Podcast appearances and mentions of nate erskine smith

Phil Demers joins me outside the gates of Marineland for this episode- a return to a conversation we began seven years ago at the Fox Theatre.Back then, we were fighting to pass Bill S-203 to end whale captivity in Canada. The law passed in 2019.Now, the fight is to save the remaining 30 beluga whales and 500 other animals who remain trapped inside as the park has ceased to exist. At one point, recently, Marineland even threatened to euthanize the whales if governments didn't provide emergency financial support.Phil “The Walrus Whisperer” Demers was a trainer at Marineland turned whistleblower. He spent over a decade fighting Marineland in court after leaving his job there in 2012. After 13 years of legal battles and public advocacy, Marineland is finally on its last legs. But the fight to save the remaining animals isn't over.We discussed what happens next, short-term and long-term solutions, and why governments should lead on this instead of playing only a reactive role.Chapters:0:00 Standing Outside Marineland6:21 Why China Might Actually Be Better10:04 The Sanctuary Myth & Rescue Reality14:08 30 Dead Whales18:13 500 Forgotten Animals19:30 13 Years of Legal Hell24:37 Conclusion: The Divorce AnalogyRead further:The Walrus and the Whistleblower - Documentary (CBC Gem) https://www.cbc.ca/documentarychannel/docs/the-walrus-and-the-whistleblower7 years ago with Phil: Transcript: [00:00:00] Nate Erskine-Smith: All right, well, welcome to Uncommons. It's an interesting episode because I'm joined by Phil Demers, who actually joined me at the Fox Theater many years ago, four years ago before we started the podcast actually. And it was just a, a local town hall event. We showed Blackfish. Right. And you were there to talk about your experience as a whistleblower at this horrible place behind us.[00:00:19] Uh, it is interesting how far we've come, but also that the issue is so acute still. Uh, at the time we were talking about a bill that had to be passed. To end this kind of production and make sure we were protecting institutions in captivity. And you were adamant we had to get this bill passed. Hmm. Well we got the bill passed.[00:00:37] Yeah. And yet we've got marineland, uh, beside us now, and it was grandfathered through in a way. And now we've got 30 beluga whales. We've got 500 other animals that are, that are in here. Mm-hmm. And all of which, all, all of whom need to be saved in, in, in one way or another. And, uh, it didn't [00:01:00] have to come to this, really did it.[00:01:02] Phil Demers: Well, we've, what, what has glossed over in much of, of your story is we've got a unwilling marine land in all of that. Yes. To evolve in any way, shape or form to be a, financially viable, uh, you know, for the security of their own future. Uh, but b, to adhere to any of the laws that we essentially passed, both provincially and, uh, and federally, although we did ban the breeding of the whales. Yep. Had we not banned the breeding of the whales. So, so currently there's 30 belugas remaining. There's four dolphins. Uh, we got two sea lions and a, and a host of, uh, land animals there. Had we not banned the breeding of belugas in 2019?[00:01:41] Nate Erskine-Smith: Yep.[00:01:42] Phil Demers: And albeit, the pregnant belugas of 2019 were grandfathered in.[00:01:47] So there were some whale birth births there. On average, Marineland had five to seven belugas born per year. A couple would die. But there's, you know, it's conceivable to say that whereas [00:02:00] we have 30 right now in there, we would have had an excess of 50. Right. They would've kept probably 60.[00:02:05] Nate Erskine-Smith: Yes, of course they would've kept the business model broke down with that law.[00:02:08] But if they would've kept going otherwise, I mean, they're, they were the bad actors. It's the, it just wants to keep it active [00:02:12] Phil Demers: At this point. It's the only, it's the only part of the law that they've, ad they've adhered to outside of importing, of course, which, which, uh, we ban. So it's, it's beyond their control, but.[00:02:21] Um, you know, the breeding, they, they stopped, but had they not, we'd be talking about 50 to 60 whales in those tanks. It, it was, uh, you know, that's something to really hang our hat on. That was a huge, uh, and super progressive, uh, lawsuit. But it does interestingly, take us to this place now where marine land is, you know, we essentially bankrupt.[00:02:39] I, but we should stress owns a lot of land sitting on 700 acres of prime land meant to fuel or feed the, uh, the whole family trust. That's, those are the heirs to it. You know, the operation is essentially sucking the money out of that. And so they're looking for the, be it most lucrative or least expensive [00:03:00] way to get outta this thing.[00:03:01] The sale to China was to be a profitable one. Uh, should be stressed that here in North America, none of the facilities wanna do business with marine land, right? A few years ago, five belugas were sent to Mystic Aquarium, three of which died within weeks and months. Uh, all having to do with, uh, preexisting conditions from Marineland.[00:03:20] Nate Erskine-Smith: So, so pause, pause for a moment. ‘cause I think for those who are listening, they may not know you've got 30 belugas here. And there was, uh, a deal that Marine Land wanted a broker, at least with a facility in China. Ocean Kingdom time, long Ocean Kingdom. The decision of the federal minister was to say no animal welfare first.[00:03:41] Uh, the primary purpose here is entertainment and, and we're not convinced that they're gonna be putting animal welfare first. Akin to the concern here, right? And, and why we don't want this to contain to exist. But then the knock on question why is so acute right now is okay, but then what? Because marine land comes out as proper monsters. They say, well, if we don't get emergency funding, we're gonna, we're gonna euthanize these whales,[00:04:05] Phil Demers: which is a familiar theme with Marineland. In all of my years of dealing with them, it was always do this or else. Uh, again, I I, this morning alone, I watched a, a YouTube video. It was pretty.[00:04:14] Pretty thorough history of marine land and in it is always the familiar threat of, well, if you don't do this, I'm gonna, and it includes ship the park to the, to the US that includes, you know, a whole host of things. But that's all, that's marine land's bluster when it, they don't get their way right. But that said, the, the spirit of the law was to give, uh, to give final say to the minister so that they can ultimately consider the interests of the animals in it, which is a level of personhood, which is not.[00:04:39] Which is atypical of most laws, especially of animals.[00:04:40] Nate Erskine-Smith: Of, yeah. Yeah. An incredibly important step. Yeah.[00:04:43] Phil Demers: Really, really, uh, progressive, you know, the spirit is to end captivity and, you know, and if you can stamp that out here, the, the idea is that it, it's, uh, it'll evolve to the rest of the world. And to be fair, uh, France adopted a very similar law recently passed, [00:05:00] uh, as well as, uh, new South Wales.[00:05:02] The province in Australia adopted a law. It's actually picking up around the world. So, so it's, you know. I always stress when we, we look at, hey, we wanna end captivity, I always stress that's a hundred year, that's a hundred year fight. If all goes extremely well, you know, you've got burgeoning business in China, some in Russia, right?[00:05:20] And we're still ending sort of ours here, sort of choking that off here and that's still expanding there. So, you know, we've, we've started something that's gonna continue elsewhere, but you know, it's gotta end here. It's gotta end here first and ending.[00:05:33] Nate Erskine-Smith: You can put a law on the books and, okay, so. Uh, on a going forward basis, you, you might avoid problems and, and avoid cruelty, but you still have 30 belugas here.[00:05:44] And then the question becomes, well, what happens next? And, and I don't wanna pretend that it's just a marineland problem because you were just, uh, commenting on the fact that in Miami you got seaquarium that's now shut down, that this is going to happen in other places too. Well of Mexico just banned it.[00:05:59] Phil Demers: [00:06:00] And now all of their animals, now captive and legally captive can no longer perform in shows, can no longer do the swim with programs, et cetera, et cetera. So what happens is it becomes unviable to the owners. They lose their incentive, their incentive to have and use these animals. So what becomes well, unfortunately, in, in, in my estimation of what is available to us.[00:06:20] Nate Erskine-Smith: Yeah.[00:06:21] Phil Demers: You know, I'd always had hope that the much of these animals would go to the us, but it's not gonna happen by way of a broker deal because again, none of ‘em wanna touch marine land for obvious reasons. Again, I, I mentioned the five whales that died at, uh, mystic.[00:06:33] Nate Erskine-Smith: Yep.[00:06:34] Phil Demers: They also know of the bad PR.[00:06:36] Marine land's been getting here for the decades. I mean, it's been global news, you can't ignore it. So SeaWorld also had to sue Marine Land a number of years ago to get an orca back. So SeaWorld doesn't wanna touch marine land, so I don't think. Anyone in the US wants to associate with buying animals off marine land or brokering any type of deal affiliations, et cetera, et cetera.[00:06:54] But you know, I'd had this hope that this government, the provincial [00:07:00] Animal welfare society, especially with their policing powers and their ability to seize animals. You know, you have, you have essentially an opportunity to seize these animals and send them to these places, whereas those places might be receiving of them if they're by way of a rescue versus of, of a broker deal.[00:07:15] But again, this is me talking, theorizing, trying to figure this thing out. [00:07:19] Nate Erskine-Smith: But let's imagine that so, so the federal government. Has done its part in passing the law. I, I think the federal government could play a strong convening role here. And, and we're starting to, I mean, in the wake of the minister turning down those permits, uh, to, uh, ocean Kingdom in China, I mean, uh, there is a role for the federal government to show some leadership here, but the actual law, the power that you're talking about, the seizure power that exists, provincially, provincially, and you got Doug Ford over here talking about caring about dogs and okay.[00:07:46] I, I like that. Okay. Yeah. Let's, let's have concern for, for all animals. Uh, but in this particular case, as soon as Marineland says, well, without emergency funding, we'll euthanize them. They should be coming in here, seizing and using their authority. And, [00:08:00] and, and by the way, I mean even as part of, uh. Uh, I was reading, uh, as part of the settlement back in 2017 and driving the lawsuit.[00:08:07] I mean, they agreed to monitoring. I mean, like, what are we even talking about here? Have animal welfare experts, animal science experts. Well, they're in there. They're in there. And why, and why can't, and then why can't Doug Ford sees these and say, now we can broker a deal with the animal welfare top of mind instead of marineland trying to extract top dollar.[00:08:25] Phil Demers: So in the think tank, that's become, since all of this and the Yeah. You know, sort of the, where does this go? I do have to say with limited options, China might be atop the very best options. And let me explain why if those animals were in a neutral place right now. Just let's just, let's just do this as like a, a sort of a thought, uh, uh, experiment if this animals were in a neutral space right now and yet to elect where they're going.[00:08:49] Yeah. Outside of the laws themselves, which is, you know, for the most part, it doesn't exist in China. That I, that I know, I don't wanna be quoted, but I don't know what the animal, uh, oversight and, [00:09:00] and, and laws are like over here. But we know what they are here. Yeah. And we know that they exist here. But that said, they're not really do serving so, so much.[00:09:07] Uh, these days, if there was a choice between the facilities, it'd be hands down, you'd be sending them to, to China. It wouldn't even be a question. There wouldn't even be a question. These are brand new facilities that massive I had. A team member was there two weeks ago, a a, a former, uh, friend of mine that worked at marineland Works there.[00:09:24] These are brand new massive, expansive facilities, the conditions of which are good and in fact maybe even be said to be great in the realm of captive facilities. I don't want to be a defender of any facility. I don't wanna say, Hey, that's a good one, but what, on the scale of, you wouldn't consider this for a moment, but because they're in there, it becomes a little bit more complicated because it's a question of, of removing them, but.[00:09:48] Because of the limited space of where those animals have and being against the clock, they're gonna have to go somewhere. And, uh, again, I stress the us I ideally, first and foremost, if it doesn't work out [00:10:00] there, or if, you know, obviously they don't have the space for 30, we know this already, some are gonna have to go to China[00:10:04] Nate Erskine-Smith: So let, let's walk, let's, I, let's take some time to walk, walk through those options. Because again, some people might say, well, why not return them to the wild? We've seen the consequences of that in, in, in some ways. You, uh, in, uh, there was a return to, uh, facility in, in, in Iceland at one point, I think in.[00:10:24] So, well, that's not, that's not gonna work. And so there, there are just knock on challenges to, to that option.[00:10:28] Phil Demers: There is no such thing as a perfect scenario. Also, that needs to be stressed because I think we're, we're, and we have been wasting a lot of time and thought on what would be perfect. Right? And it doesn't exist.[00:10:38] We have to scale that. Our expectations back to what is. And, and also stress that these animals are not very healthy. Now, I'm not gonna call them sick. Do we know? Do, is it Well on a, on a scale of the, they all, they're all unwell by virtue of the conditions that have been here.[00:10:58] Nate Erskine-Smith: But do, uh, is there that [00:11:00] openness with, uh, say.[00:11:02] Uh, nonprofit or, or government experts and, and animal scientists who have access into properly not a chance.[00:11:09] Phil Demers: And, and for that matter, anything that you would've access to look at would be changed,[00:11:12] Nate Erskine-Smith: right?[00:11:13] Phil Demers: So, so anyone that has a pen and, and putting it to paper has an interest in some people not knowing everything that's going on.[00:11:20] Nate Erskine-Smith: So Wildes out and then you've got, uh, wild is out and there have been proposals. For animal sanctuaries, there's one in Nova Scotia that, that is, that is closest to realization. No. Uh, having spoke well, having spoken to the, the folks there, they said, well, the earliest is really next fall. And that's an optimistic timeline.[00:11:38] And, uh, and then you're, they're talking about a max of taking 10 of the whales, which today, in the environment that we exist, uh, doesn't seem like the most plausible option when you want to protect these animals and, and put animal welfare in their animal interest first. Today. So, uh, the answer does, you know, first it's just who's the decision maker?[00:11:59] And it can't be marine land that is deciding what the deal on the table should be.[00:12:03] Phil Demers: Well, clearly they're not, they don't make the decisions in the best, the best interest of the Yeah, exactly. Just to stress the point of the, of the whale sanctuary in Nova Scotia. I wish it more than anyone to be an operational place, but it's not.[00:12:13] I've gone, it can't be, it's not going to be. Its decades and hundreds of millions. And who's foot in the bill? This is. A theory at best, and we got to move beyond theories or else what happens is people start hanging their hats out. People start talking, talking, talking. But the specific needs of those animals, and that's outside of a perfect world, if we're gonna have a sanctuary for animals, that has to be tried.[00:12:36] In the best cases, not in one of duress and, and emergency, et cetera. It's, this is an experiment for the most part, but those animals need to get a access. So we're talking about a, uh, this monster sanctuary, but did they, in all of that, go through the what is required to actually care for these animals?[00:12:53] You need a, a rising floor of a tank to be able to access sick animals so that you can give them, uh, medication, et cetera. You gotta be able to [00:13:00] access the animals, but an animal's sick in the middle of your sanctuary. How are you gonna get them? And get them on a, on back to the shoreline, back into a tank where they can be monitored and then, you know, be given drugs and et cetera treated.[00:13:12] And you've got the, the challenges that these animals already face is just outside of the scope of what an experiments at this point can offer. Right? These animals need facilities with people that know where to inject The animals know where to draw blood, know, you know, they got the book on the meds and they got access to those animals because that's essentially what they need.[00:13:32] When we're talking about what the. What's happening here? It's essentially a rescue and it's, it's how it needs to be framed. It's how I've always said it. And again, I I'm, I'm sounding like a broken record because I've been saying this for a decade, and if you read it, it's, it, I don't think I've done a single interview in the last decade where I said, if we don't get those animals out, they're gonna die.[00:13:50] And, and, you know, it's easy to say, well, of course they're all going to die if they don't move. But you know, if you watch. At the rate that I was saying it and the rate that the animal [00:14:00] started to die, we're talking about a scale that's grading up and speeding up and accelerating. So 30 animals have died there, essentially.[00:14:08] I, I know it's in the records as, as 2020 whales, but you know, if you add the three that died at Mystic as being marineland whales, right. If you add the, uh, while we know that in the, in 2019 there's an affidavit that Marineland sworn of having 58 beluga whales. But we know that they would've pregnant ones.[00:14:27] So five to seven more born there. Deduct those numbers. ‘cause they're, they're no longer in that inventory. Um, you've got 30 whales that have died essentially since about 2018. More than 50 since I quit, which will have been 60 or more if we hadn't have passed the, the breeding bin. Nothing here is new.[00:14:55] Marine land's, bluster, et cetera, et cetera. You're finally hearing their actual voice. You're not seeing [00:15:00] the jingle on tv. You're not seeing them talking about their, their animal welfare record and, and boasting it as the best in the world. You are seeing the, the people here have seen the marine land, the, the real marine land for the first time.[00:15:09] Yeah.[00:15:09] Nate Erskine-Smith: Big difference between everybody loves marine land and we're gonna kill the whales if you don't gonna sip on. Right. And this is a, this is a theme I've known for far too long because, you know, they don't like me. But, uh, so just to close the, close this, uh, what's on the table? It could be on the table.[00:15:24] So. You've got, uh, sanctuaries talked about promising in the longer term, potentially [00:15:30] Phil Demers: Well, if, and when that exists, the belugas hopefully are alive no matter where they are in the world to one day be received there. [00:15:36] Nate Erskine-Smith: Right, right, right.[00:15:38] Phil Demers: There's so there if they're alive, which we have to stress.[00:15:39] Nate Erskine-Smith: And so, but in the immediate term, uh, you're looking at, in an ideal world, when it's not an ideal world, uh, you've got the premier acting, you got the provincial government that would seize. Control in order to make decisions in the best interest of the animals, you've got a situation where then you would survey what's available across North America and [00:16:00] and elsewhere and say, we're gonna proactively reach out and try to place these animals, putting animal welfare interests first.[00:16:07] Phil Demers: And if I was negotiating those moves, I would say any re, any facility that receives these animals. Have to adhere to the spirit of the 2019 law. Right. Which is, and I think North America would, would be glad to adhere to that. They already generally do. I don't think they're breeding belugas. Uh, you know, most of these places have their own, despite it not being law, they're sort of in-house no longer breeding.[00:16:27] Definitely orcas that I know of, hopefully dolphins one day, but we're, we're not there yet. Uh, but that, yes, so with the caveat that, hey, if we can follow this, you know, it should be noted that. The spirit of of S two S 2 0 3, which is the law that passed, was that we're, we're gonna eradicate captivity in Canada.[00:16:44] Sort of the idea was, you know, we're gonna end this situations of captivity. And well, with the idea of that globally, this build had this, this effect. But that said, these animals who are already here, sadly, and with, with zero to minus zero option of ever being returned [00:17:00] to the wild, and I hate to be this voice.[00:17:04] But if they go elsewhere, it may very well spare some live ones from being captured. And that is in the spirit of the law. So there is some salvation in this ending in Canada. The animals moving on to better places. Yep. And no more whales ever returning. And that practice being said and done, and we wash our hands of it.[00:17:24] And that's the biggest win that can be done. The noise of our bullhorns out here. Follow them to the next place. They'll hear us out there. The fight continues where they go. That's, that's the reality. We got a hundred year problem ahead of us if everything goes well. [00:17:43] Nate Erskine-Smith: And let's talk about the other animals.[00:17:45] I mean, you are known as the walrus whisperer. You didn't start fighting. Just for the whales. I mean, you were fighting for the walrus smooth. She, and there are an estimated, what, 500 other [00:18:00] animals? It's a lot of deer in there. Yeah. And, uh, and so is that also part of the picture here? I mean all obviously the public focus has overwhelmingly being on the whales, but, uh, what do we do with the other animals?[00:18:13] Phil Demers: Well, that I know of, the Toronto Zoo expressed some interest. They were visiting the facility in early October. Those animals are likely destined for, uh, I mean, ideally, some sanctuaries that we know do exist. They, there are some, yeah. Um, the bison are already gone. No one seems to really know where there, there's theories, but they're gone.[00:18:37] Uh, the bear, they that they're gonna have a tough time because bears are, are solitary animals. They shouldn't be confined to a tight space anyways. It's already really, uh, antisocial and dangerous for them. It's like a really unnatural environment. And so the coat is sort of stunted and no place is looking for a bunch of bears.[00:18:53] So, you know, I'm, I won't be surprised if a lot of them get euthanized very quietly, uh, and, you [00:19:00] know, the deer, 500 deer or so, what are you gonna do with that? So, I, I don't know. Again, I, I, I leave this to, you know, I, I'm, you know, I've had my sort of, I, I got a decade plus of fighting against this place.[00:19:14] That's the extent of my knowledge of animal rights. And a lot of people come to me and say, Hey, this, this, and that. I'm just like, uh, talk to an organization that knows this stuff.[00:19:23] Nate Erskine-Smith: Right. So they, I mean, the last time we spoke, uh, where we were, we had an audience in front of us.[00:19:30] Yep. Uh, that's, that, that you were still Yeah. Yeah. You were still deep in litigation where they were taking you on and trying to silence you. Mm-hmm. Uh, I mean, it's interesting, you know, you've come to animal rights, but also, uh, you've. Really been, I think, uh, uh, you've, you've shown what it is to be a whistleblower in a, in a, in a publicized important way.[00:19:53] And the, and the importance of whistle blowing protections despite the fact that they came after you with everything they got. And, uh, where [00:20:00] is all of that at now? I mean, you've, uh, uh, before we started recording, you're talking about smooshy ended up where, so we[00:20:07] Phil Demers: essentially, you know, so they sued me in 2000, early 2013 for plotting to steal smooshy the walrus.[00:20:12] Yep. You terrible verse you and I could have done it, but I didn't. And it had nothing to do with Marine le, but if anyone could have done it, but I wasn't going to, you'd have to be crazy. And much as they tried to make me out to be crazy, uh, you know, I, there's some percentage of crazy, but it's not, not to the scope of what they had described in this lawsuit.[00:20:31] So, you know, it was baseless. It, it did inspire antis, SLAPP legislation, uh, provincially, which was great. It didn't help me, but it's, you know, it, it's there for the future. It's important.[00:20:40] Nate Erskine-Smith: Yeah.[00:20:41] Phil Demers: And I also stress when you, when you say, you know, you did, you, you were a whistleblower and you know, we, we, we passed a, a host of different sort of whistleblower protection laws and everything.[00:20:49] I, this wasn't an animal rights issue. It, it, this was an animal rights issue when I left. It wasn't animal rights. It was a, here's what I've experienced and if something [00:21:00] doesn't happen to this, this, this, these animals will, you know, their suffering will increase. Tell you, I know me suddenly being sued.[00:21:07] Like these were, these were my friends, these animals and, and the employees. This is like, these were, you know, you're gonna see your neighbor's dog like that and you walk ‘em every day. You're gonna have some concerns. Like, so this was that for me. It spills over into an animal rights realm, of course, because animal rights, people who had, you know, to their credit, been fighting this forever, suddenly, you know, I, I show up, but you know, to be fair, I'm not really an animal rights guy.[00:21:31] She was your friend, smooshy. Yeah, of course. Right. That's of course. But I'm just, when it comes, those you love mistreated when it comes to the history of, and what is. The box of animal rights activists, which I get very often. It's like, no man, it's just, it's not, that's not really what this was for me.[00:21:49] What this was, was, let's say, professional a*****e versus semi-professional a*****e. And it was a clash of all crazy proportions if you weren't witness to it. I, I could only [00:22:00] imagine how much fun it was on the sidelines. I mean, I, I, I, I like to do it up for the people, put on a show, and we did. Uh, but that's what this was, this was every corner.[00:22:08] This was a fight. Tooth and nail in every aspect and element of every which way of my life outside of that, of the animals. It was a, it started as an animal thing and it's taken on an entire other, uh, entire, entire other, uh, uh, level. [00:22:24] Nate Erskine-Smith: But, but with that said and taken over your life, I mean, uh, well, the litigation and just the, I mean, all of that takes an incredible amount of toll and time[00:22:33] Phil Demers: I would not have imagined when it happened that.[00:22:36] That this was going to be like the most forever decision. I, I'll be honest, and this is ambitious and in retrospect, super naive of me, but armed with the truth at the time, I thought in my mind, this is gonna take six months to resolve the, again, my objective was not, let's shut marine land down six months.[00:22:53] Well, what did I know about litigation, about anything? I just thought, well, listen, if the people know, well, not even the people. I thought if the, [00:23:00] if the authorities knew the, you know, if they knew, and here they were here, it was, they knew. And that was like the beginning of my journey. And here I am 13 years later and it all wholly and entirely reshaped into a, a pretty efficient marineland busting machine.[00:23:19] Like it's, it's been a pleasure. But, uh, but yeah, there's an element of almost, it's a weird one and, but I, I almost chalk it up to what retired NHL players might. I feel like when they, when they're so engaged in something that, that, that requires so much energy and, you know, like, and, and levels of execution and like, you know, you really gotta psych yourself up for some of the s**t I've been through now I'm trying to take a breath from it all.[00:23:48] Then we got this thing going on still. You're like, ay, ay. So no, it turned into, i, I guess what will be a decade long, uh, life identifier. It's become. [00:24:00] You know, I'm, I'm kind of married to this place now.[00:24:02] Nate Erskine-Smith: Right, exactly. And, and, and you live through personal challenges and then coming after you legally and then all of that.[00:24:11] But you, you, I mean, you, we stand outside this place today and it's, you're gonna out survive it. You know? This is on his last legs. And it's, uh, in a, in large measure the law we passed in large measure the public outcry and large measure because you were able to shine a light on it and, and called attention is something that was wrong.[00:24:32] Phil Demers: It kind of looks like a divorce and now we want the kids[00:24:37] hard to, hard to find a home for the kids. That's the problem. Well. But here we are. Uh, but again, exactly, I, I, I do stress. I think that all of this will be revisited by the feds because there is gonna have to be some extra consideration give to the immediate conditions. Yes. As just this, the extent of, of how awful all of this is.[00:24:54] Should other things be considered first? Yes, I think so too. I don't think marine land should stand on, uh. [00:25:00] Hey, do what we say or, or give us money and this and that[00:25:03] Nate Erskine-Smith: No. They've, they've found their way to profit. It's a, they should care for the animals.[00:25:07] Phil Demers: It's a, it's a breath of fresh air to not to see nobody caving because, uh, Marineland has known that for too long.[00:25:12] Yeah. Uh, but, you know, so there, there should be a, a very diligent work done as into what can be done for these animals. But, you know, given the fact that we are super limited, I think there's gonna have to be some reconsideration. To the Chinese facilities. It just is. It would be great if they came with the caveat of don't breed them and don't do this.[00:25:32] Maybe that could be negotiated. I don't know.[00:25:35] Nate Erskine-Smith: But I think, uh, and I think it's useful to close here. I mean, in the end, in the same way that, uh, you've got individuals including yourself who have shown leadership. I mean, at this moment in time, we need governments not to react, not to say, well, it's our job to review a permit, or it's our job to review.[00:25:51] If there's a complaint or there's an investigation to say, no, no, no. We are gonna proactively find a home for these animals. We're gonna proactively pull the stakeholders together, [00:26:00] together, pull the organizations together across North America and elsewhere. Say it's not a perfect world. So what exists here?[00:26:06] What what is possible, and to, and to show some leadership and, and to not just react and to try to solve the problem in a proactive way and not leave it. To these guys who are not intending to solve the problem at all and are didn't want the law passed in the first place.[00:26:20] Phil Demers: They've proven themselves as being irresponsible caretakers.[00:26:24] It's time for other people to have a hand in what becomes, and uh, you know, they may not like it, but they've set the stage for exactly that. So now other people will have a say. [00:26:33] Nate Erskine-Smith: Appreciate it[00:26:34] Phil Demers: Anytime This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.uncommons.ca

