Dylan Marando - Ontario's Unapologetic Liberal の全文書き起こし

Jean-Yves, all my, 48 00:04:51,760 --> 00:04:57,120 all my former bosses and politics. I talked to a lot of my former colleagues, folks I worked alongside. 49 00:04:57,120 --> 00:05:03,840 But the, the first conversation and the last conversation before this became official was, was, 50 00:05:03,840 --> 00:05:11,280 was with Elise. And, and she, she agreed to be my campaign director. We bet it was a 51 00:05:11,280 --> 00:05:16,880 forth on email. Yes, yeah, exactly. So you know that. So, you know, I wasn't going to do it unless 52 00:05:16,880 --> 00:05:21,520 she was fully supportive and frankly, unless she was leading the team because there's no one I trust 53 00:05:21,520 --> 00:05:27,040 more. In my view, there's no one who's got got more firepower than her either. So that would be a 54 00:05:27,040 --> 00:05:31,680 dangerous journey on both counts if you didn't take that into account. Exactly. Exactly. 55 00:05:31,680 --> 00:05:39,760 Okay. So you, you know, you, the experience in, in, in the advisory role is important and forms, 56 00:05:39,760 --> 00:05:45,760 I think a lot of what I see in terms of the, the stuff that you've, you've posted. And, and I guess 57 00:05:45,760 --> 00:05:52,480 I first saw your, your policy stuff being, was it late August or early September? 58 00:05:52,480 --> 00:05:59,360 Yeah, I think it was closer to September. We, we took probably longer than some people anticipated 59 00:05:59,360 --> 00:06:04,400 to push that out. But there was a variety of reasons about that. But yeah, more or less that timeline. 60 00:06:04,400 --> 00:06:08,080 Yeah. And I, and I thought, you know, well, the one thing that struck me and you used this line, 61 00:06:08,080 --> 00:06:14,800 a lot as being an unapologetic liberal. And you, you, you, you say that as a badge of honor, 62 00:06:14,800 --> 00:06:19,680 you almost say that as if you're, I won't hesitate to use the word scolding, but to kind of, 63 00:06:19,680 --> 00:06:23,760 you know, give the party a slap up the side of the head and say, Hey, here's what we're about. 64 00:06:23,760 --> 00:06:29,920 Now, having said all of that, you know, you, you worked in, in Premier Wins office and she is 65 00:06:29,920 --> 00:06:37,600 anything but an apologetic liberal. So where did, where did the gap happen between today and when 66 00:06:37,600 --> 00:06:45,440 the Premier lost to Doug Ford in 2018? Where did that level of, you know, level of liberal identity kind 67 00:06:45,440 --> 00:06:52,720 of take a dump? Yeah. Yeah. You know, I, I think I love everyone I've, I've, I've ever worked with 68 00:06:52,720 --> 00:06:58,960 and for in politics. So I don't want this to be read as a, as a criticism. But, you know, I'm, I'm also 69 00:06:58,960 --> 00:07:05,440 a political scientist by, by training. As I said, I've got the PhD. I've taught, I've taught at the 70 00:07:05,440 --> 00:07:09,760 School of Public Policy University. So I can get a little analytical and macro about this stuff. And 71 00:07:09,760 --> 00:07:15,360 if I were to write a history or a chapter of the history of the Ontario Liberal Party and identify 72 00:07:15,360 --> 00:07:24,800 when things turn, frankly, I think it was the sale of hydro because, you know, I worked on the central 73 00:07:24,800 --> 00:07:33,120 campaign team in, in 2014. Shortly after, you know, I, I joined the, the liberals that went to 74 00:07:34,160 --> 00:07:39,040 Ottawa and got swept up in Trudeau, Mania, but I was on that, I was on that team in 2014 on the central 75 00:07:39,040 --> 00:07:44,880 campaign, worked in Premier Wayne's office before that, stayed around for a little bit after the campaign 76 00:07:44,880 --> 00:07:54,160 as well. But in my view, we won 2014 because we said we are the party of public services. Tim Houdak wants 77 00:07:54,160 --> 00:08:00,160 to fire 100,000 public servants. We are going to invest in our public services. We believe that 78 00:08:00,160 --> 00:08:05,200 government is a force for good. We believe that public services are a force for good. That's how you build 79 00:08:05,200 --> 00:08:08,480 up people, that's how you build up communities. And frankly, that's how you build up an economy. 80 00:08:08,480 --> 00:08:12,640 That, that was our narrative and that was the mandate we were given. And it was a surprising mandate. 81 00:08:12,640 --> 00:08:16,960 It was a majority mandate, no one expected us to win. And then you fast forward, you know, a year or 82 00:08:16,960 --> 00:08:26,880 two later. And we made the decision to, and I was gone by this party. We made the decision to sell 83 00:08:27,760 --> 00:08:34,960 one of the provinces, you know, by some measure, most important public assets. And I think that was 84 00:08:34,960 --> 00:08:40,800 off brand. I get why the decision was made. And I am absolutely certain that that decision was made 85 00:08:40,800 --> 00:08:47,040 in good faith at the time by everyone involved. But from the perspective of the people who gave us 86 00:08:47,040 --> 00:08:54,560 a mandate in 2014, I think it felt like a betrayal. And, and then that subsequently contributed, 87 00:08:54,560 --> 00:09:00,240 wasn't the only factor, but it contributed to a loss in 2018. We lost because we're 15 year old 88 00:09:00,240 --> 00:09:04,640 government. Like that, that's the main reason we lost. People get tired every, every government, 89 00:09:04,640 --> 00:09:11,680 every politician has the best before date. But that was there. And then, and then we, we didn't really 90 00:09:11,680 --> 00:09:17,040 pick ourselves up after that. And I think, so this is kind of a two part answer. That's where it started. 91 00:09:17,040 --> 00:09:24,400 But then what happened is I think we misread why Ford won. We thought, okay, Ford won because he's, 92 00:09:24,400 --> 00:09:32,160 you know, right of center or he's right of whatever we were. And so we have to move closer to that 93 00:09:32,160 --> 00:09:36,720 because that's

