it's just bad business. You're choosing, you're not choosing for the best possible thing anymore. In this illusion, and this is what I think that this government does so incredibly well, they create a pretense, an illusion that they are about the best of the best. If I hear the word meritocracy one more time, meanwhile, yeah, they're not actually following through on that in order to make sure. Now why are they doing this? Well, they want to stay in power. I mean, that's.

[B]

Well, right. And I mean, at the end of the day, you know, if you look at like the way that politics is done in the United States, for example, there are basically no limits on campaign donations. So, you know, in the United States, this is why you have like these been crazy campaigns where people are basically like, you have to spend so much money to win and, and, and people can donate at these ridiculous crazy levels. We have laws in place in Canada, very strict laws, you know, very strict laws that actually manage some of those things. And there are lots of ways that you can still kind of wiggle around it, but generally there are laws in places. So in this case, the Auditor General saying, like, this is wrong. I see it as wrong. And you're right, it's bad, it's bad for business, it's bad business, it's bad government.

[A]

Doesn't make sense. You're not getting the Best value for your money.

[B]

Yeah, you're not. You're absolutely not. And I think that's the thing that bugs me the most, is it's like, so some of the cases we've dug up of like, what now some of these programs that are going on are, have, you know, nothing wrong with them. And the problem with situations like this too is that when you have that kind of stuff happening and there's a few bad apples and the government actually lets those bad apples in because they're giving them lots of money and stuff, then, then you end up with a case where everybody gets painted with the same brush. Right. And that's also bad. Right. Like people need. I think that one of the biggest problems we have right now, I think you and I have talked about this before, is that people don't trust government. They don't trust politicians, they don't trust government. And you know, you're asking them to contribute their hard earned tax dollars at a time when a lot of people are just trying to stretch a dollar, right. And you're asking them to give that. And of course, nobody wants to because they think this is what happens every time. And it, and it really doesn't have to, and it shouldn't. And another good example is advertising. Like, think of all those ads you see out there, right? Like if an ad, if a government's got an ad out, though this ad is brought to you by the government of Ontario. Is it providing a real service? Is it, is it giving you information about something that you need to know, a government service or program or vaccination or health promotion, something? Or is it just saying, hey, we are amazing. And I know that you're standing there in the food bank lineup or you're waiting in the emergency room or your kid is struggling at school, but don't worry because actually everything's okay. Like, they're gaslighting you. Right. But they're using, and this is really important, your tax dollars.

[A]

Yeah, well, and I often think about advertising. Then I want to get to some other scandals because I feel like the green belt thing's gone away. Nobody's talking about it. Well, that was insane. And there's a couple of other things that are going on that I want to be able to speak to as well. But this idea that advertising is a necessity. So, so right now he's, you know, the conservatives are in power. It doesn't matter what government I'm talking about whoever's in power, whoever's. At the end of the day, they can get all the advertising they want, they just walk outside, take a press conference. They really do have the capacity to wield media.

[B]

That's true.

[A]

Quite effectively, which is why it does make sense for other political parties to have the ability to publicize. Because if, if you didn't give them that option, now I'm going to say it really, really clearly. The commercials are bad guys. They're not. No.

[B]

There's also a question.

[A]

They're not enjoyable. They're. I just don't know if they're necessarily doing what, what they need to be doing. In my opinion, I think we should force because what happens at. I think a lot of people don't actually see what happens in the House either. No, I honestly believe that if we wanted a more informed, a more educated electorate, we would at a 6:30 time slot throw in every single night a press conference with the leaders of the parties. Yeah, I mean throw in question period a little bit. Throw in not, not allow the, the incumbent, not allow the party that's in power to wield the media, but also not waste taxpayers dollars on advertisements and rather force them into a situation where they have to have a banter back and forth where they have to speak off the cuff, where they have to not have, I don't know, a giant binder in front of them, where they get to speak from. That's what everybody would like to see that right now. What's happened with the greenbelt thing? Has it gone away?