After a hiatus, we've officially restarted the Uncommons podcast, and our first long-form interview is with Professor Taylor Owen to discuss the ever changing landscape of the digital world, the fast emergence of AI and the implications for our kids, consumer safety and our democracy.Taylor Owen's work focuses on the intersection of media, technology and public policy and can be found at taylorowen.com. He is the Beaverbrook Chair in Media, Ethics and Communications and the founding Director of The Centre for Media, Technology and Democracy at McGill University where he is also an Associate Professor. He is the host of the Globe and Mail's Machines Like Us podcast and author of several books.Taylor also joined me for this discussion more than 5 years ago now. And a lot has happened in that time.Upcoming episodes will include guests Tanya Talaga and an episode focused on the border bill C-2, with experts from The Citizen Lab and the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers.We'll also be hosting a live event at the Naval Club of Toronto with Catherine McKenna, who will be launching her new book Run Like a Girl. Register for free through Eventbrite. As always, if you have ideas for future guests or topics, email us at info@beynate.ca Chapters:0:29 Setting the Stage1:44 Core Problems & Challenges4:31 Information Ecosystem Crisis10:19 Signals of Reliability & Policy Challenges14:33 Legislative Efforts18:29 Online Harms Act Deep Dive25:31 AI Fraud29:38 Platform Responsibility32:55 Future Policy DirectionFurther Reading and Listening:Public rules for big tech platforms with Taylor Owen — Uncommons Podcast“How the Next Government can Protect Canada's Information Ecosystem.” Taylor Owen with Helen Hayes, The Globe and Mail, April 7, 2025.Machines Like Us PodcastBill C-63Transcript:Nate Erskine-Smith00:00-00:43Welcome to Uncommons, I'm Nate Erskine-Smith. This is our first episode back after a bit of a hiatus, and we are back with a conversation focused on AI safety, digital governance, and all of the challenges with regulating the internet. I'm joined by Professor Taylor Owen. He's an expert in these issues. He's been writing about these issues for many years. I actually had him on this podcast more than five years ago, and he's been a huge part of getting us in Canada to where we are today. And it's up to this government to get us across the finish line, and that's what we talk about. Taylor, thanks for joining me. Thanks for having me. So this feels like deja vu all over again, because I was going back before you arrived this morning and you joined this podcast in April of 2020 to talk about platform governance.Taylor Owen00:43-00:44It's a different world.Taylor00:45-00:45In some ways.Nate Erskine-Smith00:45-01:14Yeah. Well, yeah, a different world for sure in many ways, but also the same challenges in some ways too. Additional challenges, of course. But I feel like in some ways we've come a long way because there's been lots of consultation. There have been some legislative attempts at least, but also we haven't really accomplished the thing. So let's talk about set the stage. Some of the same challenges from five years ago, but some new challenges. What are the challenges? What are the problems we're trying to solve? Yeah, I mean, many of them are the same, right?Taylor Owen01:14-03:06I mean, this is part of the technology moves fast. But when you look at the range of things citizens are concerned about when they and their children and their friends and their families use these sets of digital technologies that shape so much of our lives, many things are the same. So they're worried about safety. They're worried about algorithmic content and how that's feeding into what they believe and what they think. They're worried about polarization. We're worried about the integrity of our democracy and our elections. We're worried about sort of some of the more acute harms of like real risks to safety, right? Like children taking their own lives and violence erupting, political violence emerging. Like these things have always been present as a part of our digital lives. And that's what we were concerned about five years ago, right? When we talked about those harms, that was roughly the list. Now, the technologies we were talking about at the time were largely social media platforms, right? So that was the main way five years ago that we shared, consumed information in our digital politics and our digital public lives. And that is what's changing slightly. Now, those are still prominent, right? We're still on TikTok and Instagram and Facebook to a certain degree. But we do now have a new layer of AI and particularly chatbots. And I think a big question we face in this conversation in this, like, how do we develop policies that maximize the benefits of digital technologies and minimize the harms, which is all this is trying to do. Do we need new tools for AI or some of the things we worked on for so many years to get right, the still the right tools for this new set of technologies with chatbots and various consumer facing AI interfaces?Nate Erskine-Smith03:07-03:55My line in politics has always been, especially around privacy protections, that we are increasingly living our lives online. And especially, you know, my kids are growing up online and our laws need to reflect that reality. All of the challenges you've articulated to varying degrees exist in offline spaces, but can be incredibly hard. The rules we have can be incredibly hard to enforce at a minimum in the online space. And then some rules are not entirely fit for purpose and they need to be updated in the online space. It's interesting. I was reading a recent op-ed of yours, but also some of the research you've done. This really stood out. So you've got the Hogue Commission that says disinformation is the single biggest threat to our democracy. That's worth pausing on.Taylor Owen03:55-04:31Yeah, exactly. Like the commission that spent a year at the request of all political parties in parliament, at the urging of the opposition party, so it spent a year looking at a wide range of threats to our democratic systems that everybody was concerned about originating in foreign countries. And the conclusion of that was that the single biggest threat to our democracy is the way information flows through our society and how we're not governing it. Like that is a remarkable statement and it kind of came and went. And I don't know why we moved off from that so fast.Nate Erskine-Smith04:31-05:17Well, and there's a lot to pull apart there because you've got purposeful, intentional, bad actors, foreign influence operations. But you also have a really core challenge of just the reliability and credibility of the information ecosystem. So you have Facebook, Instagram through Meta block news in Canada. And your research, this was the stat that stood out. Don't want to put you in and say like, what do we do? Okay. So there's, you say 11 million views of news have been lost as a consequence of that blocking. Okay. That's one piece of information people should know. Yeah. But at the same time.Taylor Owen05:17-05:17A day. Yeah.Nate Erskine-Smith05:18-05:18So right.Taylor Owen05:18-05:2711 million views a day. And we should sometimes we go through these things really fast. It's huge. Again, Facebook decides to block news. 40 million people in Canada. Yeah.Taylor05:27-05:29So 11 million times a Canadian.Taylor Owen05:29-05:45And what that means is 11 million times a Canadian would open one of their news feeds and see Canadian journalism is taken out of the ecosystem. And it was replaced by something. People aren't using these tools less. So that journalism was replaced by something else.Taylor05:45-05:45Okay.Taylor Owen05:45-05:46So that's just it.Nate Erskine-Smith05:46-06:04So on the one side, we've got 11 million views a day lost. Yeah. And on the other side, Canadians, the majority of Canadians get their news from social media. But when the Canadians who get their news from social media are asked where they get it from, they still say Instagram and Facebook. But there's no news there. Right.Taylor Owen06:04-06:04They say they get.Nate Erskine-Smith06:04-06:05It doesn't make any sense.Taylor Owen06:06-06:23It doesn't and it does. It's terrible. They ask Canadians, like, where do you get people who use social media to get their news? Where do they get their news? and they still say social media, even though it's not there. Journalism isn't there. Journalism isn't there. And I think one of the explanations— Traditional journalism. There is—Taylor06:23-06:23There is—Taylor Owen06:23-06:47Well, this is what I was going to get at, right? Like, there is—one, I think, conclusion is that people don't equate journalism with news about the world. There's not a one-to-one relationship there. Like, journalism is one provider of news, but so are influencers, so are podcasts, people listening to this. Like this would be labeled probably news in people's.Nate Erskine-Smith06:47-06:48Can't trust the thing we say.Taylor Owen06:48-07:05Right. And like, and neither of us are journalists, right? But we are providing information about the world. And if it shows up in people's feeds, as I'm sure it will, like that probably gets labeled in people's minds as news, right? As opposed to pure entertainment, as entertaining as you are.Nate Erskine-Smith07:05-07:06It's public affairs content.Taylor Owen07:06-07:39Exactly. So that's one thing that's happening. The other is that there's a generation of creators that are stepping into this ecosystem to both fill that void and that can use these tools much more effectively. So in the last election, we found that of all the information consumed about the election, 50% of it was created by creators. 50% of the engagement on the election was from creators. Guess what it was for journalists, for journalism? Like 5%. Well, you're more pessimistic though. I shouldn't have led with the question. 20%.Taylor07:39-07:39Okay.Taylor Owen07:39-07:56So all of journalism combined in the entire country, 20 percent of engagement, influencers, 50 percent in the last election. So like we've shifted, at least on social, the actors and people and institutions that are fostering our public.Nate Erskine-Smith07:56-08:09Is there a middle ground here where you take some people that play an influencer type role but also would consider themselves citizen journalists in a way? How do you – It's a super interesting question, right?Taylor Owen08:09-08:31Like who – when are these people doing journalism? When are they doing acts of journalism? Like someone can be – do journalism and 90% of the time do something else, right? And then like maybe they reveal something or they tell an interesting story that resonates with people or they interview somebody and it's revelatory and it's a journalistic act, right?Taylor08:31-08:34Like this is kind of a journalistic act we're playing here.Taylor Owen08:35-08:49So I don't think – I think these lines are gray. but I mean there's some other underlying things here which like it matters if I think if journalistic institutions go away entirely right like that's probably not a good thing yeah I mean that's whyNate Erskine-Smith08:49-09:30I say it's terrifying is there's a there's a lot of good in the in the digital space that is trying to be there's creative destruction there's a lot of work to provide people a direct sense of news that isn't that filter that people may mistrust in traditional media. Having said that, so many resources and there's so much history to these institutions and there's a real ethics to journalism and journalists take their craft seriously in terms of the pursuit of truth. Absolutely. And losing that access, losing the accessibility to that is devastating for democracy. I think so.Taylor Owen09:30-09:49And I think the bigger frame of that for me is a democracy needs signals of – we need – as citizens in a democracy, we need signals of reliability. Like we need to know broadly, and we're not always going to agree on it, but like what kind of information we can trust and how we evaluate whether we trust it.Nate Erskine-Smith09:49-10:13And that's what – that is really going away. Pause for a sec. So you could imagine signals of reliability is a good phrase. what does it mean for a legislator when it comes to putting a rule in place? Because you could imagine, you could have a Blade Runner kind of rule that says you've got to distinguish between something that is human generatedTaylor10:13-10:14and something that is machine generated.Nate Erskine-Smith10:15-10:26That seems straightforward enough. It's a lot harder if you're trying to distinguish between Taylor, what you're saying is credible, and Nate, what you're saying is not credible,Taylor10:27-10:27which is probably true.Nate Erskine-Smith10:28-10:33But how do you have a signal of reliability in a different kind of content?Taylor Owen10:34-13:12I mean, we're getting into like a journalistic journalism policy here to a certain degree, right? And it's a wicked problem because the primary role of journalism is to hold you personally to account. And you setting rules for what they can and can't do and how they can and can't behave touches on some real like third rails here, right? It's fraught. However, I don't think it should ever be about policy determining what can and can't be said or what is and isn't journalism. The real problem is the distribution mechanism and the incentives within it. So a great example and a horrible example happened last week, right? So Charlie Kirk gets assassinated. I don't know if you opened a feed in the few days after that, but it was a horrendous place, right? Social media was an awful, awful, awful place because what you saw in that feed was the clearest demonstration I've ever seen in a decade of looking at this of how those algorithmic feeds have become radicalized. Like all you saw on every platform was the worst possible representations of every view. Right. Right. It was truly shocking and horrendous. Like people defending the murder and people calling for the murder of leftists and like on both sides. Right. people blaming Israel, people, whatever. Right. And that isn't a function of like- Aaron Charlie Kirk to Jesus. Sure. Like- It was bonkers all the way around. Totally bonkers, right? And that is a function of how those ecosystems are designed and the incentives within them. It's not a function of like there was journalism being produced about that. Like New York Times, citizens were doing good content about what was happening. It was like a moment of uncertainty and journalism was doing or playing a role, but it wasn't And so I think with all of these questions, including the online harms ones, and I think how we step into an AI governance conversation, the focus always has to be on those systems. I'm like, what is who and what and what are the incentives and the technical decisions being made that determine what we experience when we open these products? These are commercial products that we're choosing to consume. And when we open them, a whole host of business and design and technical decisions and human decisions shape the effect it has on us as people, the effect it has on our democracy, the vulnerabilities that exist in our democracy, the way foreign actors or hostile actors can take advantage of them, right? Like all of that stuff we've been talking about, the role reliability of information plays, like these algorithms could be tweaked for reliable versus unreliable content, right? Over time.Taylor13:12-13:15That's not a – instead of reactionary –Taylor Owen13:15-13:42Or like what's most – it gets most engagement or what makes you feel the most angry, which is largely what's driving X, for example, right now, right? You can torque all those things. Now, I don't think we want government telling companies how they have to torque it. But we can slightly tweak the incentives to get better content, more reliable content, less polarizing content, less hateful content, less harmful content, right? Those dials can be incentivized to be turned. And that's where the policy space should play, I think.Nate Erskine-Smith13:43-14:12And your focus on systems and assessing risks with systems. I think that's the right place to play. I mean, we've seen legislative efforts. You've got the three pieces in Canada. You've got online harms. You've got the privacy and very kind of vague initial foray into AI regs, which we can get to. And then a cybersecurity piece. And all of those ultimately died on the order paper. Yeah. We also had the journalistic protection policies, right, that the previous government did.Taylor Owen14:12-14:23I mean – Yeah, yeah, yeah. We can debate their merits. Yeah. But there was considerable effort put into backstopping the institutions of journalism by the – Well, they're twofold, right?Nate Erskine-Smith14:23-14:33There's the tax credit piece, sort of financial support. And then there was the Online News Act. Right. Which was trying to pull some dollars out of the platforms to pay for the news as well. Exactly.Taylor14:33-14:35So the sort of supply and demand side thing, right?Nate Erskine-Smith14:35-14:38There's the digital service tax, which is no longer a thing.Taylor Owen14:40-14:52Although it still is a piece of past legislation. Yeah, yeah, yeah. It still is a thing. Yeah, yeah. Until you guys decide whether to negate the thing you did last year or not, right? Yeah.Nate Erskine-Smith14:52-14:55I don't take full responsibility for that one.Taylor Owen14:55-14:56No, you shouldn't.Nate Erskine-Smith14:58-16:03But other countries have seen more success. Yeah. And so you've got in the UK, in Australia, the EU really has led the way. 2018, the EU passes GDPR, which is a privacy set of rules, which we are still behind seven years later. But you've got in 2022, 2023, you've got Digital Services Act that passes. You've got Digital Markets Act. And as I understand it, and we've had, you know, we've both been involved in international work on this. And we've heard from folks like Francis Hogan and others about the need for risk-based assessments. And you're well down the rabbit hole on this. But isn't it at a high level? You deploy a technology. You've got to identify material risks. You then have to take reasonable measures to mitigate those risks. That's effectively the duty of care built in. And then ideally, you've got the ability for third parties, either civil society or some public office that has the ability to audit whether you have adequately identified and disclosed material risks and whether you have taken reasonable steps to mitigate.Taylor Owen16:04-16:05That's like how I have it in my head.Nate Erskine-Smith16:05-16:06I mean, that's it.Taylor Owen16:08-16:14Write it down. Fill in the legislation. Well, I mean, that process happened. I know. That's right. I know.Nate Erskine-Smith16:14-16:25Exactly. Which people, I want to get to that because C63 gets us a large part of the way there. I think so. And yet has been sort of like cast aside.Taylor Owen16:25-17:39Exactly. Let's touch on that. But I do think what you described as the online harms piece of this governance agenda. When you look at what the EU has done, they have put in place the various building blocks for what a broad digital governance agenda might look like. Because the reality of this space, which we talked about last time, and it's the thing that's infuriating about digital policy, is that you can't do one thing. There's no – digital economy and our digital lives are so vast and the incentives and the effect they have on society is so broad that there's no one solution. So anyone who tells you fix privacy policy and you'll fix all the digital problems we just talked about are full of it. Anyone who says competition policy, like break up the companies, will solve all of these problems. is wrong, right? Anyone who says online harms policy, which we'll talk about, fixes everything is wrong. You have to do all of them. And Europe has, right? They updated their privacy policy. They've been to build a big online harms agenda. They updated their competition regime. And they're also doing some AI policy too, right? So like you need comprehensive approaches, which is not an easy thing to do, right? It means doing three big things all over.Nate Erskine-Smith17:39-17:41Especially minority parlance, short periods of time, legislatively.Taylor Owen17:41-18:20Different countries have taken different pieces of it. Now, on the online harms piece, which is what the previous government took really seriously, and I think it's worth putting a point on that, right, that when we talked last was the beginning of this process. After we spoke, there was a national expert panel. There were 20 consultations. There were four citizens' assemblies. There was a national commission, right? Like a lot of work went into looking at what every other country had done because this is a really wicked, difficult problem and trying to learn from what Europe, Australia and the UK had all done. And we kind of taking the benefit of being late, right? So they were all ahead of us.Taylor18:21-18:25People you work with on that grant committee. We're all quick and do our own consultations.Taylor Owen18:26-19:40Exactly. And like the model that was developed out of that, I think, was the best model of any of those countries. And it's now seen as internationally, interestingly, as the new sort of milestone that everybody else is building on, right? And what it does is it says if you're going to launch a digital product, right, like a consumer-facing product in Canada, you need to assess risk. And you need to assess risk on these broad categories of harms that we have decided as legislators we care about or you've decided as legislators you cared about, right? Child safety, child sexual abuse material, fomenting violence and extremist content, right? Like things that are like broad categories that we've said are we think are harmful to our democracy. All you have to do as a company is a broad assessment of what could go wrong with your product. If you find something could go wrong, so let's say, for example, let's use a tangible example. Let's say you are a social media platform and you are launching a product that's going to be used by kids and it allows adults to contact kids without parental consent or without kids opting into being a friend. What could go wrong with that?Nate Erskine-Smith19:40-19:40Yeah.Taylor19:40-19:43Like what could go wrong? Yeah, a lot could go wrong.Taylor Owen19:43-20:27And maybe strange men will approach teenage girls. Maybe, right? Like if you do a risk assessment, that is something you might find. You would then be obligated to mitigate that risk and show how you've mitigated it, right? Like you put in a policy in place to show how you're mitigating it. And then you have to share data about how these tools are used so that we can monitor, publics and researchers can monitor whether that mitigation strategy worked. That's it. In that case, that feature was launched by Instagram in Canada without any risk assessment, without any safety evaluation. And we know there was like a widespread problem of teenage girls being harassed by strange older men.Taylor20:28-20:29Incredibly creepy.Taylor Owen20:29-20:37A very easy, but not like a super illegal thing, not something that would be caught by the criminal code, but a harm we can all admit is a problem.Taylor20:37-20:41And this kind of mechanism would have just filtered out.Taylor Owen20:41-20:51Default settings, right? And doing thinking a bit before you launch a product in a country about what kind of broad risks might emerge when it's launched and being held accountable to do it for doing that.Nate Erskine-Smith20:52-21:05Yeah, I quite like the we I mean, maybe you've got a better read of this, but in the UK, California has pursued this. I was looking at recently, Elizabeth Denham is now the Jersey Information Commissioner or something like that.Taylor Owen21:05-21:06I know it's just yeah.Nate Erskine-Smith21:07-21:57I don't random. I don't know. But she is a Canadian, for those who don't know Elizabeth Denham. And she was the information commissioner in the UK. And she oversaw the implementation of the first age-appropriate design code. That always struck me as an incredibly useful approach. In that even outside of social media platforms, even outside of AI, take a product like Roblox, where tons of kids use it. And just forcing companies to ensure that the default settings are prioritizing child safety so that you don't put the onus on parents and kids to figure out each of these different games and platforms. In a previous world of consumer protection, offline, it would have been de facto. Of course we've prioritized consumer safety first and foremost. But in the online world, it's like an afterthought.Taylor Owen21:58-24:25Well, when you say consumer safety, it's worth like referring back to what we mean. Like a duty of care can seem like an obscure concept. But your lawyer is a real thing, right? Like you walk into a store. I walk into your office. I have an expectation that the bookshelves aren't going to fall off the wall and kill me, right? And you have to bolt them into the wall because of that, right? Like that is a duty of care that you have for me when I walk into your public space or private space. Like that's all we're talking about here. And the age-appropriate design code, yes, like sort of developed, implemented by a Canadian in the UK. And what it says, it also was embedded in the Online Harms Act, right? If we'd passed that last year, we would be implementing an age-appropriate design code as we speak, right? What that would say is any product that is likely to be used by a kid needs to do a set of additional things, not just these risk assessments, right? But we think like kids don't have the same rights as adults. We have different duties to protect kids as adults, right? So maybe they should do an extra set of things for their digital products. And it includes things like no behavioral targeting, no advertising, no data collection, no sexual adult content, right? Like kind of things that like – Seem obvious. And if you're now a child in the UK and you open – you go on a digital product, you are safer because you have an age-appropriate design code governing your experience online. Canadian kids don't have that because that bill didn't pass, right? So like there's consequences to this stuff. and I get really frustrated now when I see the conversation sort of pivoting to AI for example right like all we're supposed to care about is AI adoption and all the amazing things AI is going to do to transform our world which are probably real right like not discounting its power and just move on from all of these both problems and solutions that have been developed to a set of challenges that both still exist on social platforms like they haven't gone away people are still using these tools and the harms still exist and probably are applicable to this next set of technologies as well. So this moving on from what we've learned and the work that's been done is just to the people working in this space and like the wide stakeholders in this country who care about this stuff and working on it. It just, it feels like you say deja vu at the beginning and it is deja vu, but it's kind of worse, right? Cause it's like deja vu and then ignoring theTaylor24:25-24:29five years of work. Yeah, deja vu if we were doing it again. Right. We're not even, we're not evenTaylor Owen24:29-24:41Well, yeah. I mean, hopefully I actually am not, I'm actually optimistic, I would say that we will, because I actually think of if for a few reasons, like one, citizens want it, right? Like.Nate Erskine-Smith24:41-24:57Yeah, I was surprised on the, so you mentioned there that the rules that we design, the risk assessment framework really applied to social media could equally be applied to deliver AI safety and it could be applied to new technology in a useful way.Taylor Owen24:58-24:58Some elements of it. Exactly.Nate Erskine-Smith24:58-25:25I think AI safety is a broad bucket of things. So let's get to that a little bit because I want to pull the pieces together. So I had a constituent come in the office and he is really like super mad. He's super mad. Why is he mad? Does that happen very often? Do people be mad when they walk into this office? Not as often as you think, to be honest. Not as often as you think. And he's mad because he believes Mark Carney ripped him off.Taylor Owen25:25-25:25Okay.Nate Erskine-Smith25:25-26:36Okay. Yep. He believes Mark Carney ripped him off, not with broken promise in politics, not because he said one thing and is delivering something else, nothing to do with politics. He saw a video online, Mark Carney told him to invest money. He invested money and he's out the 200 bucks or whatever it was. And I was like, how could you possibly have lost money in this way? This is like, this was obviously a scam. Like what, how could you have been deceived? But then I go and I watched the video And it is, okay, I'm not gonna send the 200 bucks and I've grown up with the internet, but I can see how- Absolutely. In the same way, phone scams and Nigerian princes and all of that have their own success rate. I mean, this was a very believable video that was obviously AI generated. So we are going to see rampant fraud. If we aren't already, we are going to see many challenges with respect to AI safety. What over and above the risk assessment piece, what do we do to address these challenges?Taylor Owen26:37-27:04So that is a huge problem, right? Like the AI fraud, AI video fraud is a huge challenge. In the election, when we were monitoring the last election, by far the biggest problem or vulnerability of the election was a AI generated video campaign. that every day would take videos of Polyevs and Carney's speeches from the day before and generate, like morph them into conversations about investment strategies.Taylor27:05-27:07And it was driving people to a crypto scam.Taylor Owen27:08-27:11But it was torquing the political discourse.Taylor27:11-27:11That's what it must have been.Taylor Owen27:12-27:33I mean, there's other cases of this, but that's probably, and it was running rampant on particularly meta platforms. They were flagged. They did nothing about it. There were thousands of these videos circulating throughout the entire election, right? And it's not like the end of the world, right? Like nobody – but it torqued our political debate. It ripped off some people. And these kinds of scams are –Taylor27:33-27:38It's clearly illegal. It's clearly illegal. It probably breaks his election law too, misrepresenting a political figure, right?Taylor Owen27:38-27:54So I think there's probably an Elections Canada response to this that's needed. And it's fraud. And it's fraud, absolutely. So what do you do about that, right? And the head of the Canadian Banking Association said there's like billions of dollars in AI-based fraud in the Canadian economy right now. Right? So it's a big problem.Taylor27:54-27:55Yeah.Taylor Owen27:55-28:46I actually think there's like a very tangible policy solution. You put these consumer-facing AI products into the Online Harms Act framework, right? And then you add fraud and AI scams as a category of harm. And all of a sudden, if you're meta and you are operating in Canada during an election, you'd have to do a risk assessment on like AI fraud potential of your product. Responsibility for your platform. And then it starts to circulate. We would see it. They'd be called out on it. They'd have to take it down. And like that's that, right? Like so that we have mechanisms for dealing with this. But it does mean evolving what we worked on over the past five years, these like only harms risk assessment models and bringing in some of the consumer facing AI, both products and related harms into the framework.Nate Erskine-Smith28:47-30:18To put it a different way, I mean, so this is years ago now that we had this, you know, grand committee in the UK holding Facebook and others accountable. This really was creating the wake of the Cambridge Analytica scandal. And the platforms at the time were really holding firm to this idea of Section 230 and avoiding host liability and saying, oh, we couldn't possibly be responsible for everything on our platform. And there was one problem with that argument, which is they completely acknowledged the need for them to take action when it came to child pornography. And so they said, yeah, well, you know, no liability for us. But of course, there can be liability on this one specific piece of content and we'll take action on this one specific piece of content. And it always struck me from there on out. I mean, there's no real intellectual consistency here. It's more just what should be in that category of things that they should take responsibility for. And obviously harmful content like that should be – that's an obvious first step but obvious for everyone. But there are other categories. Fraud is another one. When they're making so much money, when they are investing so much money in AI, when they're ignoring privacy protections and everything else throughout the years, I mean, we can't leave it up to them. And setting a clear set of rules to say this is what you're responsible for and expanding that responsibility seems to make a good amount of sense.Taylor Owen30:18-30:28It does, although I think those responsibilities need to be different for different kinds of harms. Because there are different speech implications and apocratic implications of sort of absolute solutions to different kinds of content.Taylor30:28-30:30So like child pornography is a great example.Taylor Owen30:30-31:44In the Online Harms Bill Act, for almost every type of content, it was that risk assessment model. But there was a carve out for child sexual abuse material. So including child pornography. And for intimate images and videos shared without consent. It said the platforms actually have a different obligation, and that's to take it down within 24 hours. And the reason you can do it with those two kinds of content is because if we, one, the AI is actually pretty good at spotting it. It might surprise you, but there's a lot of naked images on the internet that we can train AI with. So we're actually pretty good at using AI to pull this stuff down. But the bigger one is that we are, I think, as a society, it's okay to be wrong in the gray area of that speech, right? Like if something is like debatable, whether it's child pornography, I'm actually okay with us suppressing the speech of the person who sits in that gray area. Whereas for something like hate speech, it's a really different story, right? Like we do not want to suppress and over index for that gray area on hate speech because that's going to capture a lot of reasonable debate that we probably want.Nate Erskine-Smith31:44-31:55Yeah, I think soliciting investment via fraud probably falls more in line with the child pornography category where it's, you know, very obviously illegal.Taylor Owen31:55-32:02And that mechanism is like a takedown mechanism, right? Like if we see fraud, if we know it's fraud, then you take it down, right? Some of these other things we have to go with.Nate Erskine-Smith32:02-32:24I mean, my last question really is you pull the threads together. You've got these different pieces that were introduced in the past. And you've got a government that lots of similar folks around the table, but a new government and a new prime minister certainly with a vision for getting the most out of AI when it comes to our economy.Taylor32:24-32:25Absolutely.Nate Erskine-Smith32:25-33:04You have, for the first time in this country, an AI minister, a junior minister to industry, but still a specific title portfolio and with his own deputy minister and really wants to be seized with this. And in a way, I think that from every conversation I've had with him that wants to maximize productivity in this country using AI, but is also cognizant of the risks and wants to address AI safety. So where from here? You know, you've talked in the past about sort of a grander sort of tech accountability and sovereignty act. Do we do piecemeal, you know, a privacy bill here and an AI safety bill and an online harms bill and we have disparate pieces? What's the answer here?Taylor Owen33:05-34:14I mean, I don't have the exact answer. But I think there's some like, there's some lessons from the past that we can, this government could take. And one is piecemeal bills that aren't centrally coordinated or have no sort of connectivity between them end up with piecemeal solutions that are imperfect and like would benefit from some cohesiveness between them, right? So when the previous government released ADA, the AI Act, it was like really intention in some real ways with the online harms approach. So two different departments issuing two similar bills on two separate technologies, not really talking to each other as far as I can tell from the outside, right? So like we need a coordinating, coordinated, comprehensive effort to digital governance. Like that's point one and we've never had it in this country. And when I saw the announcement of an AI minister, my mind went first to that he or that office could be that role. Like you could – because AI is – it's cross-cutting, right? Like every department in our federal government touches AI in one way or another. And the governance of AI and the adoption on the other side of AI by society is going to affect every department and every bill we need.Nate Erskine-Smith34:14-34:35So if Evan pulled in the privacy pieces that would help us catch up to GDPR. Which it sounds like they will, right? Some version of C27 will probably come back. If he pulls in the online harms pieces that aren't related to the criminal code and drops those provisions, says, you know, Sean Frazier, you can deal with this if you like. But these are the pieces I'm holding on to.Taylor Owen34:35-34:37With a frame of consumer safety, right?Nate Erskine-Smith34:37-34:37Exactly.Taylor Owen34:38-34:39If he wants...Nate Erskine-Smith34:39-34:54Which is connected to privacy as well, right? Like these are all... So then you have thematically a bill that makes sense. And then you can pull in as well the AI safety piece. And then it becomes a consumer protection bill when it comes to living our lives online. Yeah.Taylor Owen34:54-36:06And I think there's an argument whether that should be one bill or whether it's multiple ones. I actually don't think it... I think there's cases for both, right? There's concern about big omnibus bills that do too many things and too many committees reviewing them and whatever. that's sort of a machinery of government question right but but the principle that these should be tied together in a narrative that the government is explicit about making and communicating to publics right that if if you we know that 85 percent of canadians want ai to be regulated what do they mean what they mean is at the same time as they're being told by our government by companies that they should be using and embracing this powerful technology in their lives they're also seeing some risks. They're seeing risks to their kids. They're being told their jobs might disappear and might take their... Why should I use this thing? When I'm seeing some harms, I don't see you guys doing anything about these harms. And I'm seeing some potential real downside for me personally and my family. So even in the adoption frame, I think thinking about data privacy, safety, consumer safety, I think to me, that's the real frame here. It's like citizen safety, consumer safety using these products. Yeah, politically, I just, I mean, that is what it is. It makes sense to me.Nate Erskine-Smith36:06-36:25Right, I agree. And really lean into child safety at the same time. Because like I've got a nine-year-old and a five-year-old. They are growing up with the internet. And I do not want to have to police every single platform that they use. I do not want to have to log in and go, these are the default settings on the parental controls.Taylor36:25-36:28I want to turn to government and go, do your damn job.Taylor Owen36:28-36:48Or just like make them slightly safer. I know these are going to be imperfect. I have a 12-year-old. He spends a lot of time on YouTube. I know that's going to always be a place with sort of content that I would prefer he doesn't see. But I would just like some basic safety standards on that thing. So he's not seeing the worst of the worst.Nate Erskine-Smith36:48-36:58And we should expect that. Certainly at YouTube with its promotion engine, the recommendation function is not actively promoting terrible content to your 12 year old.Taylor Owen36:59-37:31Yeah. That's like de minimis. Can we just torque this a little bit, right? So like maybe he's not seeing content about horrible content about Charlie Kirk when he's a 12 year old on YouTube, right? Like, can we just do something? And I think that's a reasonable expectation as a citizen. But it requires governance. That will not – and that's – it's worth putting a real emphasis on that is one thing we've learned in this moment of repeated deja vus going back 20 years really since our experience with social media for sure through to now is that these companies don't self-govern.Taylor37:31-37:31Right.Taylor Owen37:32-37:39Like we just – we know that indisputably. So to think that AI is going to be different is delusional. No, it'll be pseudo-profit, not the public interest.Taylor37:39-37:44Of course. Because that's what we are. These are the largest companies in the world. Yeah, exactly. And AI companies are even bigger than the last generation, right?Taylor Owen37:44-38:00We're creating something new with the scale of these companies. And to think that their commercial incentives and their broader long-term goals of around AI are not going to override these safety concerns is just naive in the nth degree.Nate Erskine-Smith38:00-38:38But I think you make the right point, and it's useful to close on this, that these goals of realizing the productivity possibilities and potentials of AI alongside AI safety, these are not mutually exclusive or oppositional goals. that it's you create a sandbox to play in and companies will be more successful. And if you have certainty in regulations, companies will be more successful. And if people feel safe using these tools and having certainly, you know, if I feel safe with my kids learning these tools growing up in their classrooms and everything else, you're going to adoption rates will soar. Absolutely. And then we'll benefit.Taylor Owen38:38-38:43They work in tandem, right? And I think you can't have one without the other fundamentally.Nate Erskine-Smith38:45-38:49Well, I hope I don't invite you back five years from now when we have the same conversation.Taylor Owen38:49-38:58Well, I hope you invite me back in five years, but I hope it's like thinking back on all the legislative successes of the previous five years. I mean, that'll be the moment.Taylor38:58-38:59Sounds good. Thanks, David. Thanks. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.uncommons.ca