where the voters are. I don't think the voters are there. At least not our voters. 94 00:09:36,720 --> 00:09:42,720 Ford won because we were a tired government. And he's entertaining. You know, Ford is likeable. 95 00:09:42,720 --> 00:09:47,920 Ford is a talented retail politician. I don't think people got behind Ford because of his policies. 96 00:09:47,920 --> 00:09:52,640 And if they did, they would have booted him out the last couple of elections because he's not a 97 00:09:52,640 --> 00:09:58,720 conservative. You know, Doug Ford is, is whatever the flavor of the month is, I'm going to chase that and 98 00:09:58,720 --> 00:10:02,480 spend some money on it. And then I'm going to chase another thing the next month, another thing, 99 00:10:02,480 --> 00:10:06,080 the next month, another thing, the next month. And that's why he can't get anything done. But, 100 00:10:06,640 --> 00:10:13,040 you know, ultimately, you know, the, the read of Ford as popular because he has some set of political 101 00:10:13,040 --> 00:10:19,440 principles is wrong. He's popular because he's a talented retail politician. So we don't need to 102 00:10:19,440 --> 00:10:26,800 shift to the center to get, to get those voters. We need to be proud liberals. We need to remember 103 00:10:26,800 --> 00:10:32,000 why we got elected in 2014, why we got elected in 2011, why we got elected in the two elections before 104 00:10:32,000 --> 00:10:38,160 that. And it was, you know, in my view, a champion of public services, which is the job of a premier. And 105 00:10:38,160 --> 00:10:43,600 there are liberals who disagree with me on this. But, you know, it's not the job of our next leader or 106 00:10:43,600 --> 00:10:48,000 our next premier to be Mark Karnie. Mark Karnie's Mark Karnie, the prime minister's the prime minister. 107 00:10:48,000 --> 00:10:53,920 He has a unique job right now. And he's doing a great job. The job of a premier is different. It's 108 00:10:53,920 --> 00:10:58,240 not to negotiate with Donald Trump. It's not to build a pipeline across the country. The job of a 109 00:10:58,240 --> 00:11:02,720 premier's publicly funded education, publicly funded healthcare investments and public 110 00:11:02,720 --> 00:11:07,200 infrastructure in every corner of the province. So let's be great at that and let's trust other people 111 00:11:07,200 --> 00:11:11,520 to do their job. Let's trust the prime minister to do his job. Let's trust mayors to do their job. 112 00:11:11,520 --> 00:11:16,960 Let's trust the market to do their job. I'm a meat and potatoes liberal, meaning I'm all in on the 113 00:11:16,960 --> 00:11:21,280 things that are a constitutional responsibility. But I don't want to run grocery stores. I don't want 114 00:11:21,280 --> 00:11:27,120 to run insurance companies. I don't want to run telcos. That's the NDP that wants to do that. I'm 115 00:11:27,120 --> 00:11:34,080 all in on the things that are public, truly public. And I'm all out on the things where the market's 116 00:11:34,080 --> 00:11:39,840 probably better positioned to deal with that than that government is. So and we'll come back a 117 00:11:39,840 --> 00:11:47,040 couple of those things in a second. But the idea of brand, the liberal brand is really kind of 118 00:11:47,040 --> 00:11:53,920 interesting to me because where it didn't succeed in the past two elections to really make any kind 119 00:11:53,920 --> 00:12:02,560 of, you know, I realize, you know, Kronbie got you to, you know, party status. Okay. But still that was 120 00:12:02,560 --> 00:12:10,560 a that was a squeaking in the back door. It was really really. And considering that the polling 121 00:12:10,560 --> 00:12:16,160 across the province was considerably stronger for the liberals than it was for the new Democrats, 122 00:12:16,160 --> 00:12:23,840 we're in that situation right now. So the liberal brand in and of itself is strong. Are you 123 00:12:23,840 --> 00:12:30,960 suggesting then that liberals aren't living up to the brand because Ontarians really kind of look 124 00:12:30,960 --> 00:12:36,880 at that and say, I would vote liberal. I'll do respect to John Fraser for a party that doesn't have 125 00:12:36,880 --> 00:12:42,240 a leader right now. So somebody, somebody's expectations are not being met in terms of what it means 126 00:12:42,240 --> 00:12:47,680 to be a liberal. Yeah. No, honestly, I think it's liberals that we need to animate. I'm not trying to 127 00:12:48,320 --> 00:12:54,400 to poach hardcore conservatives or hardcore new Democrats. If we can get everyone who voted for us 128 00:12:54,400 --> 00:13:00,240 in 2014 to vote for us again, everyone who voted for us in 2011 to vote for us again, if we can get 129 00:13:00,240 --> 00:13:07,680 historic liberals to be animated and not just vote, but maybe chip in a few dollars, not 130 00:13:07,680 --> 00:13:14,320 going to couple doors, make a couple more calls. That makes a big difference. Is it is it enough to 131 00:13:14,320 --> 00:13:21,840 form a majority government? Maybe not like the electorate evolves. The population is a different 132 00:13:21,840 --> 00:13:27,360 kind of population than it was eight years ago. I think we probably have to also grow with folks 133 00:13:27,360 --> 00:13:32,160 in their 20s, 30s and 40s, some of which maybe haven't voted before, even though they've been 134 00:13:32,160 --> 00:13:38,560 eligible to vote before or some of which have voted blue. So there is there is another constituency 135 00:13:38,560 --> 00:13:44,800 that aren't historic liberal voters that I think we have to to reach out to, but they're not hardcore 136 00:13:44,800 --> 00:13:52,160 conservative voters or hardcore NDP voters. They're folks who are sort of bellweather voters. 137 00:13:52,160 --> 00:13:56,800 So they're not car carrying liberals? No, they're not car carrying liberals. I want every 138 00:13:56,800 --> 00:14:01,280 car carrying liberal to vote for us and volunteer and