[B]

No, not. I mean really. I mean like you said, it seems like nobody's talking about it, but what happened is that the RCMP is still apparently investigating. So I really don't know. Like it's not like the RCMP comes to me and says, here's where this is at. I would love to know what's going on. But we've checked and they are still, that investigation is still underway and there's a few other things that are not related to the green belt but that are still ongoing around this skills development. Well, around some other grants actually. So. And then there's other things going on, like integrity commissioner complaints that we've put in place. There's all kinds of, See, there's all kinds of checks and balances that are in place. It's just that. And everybody always says to me, well, how, you know, aren't there laws that enforce some of these things better? And the problem is that the government makes the laws. Yeah, right.

[A]

And they can minimize regulation. And when you have a majority government, when you have a. If that cut off right there Just understand that I'm a very popular teacher and that was a parent that I just. But when the government can manipulate or limit regulation under the guise of making it more efficient, I mean, make no mistake, you will have government officials saying, well, we want to ease these regulations because the more red tape we have, the hardier it is for us to do what we need to do, and the more expensive it is. Which in actuality, what they want to do is just grease the lining so that they can get done what they want it done for. For anybody who doesn't understand what the green belt is. And I'll. I'm going to. I'm going to five minute it an area in Ontario, an area of protected land that's always been protected so that we don't develop it in order to.

[B]

Protect the environment, but also farmland.

[A]

Farmland, yeah, farmland being a part of that. Now that land's worth X amount because it's protected land, meaning industrial agents can never come in, buy it all up, and, you know, develop it any way they see fit. From what I understand. And you can correct me if I'm.

[B]

Wrong, that's a good explanation.

[A]

From what I understand, Doug Ford maybe, let's say a little before allowing this land to be deregulated, maybe possibly let some people know that you might want to think about purchasing some of this land at a really good rate. Because as soon as he deregulates it, this is what's known as insider trading. Buy the.

[B]

Buy.

[A]

As soon as he deregulates it now, it will be available for industrial development. So something that was worth $100,000 is now worth a million. Is that.

[B]

I mean, that's really it, you know, and I think, you know, lots of people have lots of different reasons why they might be upset about the carving up of the. And like, as you said, like, sort of deregulating of the green belt. And that's a very good explanation. I mean, at the end of the day, we knew and we could see what was going on because the government Ford had gotten elected in 2018 said, don't worry, we're not touching the green. Touch it. But behind the scenes, he was telling people, yeah, we're open for business. And then even the same minister that I just talked about who's stuck, you know, caught up in this controversy, David Pacini, he, he others have, who are tied to the green belt, have actually said that he, he was giving people the heads up as well. So, you know, again. And it's always the same cast of characters, right? It's the Same people. And that's I guess, the other thing, right. It's like who are you?

[A]

Are you seeing the same names come up time and time and time again?

[B]

And that's where I always sort of say that the only job creation program the government has is for their own insiders. You know, it's like, it's like who's actually getting jobs. There's almost 800,000 Ontarians right now that are looking for work.

[A]

Do you think it's a bit of a flaw in the way our democracy is set up that a good chunk of your job is keeping your job?

[B]

Yeah, you know, that is actually true. I mean I think that. Well, actually I think a really good way to look at it is I say like government shouldn't be run in like four year cycles. So if you think that like done in four years and so you're. Everything is being run in a certain way and then it's. And it's really fast. Right. Instead of thinking longer term or better about passing good laws that are going to actually do the right things, not have like unintended consequences. Because sometimes government brings forward laws.

[A]

Sure.

[B]

And they don't even really. They don't. They do it so fast. You don't hear from everybody about how that could go wrong.

[A]

Sometimes they put in speed cameras and then take them out and complain that they were a money grab. But they're the actual people who brought them in. Yeah, that's neither here nor there. Can we talk about education? Yeah, we have a limited amount of time.

[B]

No, let's talk about education.

[A]

Might be my least favorite person. So. So eqao.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

Results came out.

[B]

These are standardized tests.

[A]

Standardized test. So we have a standardized test in grade three, grade six, grade ten. Is there a grade nine one?

[B]

No, I thought it was. I think six and nine, isn't it? Oh, I don't know.

[A]

Math is grade three as well.

[B]

Six and nine, I think so all.

[A]

These standardized tests, the results. Well, they didn't want to release the results and then they finally came out and we realized they were better than last time. But they're still like nowhere near to be seeing the increases I guess that have been promised. And everybody's real upset about it. Right. And this is admits speaking of another issue of corruption. Trying to get rid of trustees and installing people instead of the trustee installing again partisan officials to go in at insane. How do I get one of those?