Send us a textJudgment day looms for Bonnie Crombie.The Ontario Liberal leader faces a mandatory leadership review at the party's annual general meeting this weekend, and it's certainly not certain which way the vote will go.Although Crombie has admitted to being caught off guard by Doug Ford's snap election call — and faced criticism for making health care the centrepiece of her party's platform — the Liberals did win enough seats to regain official party status.We'll know by Sunday night if the party faithful still have faith.SEE: Should she stay or should she go? Liberals split on Bonnie Crombie ahead of voteJoining us on tonight's Closer Look podcast are two journalists from The Trillium who will be covering this weekend's Liberal get-together: Editor-in-Chief Jessica Smith Cross and reporter Steve Cornwell.In case you missed it, tonight's show also includes snippets from our recent interviews with both Crombie and Nate Erskine-Smith, a former leadership rival who has been very vocal about the need for a new voice at the top of the party.VIDEO: Nate Erskine-Smith tells us why Bonnie Crombie needs to goVIDEO: ‘I'm not going anywhere': Bonnie Crombie tells us why she should keep her jobHosted by Village Media's Michael Friscolanti and Scott Sexsmith, and produced by Derek Turner, Closer Look is a new daily podcast that goes way beyond the headlines with insightful, in-depth conversations featuring our reporters and editors, leading experts, key stakeholders and big newsmakers.Fresh episodes drop every Monday to Friday at 7 p.m. right in your local news feed — and on the show's dedicated website: closerlookpodcast.ca. Of course, you can also find us wherever you get your favourite podcasts.Want to be the first to know when a new episode lands? Sign up for our free nightly newsletter, which delivers the latest Closer Look straight to your email inbox. You can also subscribe to our YouTube channel or follow us on X, Instagram, Facebook and TikTok.Have something to say? Please reach out. Our email address is closerlook@villagemedia.ca.