chip in, but there's other constituencies 139 00:14:01,280 --> 00:14:05,520 that we want to grow with. And one group I'll just mention at the risk of going on a little too 140 00:14:05,520 --> 00:14:12,080 long here, but I grew up in the first generation Canadian, grew up in the middle of the middle class 141 00:14:12,080 --> 00:14:17,520 in York Region. And I grew up in a neighborhood that reflected that, Italian, Canadian, 142 00:14:17,520 --> 00:14:24,000 working class neighborhood. And a lot of the guys who I grew up with, super smart, hardworking, 143 00:14:24,000 --> 00:14:29,120 great guys love them. They're not political. And thank God for that. We wouldn't want a country 144 00:14:29,120 --> 00:14:34,560 or province where everyone was a politician or political. They've got real jobs. And 145 00:14:35,520 --> 00:14:41,920 and so, you know, I don't talk about politics a lot with them, but when I was at Queen's Park, 146 00:14:41,920 --> 00:14:46,480 when I was in Ottawa, if the conversation came up, it was clear that they weren't voting liberal. 147 00:14:46,480 --> 00:14:51,200 They were they were voting blue a lot of the time. And you can imagine that. We're talking 148 00:14:51,200 --> 00:14:56,160 Vaughan, we're talking Richmond Hill. Like that's those are blue writings for reason. 149 00:14:56,160 --> 00:15:01,040 But, but in the last couple of years when I'm starting talking to those guys and we try to 150 00:15:01,040 --> 00:15:05,760 avoid politics because we're buddies. So it's the last thing you want to talk about. But in the last 151 00:15:05,760 --> 00:15:10,880 couple of years, what I've, when I'm talking to those guys who aren't particularly political, 152 00:15:10,880 --> 00:15:15,200 but have been sympathetic to the blue guys, all of a sudden they're talking about the education 153 00:15:15,200 --> 00:15:19,520 system a little differently because they have young kids. And all of a sudden they're talking about 154 00:15:19,520 --> 00:15:25,200 healthcare a little differently because they have aging parents. And all of a sudden they're 155 00:15:25,200 --> 00:15:29,440 shifting their views maybe a little bit on climate action because of a flood or a or smoke from 156 00:15:29,440 --> 00:15:35,360 a wildfire. And what I'm beginning to realize is that those guys and it's a small group, small sample 157 00:15:35,360 --> 00:15:41,600 size is my focus group. But it's real. Those guys are liberals, but they don't know it yet. They're not 158 00:15:41,600 --> 00:15:46,560 card carrying, but they care about education, they care about healthcare. They want a premier to do more. 159 00:15:46,560 --> 00:15:54,000 So I think that's a voter pool that we can get to that maybe we haven't done enough to get to. 160 00:15:54,000 --> 00:15:58,160 And again, on paper, you would think, well, these guys voted blue. So we have to do, we have to 161 00:15:58,160 --> 00:16:02,080 steal something from the conservative platform to get to them. No, I think that's the wrong approach. 162 00:16:02,080 --> 00:16:07,600 We got to speak to their better angels. Go pass the pandering. Go pass the superficial 163 00:16:07,600 --> 00:16:12,400 description of that voter and speak to their their heart. Speak to their better angels. Talk about 164 00:16:12,400 --> 00:16:16,480 their kids. Talk about their parents. Talk about public services. I think we bring them over to 165 00:16:16,480 --> 00:16:21,600 the party that way. Yeah, I would agree with you in terms of it's got to be about the story. But 166 00:16:21,600 --> 00:16:29,920 let me just take a piece off of your website then and and deliberately targeting this group that 167 00:16:29,920 --> 00:16:35,920 2030 40 and you talk about the next generation. And they're being a, you know, a no income tax on the 168 00:16:35,920 --> 00:16:42,960 first 50 grand for somebody in that age bracket. To, you know, to give them some kind of sense of 169 00:16:42,960 --> 00:16:49,680 buoyancy as far as their finances are concerned. My guess is, again, I go back to, you know, what 170 00:16:49,680 --> 00:16:55,360 are the expectations? They would expect that of a liberal government, although we're getting it from 171 00:16:55,360 --> 00:16:59,840 the Ford government ironically enough in terms of he passed himself in the back for never raising 172 00:16:59,840 --> 00:17:05,440 taxes. This is an effect tax cut, similar to what the, the premier would do. So it sounds like you're 173 00:17:05,440 --> 00:17:09,840 taking something from the same page if you want to want to go there. But these guys that you're talking 174 00:17:09,840 --> 00:17:17,040 to, while they would love the tax break, fully expect that to get the services that you're talking 175 00:17:17,040 --> 00:17:20,880 about, they don't want to want you to increase their taxes. They don't want you to cut their services. 176 00:17:20,880 --> 00:17:25,440 Yeah. So how do you square that circle for them? Because that, you know, ultimately is going to come 177 00:17:25,440 --> 00:17:29,760 up. If you're going to get into the, the healthcare and the education systems, the mental health, 178 00:17:29,760 --> 00:17:35,680 the housing details that you brought up, none of this is going to happen without cash. So do you 179 00:17:35,680 --> 00:17:42,880 increase taxes or do you increase borrowing? Yeah. Well, for, for me, I think getting back on a path 180 00:17:42,880 --> 00:17:48,000 to balance is going to require three things. First and foremost, economic growth. Like I've been at 181 00:17:48,000 --> 00:17:53,600 the table in budget processes, provincially and federally. I had a, a bigger seat at the table 182 00:17:53,600 --> 00:17:58,240 federally. I was the, you know, the lead budget advisor in the, in the prime minister's office when 183 00:17:58,240 --> 00:18:03,280 I was the deputy director of policy. And I can tell you every time you're doing one of those budgets, 184 00:18:03,280 --> 00:18:09,360 the thing

you're crossing your fingers for is GDP growth. Because GDP growth means more revenue 185 00:18:09,360 --> 00:18:12,800 coming into the government without having to increase taxes. That's like betting on 186 00:18:12,800 --> 00:18:19,040 prediction futures these days. Yeah. No, for sure. But, but, you know, I think focusing on economic growth 187 00:18:19,040 --> 00:18:22,560 is good for a bunch of reasons, right? It's good for jobs. It's good for household incomes, but it's 188 00:18:22,560 --> 00:18:27,760 also good for government revenues. So that's one approach. The second thing I think you want to do 189 00:18:27,760 --> 00:18:32,480 is you just want to invest smarter. So, you know, a great example of this for me is early learning 190 00:18:32,480 --> 00:18:37,360 in childcare. You know, it costs billions of dollars a year to do early learning in childcare. 191 00:18:37,360 --> 00:18:42,800 But the thing is because of it, there are tens of thousands of families in Canada right now and 192 00:18:42,800 --> 00:18:48,400 in Ontario who have two parents in the workforce instead of one parent in the workforce. That increases, 193 00:18:48,400 --> 00:18:53,840 that increases their, their income. It increases economic growth. Again, that could increase revenue 194 00:18:53,840 --> 00:18:59,280 back to the government. So it looks like a cost, but it's actually an investment in economic growth. 