[B]

Yeah, I know. $350,000.

[A]

$350,000 to go do what a trustee is supposed to do. And by the way, trustees are side, like, they're getting paid like five grand. They're not getting paid a lot of money. 350,000 to go what, clean up. Have you ever heard of bad business ideas? I know I'm gonna pay $350,000 for somebody to go save $200,000.

[B]

Yeah. What does that work? And they're giving them like a $40,000 each for expenses, which is like one of their big issues is like, they've been making such a hay about like a trustee who paid a lot for a milkshake. And there were some trustees who, you know, I think made bad decisions about things.

[A]

They did go to Italy one time.

[B]

That was not good to get.

[A]

One time they went to Italy.

[B]

Not a good idea. But that's.

[A]

They paid it back.

[B]

Like, what are we doing? No, and I think, like, there's, there's always going to be a few bad apples. Right. But I, I do think you're taking away a position that is very, very low paid. You're right. Like, usually it's like $5,000. Depends on the size. Because it's. Yeah, it's really, it's a volunteer or if somebody's on a board and you get like a few thousand dollars to cover your time, it's like a stipend and they have a huge responsibility. But most importantly, like, their job is like, because they're, they're democratically elected in their communities, they're supposed to be the person who's like, keeping an eye on, like, what the community thinks and feels. They're a person that the parent can go to. You know, if you're really running into, like, you can't get answers about something or you see an ongoing issue in the, in your school or in your board. And so they're shutting all that down and they're replacing them with these people who are not education. Education experts. They have no connection. They're almost all people who are connected again to the Conservative Party, like failed candidates and they're paying them a heap of money. And then. Yeah, that's what they're doing. It's wild.

[A]

And then they come out with the EQAO results. So all of this is on the heels of that. They haven't actually, These people haven't actually gone and the results are horrible. And Paul Calandra, who is the Minister of Education, is real confused.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

Real dumbfounded about what could possibly be going on in education that could lead to poorer results. And what baffles me is that it doesn't seem like A single person in the media is holding his feet to the fire.

[B]

It's wild. You know, I. When he said he was going to hold off releasing those results, we all knew right away that meant they were bad. But we could have told him they were bad anyways because kids are struggling. And if you're got a kid in this, in the school system, or you're so you're a parent or a grandparent or you're a teacher or work in the system, like, you know, you know already what's going on in there. And the kids are struggling and they're not getting the support they need. And I could have told him that, but he didn't need to go study it. Now he wants to go and study it again. He's paying some more of his insider friends to help them study it.

[A]

I told them how to fix it. Any teacher that's been teaching more than five minutes could tell them how to fix it. Here's the bottom line. It's going to cost money. Yeah, that's it. It's going to cost money. And this is what nobody's willing to say because they're going to pretend as though. And this is what this government does horrifically well. But in all fairness, voters out there pull it together. Because if you're going to keep falling forward, I don't know what to tell you. They can't charge you less. They can't take fewer tax dollars and give you more. Yeah, period.

[B]

Yeah, that's right.

[A]

Everything is inflated down to the paper that schools are buying, obviously wages, because they. But they need to be because they're trying to keep up with inflation out there, down to how much school buses have to charge because of gas, down to uniform costs for kids playing sports and a basketball. Everything costs more. Yet you seem to. And I'm saying you, as in some people, I don't know how many ever listening to me, keep voting in people that say, well, don't worry, we're never going to charge you anymore. That price bracket is never going to go up. We're going to keep putting the same money into education, or if we're going to put more money into education, it's going to be for $350,000. Surveyors of Knowledge that actually have no experience whatsoever, and they're not going to change the real issues, which are classroom size, which are complexities of the classroom. To be honest, if Paul was worth anything at all, he would have come out and said, you know what? The complexities in the classroom are really, really difficult. Our Teachers are doing amazing jobs. We need to figure out how he could have spun it. He doesn't even care to spin it.

[B]

Yeah, that's how much you guys, you know, I, I mean, you're, you're like the educator. I. What I hear from educators, like teachers, education workers, educational assistants, all of that principals is. And what we. We know because if you're close to kids at all and you see it like they are struggling and the complexities are massive. Kids are still dealing with the fallout from COVID this year, 100%. And, and the government has been in power for eight years. So anything that's not happening is on them. And actually, you're right, like that cost increasing, like if you do the math and lots of people have already done this work and they say, you know, really. They say they've increased funding, but really they haven't because it's actually a $6 billion cut. It's $1,500 per student.