Send us a textTonight on Village Media's new daily podcast: Ontario's Liberal leader concedes that 'mistakes were made' during the last election, but she has every intention of steering her party into the next campaign.Bonnie Crombie acknowledges that “mistakes were made” during the last provincial election, but the Liberal leader insists she is the best person to steer her party into the next campaign — whenever that happens to be.Crombie — who faces a mandatory leadership review at next month's annual general meeting of the Ontario Liberal Party — has faced some recent heat from fellow Liberals, including former leadership rival Nate Erskine-Smith.Although party rules demand that a leader receive support from more than 50 per cent of delegates in order to stay on the job, Erskine-Smith says Crombie should resign if she doesn't garner at least two-thirds. During an interview with Village Media's new Closer Look podcast, Crombie would not specify how much support is enough for her. But she insisted she is "not going anywhere.”“I'm here to say we have listened, we acknowledge mistakes were made, and we are prepared to rebuild and revitalize and move forward together,” she told the podcast. “We need to be united against our common opponent, not against each other.”You can watch Crombie's full interview in the video clip above.Hosted by Village Media's Michael Friscolanti and Scott Sexsmith, Closer Look is a new daily podcast that goes way beyond the headlines with insightful, in-depth conversations featuring our reporters and editors, leading experts, key stakeholders and big newsmakers.New episodes of Closer Look drop every Monday to Friday at 7 p.m. across the Village Media network, or wherever you find your favourite podcasts. Be sure to subscribe to our YouTube channel or follow us on X, Instagram, Facebook and TikTok.Have something to say? You can reach us at closerlook@villagemedia.ca.

For the second time in as many elections, Pierre Poilievre will have to contend with an enormous number of opponents. After the Longest Ballot Committee organized to expand the list of names to 91 candidates in Carleton, they've now boosted their efforts to push the roster of candidates to over 200 ahead of the Battle River–Crowfoot byelection.Will it be the final straw before changes are made to the election laws? And what impact could it have on the race?This week on The Numbers, we delve into the absurd byelection in Alberta. We also discuss some of the latest federal polling, as well as a trio of provincial byelections added to the calendar in Prince Edward Island and Manitoba and a face-off between Bonnie Crombie and Nate Erskine-Smith that is brewing within the Ontario Liberal Party. Then, Philippe takes us back to a time when “the land was strong” in this week's edition of The Quiz.Looking for even more of The Numbers? If you join our Patreon and support this joint project of ours, you'll get ad-free episodes every week, bonus episodes several times per month and access to our lively Discord. Join here! https://www.patreon.com/cw/thenumberspodThe bonus episodes are also available via an Apple Podcasts subscription.You can also watch this episode on YouTube. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Send us a textBonnie Crombie is set to face a leadership review at the Ontario Liberal Party's annual general meeting in September — and one former rival has some well-publicized thoughts about what should happen.In a Substack post last week, Nate Erskine-Smith — a Toronto MP who finished second in the 2023 leadership race — said Crombie should resign if she doesn't receive at least two-thirds of support from Liberal delegates.“We need change,” Erskine-Smith wrote, adding “that renewal starts at the top.”Not surprisingly, his comments triggered some headlines (and some pushback from Ontario MPPs).A guest on tonight's ‘Closer Look' podcast, Erskine-Smith insisted he is speaking out for the good of the party, not himself. He was also adamant that he hasn't made a decision on whether he would run in another leadership race, should Crombie not survive the September review.“We saw at the federal level the importance of changing leaders in a particular moment,” he said. “And anyone looking at the last provincial campaign honestly would say we didn't do as well as we could or should have.”The Liberals did increase their seat count in the last election (14) and regained official status in the Legislature, but Crombie failed to win the riding of Mississauga East Cooksville.“We need a new leader who is going to energize people, motivate people, inspire people to get involved in our politics — to articulate a set of ideas and values that is going to inspire people to get involved in our politics — and to really prosecute a case for change,” Erskine-Smith said.Would he run again?“Maybe,” he replied. “Of course I have an interest. I hope there are others too.”Hosted by Village Media's Michael Friscolanti and Scott Sexsmith, 'Closer Look' is a new daily podcast goes beyond the headlines with insightful, in-depth conversations featuring our reporters and editors, leading experts, key stakeholders and big newsmakers.New episodes of ‘Closer Look' drop every Monday to Friday at 7 p.m. across the Village Media network. You can find every episode HERE or wherever you listen to your favourite podcasts.Have something to say? You can reach us at closerlook@villagemedia.ca.