195 00:18:59,280 --> 00:19:05,440 So there's some ways that you can spend money, but just spend it smarter, but it's in that public 196 00:19:05,440 --> 00:19:09,840 service space. And then to get to your point, like, okay, well, Dylan, let's assume you've saturated 197 00:19:09,840 --> 00:19:14,800 economic growth. You're spending smarter in healthcare and education, you know, in healthcare, 198 00:19:14,800 --> 00:19:18,160 for example, that would mean more home care, community care less spending on hospital. I think that's 199 00:19:18,160 --> 00:19:22,320 how you spend smarter in healthcare. But what are you going to do when push comes to shove? And you 200 00:19:22,320 --> 00:19:30,160 got to balance the budget. And, you know, my answer would be until the macro economic headwinds 201 00:19:30,160 --> 00:19:37,440 are gone. I don't think it's inappropriate for governments to borrow and run deficits. But at some 202 00:19:37,440 --> 00:19:42,640 point, we have to get back to balance. But my approach would be, I'm never going to do that on the 203 00:19:42,640 --> 00:19:50,320 backs of families or students or patients. I'm never going to raise a personal income tax. I'm 204 00:19:50,320 --> 00:19:54,960 never going to raise a sales tax. If I'm going to raise tax, it's going to be on the corporate side 205 00:19:54,960 --> 00:19:59,760 and it's going to be on big business. And I don't have a plan to do that in my platform. 206 00:20:00,160 --> 00:20:06,640 But if push comes to shove, I'm confident that the big banks and the big telcos and big tech 207 00:20:06,640 --> 00:20:14,240 and big grocers have some spare change in the coach cushions and that they could kick in more 208 00:20:14,240 --> 00:20:22,880 to the provincial treasury. It's not my it's not my plan A, but I'm prepared for it to be my plan C 209 00:20:22,880 --> 00:20:29,040 or D. And I think it's it's not bad policy. I also think it's smart politics. I think a lot of people 210 00:20:29,040 --> 00:20:35,200 want want folks to stand up to to Bay Street. And that's also being an unapologetic liberal, right? 211 00:20:35,200 --> 00:20:40,400 We shy away from those fights. Well, let's have that conversation. And let's see what they come back 212 00:20:40,400 --> 00:20:47,120 to with us. As we speak, you know, within an hour or two, as we record this, the finance minister is 213 00:20:47,120 --> 00:20:51,520 going to stand up in the House of Commons and deliver the federal budget. So they, you know, all 214 00:20:51,520 --> 00:20:56,960 indications are they're promising a balance within a couple of years. You know, so it kind of 215 00:20:57,520 --> 00:21:01,920 accelerates what we have otherwise been saying to your point around, you know, the GDP numbers, 216 00:21:01,920 --> 00:21:07,760 man, they look a little anemic. And that would be be, be, you know, kind as far as that's concerned. 217 00:21:07,760 --> 00:21:15,840 So I think that level of instability or uncertainty is is is really hard to, you know, 218 00:21:15,840 --> 00:21:23,680 right into the bottom line. So when you are talking to the liberal membership now, as you, 219 00:21:23,680 --> 00:21:30,720 you know, look towards the vote, what are you hearing from the membership in terms of all of this? 220 00:21:30,720 --> 00:21:36,240 Yeah. You can't get away with talking about what the party's health is like without talking about 221 00:21:36,240 --> 00:21:41,120 affordability and everything else. What are you hearing overwhelmingly from the liberal membership? 222 00:21:41,120 --> 00:21:48,480 You know, it is there is there is a lot of diversity across the party. So I've heard, you know, 223 00:21:48,480 --> 00:21:54,640 almost everything at this point, but in terms of the sort of average member, typically what I am 224 00:21:54,640 --> 00:22:01,600 hearing from them is that they have confidence in what the prime minister is doing. But they understand 225 00:22:01,600 --> 00:22:06,240 that the job of a premier is different than the job of a prime minister. So, you know, that then 226 00:22:06,240 --> 00:22:11,120 leads to a conversation about education, about health care, about public infrastructure. Admittedly, 227 00:22:11,120 --> 00:22:16,080 I don't have a lot of folks quizzing me on, on balancing the budget for good or for ill, you know, 228 00:22:16,080 --> 00:22:21,680 maybe that's something about liberals, maybe it doesn't. I don't, I dare say conservatives aren't 229 00:22:21,680 --> 00:22:28,160 asking those questions either because they're not a lot of parties or

governments these days. 230 00:22:28,160 --> 00:22:35,360 You know, in terms of the mood more generally, you know, I think members are worried about the 231 00:22:35,360 --> 00:22:42,800 volatility of the economy. But there's a, there's an understanding that it's, it's not really, we're 232 00:22:42,800 --> 00:22:48,560 not really an abumant bus cycle. We're kind of in probably a decade of permanent disruptions 233 00:22:48,560 --> 00:22:55,120 because there's Trump, but there's also AI and there's also the stubbornness of the affordability 234 00:22:55,120 --> 00:23:01,600 crisis and there's also other geopolitical events and there's technological changes that go 235 00:23:01,600 --> 00:23:08,160 beyond AI, you know, self-driving cars, whatever, whatever it is. And so I think the overall sentiment 236 00:23:08,160 --> 00:23:15,120 from the membership is that the world has changed. It will keep changing. This is a decade-long, 237 00:23:15,120 --> 00:23:22,080 two-decade-long process and we need to build a political machine that is responsive to it and 238 00:23:22,080 --> 00:23:27,200 actually looks like it understands what's around the corner. Now, I'm talking to, when people are 239 00:23:27,200 --> 00:23:30,800 talking to me, I'm a particular candidate in this race. I'm the youngest candidate in this race. 240 00:23:30,800 --> 00:23:37,280 So I think they, their mind probably goes to that, you know, that narrative, maybe more naturally 241 00:23:37,280 --> 00:23:40,880 than it would with the other candidates, but there's a, I think there's an understanding in the party. 242 00:23:40,880 --> 00:23:45,200 Maybe I'm just hearing what I want to hear, but I think there's an understanding in the party 243 00:23:45,200 --> 00:23:51,280 that our next leader is signing up for a 15, 20, 25-year project. You know, Dalton, Dalton got 244 00:23:51,280 --> 00:23:59,920 elected as leader in 1996, Kathleen, you know, left government in 2018. That was a 22-year movement 245 00:23:59,920 --> 00:24:06,320 that we built. And we, hopefully, should aspire to the same thing this time around. 