[A]

That's right.

[B]

So no kidding.

[A]

If you're keeping it at $1,500 per student, yet everything has gone up. It is a cut. Just like you feel a cut at home when your wage doesn't go up, but everything at the groc is more. Your gas is more, your heating is more. It's the same thing. So we are seeing huge cuts and forget those huge cuts. I've been talking to EAs, like I, I don't work in that, in that environment. I don't work in an elementary school. I don't work with the kind of significant physical issues. But guys, there's people getting paid 20 bucks an hour who sole job is to stop a kid from hurting other kids, from hurting them, from destroying a classroom.

[B]

Well, so. And a lot of those EAs, I was talking to the principals the other day and they were saying like that the, that Most of those EAs now have at least responsible for at least six to nine stupid students. What ends up happening is they're focused on one child. And you know, the only time they really have time to give any other attention to the other kids that they're supposed to be helping is when it is when they. That child isn't there. And what I'm hearing happening actually a lot right now, which is really also kind of gross, is because our schools don't have enough EAs to, to support kids with special needs. Special needs kids are getting, they're getting called. The parents are getting called every day and saying, come pick them up. Yeah, come pick them up. Or you know what? Don't come to school today, we cannot have you. And so, like, the idea that kids, like kids should be able to go to school is gone. And. Yeah, it's really awful. And I think, like, if. And then I think, you know, you want kids to perform better, you got it. You got to have more teachers, you got to have smaller class size. You have to have more supports. It's not rocket science.

[A]

You have to have people trained in psychology, trained in child psychology, trained in physical. They give these eas, like a weekend course in, like, directing because you're not allowed to touch the kids either.

[B]

What?

[A]

These should be the highest paid by the. By those people physically.

[B]

EAs. Yeah. And the EAs. And, you know, I mean, take it.

[A]

So many from that guy that's doing all the trusted work.

[B]

Yeah, well, all those EAs, like, I meet those folks all the time, and they are the boy. I tell you, they. They care so much, so much, and it's. It's so hard. And then principals who are ending up. I met principal the other day from Kingston. She had three schools that she was responsible for in three different parts of the city. Actually, one part was on an island. One school's on an island. So, like a principal taking care of three separate schools.

[A]

It's the most ridiculous.

[B]

So what do we expect from our education system if we have a government that thinks that this is, like, bargain basement is the approach to education? Like what? You know, I met a teacher the other day. You'll. You'll like this. I think she. I was talking to some bunch of teachers and. And one of them said to me, an elementary teacher, she said, you know, I. I'm really tired every day, but I love what I do. And I, I, you know, I really still love what I do, but. And the reason I keep doing it is because these kids are the ones that are taking care of us one day.

[A]

Yeah, well, that's the bottom line. It's bad for business. That's it. You don't want to be empathetic. You don't want to have any morals. You want to have any ethics. You don't want to care about kids. Cool, cool. Fine, Be that. But if you're a businessman, which we all know you're not, if you're a businessman, Mr. Ford, how do you not invest in the future business of your province? This is it. So the more that you screw around and save money here, the more that you negate, the more that you abdicate. The only thing I can think of, the only goal I can see is you're looking to break it so you don't have to pay for it anymore. And you're looking to do what Danielle Smith is doing, which is create a charter system, which is push. Pull money out of the public system in order to put it over here under the delusion of school choice.

[B]

That's all I can do so that companies, again, can make more money of education and. Yeah. And to control it. And I. I think that's probably where they want to head. But what I know right now is that every time we ask these questions like what you're raising now, what we get from the minister is a whole bunch of distractions. He just throws, oh, you know, it's about the trustees, and it's about the this and that. And it's like, you know what? You have had the reins for eight years, your government, things have gotten worse under you. That's on them. And the answer is, like, right before you, everybody is saying the same thing. Everybody's talking about the same thing. You just have to invest in kids. You gotta invest in the resources. That's what it is.

[A]

You know what? And on that note, I think what we should do next is just go find out where Paul is.

[B]

Yeah, let's go find Paul. All right, let's go.

[A]

Dismissed.