Greg Brady spoke with Nate Erskine-Smith, MP for Beaches—East York about his criticism of Liberal Provincial leader Bonnie Crombie. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Greg Brady spoke with Nate Erskine-Smith, MP for Beaches—East York about his criticism of Liberal Provincial leader Bonnie Crombie. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Greg Brady and the panel of: Kim Wright, Founder and Principal of Wright Strategies Anthony Furey, columnist, 640 Toronto Contributor Discuss: 1.They just changed it in the UK - voting age drops to 16…..there's a Liberal MP who would like to see the same thing her. 2.That same MP - is Nate Erskine-Smith - he's gone public…..he wants Bonnie Crombie out as Ontario Liberal Leader 3.The cancellation of Stephen Colbert's ‘Late Show' is a warning for comedy's future. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Greg Brady and the panel of: Kim Wright, Founder and Principal of Wright Strategies Anthony Furey, columnist, 640 Toronto Contributor Discuss: 1.They just changed it in the UK - voting age drops to 16…..there's a Liberal MP who would like to see the same thing her. 2.That same MP - is Nate Erskine-Smith - he's gone public…..he wants Bonnie Crombie out as Ontario Liberal Leader 3.The cancellation of Stephen Colbert's ‘Late Show' is a warning for comedy's future. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Until the trade war began, one of the most pressing issues in the country was the housing crisis. Ontario alone identified the need to build upwards of 1.5 million new homes by 2031. The federal government put billions on the table in several previous budgets, as have the provinces. But, affordability and homelessness so far haven't shown much improvement. Steve Paikin sits down with Nate Erskine-Smith, the federal Minister of Housing, Infrastructure and Communities and the Liberal MP for Beaches-East York, to find out what the federal government intends to do about the housing crisis during uncertain economic and political times.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Nate Erskine-Smith, Canada’s Minister of Housing, Infrastructure and Communities