246 00:24:06,320 --> 00:24:13,520 And that's not just because we want to survive for a very long time as a political movement. It's 247 00:24:13,520 --> 00:24:18,240 because that's the nature of the transition we're in. That's the nature of the economic transition 248 00:24:18,240 --> 00:24:22,000 we're in. That's the nature of the political transition that we're in. And if we're a party that 249 00:24:22,000 --> 00:24:29,280 looks like we're just focused on, you know, the caucus today or the scandal du jour, I don't know 250 00:24:29,280 --> 00:24:33,920 that that's going to inspire confidence in voters. Like we have to look like we are the party of the 251 00:24:33,920 --> 00:24:40,400 future. So let me ask you that because, you know, where a lot of conversations going on around, you 252 00:24:40,400 --> 00:24:45,200 know, that there's not a lot of excitement in this race and

so on. And I'm hearing media say, you, 253 00:24:45,200 --> 00:24:48,560 you know, figure out who's going to leave the party then we'll talk to you. And you know, and I 254 00:24:48,560 --> 00:24:54,000 were just talking about, you know, a bit of a challenge that's been generally speaking for everybody 255 00:24:54,000 --> 00:24:59,920 involved in, particularly for the party. There's a little bit of, of been there done that one. 256 00:24:59,920 --> 00:25:05,440 Okay, the holy cow, how bad can it get for the liberals is often the narrative that comes out of it 257 00:25:05,440 --> 00:25:12,880 based on the experience of the last eight years. Having said that, you know, this is the time. And I 258 00:25:12,880 --> 00:25:17,760 and I love that you've you've outlined a lot of these things, but quite frankly, I can't see anything 259 00:25:17,760 --> 00:25:24,400 on your list of policies that anybody would vehemently disagree with. Now the tax cut, the income 260 00:25:24,400 --> 00:25:28,800 tax cut might be the most incendiary thing there because that might cost us, you know, three or four 261 00:25:28,800 --> 00:25:32,560 billion dollars. I'm going to know how are we going to how are we going to fill out whole and, you 262 00:25:32,560 --> 00:25:36,960 know, you've answered the question. I don't know whether or not it's the right answer or not. But the 263 00:25:36,960 --> 00:25:47,360 fact is there doesn't seem to be enough problem solving in this general conversation in the leadership 264 00:25:47,360 --> 00:25:54,320 competition. Here's the issue. Here's how we're going to solve it. Not just say here's the issue 265 00:25:54,320 --> 00:25:58,960 and we need to solve it. I get it. We need to have people off the streets. We need to have people 266 00:25:58,960 --> 00:26:03,600 who have mental health services. But how are we going to do that? Isn't this the time when that 267 00:26:03,600 --> 00:26:08,880 should have been better articulated in this race? Because you can't do it during an election campaign. 268 00:26:08,880 --> 00:26:15,280 You know that. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. It's true. I think what we struggled with, you know, probably the 269 00:26:15,280 --> 00:26:23,360 other campaign struggle with too is you want to you want to project openness to the membership. 270 00:26:23,360 --> 00:26:27,760 You don't want to come in saying I'm the smartest kid in the class. I've got all their 271 00:26:27,760 --> 00:26:34,160 best ideas. But go ahead. Honestly, I don't think that's the case. But that's definitely the box I 272 00:26:34,160 --> 00:26:40,640 could have put it could have been put in right away. Right? And, you know, I won't bore you with all 273 00:26:40,640 --> 00:26:45,760 the details. But when I was working in the private sector, I was working for a European company. 274 00:26:45,760 --> 00:26:51,520 And, you know, when you have a PhD, they call you doctor. It's a bigger deal in Europe than it is 275 00:26:51,520 --> 00:26:56,480 over here.

And, you know, the first thing my team said to me when I did this, get rid of that doctor. 276 00:26:56,480 --> 00:27:01,280 You're not calling yourself that. So, you know, we had a risk of looking like the smartest kid in 277 00:27:01,280 --> 00:27:05,440 the classroom, which I don't believe I am and I didn't want to look like. So you want to try to leave 278 00:27:05,440 --> 00:27:09,760 space for the membership and say, Hey, these are my ideas. But we have a policy convention coming up 279 00:27:09,760 --> 00:27:17,200 in a few months, which we do. And we can fill out some details then and there. So, you know, that 280 00:27:17,200 --> 00:27:22,160 was the challenge we had. There's also, you know, to be fair and open like there's some risk a 281 00:27:22,160 --> 00:27:28,880 version, right? You don't want to you don't want to alienate too many people too fast. But, yeah, I think 282 00:27:28,880 --> 00:27:34,080 you're right. Like, maybe we could have been bolder on on some of these things in describing the 283 00:27:34,080 --> 00:27:43,200 how of it. But I also, you know, I also know from my time in government that the how is often 284 00:27:43,200 --> 00:27:49,440 something that is best developed in partnership with folks in the front lines. So, you know, I have a 285 00:27:49,440 --> 00:27:54,240 commitment, for example, to really building out the part of the health sector outside of the hospitals. 286 00:27:54,240 --> 00:28:00,400 As I said before, community care and home care. The truth is, I probably want to do that sitting at 287 00:28:00,400 --> 00:28:06,560 a table day after day after day with SCIU, you know, the health care union that represents health 288 00:28:06,560 --> 00:28:10,800 care workers that work in those settings. And so I don't want to get too far ahead of them. I've 289 00:28:10,800 --> 00:28:16,000 stolen some of their ideas. You know, I have a commitment to a universal minimum wage for PSW's of 290 00:28:16,000 --> 00:28:22,560 25 bucks and a universal minimum wage for our pns of 35 bucks at least across the province. I stole 291 00:28:22,560 --> 00:28:27,600 that from them, but I probably have to steal a bunch more. And I want to, you know, make sure that I 292 00:28:27,600 --> 00:28:32,240 create that space. So that's that's the approach we took. But, you know, to your point, there's trade-offs. 293 00:28:32,240 --> 00:28:38,480 And you lose some of your edge, you know, when you leave blanks and it will be, you know, be the 294 00:28:38,480 --> 00:28:42,960 membership's call and then the voters call to see if we've cut off too much of the edge. 295 00:28:42,960 --> 00:28:48,560 And I've asked others this, you know, in terms of the the challenges, the differences in the 296 00:28:48,560 --> 00:28:55,520 challenges between running for general election versus the party politics and running internally. 297 00:28:55,520 --> 00:28:59,840 And I realize you have a different perspective on the on the general elections side