Nate and Carolyn Whitzman talk about her recent book Home Truths, Canada's housing needs, and different historical and international approaches that should inform how we build market, non-market, and supportive housing. Carolyn is a housing and social policy researcher, an expert advisor to UBC's Housing Assessment Resource Tools, and a senior housing researcher at U of T's School of Cities. She is also the author of Home Truths, Fixing Canada's Housing Crisis.How many homes do we need to build? How should we go about building them? And who should we be serving?Chapters:00:00 Introduction to Housing Crisis in Canada01:52 Understanding Housing Needs Assessments05:14 Historical Context of Housing in Canada09:09 Long-Term Solutions for Housing16:10 Market vs. Non-Market Housing22:24 Addressing NIMBYism and Zoning Reform27:39 International Examples of Non-Market Housing34:53 Financing Non-Market Housing39:56 Protecting Renters and Tenant Rights41:21 Addressing Homelessness with Compassion46:39 Conclusion and Future DirectionsTranscript:Nate:Welcome to Uncommons. I'm Nate Erskine-Smith. For those of you who are tuning in more recently, I'm the Member of Parliament for Beaches-East York. And this Uncommons podcast is a series of interviews with experts in their respective fields with colleagues of mine in parliament really focused on Canadian politics and policy in relation to that politics.And today I'm joined by Carolyn Whitzman. She is an expert in housing policy, one of the most important issues at all levels of government that need to be addressed in a comprehensive, serious way. You'll hear all politicians sort of trip over themselves with different housing plans.And the question for Carolyn is, how many homes do we need to build? How should we go about building them? And who should we be serving? And how are we going to get out of this housing crisis that this country faces and that all regions face in their own respective ways?Now, Carolyn is a housing and social policy researcher. She's an expert advisor to UBC's housing assessment resource tools. She's a senior housing researcher at U of T's School of Cities. And most importantly, having just read her book, she is the author of Home Truths, Fixing Canada's Housing Crisis.Nate:Carolyn, thanks for joining me.Caroyln:Great to join you, Nate.Nate:So you came highly recommended to me by virtue of Mark Richardson, who's a constituent and an advocate on housing and someone I, you know, anything he says on housing is to be believed.And he's, you know, he highly recommended your book, Home Truths, but he also suggested you as a podcast guest. So I really, really appreciate the time. And much of your work, you know, your main work, other than being an expert in all things housing, but a core expertise that you have is really on the needs assessment in terms of what the housing market in Canada needs in particular in different regions. And there are different needs.There are market needs, there are non-market needs, there's deeply affordable needs for people who are experiencing homelessness.And so how would you break down, you know, if you've got Sean Fraser coming to you and saying, what are the needs assessments? How would you break down the needs assessments on housing in this country?Caroyln:Well, funny you should say that because Sean's office and housing and infrastructure has come to me. So I did some work with a project called the Housing Assessment Resource Tools Project based at UBC that was funded by the CMHC that did what the CMHC used to do and unfortunately no longer does, which is look at housing need by income categories.Canada has been doing that since 1944 during World War II when a report by a relatively conservative economist named Curtis said that for low-income people, probably some form of public housing was going to be necessary to meet their needs.For middle-income people, there needed to be a lot more purpose-built rental housing, he said that in 1944. And he also said in 1944 that there needed to be some way to control rent increases and he suggested cooperative housing. And then for higher-income people, definitely scale up while located home ownership.To some extent the Canadian government listened. Between 1944 and 1960, there were about a million homes enabled through government land financing design replication that were for moderate-income starter households.In those days it was mostly one-earner households, like a man at home and a woman, sorry, a woman at home and a man at work. And the homes were two to three bedrooms between $7,000 and $8,000. So pretty remarkably that's like $80,000 to $90,000 in today's terms.Nate:That would be nice.Carolyn:Yeah, wouldn't it be nice? Once they were sold, they lost our affordability.So since then, and certainly in the 1970s and 1980s when the federal government was building, well again enabling, about one in five homes to be built by public housing, cooperative housing, other non-profit housing, that housing was affordable to what they called low- and moderate-income households, so the lowest two quintiles of household income. Home ownership was easily affordable to moderate in most places and middle-income households.So there's always been some housing needs, but there wasn't widespread homelessness. There wasn't the kinds of craziness that you see today where new rental housing isn't affordable to middle-income earners, where new homeowners are limited to the highest quintile, like the highest 20% of population.So we simply use the same kinds of categories, also the kinds of categories that are used in the U.S. and other countries. Low income, moderate income, median income, and then higher income.Unfortunately with provincial social assistance rates being what they are, we have to add a very low income, which is like 20% of median income, and really isn't enough to afford a room let alone an apartment. But yeah, that's the way we look at housing need.Nate:But then, so let's be maybe, that's at a high level for how we look, how we analyze it,and then when we look at the Canadian context today, so you talk about the Curtis Reportpost-war and on my reading of, I found your historical examples very interesting, internationalexamples interesting too, which we'll get to, but this was one of the most interestingones because here you have the Curtis Report proposing annual targets that you say is effectively the equivalent of 4 million homes over 10 years. But then they break this down into a particular categories.Then you've got, you know, two years ago, two and a bit of years ago, you had CMHC issued a report to say we effectively need 5.8 million homes by 2030. So 2.3 million in business as usual. And then you've got this 3.5 million additional homes required. And that's impossible for us to achieve based upon the current trajectory at all levels of government, frankly, but especially at the provincial level.And so when you look at the needs assessment today, so Curtis Report has 4 million over10 years, what do we need today? Is CMHC right?It's 5.8 million, although they don't break it down into these different categories, or should we be more specific to say, as you do, it's 200,000 new or renovated deeply affordable supportive homes over 10 years, and then you've got different categories for market and non-market.Carolyn:Well, I think it's important to prioritize people whose lives are literally being shortened because of lack of housing. So I think that ending homelessness should be a priority. And there's no doubt that we can't end homelessness without a new generation of low-cost housing.So I wouldn't disagree that we need 6,000 new homes. I did a report last year for the Office of the Federal Housing Advocate that argued that we need 3 million new and acquired homes for low-income people alone at rents of about $1,000 a month or less, certainly less if you're on social assistance.So the deed is pretty large. We have to recognize the fact that it's taken 30 to 50 years of inaction, particularly federal inaction, but also the Fed's downloaded to provinces, and as you say, provinces have done an extremely poor job to get there.And I think that what we see from countries that work, like France and Finland, Austria, is that they think in terms of like 30-year infrastructure categories, just like any other infrastructure. If we were to have a really viable public transit system, we'd need to start thinking in terms of what are we going to do over the next 30 years.Similarly, I think we need to look at a kind of 30-year time span when it comes to housing, and I think we need to look once again at that rule of thirds, which is a rule that's used in a lot of, in Germany and again in France and Finland, Denmark, about a third of it needs to be pretty deeply affordable low-income housing, about a third of it needs to be moderate-income rental, but with renter rights to ensure that the rents don't go up precipitously, and about a third of it needs to be for home ownership.Nate:You mentioned a 30-year window a few times there, and it strikes me that we need more honesty in our politics in that there's no quick solution to most of these challenges. That it's, you know, in your telling of the story, which I think is exactly right, this is decades in the making, and it will be decades in undoing this challenge and in addressing this as fulsome as we should.Now, that's not to say, you're right, we should prioritize people whose lives are being shortened by a lack of housing. There's some things we can do immediately to get more rapid housing built and really drive at that in a shorter window of time.But when you look at non-market housing, when you look at the market housing we need to build, no politician should stand at the microphone and say, we're going to build the homes we need without really overhauling how we do things and understanding that these homes are not going to get built tomorrow, that this is putting down track, policy track, to make sure homes get built in the next five years, in the next 10 years and beyond.Carolyn:Absolutely. And I think it's really important to start off with some aspirational goals. Like, forinstance, it was 1987 when Finland said, we're going to end homelessness, and this is how we're going to do it. France in 2000 said 20% of all housing should be non-market, in other words, public cooperative, non-profit.And in both Finland and France, there's been federal government changes as well as changes at the municipal level, etc. And those goals have remained the same through right wing and left wing governments.It does worry me, Nate, when politicians, I won't name any names, use sort of three word slogans, and that's going to somehow change things in the term of the government.Nate:I will will homes into existence by rhyming.Carolyn:So, you know, it takes building up systems, including good information systems to monitor and track how well we're doing and course correct. And that's something kind of basic that's been missing from federal policy as well.There's one report that says there's 655,000 non-market homes. Another report two years later says that there's 980,000 non-market homes and those weren't built in two years. So, you know, what is our current housing stock? How are our policies working to create certain kinds of housing, housing for people with disabilities or housing for seniors?Student housing need wasn't even included in the last few censuses. So, we don't really know how many students need housing at what cost and where. These are all examples of things that would be in a real national housing strategy.Nate:That seems to me like the basics, right? Like you measure why I want to start theconversation with a needs assessment, because if you don't start with that, then you're not working in a serious direction to any end goal.But I was also struck by your book just and you mentioned a couple of international examples and I'll say again, I want to get there, but I want to start the historical examples because part of us we live in this Overton window and we've had the federal government, not this federal government, but previous federal governments walk away from their responsibilities on housing.As you say, the story is a story of downloading responsibilities. There's been some uploading of responsibilities back through the last two national housing strategies as far as it goes, but we could talk about whether there ought to be more of that even and I think there probably should be more fiscal firepower when I look at the international examples and what's spent in France and Germany and other countries.But I was also struck by the historical ability to build in this country. And this is one thing that jumped out, but I'd also be curious what when you were writing this book, like what really jumped out is you as, so we're building fewer homes now than we were in the mid 1970s when the population was half what it is now. I found that absolutely shocking.I also found it shocking if new home construction had stayed at 1970s levels, we'd have an additional 6 to 7 million homes, meaning we'd be where we should be.Carolyn:Yeah, yeah. So what happened? And I think a couple of things happened. One is, and this happened in a couple of countries. It happened in Sweden too.Sweden said, we'll build a million homes in a country of 8 million, which is pretty impressive. And they did. And then they had a slight surplus of homes. They had some vacancies.And instead of going, yay, vacancies, tenants have a choice. They went, oh my God, vacancies,what are we doing? There was also a change of government, of course. So they course corrected.Part of it is that a good housing system includes about 4 to 8% vacancies, just because people move,there's vacancies in between people moving. You want people to have a choice. We know that vacancies help bring rents down in sort of...Nate:And standards up, right?Carolyn:And standards up using classic supply and demand. So we want to see some vacancies. We don't want to have a zero vacancy system. That's number one.Number two is just this increasing belief in the late 1970s and early 1980s. And it came from both the right and the left to distrust government.I think Robert Moses, the chief planner of New York City for decades has a lot to answer for because people started looking at this big, heavy-handed planning and said, we don't want anything of it.And so activists in central cities said, we don't want our heritage knocked down, which I completely understand, but then created such restrictive zoning that only very rich households can live in the majority of well-located neighborhoods in Toronto, for instance.But from the right as well, there was this belief that the market can solve all problems, including the problem of housing for low-income people. And there's never been any proof that that particular contention is true. Whereas there's plenty of evidence that the needs of low-cost, low-income people can only be met through a kind of social perspective.Just like if you said, hey, you have to pay the real costs of healthcare. Well, 20% of you won't be able to, and that's too bad for you. Or everyone needs to pay the real cost of primary education. Well, sorry, many of you will have to remain illiterate.So housing is a basic need, a basic social determinant of health, just as education and healthcare is. And although housing is unlike healthcare and education in that the majority of it is provided by the private sector, just like food, there does need to be some consideration for the fact that everybody needs housing, just like they need healthcare and education and food.Nate:There's a lot there. And really, I think I was on the road a lot last year for an ultimately unsuccessful bid on the provincial leadership side. But I talked about housing a lot because it was, I think it's got to be the overriding focus for all levels of government, but especially provincial governments as it relates to zoning reform.And the line I would use, and I believe in this, I think this is how to articulate it at a high level that governments need to get out of the way on the market side so homes can be built and governments have to get back in the game in a serious way on getting social housing built and public housing built. And at a high level, those are the two objectives.Now, let's start with, there's a lot in what you said on both fronts, but let's start with market housing.You've got a tragic situation where you've got a doubling of home prices, but wages have only increased by 7% over the last five, six years. You've set out a target on this front in your own analysis to say we need 2 million homes with affordable monthly rents.So that's our goal. And to get there, part of this is ending exclusionary zoning. And then every level of government has role to play.The federal government has the Housing Accelerator Fund, which is one of the programs I quite like, although I know it's subject to maybe getting cut under the next government.Carolyn:I do too. I just wish that there was the same kind of conditional funding with provinces. I mean, it seems like the federal government has gone, yeah, let's bully some municipalities and I have no problem with that, or let's provide targets to municipalities.Nate:I'm okay with the firm sort of like carrots and sticks. And in this case, yeah, it's a combination of the two.Carolyn:It is.Nate:And we should be firm with municipalities that don't do their jobs on any restrictive zoning. But when a province can end it with the stroke of a pen across the board, surely we should be even more forceful with provincial governments.Carolyn:Well, let me give the example of supportive housing. So the federal government announcedthe Rapid Housing Initiative, which in many ways has been the most successful national housing strategy program, although it came along as a COVID era additional.Nate:It's the only program I really like talking about, other than the half, the Housing Accelerator Fund, because I can see real results. I can see Toronto, for example, working to change their zoning rules and other municipalities across the province and country, frankly.The Rapid Housing is the only other piece. And there was a housing accelerator or a housing innovation fund, affordable housing innovation fund that was sort of a precursor to it. That's the only program I really point to to show like that's results oriented. There are real outcomes I can point to of homes that have been built where there are people that have moved out of the shelter system that are living in these homes. And, you know, people can debate it, but I see it as a broad success.Carolyn:I'm in furious agreement. It met and exceeded targets. The only problem was that in many cases it was supportive housing or housing with supports. And those supports can't be provided by the federal government.Nate:I know.Carolyn:It's worth of the provincial responsibility. And I think there was a little bit of wishful thinking that the provinces would come along, but in many cases, and Ontario is one of them, they just didn't come along.So what would it be like if the federal government said, okay, as part of our health transfer dollars, we're going to transfer money directly into the health and social support services that we know are necessary in order to keep people with mental and physical health needs housed and we'll just claw it out of the health transfer payment.I think that would be fair. It's still going to the people who need it the most through municipalities, but it would have the impact of showing that these targets are serious and also hopefully pointing provinces towards genuine plans to end homelessness. And the province has so many levers that could help prevent and end homelessness.It has landlord-tenant relations and eviction protection. It has health and social services, which are an essential part of housing for people with disabilities, older people, et cetera. So the province can't wash its hands of the kind of housing policy that the federal government and municipalities are talking about.They are the laggard in terms of the three levels of government, as far as I'm concerned.Nate:Do you think, so I have an example locally of 60 units built modular housing. It was through the Affordable Housing Innovation Fund, that's how I even know it exists, but the precursor to sort of rapid housing.And I think of it as a success. It was some local opposition. It was challenging to get through some of those conversations. There's probably a bit more legwork that could have been done to make sure that it's all single units and it could have been probably, there are demographics to serve that drive this and I do understand that, but I do think in some of these cases, some of the literature I've read suggests that having some mix of single and family units can be helpful in the longer term.I've read some stuff from John Sewell and others. So I don't know, maybe some of that could have been part of the mix in a way to respond to local concerns, but overall it's been a success.And yet the city puts up the parking lot, the feds bring in the capital dollars, it gets built and the missing partner of the table on the wraparound ongoing supports is the province of Ontario.So we fill this locally with a particular project, but it happens everywhere. And you're right. I do think we need to be more forceful on the provincial side. So then what does that look to you?You did in your book suggest a couple of different things. You have a different idea that you propose there, but one piece is around requiring infrastructure dollars. So you have more, you're pushing provinces to add more density in transit oriented areas and you tie federal infrastructure dollars.The half is obviously an example of using some federal dollars to try and change dynamics. We've got now a version of this where there's billions of dollars in loans available to provinces that opt into sort of the BC model, BC bills and doing things in a better way.If you're advising the housing minister on this front, how much more forceful can we be at the federal level around addressing NIMBYism, do you think?Caroyln:Well, I think the big cure to NIMBYism is a lot more front-end work when it comes to community planning.There's some really good work that's been done by a group called Renovate the Public Hearing, NBC. It's a black-clad group out of Simon Fraser and they use citizen juries, for instance, which are randomly chosen individuals in a community. Actually, Mark was part of one many years ago in Toronto out by Jennifer Keesmaat and they make kind of high-level decisions around planning.Usually people, just everyday people off the street, given all the facts and all the evidence, will make pretty good decisions. But I don't think that residents should be asked to make decisions about every single development. I think there needs to be a lot more enabling environment quite radically, I suppose.I think that four stories as of right with unlimited units would allow a whole new generation of small apartment buildings.Nate:That seems the minimum, by the way, so this is something that, you know, the half pushes and other changes have been proposed by other municipal leaders are on four stories as of right. Sorry, four units.Carolyn:It's not four units, it's four stories.Nate:Okay, so four stories would be more radical, but it's certainly less radical though than, the example I love from your book was Japan, which has incredibly permissive zoning rules that is rightly focused their zoning permissions on nuisances and real nuisances that affect quality of life, and not just they keep certain people out of this community and keep my property values up.Carolyn:And that's about mix as well. That's about having small grocery stores next to homes, next to trial care centers, next to high schools or whatever.So I think a lot of the land use zoning is infamously two-dimensional. Like it says, this is what the land use will bein this particular area. And that's really problematic in terms of the kind of walkable communities that many of us are talking about as well as transit-oriented communities.Of course,the minimum heights would need to be greater near transit stations and even bus stops, I'd argue, but certainly that sort of baseline that would allow, they'd allow multiplexes, they'd allow people to build granny flats and give the main house to one of their kids or two of their kids if the kids subdivided or whatever.I think that that's sort of the retail change that needs to happen. There's sort of the wholesale change, which are big new developments on government land or near transit stations, et cetera.But the sort of retail change is really important. A lot of neighborhoods in Toronto, and I know you live in Toronto, have lower densities than they did 30 years ago. They have smaller households, more single-person households, et cetera. So the built form needs to, you know, we need to have a lot more flexible housing to make a long story short.And even if in the best case scenario, non-market housing was 20% of all housing, 80% would still be provided by the private sector. It's really hard for homeowners to say, hey, I'm going to subdivide into three units.The municipal government makes it difficult through approvals and development taxes. Finance providers say, what's your experience as a developer? You know, so I think we need a far more enabling environment to make the kind of changes we need.Nate:Well, my last comment I would say on the market side is, and density, and in general, and encouraging density. It does strike me, one other tool that the feds could potentially use is when we, one thing is, you know, okay, tying infrastructure dollars to density around transit. That seems like no brainer stuff.But there's also when the mayor of Norfolk County comes to me and says, we need real investments in wastewater. Well, great. Federal investments on the infrastructure side tied to some action on density. And I think different municipalities will have different needs.And similarly, some municipalities may balk to go, well, if we add so much density, well, how do we manage the healthcare capacity in these areas, the school capacity in these areas, the childcare capacity in these areas.And so there are infrastructure related needs to adding density and the feds and the province are in a much better position to write those large checks to make that happen.Anyway, so I think there's, you know, maybe housing accelerator fund, but just pushed to, you know, the next level even. So it's not just dollars related housing, but it's dollars related infrastructure more broadly.Okay, but on the, you mentioned non-market and I do want to spend a good amount of time on that, because I actually think that is the missing piece. We can talk about market housing forever, but you rightly know in your book that, you know, market housing is not going to get us out of the crisis that we're in, especially for so many people who can never imagine owning a home right now, given where home prices are at and how much they've run away from wages.And I want you to talk a little bit about, for those who maybe don't get through, who don't get to your book, the examples, you mentioned France, you mentioned, there's a range of different examples in your book though, focus on non-market housing. We used to do this in Canada in a more serious way.What are some of the things we should be doing that other countries do in this space? What would be your top three, four or five hit lists of, you know, France does this and Denmark does this, and if Canada really wanted to re-energize, writing big checks is one of it, but if Canada really wanted to re-energize the space, what's your hit list?Carolyn:Well, one of them is something I'm working on today, actually, in response to a request from the federal government, which is, what's the capacity of developers across Canada to create large-scale developments on government land? So, there are some really exciting large-scale developments.In Vancouver alone, there's SINOC, which is a Squamish-led development that's going to produce 6,000 apartments, very well located next to Burrard Bridge, as well as Jericho Lands, which again is Canada Lands Company plus three First Nations. Those are the kinds of large-scale development that can really show a way forward.And if you look at St. Lawrence neighborhood, people used to come from all over the world to look at St. Lawrence neighborhood. What an amazing development that was, 50 years old now, and 4,000 homes, a third each, public housing, cooperative housing, condos, again the rule of thirds.It was considered such a radical idea to have schools at the bottom and grocery stores at the bottom and a church and a pub and a restaurant and everything at the bottom, but it really works knit along that linear park. It's still a really lovely neighborhood, and it was a game-changer.At that time, talking about families living in eight-story buildings was considered, you know, crazy radical stuff, but it worked. So, we need about 100 more St. Lawrence neighborhoods, and then we need a lot of small-scale enablers such as, as I say, four-story buildings that I was recently on the housing industry task force, and there's so many innovative prefabricated housing producers, and they said all we need is a certain level of guaranteed demand.We'll build the factories, we'll hire the people, and of course you get a much more diverse labor force working for factories than you might in construction industries.The construction industry right now is an aging population with a high level of retirements expected, so we need prefab housing.Prefab housing can be awesome. What would it be like if the federal government did a guaranteed order of, I don't know, 200,000 homes a year, most ambitiously. Okay, let's call it 50,000, be a little bit less ambitious.We know already that modular student housing works in Quebec. UTILE builds affordable student homes really cheaply using modular. We know that the Rapid Housing Initiative was on the back of a kind of four-story special with the ground floor being community services and the social workers, and three stories of housing above it.So, we have those kinds of models that will work nationally, and if you did that sort of a pre-order, you could really build up Canada's prefab industry in a really exciting way. It's really important for the north where construction seasons are slow.You know, it ticks so many boxes.Nate:Yeah, it really does. I like that idea a lot.Well, and one thing that struck me, I mentioned Denmark. One thing that struck me was, but before we get to Denmark, actually the stat from France struck me, and people should know, so France produces 110,000 non-market homes a year, more in one year than the total number of non-market homes created in Canada over the last 24 years.Like, that blew my brain. Like, I just like, what are we even doing here? If France is doing that and we're doing this, like, whoa, what are we even doing here?Carolyn:It's really important to emphasize how beautiful many of those homes are. I mean, I don't know whether you've been to Paris recently, but I was in Paris.Nate:Not recently, no. Paris. I got kids. It's hard to travel these days.Carolyn:Oh, but you know, you can just offer them a chocolate croissant.Anyhow, so Cazane de Relay, which is on a former military barracks, and it is, it's got student housing, it's got family housing, but it's knitted around in the former, like, Chondemar, the former military parade ground, this beautiful park that has cafes in it.And it's in a very ritzy part of Paris near a subway line, and people love it, because it's an adaptive reuse of space with a beautiful park in the middle of it. Again, you can make beautiful, socially inclined, environmentally sound architecture, and it's nothing to be ashamed of.Nate:Yeah, of course, yeah.Carolyn:For a long time, I mean, people think of the original version of Regent Park, and they think about these very dire projects.But, you know, think about St. Lawrence neighborhood. Think about in Ottawa, Beaver Barracks, which again, has this beautiful set of community gardens in the middle of it, and district heating, and all kinds of cool stuff. We can make beautiful things.Nate:I mentioned France just because it's such a frustrating comparison that they are building so much more. But Denmark, I found an interesting example because it's a practical sort of solution-oriented example.It's not just, this, France is doing way more than Canada, sorry, Canada. But Denmark's National Building Fund provides 45-year mortgages, 30 years to pay off the building costs, and then 15 years to fund the next new project.Other countries have just, if you compare CMHC financing for non-market versus what these other countries are doing, I mean, other countries are just way lower cost and longer-term financing. And that seems like, I don't know, it seems like low-hanging fruit to me. I don't know how much pushback there is from CMHC, but if we can't do that, then we're not going to solve this problem at all.Carolyn:Well, that's the secret sauce. That was the secret sauce in the 1970s and 1980s when up to 20% of new homes were non-market. It was 40-year mortgages at 2% at the time, when crime was 6%.So it is a challenge, or let's put it this way, it's not CMHC as much as it is the finance ministers who tend not to love that.But you can get to the point, it's not just Denmark, it's Austria and France as well, where you have a revolving loan fund and it refreshes itself.And that goes back to our earlier conversation of the need for thinking long-term. Infrastructure financing is always long-term and the payback from infrastructure financing is always long-term.Nate:I want to get to a conversation, sort of conclude with addressing homelessness, but before we get there, just on the protecting renters. We've promised a bill of rights for tenants and that's obviously in some ways tough because the federal jurisdiction is going to require, again, sort of a carrot-stick approach, although interesting again to note the historical example of national rent control, I think it was in the 1940s, but regardless.Carolyn:1940s and 1941 and 1975.Okay, so even more recent than that. You know Pierre, said in 1975, thou shalt have rent control and all the provinces said, okay.Nate:Interesting. And even where we have some rent control, obviously Ontario is a classic example where you've got rent control while the unit is lived in and then there's such a massive disincentive to keep the unit up or to respond to tenant concerns because, oh, if the tenant leaves, shrug my shoulders, I actually make more money because I can now, the rent control disappears.Carolyn:It's a huge incentive for evictions and it was brought in, that exemption vacancy control was brought in by conservative government.Nate:Does not surprise me on that front. So on the protecting renters front, there's a window here at least with the tenants bill of rights, although maybe a short life left in this parliament, but there is a window there.I think there's probably a window to collaborate with the NDP on something like that or the Bloc on something like that to really get something done. So there's at least some space to maybe fulfill on the implementation side.Beyond that space or maybe even in that space, what would you want to see in Canada on renter protections?Carolyn:I'm doing some work right now with an investor group called SHARE, S-H-A-R-E, that is on ESG guidelines for investors in housing. And I think it's really important, we now have environmental guidelines for investment in housing, but we don't yet have social guidelines on investment.And I sometimes think that soft-suasion is as important as we've been talking about the bully function of federal government. I think it is really that I've seen ESG guidelines have a huge impact on investors.I think that unions, to give one specific example, are uncomfortable with the fact that several of their pension funds invest in and actually have entirely owned REITs who evict current and former union members. I think that's an uncomfortable place to be.So I think that investor guidelines are really important and they would be a world first if they were developed in Canada. So that's kind of exciting.What else is needed in terms of tenant rights? Look, countries in Europe, including countries that are majority renter and richer than Canada, Germany, Switzerland, Austria, Denmark, they tend to have longer leases and tend to have far harder roads towards eviction.So it's partly, absolutely rent, some level of rent negotiation. What Denmark does, one of the things I love about Denmark, is it has, it funds tenant unions and the tenant unions negotiate sort of the landlord.Nate:Better bargaining power.Carolyn:It's a bargaining situation and there is an emphasis on fair cost-based rent increases each year, which seems like a fair and transparent process, but also longer leases is part of the trick. I think that you want to create a situation where you can live for a long time as a renter, invest in other forms of requirement savings other than homes.But right now, definitely being a renter is a second class situation and that leads a lot of people to get into really, really scary debt in order to become homeowners. And that's not necessarily a good situation as well, or living very far away from your work or having to move away from where your family is.Nate:Well, it speaks to, and maybe we should have started here instead of finishing here, but it speaks to what are the twin goals in some ways, like what is a home and to deliver for someone that sense of home and shelter and safety.You have a rundown of different things that have to be considered here. But I think what I would want from a policy lens is at a minimum, you want sure there's some semblance of affordability, and you want to make sure that there's security of tenure, that you want to make sure that people, whether they're a tenant, tenants shouldn't be at such a disadvantage here that they don't have security of tenure, that there isn't that stability in their lives and they can't invest in their property in the same way. They can't know that they're going to be near this school and near this workplace, as you say. That is such an essential part of a home that goes, I think, under discussed in our politics in a really big way.I also, just to finish with on a rent supplement side, you don't have to comment on it because I don't want to get to homelessness in the sort of three minutes you got left, but this stuck out to me too.So France, Germany, and Denmark all spend 0.7% of their GDP on just rent supplements. Canada spends less on all housing related expenditures combined. Anyway, your book broke my brain in a number of different ways.Okay, so to finish with homelessness and addressing homelessness, because you've talked about rapid housing, you've talked about industrial, if the government of Canada committed to 50,000 modular units a year or something like that, we know where we could direct them at a minimum, which is to replace encampments with homes.And we now have Premier in Ontario, at least, who's talking about, he hasn't done it yet, but talking about, you know, send me a letter of mayors calling for the use of the notwithstanding clause as if you should replace encampments using the notwithstanding clause instead of just building homes.It's like in support of housing. And so on the homelessness front, this is a problem that needs to be resolved in a compassionate, evidence-based way. And that is the hope. And I hope it doesn't get, it's being weaponized in our politics in a big way. And I hope we can push back against that.And so to do that, but to do that successfully, are we looking at just a broad expansion of the rapid housing program, committing to that industrial building, the modular units, and then hopefully really aggressively pushing the provinces, as you say, on the supportive housing front, knowing that, you know, a housing first approach is the answer?Carolyn:That would help a lot. I mean, Canada, under the Harper government, funded the largest international experiment in housing first, which is simply providing homeless people with a permanent home with the supports that they need. And it worked.You know, it was 3000 people. The rates of people losing their homes was very low. The rates of people staying home and having better health and economic outcomes was huge.But you can't have housing first without having the housing comma first. That's what the films say. So that's what we need. We need a whole new generation of low-cost housing and many cases with supports that people need because such a high number of people who are homeless have various forms of disability.And if they don't have severe physical and mental health issues before they become homeless, they sure get them very quickly once they become homeless. So what we need to do, it's so self-evident when it comes to housing, when it comes to homelessness.And it doesn't just make moral sense. It makes economic sense.Nate:That's the part that bothers me, by the way. It's so frustrating in our politics.I speak to people like the, you know, small business owners who go, this is affecting my ability to earn an income. People are not coming to downtown London in Ontario as much as they were before because we have a homelessness challenge.You've got parks that parents go, that park is supposed to be so my kid can play in that green space, not for an encampment. And you kind of pull your hair out and go, why can't we just build supportive homes?Carolyn:Hospital emergency rooms aren't made to, you know, it's not of efficient use of hospital emergency rooms to get 200 visits a year.Nate:Exactly.Carolyn:You know, so it makes so much sense. I don't understand why at some basic level, why every province doesn't have a plan to end homelessness. It's a shame and it's also dumb.I mean, it's dumb on so many levels. So yeah, I mean, you know, I agree with you. I was reading Jane Philpott's book on Health For All, and I was going, yeah, the answers are pretty darn simple when it comes to health. Why don't we just do it?You know, and to me, the answers are pretty simple when it comes to housing. Why don't we just do it? You know, so I guess this book's Home Truths is intended to say to people, I know it looks really complex and it is, but the answers aren't that hard to figure out. It's not rocket science.Nate:Yeah. My takeaway was very much that, and this is the last data point that I throw at listeners from your book, but this one really stuck out. You talk about housing first approach in Finland and how the Finnish consider it.Over a period from 1985 to 2016, they went from over 2,100 shelter beds to 52. And then how do they do that?Well, they're cutting emergency shelter beds.How? Because they're increasing supportive housing from 127 to over 1,300. And they're replacing what is a reactive emergency response, which is a more expensive response, frankly.They're replacing that with a long-term housing first approach through supportive housing and non-market housing. And again, it seems obvious.The challenge, of course, is we should have started doing this a decade ago, two decades ago yesterday. And I'm not dismissive of the rapid housing program. I'm not dismissive of the housing accelerator fund. I'm not dismissive of the loans and the grants that are going towards and the new co-op fund. I don't want to be dismissive of all that. We're going in the right direction.It does seem, though, that the scale of the direction we're heading in the right direction, the scale is just not where it needs to be to get us to where we need to get in 30 years.Carolyn:Yep. We've done some really good pilot programs, and now it's time to scale it up and have some real targets. And it's been a pleasure talking policy wonk stuff with you, Nate.Nate:Well, that's what this is for. And I do appreciate the book. I'm glad Mark suggested that you'd be a guest because it prompted me to read your book. And I'm a much better advocate on housing for having done so.Carolyn:Well, thank you, Mark.Nate:I say that regularly on the housing file. Anyway, thanks, Carolyn, for your time.Carolyn:Thank you, Nate. Take care. Bye-bye.Nate:Thanks for joining me on this episode of Uncommons. I hope you found, yes, it was adeeper dive in policy, but I hope you found some of those stats interesting. They were eye-popping to me, frankly.I do think we have a certain Overton window in our politics sometimes, including on housing, and understanding historical examples, understanding what happens in other countries can be incredibly informative in helping to shift that window and delivering greater ambition, especially on such an important file.With that, if you have suggestions for guests or future topics, you can reach me at info at beynate.ca. You can reach me online, of course, on an increasingly variety of platforms. I'm on Bluesky now, but you can reach me at beynate on all those channels. And otherwise, otherwise, until next time. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.uncommons.ca

Hon. Nate Erskine-Smith, Liberal MP for Beaches - East York Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Greg Brady focused in a controversial new breakfast program for Toronto students. Next, Chris Selley is a columnist with the National Post. He's here to discuss the fact that we just can't have nice things, thanks to government. Lastly, Nate Erskine-Smith. He's the Liberal MP for Beaches-East York and he definitely was not happy when his integrity was questioned during a committee hearing. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Greg Brady focused in a controversial new breakfast program for Toronto students. Next, Chris Selley is a columnist with the National Post. He's here to discuss the fact that we just can't have nice things, thanks to government. Lastly, Nate Erskine-Smith. He's the Liberal MP for Beaches-East York and he definitely was not happy when his integrity was questioned during a committee hearing. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Canadian farm groups have voiced major concerns regarding a private member’s bill that has quietly reached the second reading stage in the Senate. Bill C-293, introduced in 2022 by Liberal MP and noted vegan, Nate Erskine-Smith, is one of many private member’s bills that have gained traction under the Liberal minority government. The bill would... Read More

Greg Brady focuses in on a historic day in Ontario – the day that alcohol – beer, wine, cider, ready-to-drink cocktails can be sold in convenience stores – finally! We kicked off the conversation with an independent retailer – Terry Yaldo, owner of Midway Convenience and Chair of the Ontario Convenience Store Association, about what this means for his business – and what it was like to make his first beer sale! Next, Jeff Brownlee, VP of stakeholder relations and communications for the Convenience Industry Council of Canada, for an overview of what alcohol sales in corner stores means for the industry – is it make or break? Lastly, Nate Erskine-Smith, MP for Beaches East York and we were talking about the federal NDP breaking up with the Trudeau liberals by ending their confidence agreement – what does this mean for Jagmeet Singh and the Liberal party's future in office? Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Greg (@GregBradyTO) speaks with Nate Erskine-Smith (@beynate), MP for Beaches-East York, about NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh pulling support from the supply-and-confidence agreement with the Liberal government. What does this mean for the NDP moving forward? Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Greg (@GregBradyTO) speaks with Nate Erskine-Smith (@beynate), MP for Beaches-East York, about NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh pulling support from the supply-and-confidence agreement with the Liberal government. What does this mean for the NDP moving forward? Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Greg Brady focuses in on a historic day in Ontario – the day that alcohol – beer, wine, cider, ready-to-drink cocktails can be sold in convenience stores – finally! We kicked off the conversation with an independent retailer – Terry Yaldo, owner of Midway Convenience and Chair of the Ontario Convenience Store Association, about what this means for his business – and what it was like to make his first beer sale! Next, Jeff Brownlee, VP of stakeholder relations and communications for the Convenience Industry Council of Canada, for an overview of what alcohol sales in corner stores means for the industry – is it make or break? Lastly, Nate Erskine-Smith, MP for Beaches East York and we were talking about the federal NDP breaking up with the Trudeau liberals by ending their confidence agreement – what does this mean for Jagmeet Singh and the Liberal party's future in office? Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The spring sitting on Parliament Hill is coming to a close. There's been a lot to keep track of — the wars in Gaza and Ukraine, the introduction of a pharmacare bill, a federal budget that brought big changes to taxes on capital gains — not to mention intelligence reports of foreign interference. On June 3, a report from the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians (NSICOP) revealed that some elected officials were either unwitting or witting participants in foreign interference. Naturally, all this left listeners with a lot of questions. In the season finale of “It's Political,” Toronto Star journalists and David Coletto of Abacus Data join to break down questions from listeners and readers. In this episode: CEO of Abacus Data David Coletto, Toronto Star Deputy Ottawa Bureau Chief Stephanie Levitz, Toronto Star Ottawa Bureau Chief Tonda MacCharles. Hosted by Althia Raj. Clips this week were sourced from the Canadian Parliamentary Press Gallery, CPAC, BNN, CBC, CTV, BBC, Sky News, and City News, Nate Erskine-Smith's Uncommons podcast.  This episode of “It's Political” was produced by Althia Raj and Michal Stein. Kevin Sexton mixed the program. Joy SpearChief-Morris assisted with production. Our theme music is by Isaac Joel.

THE ZOOMER SQUAD: BONNIE IS THE NEW ONTARIO LIBERAL LEADER Jane Brown is joined by Peter Muggeridge, Senior Editor of Zoomer Magazine, Rudy Buttignol, President of CARP and John Wright, Executive Vice President, Maru Public Opinion. It's official: Bonnie Crombie is the new leader of the Ontario Liberal Party. The mayor of Mississauga beat rivals Nate Erskine-Smith and Yasir Naqvi among other contenders. So, what does this mean for the party's future and does she pose a serious threat for Doug Ford?  And, on another note, Moncton's Jewish community wants to know why their city quietly decided to end the display of religious symbols on their property including the lighting of the menorah especially with Hannukah being around the corner. After public outcry, that decision is expected to be revisited by Moncton City Hall today. THE OTTAWA RALLY AGAINST ANTISEMITISM Jane Brown is now joined by Liberal MP Anthony Housefather (Mount Royal) followed by Deputy leader of the Conservative Party Melissa Lantsman (Thornhill). Today, a large pro-Israel rally is congregating at Parliament Hill in Ottawa. Jewish organizations say it is a show of strength against the rising trend of antisemitism. THE “ATMOSPHERIC RIVER” IN BC + A MILDER WINTER? Jane Brown is now joined by Dave Phillips, Senior Climatologist at Environment Canada. The Southern coast of BC is about to get drenched in what is being called an "atmospheric river". That means a greater risk of flooding. Meanwhile, closer to home here in Ontario there is talk of a milder start to the winter thanks to El Niño. Dave weighs in on the latest. Listen live, weekdays from noon to 1, on Zoomer Radio!

This weekend, voting will start for the Ontario Liberal leadership as the contest between Bonnie Crombie, Nate Erskine-Smith, Yasir Naqvi and Ted Hsu reaches its final stage. The result will be announced on December 2. But before the winner is revealed, voting will also take place in the riding of Kitchener Centre, where a provincial byelection is scheduled for November 30.Joining me this week to break down all the latest in Ontario politics are Sabrina Nanji of Queen's Park Observer and Jessica Smith Cross, editor-in-chief at The Trillium.In addition to listening to this episode of The Writ Podcast in your inbox, at TheWrit.ca or on podcast apps like Apple Podcasts, you can also watch this episode on YouTube.If you're looking for this week's extra episode of The Numbers podcast, it is available for Patreon members here. The next regular episode will be in this feed next Friday. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.thewrit.ca/subscribe

Steve Paikin and John Michael McGrath discuss the upcoming Ontario Liberal leadership election. Bonnie Crombie, Nate Erskine-Smith, Ted Hsu, and Yasir Naqvi have made their case as to why they should lead the party into the 2026 election, but we'll have to wait and see who will get the top spot. Stay connected to #onpoli and the latest politics across Ontario and at Queen's Park: https://www.tvo.org/ For questions or to suggest topics, email us at onpolitics@tvo.org Listen to more TVO Podcasts: https://www.tvo.org/podcasts Subscribe to TVO Media Education Group newsletters: https://www.tvo.org/newsletters Subscribe to The Agenda with Steve Paikin on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/theagenda Follow Steve Paikin on Twitter - https://twitter.com/spaikin Follow John Michael McGrath on Twitter - https://twitter.com/jm_mcgrath Get the TVO Today app: App Store: https://apps.apple.com/ca/app/tvo-today/id1616182112 Google Play https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=org.tvo.tvomediaapp&pli=1 See more ways to access The Agenda with Steve Paikin and TVO Today: https://www.tvo.org/tvo-anytime-anywhere TVO Today is a trusted source of insight and information about life in Ontario and beyond. Our award-winning current affairs journalism, documentaries and podcasts explore relevant issues and inspiring solutions. Visit https://www.tvo.org for more.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

RECOVERING POLITICIANS PANEL: WHY THE TRUDEAU LIBERALS ARE TRAILING BEHIND POILIEVRE'S CONSERVATIVES Marissa Lennox is joined by Lisa Raitt, Former Deputy Leader of Conservative Party of Canada, Charles Bird, Managing Principle of Earnscliffe Strategies in Toronto, and Cheri DiNovo, Former Ontario NDP MPP and a recipient of the Order of Canada. Today: A Nanos poll shows that the Trudeau Liberals are trailing behind Pierre Poilievre's Conservatives and that the Conservative brand is "stronger now… than at any time" in the past ten years. Are we surprised? Meanwhile, The Ontario Liberal leader will be voted in next weekend with the results made official on December 2nd. Bonnie Crombie is the front-runner but two of her rivals, Yasir Naqvi and Nate Erskine Smith who are both currently MPs, have a strategy to try to beat her. STUDENTS AT MCGILL SUPPORT PRO-PALESTINE POLICY Marissa Lennox is now joined by Michael Mostyn, CEO of B'nai Brith Canada followed by Toronto-based criminal defense lawyer, Ari Goldkind. In the news: McGill's student union is supporting a pro-Palestine policy which both the university and Jewish community finds discriminatory. The university is threatening to sever ties with the union over it. And, the Durham College student who praised Hamas in a broadcasted statement is just one of many examples on social media whereby people are supporting Hamas here at home. So, how is social media fueling the problem. TRAVELLING DURING THE HOLIDAY SEASON + NEW AUTO INSURANCE POLICY Marissa Lennox is now joined by Martin Firestone, President, Travel Secure Inc. and Elliot Silverstein, Director, Government Relations, CAA Insurance. The busy travel season is upon us. Marty gives us travel insurance and booking tips as some of us get ready to celebrate American Thanksgiving across the border or gear up for holiday travel during Christmas. And, what you need to know about a new auto insurance policy coming out in 2024 that will potentially allow you to reduce your rates by opting out of certain options.

On today's episode of Newsmakers we continue our look at this month's Ontario Liberal Leadership race as we are joined by candidate and MP for Ottawa-Centre Yasir Naqvi.Naqvi makes his case as why he should be the one to lead the Liberals into the next election and explains his recent decision to collaborate with fellow candidate Nate Erskine-Smith in a strategic voting campaign. 

On today's episode of Newsmakers, host Louie Butko begins his look at the candidates vying to be the next leader of the Ontario Liberal Party with a visit from Beaches-East York MP Nate Erskine-Smith. The two discuss a wide range of topics including why he wants to be the next Premier of Ontario, what he thinks makes him the best candidate for the job, the leadership race so far, and more. 

Gentle reminder from Hen Mazzig on Twitter : if Hamas did not send thousands of terrorists into Israel on October 7, murdered 1,300 innocent civilians, and kidnapped 200 babies and elderly women, there would be no war. Mazzig is right and he is not illustrating the many atrocities that made up the days of Hamas Terror. Many people apparently don't want to hear those stories. Many even call them lies. Call it Hamas Denial if you like but it's a growing movement. Many progressives who claim to believe in Women's rights, Civil Rights, LGBTQ rights and workers rights appear to give Hamas a pass for not only denying those rights to Palestinians but murdering those who try to exercise them. Try organising a union in Gaza. Try having an openly Gay relationship. Try being a woman, dressing the way you want, working where you want getting an education, and getting a life where you are not treated like a milking cow. Gaza is where progressivism goes to die. But progressives give Hamas a pass, because Hamas does whatever they can to exterminate the Jewish state. Hamas doesn't want peace. They want genocide. I get that it's tough for a progressive to hear. Their problem. Not mine. I am not a progressive. I am a moderate, or what we once called normal. So Bruce Arthur is a Toronto Star writer I love to bring on the podcast. He made his bones in Sports but he has a great to deal to add to the dialogue of a nation. His most recent column is about The reason I wrote about Nate Erskine Smith, a Liberal MP who might be just the ticket for the leader of the Ontario Liberal party. Bruce says Erskine Smith is policy-obsessed and also lives in the real world and when we're having multiple crises, it might be a good thing to have an Ontario Premier who understands policy. Can't disagree with Bruce. The current populist premier is a train wreck on so many tracks. It would be better to have a premier who doesn't have populist contempt for people who know things, a Premier who isn't filling time with Hey Folks Hey Folks Hey Folks when he has nothing of substance to offer.  Jim Jordan a Congressman from Ohio wants to have one of the most powerful positions in the world. Wants to be Speaker of the US House of Representatives. All money bills begin the House. Nothing can get done unless it's paid for. This is the House Jim Jordan wants to lead. In an interview with Dana Bash, Jordan says If Donald Trump wants to store classified material in a box in a bathroom, his bathroom he can do it." Jordan isn't fit to run a dog kennel. Hopefully Republicans will kennel him like they have their predecessors. Who let these dogs out? Donald Trump. We'll see if American justice will kennel America's wolf in wolf's clothing.

The Herle Burly was created by Air Quotes Media with support from our presenting sponsor TELUS, as well as CN Rail, the Ontario Real Estate Association (OREA), and the Ontario English Catholic Teachers' Association (OECTA).Welcome to a very special edition of the pod, you curiouser and curiouser Herle Burly-ites. If you're a long-time listener, you might remember way back in 2020, just about a month before the world shut down we held our own, Herle Burly version of an Ontario Liberal Leadership debate. Which basically means we took most of the overwrought rules of national network debate and chucked ‘em out. Well, we're doing it again, 43 months later. Last time, we had 5 of the 6 leadership candidates in the studio. Del Duca declined our invitation.This time around, I'm chuffed to say we have the whole goddamn enchilada! All 4 candidates are here in the studio. Yasir Naqvi, Ted Hsu, Bonnie Crombie, and Nate Erskine-Smith.There are no podiums. No prepared statements and no official clock. This is going to be an equitable and fair debate, but NOT necessarily an equal time debate.These 4 good people are applying for a very serious job and we want to hear what their vision for Ontario is. Part of my role is to play Debate-Cop. Here to arrest over-canned talking points immediately. But when they say something interesting, or oppose another's POV in a persuasive way, I'll give them as much time as they need to finish their thought. And I will give each candidate substantial time to make a closing argument. 3 minutes or so. An unfiltered chance to state their case to whatever audience they want to make it to. I want to stress one final thing. This is not a roast or an accountability session. We're not here to bust you but help reveal you. Our goal is simply this: To help Liberals make an excellent choice. Thank you for joining us on #TheHerleBurly podcast. Please take a moment to give us a rating and review on iTunes, Spotify, Stitcher, Google Podcasts or your favourite podcast app.