of things. But 298 00:28:59,840 --> 00:29:07,680 what has enlightened you in terms of your, or, you know, your own perspective around, oh, I didn't 299 00:29:07,680 --> 00:29:11,680 see that coming when you started this journey internally and running for the leadership. 300 00:29:11,680 --> 00:29:18,160 Yeah, it's a pleasant surprise, I would say, because then, you know, I've, I've participated in 301 00:29:18,160 --> 00:29:24,400 general elections. And, you know, when you're, when you're doing those kinds of elections, you know, 302 00:29:24,400 --> 00:29:29,680 often you're stuck in a room meeting old pizza, you know, just, you know, if you're on the policy, 303 00:29:29,680 --> 00:29:32,960 if you're in the policy war room, like looking at a spread sheet or something like that. But, 304 00:29:33,520 --> 00:29:38,800 you know, your mindset in those scenarios is a little more combative, right? It's red versus blue 305 00:29:38,800 --> 00:29:43,840 versus orange and who's saying this and who's saying that? In a leadership race, it's a family race. 306 00:29:43,840 --> 00:29:49,280 So, you know, I've been on the campaign trails. I said for, you know, 198 days. And 307 00:29:49,280 --> 00:29:56,720 every day I'm in a new room in some corner of the province, almost always physically. Sometimes, 308 00:29:56,720 --> 00:30:00,960 you know, a couple rooms per day, sometimes virtual. But when you go into the room, 309 00:30:01,680 --> 00:30:06,080 everyone's a friend, right? You know, they're politically engaged. You're not trying, you're not trying 310 00:30:06,080 --> 00:30:11,360 to pull them into the political process and you know, they're liberal. So, it's actually a really fun 311 00:30:11,360 --> 00:30:18,480 exercise. And what I find happens is that, you know, folks really bring their guard down. They tell 312 00:30:18,480 --> 00:30:26,160 you their life story. They tell you their biggest hopes and biggest fears. And I like people. And I'm, 313 00:30:26,160 --> 00:30:30,720 I'm a curious guy. I'm an intellectually curious guy. So, I love listening to their stories. It, 314 00:30:30,720 --> 00:30:36,880 it energizes me. And then at the end of it, as I, you know, mentioned before, I think this person 315 00:30:36,880 --> 00:30:41,200 made the time to come out here. Yeah, I drove 17 hours to be there. But you know what? They drove, 316 00:30:41,200 --> 00:30:46,560 you know, but I have something, I have a reason to drive 17 hours. They came, they drove 45 minutes 317 00:30:46,560 --> 00:30:51,280 to come see me, a guy who's an underdog in this race. They told me their life story. I owe it to 318 00:30:51,280 --> 00:30:57,120 them to make that part of our story as a campaign, our story, as an Ontario Liberal Party. So this, 319 00:30:57,120 --> 00:31:04,160 this process, you know, was much less a block and tackle grind through the campaign combative 320 00:31:04,160 --> 00:31:10,560 process as a general election. And for me, every day, it was just inspiring. It, I, I love this stuff. 321 00:31:10,560 --> 00:31:14,160 And I've said to folks who've asked me over the last couple of weeks, all you're coming to the end, 322 00:31:14,160 --> 00:31:17,920 you're coming to the end, you're finally going to be able to sleep. If someone came up to me today 323 00:31:17,920 --> 00:31:23,840 and said, we're extending this campaign for 200 more days, I would be so happy. I love this. This is 324 00:31:23,840 --> 00:31:28,800 what I want to keep doing for the next 20 years if I could. So that was my biggest surprise. Like, 325 00:31:28,800 --> 00:31:32,960 I thought it would be more of a grind than it is. It's hard work. It's a lot of work, but it's joyful. 326 00:31:32,960 --> 00:31:38,720 Yeah. Well, when you talk about it that way, I wonder whether or not you've kind of got it where 327 00:31:38,720 --> 00:31:44,800 where the Liberal Party generally has fallen down. And that is to say, maybe not listening well enough 328 00:31:44,800 --> 00:31:50,880 over the last six or eight years to that guy who came out in, you know, whatever kind of weather. 329 00:31:50,880 --> 00:31:56,400 And I, if we learn nothing from the midterms in, in the United States and not to suggest that there's 330 00:31:56,400 --> 00:32:01,840 the same kind of divisive animosity here. I mean, we see a little bit of it. But the real underlying 331 00:32:01,840 --> 00:32:08,880 thread and all of that is the inability for the governing party to listen. And where we saw that 332 00:32:08,880 --> 00:32:14,480 that was, that was their failing. To me, that, that's the challenge. On the other side of it, 333 00:32:14,480 --> 00:32:17,760 where you talk about walking into a room with all the other candidates and you're all friendly. 334 00:32:17,760 --> 00:32:22,000 And I watch you sit around the table with Steve Pagan and you all got along and smiled. And, and, you know, 335 00:32:22,000 --> 00:32:30,320 there was very little little to disagree about. I mean, nominally, that in itself lends itself to 336 00:32:30,320 --> 00:32:36,000 a challenge. I would think in terms of getting the edge that you're going to need. Which, you know, 337 00:32:36,000 --> 00:32:41,760 whoever it is sits in the leader's chair in the leader's office. And, you know, stands up for that 338 00:32:41,760 --> 00:32:46,480 first question period whenever that might come. That transition, there's going to be a difficult one 339 00:32:46,480 --> 00:32:52,000 considering the way this campaign has gone, I think, no? Yeah, I think so. I mean, the pluses that 340 00:32:52,000 --> 00:32:57,760 there's two pluses to the dynamic one. It makes it more enjoyable, you know, while we're doing it. 341 00:32:57,760 --> 00:33:02,400 Two, it is going to be easier to come together as a party after this. I think unity is going to be 342 00:33:02,400 --> 00:33:09,120 easier because we weren't, we weren't picking fights during the leadership. But the, the, you know, 343 00:33:09,120 -->

00:33:16,080 downside is that this is easy compared to what Ford is going to throw at us. And again, I can't 344 00:33:16,080 --> 00:33:22,480 be objective about my own, my own political skills. But, you know, so I'm not saying I'm better than 345 00:33:22,480 --> 00:33:28,160 anyone else at this. But one thing that I have stressed to, to the team, to audiences and even to 346 00:33:28,160 --> 00:33:35,680 the other candidates is that, you know, politics and being a leader is also not about being the smartest 347 00:33:35,680 --> 00:33:42,320 guy in the room. I'm not asking people to vote for me because of the length of my resume or the 348 00:33:42,320 --> 00:33:46,960 number of letters after my name. Someone should vote for me if they think that I'm best positioned 349 00:33:46,960 --> 00:33:52,160 to go toe to toe with Doug Ford. So why do you think you're the best one among the four? 350 00:33:52,160 --> 00:34:00,640 Well, I, again, it's hard for me to be objective. I don't, I don't like calling out these kinds of 351 00:34:00,640 --> 00:34:06,080 details about myself. But I, I do think I've demonstrated throughout this campaign 352 00:34:06,960 --> 00:34:13,920 that I can take the message of our members and broadcast it in ways that are compelling. 353 00:34:13,920 --> 00:34:20,320 And that's a really important skill set. I also think I have the added benefit of doing that 354 00:34:20,320 --> 00:34:24,720 authentically. So, you know, somebody other leadership candidates could, could steal all my ideas. 355 00:34:24,720 --> 00:34:31,760 But I don't think it's going to come across the same way. Like when I talk about people in their 20s, 356 00:34:31,760 --> 00:34:37,360 30s and 40s needing to have their potential unlocked. That's not an intellectual thing for me. 357 00:34:37,360 --> 00:34:43,440 That's not a hypothetical thing for me. That's visceral. I have lived through that. People I love, 358 00:34:43,440 --> 00:34:47,840 people I grew up with live through that. I was trying to build my career coming out of the great 359 00:34:47,840 --> 00:34:52,640 recession. I was trying to find a first home in the middle of a housing affordability crisis. 360 00:34:52,640 --> 00:34:57,760 I was part of a generation that was trying to raise families during COVID. And then we got out 361 00:34:57,760 --> 00:35:03,280 of COVID. And there was a big affordability crisis at the grocery store, at the gas pump. So, you 362 00:35:03,280 --> 00:35:07,760 know, this is something I feel in my gut. And that's why I'm a good communicator. And so far as I'm 363 00:35:07,760 --> 00:35:14,400 a good communicator, that's why I'm a good communicator because I feel in my bones. And I think folks 364 00:35:14,400 --> 00:35:21,760 will see that, right? I don't come from a very different world than Ford. You know, like I'm a guy 365 00:35:21,760 --> 00:35:27,280 who's happy to stick it to downtown Toronto as much as anyone because I didn't grow up there. 366 00:35:27,280

--> 00:35:32,320 I didn't grow up far from downtown Toronto, but that's the irony, right? Even if you live 40 minutes 367 00:35:32,320 --> 00:35:36,800 from downtown Toronto, the people who live in downtown Toronto make you feel like you live 40 hours 368 00:35:36,800 --> 00:35:43,760 from it. So I get that. I get that part of Ford. And so maybe there's some similarities between 369 00:35:43,760 --> 00:35:49,760 H&I. But I think I contrast pretty well with him too. I represent a different generation. I represent 370 00:35:49,760 --> 00:35:55,360 a different kind of politics. I think I represent a different kind of energy, but not an energy that is 371 00:35:55,360 --> 00:36:01,760 inaccessible. Not an energy that turns its nose up at the politics of politics. I love the politics 372 00:36:01,760 --> 00:36:07,760 of politics. I love getting into debates. I don't want to, I don't want to draw strong contrast with 373 00:36:07,760 --> 00:36:10,880 my fellow leadership candidates because I respect them. We're all on the same team. We have to come 374 00:36:10,880 --> 00:36:18,160 together. But I am going to really enjoy throwing punches at Doug Ford when I'm leader of the party. 375 00:36:18,880 --> 00:36:26,880 So the challenge in both Stephanie Bowman and Lee are making is that we need somebody who's in the house. 376 00:36:26,880 --> 00:36:33,120 I talked to Lee Faircloth about it and she said, you know, that's one of the, that's important to be, 377 00:36:33,120 --> 00:36:39,120 to be in the house. I've heard you say that, you know, to some degree, the attention of the leader, 378 00:36:39,120 --> 00:36:43,920 the next leader needs to be outward outside of Queen's Park needs to be out talking to people. 379 00:36:44,640 --> 00:36:51,840 And both things can be true. But there is a, there is a mark. I mean, somebody who's got a seat in the 380 00:36:51,840 --> 00:36:59,760 house can do that as well, right? Yeah. Well, sorry, go ahead. No, no, no. I'll say a couple things 381 00:36:59,760 --> 00:37:03,440 on this. One, I'm going to have a seat in the house well in advance of the next general election. 382 00:37:03,440 --> 00:37:09,040 I'm running in a bi-election after the leadership race and I'm going to win. I'm confident in that. 383 00:37:09,760 --> 00:37:15,280 But as soon as I win that seat, I'm getting in my car and I'm driving to suit look out. I'm driving 384 00:37:15,280 --> 00:37:22,320 as far away from Queen's Park as I can because I truly believe that if we want to win the next general 385 00:37:22,320 --> 00:37:27,600 election, we got to grow our party outside the Queen's Park bubble. Our leader should not be focused 386 00:37:27,600 --> 00:37:34,480 on their seat. They should be focused on the 50, 60, 70 seats. We need to win to form a majority 387 00:37:34,480 --> 00:37:40,160 government. And the only way we're going to win 50, 60, 70 seats is if we treat all 124 388 00:37:40,160 --> 00:37:45,520 writings as potentially winnable. And