RECOVERING POLITICIANS PANEL:  MPs TO ELECT NEW HOUSE SPEAKER TODAY 12:00-12:30 Liz West is filling in for Libby Znaimer today. She is joined by Lisa Raitt, former deputy leader of the Conservative Party of Canada, Andrew Cash, a former NDP MP for Toronto Davenport district and John Milloy,  a former Ontario Liberal MPP who served as a cabinet minister under the Dalton McGuinty and Kathleen Wynne governments. Today: members of Parliament are expected to vote in a new speaker of the house today. It comes in the aftermath of house speaker Anthony Rota 's resignation over inviting a Nazi war veteran to Parliament during Ukrainian President Zelenskyy's visit. And, Bonnie Crombie says she's raised over $1 million for her campaign to become leader of the Ontario Liberals. Crombie, who is taking a leave of absence from her post as Mississauga mayor, is firing back against her political opponents including candidate Nate Erskine-Smith who are criticizing her for getting donations from developers. FINANCIAL STRESS AMONG CANADIANS IS UP: ARE WE IN A NATIONAL EMERGENCY? 12:30-12:45 Liz West is now joined by Lesley-Anne Scorgie, Founder of MeVest, a leading edge financial education company specializing in money coaching for Canadians. According to a new survey by the National Payroll Institute, the number of Canadians reporting financial stress-- as much as 20 per cent. They are calling it a national emergency. Lesley-Anne reacts to the findings. WHY ARE SO MANY INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS IN TORONTO DELAYED 12:45-1 PM Liz West is now joined by Councillor Mike Colle, City Councillor Ward 8, Eglinton-Lawrence, and Josh Matlow, Toronto Councillor, Ward 12 Toronto-St. Paul's. Last week, we heard yet another announcement from Metrolinx that followed the same old: no clear timeline on when the Eglinton Crosstown LRT is going to be completed. How fair is this to local residents and businesses? And the reality is that there is $107 billion in infrastructure work planned for the city. how can we be confident that none of these projects will get delayed much like the Eglinton LRT.

Your daily highlights of Toronto Today with Greg Brady, Sheba Siddiqui & Gord Rennie. On today's episode: 1 - International students in Canada living inside a tent on the side of a road. (0:15 - 13:10) 2 - Karen Littlewood, President of the OSSTF. (13:16- 22:30) 3 - Nate Erskine-Smith, Liberal MP Beaches-East York, running for leader of the OLP.  (22:36 - 31:24) 4 - Jimmy Fallon - he's on it already, & w/ an apology & IN/OUT - mouthwash/gum chewing gum in the car. (31:30 - 39:40)

Your daily highlights of Toronto Today with Greg Brady, Sheba Siddiqui & Gord Rennie. On today's episode: 1 - International students in Canada living inside a tent on the side of a road. (0:15 - 13:10) 2 - Karen Littlewood, President of the OSSTF. (13:16- 22:30) 3 - Nate Erskine-Smith, Liberal MP Beaches-East York, running for leader of the OLP.  (22:36 - 31:24) 4 - Jimmy Fallon - he's on it already, & w/ an apology & IN/OUT - mouthwash/gum chewing gum in the car. (31:30 - 39:40)

Your daily highlights of Toronto Today with Greg Brady, Sheba Siddiqui & Gord Rennie. On today's episode: 1 - Greg comments on the Greenbelt and the first time he can visualize a non-majority government for the Ontario PC party in 2026. (0:15 - 9:00) 2 - Nate Erskine-Smith, Liberal MP for Beaches-East York. (9:06 - 17:06) 3 - Marit Styles, Provincial NDP Leader. (17:12 - 28:33) 4 - Sabrina Nanji, QP Observer. (28:39 - 37:04) 5 - Alan Cross, A Journal of Musical Things.  (37:09 - 45:38) 6 - Ed Keenan, The Toronto Star. (45:44 - 53:24)

Libby Znaimer is joined by Peter Muggeridge, Senior Editor of Zoomer Magazine, John Wright, Executive Vice President of Maru Public Opinion, and Bill VanGorder, Chief Operating Officer and Chief Policy Officer of CARP.  Today: we kick things off with a much needed discussion about ageism, especially when it comes to women facing it across our society. Not long ago, Bonnie Crombie, Mississauga Mayor and candidate for leader of the Ontario Liberal Party accused Nate Erskine-Smith, another candidate running for leadership of the party, of ageism. Bonnie who is 63 years old, took issue With Erskine-Smith's remarks that, "we should be thinking of this as what kind of party do we want to build for the next 15-20 years.” But, ageism is not only felt by women leaders in the political landscape. They are also experiencing it in other settings. ---- NURSES TO GET AVERAGE 11 PER CENT RAISE OVER NEXT TWO YEARS Libby Znaimer is now joined by Dr. Claudette Holloway, President of the Registered Nurses Association of Ontario (RNAO). Ontario Hospital nurses will be getting a raise which, according to their union (the ONA), will amount to an average of 11 per cent over two years. The provincial arbitrator justified the decision due to high inflation and the staffing crisis that hospitals are currently facing.  ---- CALL FOR FORD GOVERNMENT TO SET MPAC REASSESSMENT DEADLINE Libby Znaimer is now joined by Robert Brazzell, a spokesperson for the Greater Toronto chapter of NAIOP, an association representing commercial real estate developers, Raymond Williams, Chair of Tax Policy for the Ontario Chapter of Canadian Property Tax Association (CPTA) and Michael Colle, Toronto City Councillor Ward 8, Eglinton-Lawrence.  Municipal, business and real estate stakeholders are calling on Premier Doug Ford to get moving on establishing a date for a new province wide property reassessment by the Municipal Property Assessment Corp. (MPAC). Here's why.  Listen live, weekdays from noon to 1, on Zoomer Radio!

Nate Erskine-Smith, MP for Beaches-East York and candidate for the Ontario Liberal Party leadership, joins 980 CFPL's Mike Stubbs to talk about Pride in London, his decision to run for the Ontario Liberal Party leadership, and his plans if he were to win the leadership.

Jane Brown is filling in for Libby Znaimer today. She is joined by Lisa Raitt, Former Deputy Leader of the Conservative Party of Canada, George Smitherman, former Ontario Liberal MPP for Toronto Centre who also served as a health minister and deputy Premier and Peggy Nash, the former NDP Member of Parliament for Parkdale—High Park. Today: we kick things off with Toronto Mayor Olivia Chow's call on Ottawa to deal with the refugees in Toronto who lack housing and other important resources. Meanwhile, former mayor John Tory resurfaces with yet another endorsement: residents of Scarborough-Guildwood were getting robocalls from him endorsing PC candidate Gary Crawford who used to serve as Tory's budget chief at City Hall. And, Mississauga Mayor Bonnie Crombie who is also running for leadership of the Ontario Liberals wrote a piece in The Star in which she accuses fellow candidate Nate Erskine-Smith of ageism. ---- INFLATION RATE IN CANADA DOWN, BUT FOOD INFLATION REMAINS HIGH Jane Brown is now joined by Dr. Sylvain Charlebois, Senior Director, Agri-Food Analytics Lab at Dalhousie University. When it comes to inflation, there is some good news, and some bad news. First, the good news: the rate fell to 2.8 per cent--the lowest it's been in two years. The bad: food prices for Canadians went up to 9.1 per cent annually compared to the 9 per cent annually in May. ---- SOME GROCERY STORES CUTTING ALCOHOL SALES DUE TO INCREASE IN THEFT Jane Brown is now joined by Michelle Wasylyshen,  of the Retail Council of Canada. Some Toronto grocery retailers are cutting their sales of alcohol due to an increase in thefts at their stores. You won't be able to buy beers and wine at certain stores and Michelle weighs in on what is going on. Listen live, weekdays from noon to 1, on Zoomer Radio!

Strong mayor powers are coming to 26 Ontario municipalities giving mayors a greater ability to win votes and appoint officials.Toronto deputy mayor Jennifer McKelvie has given her endorsement to Anna Bailao. We check the race to see if that has changed the numbers.Bonnie Crombie has officially thrown her hat into the ring in the Ontario Liberal leadership race. We're still waiting to see who else will enter the fray, but things are heating up in determining the direction of the party. Nate Erskine-Smith wants to keep the party progressive while Crombie wants to rear to the centre.And Kat Eschner, TVO's affordability reporter, joins the podcast to speak with Steve Paikin and John Michael about the financial mess the new mayor of Toronto will inherit when they take office. How will Canada's largest city work its way out of a one-billion-dollar budget shortfall? Stay connected to #onpoli and the latest politics across Ontario and at Queen's Park: https://www.tvo.org/ For questions or to suggest topics, email us at onpolitics@tvo.org Listen to more TVO Podcasts: https://www.tvo.org/podcasts Subscribe to TVO Media Education Group newsletters: https://www.tvo.org/newsletters Subscribe to The Agenda with Steve Paikin on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/theagenda Follow Steve Paikin on Twitter - https://twitter.com/spaikin Follow John Michael McGrath on Twitter - https://twitter.com/jm_mcgrath Get the TVO Today app: App Store: https://apps.apple.com/ca/app/tvo-today/id1616182112 Google Play https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=org.tvo.tvomediaapp&pli=1 See more ways to access The Agenda with Steve Paikin and TVO Today: https://www.tvo.org/tvo-anytime-anywhere TVO Today is a trusted source of insight and information about life in Ontario and beyond. Our award-winning current affairs journalism, documentaries and podcasts explore relevant issues and inspiring solutions. Visit https://www.tvo.org for more.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Can Chow be stopped? 0:23-10:15 Sex In The City: Most non-monogamous city in Canada? In/Out Phone calls on planes. 10:15-20:00 Interview with Nate Erskine-Smith 20:00-30:45 Interview with Matthew Bingley 30:45-38:10 Gender Neutral bathroom to be the only bathrooms in public schools? 38:10-48:05

Can Chow be stopped? 0:23-10:15 Sex In The City: Most non-monogamous city in Canada? In/Out Phone calls on planes. 10:15-20:00 Interview with Nate Erskine-Smith 20:00-30:45 Interview with Matthew Bingley 30:45-38:10 Gender Neutral bathroom to be the only bathrooms in public schools? 38:10-48:05

Nate Erskine-Smith is one of those rare members of parliament. He considers himself a loyal Liberal. But he will vote against his party when he thinks the leadership is wrong. That's ensured two things: first, he'll never be in Justin Trudeau's cabinet, and second, he gets a lotta props from people who aren't necessarily Liberals. In any event, it's prompted Erskine-Smith to take a look at the vacant Ontario Liberal leadership post and in fact, he was the first candidate to toss his hat into the ring. He talks to Steve Paikin about his plans.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Your daily highlights of Toronto Today with Greg Brady, Sheba Siddiqui & Gord Rennie. On today's episode: 1 - Rogers to acquire TTC wireless network, and will bring 5G service to subway system (0:15 - 6:31) 2 - Family abandons dog in park with note. (6:37 - 13:08) 3 - Nate Erskine-Smith, Liberal MP for Beaches-East York. (13:13 - 23:52) 4 - IN/OUT: Women using men's bathrooms. (23:58 - 32:29) 5 - Anthony Furey, mayoral candidate. (32:35 - 38:58)

Your daily highlights of Toronto Today with Greg Brady, Sheba Siddiqui & Gord Rennie. On today's episode: 1 - Rogers to acquire TTC wireless network, and will bring 5G service to subway system (0:15 - 6:31) 2 - Family abandons dog in park with note. (6:37 - 13:08) 3 - Nate Erskine-Smith, Liberal MP for Beaches-East York. (13:13 - 23:52) 4 - IN/OUT: Women using men's bathrooms. (23:58 - 32:29) 5 - Anthony Furey, mayoral candidate. (32:35 - 38:58)

Your daily highlights of Toronto Today with Greg Brady, Sheba Siddiqui & Gord Rennie. On today's episode: 1 - What will the week hold for the Prime Minister as the interest over China's election interference won't go away. (0:15 - 8:11) 2 - Greg gives an update on the Supreme Court Justice Russell Brown and his "altercation at an Arizona hotel" (8:17 - 13:54) 3 - Nate Erskine-Smith, Liberal MP for Beaches-East York. (14:00- 25:06) 4 - Rachel Sklar, NY-based commentator/author - Toronto native, on Sarah Polley's Oscar win & impact in the industry (25:12 - 34:09) 5 - Morgan Hoffman, ET Canada Reporter (34:15 - 41:47) 6 - IN or OUT: Daylight Saving Time (41:53 - 51:38)

Your daily highlights of Toronto Today with Greg Brady, Sheba Siddiqui & Gord Rennie. On today's episode: 1 - What will the week hold for the Prime Minister as the interest over China's election interference won't go away. (0:15 - 8:11) 2 - Greg gives an update on the Supreme Court Justice Russell Brown and his "altercation at an Arizona hotel" (8:17 - 13:54) 3 - Nate Erskine-Smith, Liberal MP for Beaches-East York. (14:00- 25:06) 4 - Rachel Sklar, NY-based commentator/author - Toronto native, on Sarah Polley's Oscar win & impact in the industry (25:12 - 34:09) 5 - Morgan Hoffman, ET Canada Reporter (34:15 - 41:47) 6 - IN or OUT: Daylight Saving Time (41:53 - 51:38)

Your daily highlights of Toronto Today with Greg Brady, Sheba Siddiqui & Gord Rennie. On today's episode: 1 - Greg & Sheba talk about John Tory staying on, for now, and the Superbowl (0:00 - 8:29) 2 - Alyshah Hasham, One of 3 Toronto Star reporters who broke the mayor's story (8:35 - 20:37) 3 - Greg, Sheba & Gord debate the middle seat on an airplane on In Or Out (20:43 - 29:35) 4 - Nate Erskine-Smith, Liberal MP for Beaches-East York (29:41 - 40:35)

Your daily highlights of Toronto Today with Greg Brady, Sheba Siddiqui & Gord Rennie. On today's episode: 1 - Greg & Sheba talk about John Tory staying on, for now, and the Superbowl (0:00 - 8:29) 2 - Alyshah Hasham, One of 3 Toronto Star reporters who broke the mayor's story (8:35 - 20:37) 3 - Greg, Sheba & Gord debate the middle seat on an airplane on In Or Out (20:43 - 29:35) 4 - Nate Erskine-Smith, Liberal MP for Beaches-East York (29:41 - 40:35)

Greg spoke with Nate Erskine-Smith, Liberal MP for Beaches-East York, about veteran Ontario Liberals asking Green MPP Mike Schreiner to be their leader.

Greg spoke with Nate Erskine-Smith, Liberal MP for Beaches-East York, about veteran Ontario Liberals asking Green MPP Mike Schreiner to be their leader.

Nate Erskine-Smith, Liberal MP for Beaches-East York talked with Greg about the CUPE work stoppage and the Federal Government's fall fiscal update.

Nate Erskine-Smith, Liberal MP for Beaches-East York talked with Greg about the CUPE work stoppage and the Federal Government's fall fiscal update.

Greg welcomes Nate Erskine-Smith, Liberal MP for Beaches-East York, to talk about a Bill that holds City Politicians accountable for responses to similar health crisis's in the future.

Greg welcomes Nate Erskine-Smith, Liberal MP for Beaches-East York, to talk about a Bill that holds City Politicians accountable for responses to similar health crisis's in the future.

On today's episode we welcome in Liberal MP, Nate Erskine-Smith. James, Dean and Loch hammer Nate regarding Justin Trudeau vilifying vaccinations, funding the CBC and CRTC, the hate he is getting on the road & being down in the polls  Following Nates exit the boys discuss:  Joe Rogan getting COVID 19 and driving 9 supplements into himself with more side effects than the vaccine and his support of horse paste ivermectin During a school board meeting one of the speakers got 'bart simpsoned" and read 15-20 fake names that included Berry McCockiner, Ben Dover, Hugh-G-Rection and much more..  British fights are the best fights, Dean and the lads play a few videos to support their claim  See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Dean and the gang welcome Liberal MP, animal rights proponent, Nate Erskine-Smith. We discussL - Pandemic/Identity Politics - Voting on Merit (He's one of the few) - Vaccine shortages - Animals - Legalizing drugs (all of them) Watch: https://youtu.be/_q3auNNdJqU See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Members of the House of Commons in Canada, Nate Erskine-Smith and Charlie Angus join Damian Collins MP this week. They discuss Canada's strategy for managing the virus, privacy concerns around track and trace apps and whether the International Grand Committee (of which they famously first took part in November 2018) could one day virtually reconvene.

Nate Erskin-Smith is the young, bright Member of Parliament for Beaches-East York. In an age of AOC's and Mayor Pete's, I'm very pleased to have someone like Nate on the podcast to dive deep on the priorities for next generation leadership. We'll discuss what drew Nate to the Liberal Party and how a rookie MP found his independence within it. You'll very quickly learn why everyone tells me Nate is the kind of thoughtful leader we'll see a lot more of in the years ahead.

Nate Erskine-Smith - MP for Beaches-East York in Toronto. He's a member of Justin Trudeau's Liberal Party, but you may know him as the most independent MP in the House of CommonsMark Garner - Chief Operating Officer and Executive Director, Downtown Yonge BIAChris Ball - Head of Communications, VICE