a leader is not treating a writing as potentially winnable if 389 00:37:45,520 --> 00:37:51,040 they're not showing up in that writing. If they're not hands on in rebuilding that PLA, if they're not 390 00:37:51,040 --> 00:37:56,640 hands on in recruiting candidates and making sure candidates are nominated. So I absolutely 391 00:37:56,640 --> 00:38:02,960 believe that the leader should be working outside of the Queen's Park bubble. But yeah, I'm going 392 00:38:02,960 --> 00:38:10,000 to have a seat. I don't think it's going to be a challenge for me. But I think it's a mystery of 393 00:38:10,000 --> 00:38:15,440 the last of the last three elections because conveniently the people who make the seat argument, 394 00:38:15,440 --> 00:38:19,760 you know, forget that we actually lost three elections. And the first election, the person did have 395 00:38:19,760 --> 00:38:26,160 a seat. So if it was as simple as having a seat, then then why don't we win? Or if it was as simple 396 00:38:26,160 --> 00:38:30,640 as having a seat, why did Doug Ford win in 2018? He didn't have a seat when he won a general election 397 00:38:30,640 --> 00:38:35,520 in 2018. There's some guy in Ottawa named Mark Kerney. He didn't have a seat when he won a general 398 00:38:35,520 --> 00:38:40,160 election. You know, who did have a seat? Pierre Paulier, he had a seat for a long time. And he could 399 00:38:40,160 --> 00:38:45,520 raise a lot of money. And he was a very effective political organizer. But what did that do for him? 400 00:38:45,520 --> 00:38:50,960 So, you know, my own view, I get a little animated about this. The seat argument is not a sincere one. 401 00:38:50,960 --> 00:38:56,560 That doesn't mean I don't respect the work, the work of MPPs. I do. And that's why I'm going to have a seat. 402 00:38:57,200 --> 00:39:03,200 But to win, we got to build the party outside of Queensborough. We got to be unapologetic liberals. 403 00:39:03,200 --> 00:39:08,480 And frankly, and this is kind of the flip side of the argument here, we have to be unconventional. 404 00:39:08,480 --> 00:39:14,080 If you really push me on why we lost the last three elections, there's some macro factors. We 405 00:39:14,080 --> 00:39:19,920 were an old government, COVID, Trump. Like those are those are not insignificant. But if you were 406 00:39:19,920 --> 00:39:25,200 going to go to the next layer down, it's because all three of our leaders in the last three general 407 00:39:25,200 --> 00:39:30,720 elections were seen as conventional politicians. I'm not saying they were conventional politicians. 408 00:39:30,720 --> 00:39:35,280 They might have a different description of themselves. Maybe that wasn't fair. But they were seen 409 00:39:35,280 --> 00:39:41,840 as conventional politicians. Doug Ford is not seen as a conventional politician. Again, you know, arguably 410 00:39:41,840 --> 00:39:48,240 he's, you know, he's treated in ways that he shouldn't be treated. I think he's very conventional. 411 00:39:48,240 --> 00:39:54,000 But the simple political contrast in the last three elections was liberals are running same 412 00:39:54,000 --> 00:39:58,800 old same old, you know, Del Ducco was a seasoned politician. Bonnie was a seasoned politician. 413 00:39:58,800 --> 00:40:04,160 Kathleen was a seasoned politician. And conservatives, they're running, they're running Uncle Doug, you 414 00:40:04,160 --> 00:40:10,240 know, he's not a conventional politician, even though he is. So we lost the conventional versus 415 00:40:10,240 --> 00:40:15,440 unconventional. If we pick someone with a seat who's making the fact that they have a seat, 416 00:40:15,440 --> 00:40:19,840 their number one selling feature, is that going to be read as conventional or unconventional in 417 00:40:19,840 --> 00:40:25,040 the next election. Again, I'll let the members make the judgment on that. I'll let the voters make 418 00:40:25,040 --> 00:40:32,960 the judgment on that. But my my core thesis in in this leadership race is that if we don't turn 419 00:40:32,960 --> 00:40:39,680 the page, if voters don't believe we are a new Ontario Liberal Party, fully embracing generational 420 00:40:39,680 --> 00:40:48,880 renewal, putting someone a team of people that are dynamic in the window, fresh faces, bold ideas, 421 00:40:48,880 --> 00:40:53,920 then we're not going to win. And doubling down on caucus, building a wall around caucus, 422 00:40:53,920 --> 00:40:59,120 and saying that, you know, the two people from caucus who raised their hands are the only people who, 423 00:40:59,120 --> 00:41:03,760 you know, have a right to win this race. That doesn't feel fresh to me. 424 00:41:03,760 --> 00:41:08,960 The last question I have no, I know doubt who is going to be first on your ranked ballot. 425 00:41:08,960 --> 00:41:10,720 Who will be second? 426 00:41:13,280 --> 00:41:20,880 I won't say, but what I will say is all three of the other leadership candidates, you got a little 427 00:41:20,880 --> 00:41:24,960 bit of edge out of me on that last question. I did. I hope that people hang in this long to get that. 428 00:41:24,960 --> 00:41:33,040 But I will say notwithstanding my earlier comment that all three of the other leadership candidates 429 00:41:33,040 --> 00:41:39,600 smart, hardworking people of great integrity. So I think the membership has a great option set for 430 00:41:39,600 --> 00:41:45,440 that reason. Like I don't think there's a bad option among us, but we are different options. 431 00:41:45,440 --> 00:41:52,160 And I really hope that what the members do is identify those differences and then subject them to 432 00:41:52,160 --> 00:41:56,480 a basic test, which is which one of us is best positioned to duck forward. Like that is the 433 00:41:56,480 --> 00:42:01,440 ultimate test. And if a member does not believe that I'm best positioned to beat duck forward, 434 00:42:01,440 --> 00:42:05,840 I hope they don't vote for me. But if a member thinks someone else is in best positioned to beat 435 00:42:05,840 --> 00:42:10,480 duck forward, I hope they don't vote for them. So ultimately, my ballot is going to be ranked 436 00:42:10,480 --> 00:42:15,840 according to who I believe is best positioned to duck forward. I think I'm best. That's why I'm going 437 00:42:15,840 --> 00:42:20,240 to put myself one. Whoever I think is second best, I'm going to put number two. Dylan, thanks for 438 00:42:20,240 --> 00:42:24,480 doing this. I know it's a busy time when you're heading into that the final crunch here. And 439 00:42:24,480 --> 00:42:30,800 having said you would be happy for this to go another 200 days. I get that I think you might think 440 00:42:30,800 --> 00:42:36,720 otherwise on the 21st of November when all is said and done. But good luck with this and and 441 00:42:36,720 --> 00:42:39,680 thanks for joining us. My pleasure. Thanks for having me. 442 00:42:39,680 --> 00:42:49,680 [Music] 443 00:42:49,680 --> 00:42:59,680 [Music]